We are not your beta testers

Time and time again, you release updates that are not vetted by Quality Assurance or even tested for basic functionality.

This HAS to stop.


That is EXACTLY what the playerbase is: betatesters… And for a while now

But I couldn’t agree more; stop it.
Sadly they don’t care… Because we are still playing and paying.
No respect towards the game nor the players :sob:


As long as this game is not finished (as in: completed and no longer in need for main game updates, new troops or similar things), I do regard it as a beta version by design.
That means, there is only the difference left between the closed and open beta, with the latter being us.

I’ll be willing to declare the jump from beta to final version, once I get to see the end credits.

1 Like

That is a good way at looking at it. Most live service games should just advertise themselves this way, like Warframe has done. That game has been in perpetual open beta since it was released to the public in 2013.

For 7.1, there was not a thread announcing their closed beta program. If there was, I missed it.

Game is completely broken and unplayable for many. I “found” this game after a different game kept breaking and will now find a different game. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Critique often isn’t welcome, feels like it isn’t even taken serious, at least that’s my conclusion to so many (allegedly!, gotta be careful here) ignored bugs that don’t get fixed.

Instead new “funny updates” get released that could have needed a more detailed thought process, that are clumsily implemented and in their untested nature just bombard the whole game into pieces.

But with so many whale players out there, always and still willing to blindly pay for whatever (flash) offers and whatever (fantasy) prices “they” throw out, “devs” seemingly really don’t have to care at all.


As you said about prices, @icy, according to the patch notes, they want $20 US for a minor blue orb in Holiday Events

From what I remember, the MUD-platform Furcadia declared itself to be in alpha version in the early 2000s, and has intentionally remained there ever since, never even claiming to have reached beta state. :wink:

What this game would need is alpha testing - by people who actually play the game and understand the intricacies.

Seemingly small things - like for example night spider creating web gems instead of purple gems - can break a troop.

This could have been caught in an alpha.

The whole new UI design fiasco could have been prevented even in a pre alpha state.

They probably (hopefully) didn’t just have the one design. Had they shown it to actual players, they could have learned really quickly that it’s a bad idea and how they could have implemented their desired look without hurting playability (and people).


But what good can be expected from this if the reports/feedback seemingly aren’t followed up upon and seemingly nothing really gets done about negative feedback or whatever is done can continuously be described to be perceived as “not enough” because otherwise the game would be “functioning well” after each update?

I mean even such a small thing as when some ingame spoiler troop has something clearly set wrong, f.e. traits make no sense, kingdom affiliation etc - there was instances that something like this didn’t get fixed despite many reports weeks ahead. Still got released with all the mistakes. Is this then careless or deliberate? Or both?


Yes we are. Do you need more evidence? :face_with_open_eyes_and_hand_over_mouth:

Well, of course there would need to be a willingness to actually use the feedback. Otherwise it wouldn’t make sense.

1 Like

Alpha testing mostly concerns a couple of core questions.
Is the game version able to launch under all supported systems? Are all parts of the game accessable? Are all core features of the update included and functioning?
Do any crashes or fatal errors occur when a regular playing routine like starting or ending a fight or entering a menu is performed (our good friend Cliffy, who some users are currently meeting again)?
And of course, is the game or update in any way able to harm your computer software or hardware?

Graphic changes can concern alpha testing, if they massively interfere with the game experience. A clear case of this would be, if a new troop design covers up a portion of the board, if an image causes a crash or if parts of the interface become completely unavailable.
The accessability issues in 7.0 are a bit of a borderline case in this regard. Could be alpha tester responsibility, could be beta.

Pre-Alpha is the (often literal) drawing board. I don’t think, the problems would have been spotted there. On a printed concept art handout, the new troop design certainly looked pleasing.

Balancing and effects of gameplay features, even if they are much more harmful than the mentioned Spider, are nothing, you want your alpha testers to look at; that’s beta business.

A larger headstart for the testers in closed beta, more willingness to listen to their feedback (and accepting gameplay feedback from them at all; from what I know, this is currently not the case), giving them more options to manipulate account and battle features (I am still baffled, that they can’t edit their amount of ressources)…
That’s stuff, that would actually improve the process.

1 Like

There was a 7.1 beta for a few weeks. Many of the concerns (particularly the graphical ones) were noted, but not all were changed before release. I don’t think anyone was completely satisfied with the end product, but there is a schedule.

in the past it was proven that such a “$$$chedule” can have some room for interpretation.
if that’s the case, maybe the inflexibility because of “the $$$chedule” is (part of) the problem?

if you really “want” to get something done, and work towards that goal, it normally is possible. if things take longer, then adjust and finally start to communicate it. players would be way more understanding if things take longer and all runs smooth and everything works rather flawless.

if you rush things, like it has been done countless times, and massive fails occur do to sloppy releases, as it is regularly done and you play “uhhh, I dun’d know” afterwards it helps noone and you lose your credibility.
can’t be the final goal?

1 Like

When does the game leave Early Access?

1 Like

Well, they see beta testing as “finding bugs” - so if that is what they view as a beta, they need an alpha testing. Or give it any other name.

Whatever the term for “testing if features work well with the game design and for the players/game overall” is, that is what I mean.

Not a testing of a finalized product they’ll change almost nothing about except for (some) bugs before release.

I wonder if they even know when they are going to put stuff out? We just had a calendar that i dont remember mentioning a 7.1 update? I picture some out of touch corporate guy clapping his hands on each word as he explains why they need the next update by TOMORROW!