I'm not too disappointed with generals, only kinda. I think their trying to make them into just support characters.

I'd like to see cool stuff like adding their spawns as part of portal reinforcements.

Also things like buffs / debuffs effects to nearby allies/enemies around capped flags. Like sedna allies around capped flags receive additional HP regen, erebus allies around flags receive additional life steal, oak additional armor etc...

Specific reinforcements or effects designed to help guard towers or flags. Like erebus have bats that help defend, sedna cute little snow rabbits hurling snowballs.

Its not like we can somehow gather a think tank consisting of hardcore korean strategy gamers, kestrel and gazpar kidnapped and contained in a room not releasing them until they've redesigned generals, re-invented all the items and balanced all the skills... or.. can we?

As someone who works in marketing I found this offensive. *snicker*

Frog is right. We shouldn't ask what demigod can do for us, but what we can do for demigod. Like contributing ideas, inflating their IGN score, creating mods, cosplaying QoT at anime or porn or gaming conventions, throwing rocks at people saying they just been bouldered. My point is the glass is half full of potential.

Balance and gameplay enhancements will come after they fix all teh technical bugs.

Take Generals gameplay mechanics for example, many people have contributed opinions and idea's on how to change Generals into actual GENERALS and not Assassin's with a few minions, then we hear a quote saying that the Developers are fine with how they see Generals and will not change how they are played. Just tweaking their stupid little minions is not what the majority of this community have been expressing but more so trying to make the Generals into a seperate entity to the game that can be enjoyed on a different level and not just another 4 Assassins.

About creating mods,

Seems like Modding is not a sure thing in the release of the game, although i doubt they are stupid and will block the implementation of mods when the game is final although if they don't allow for the game to be openly moddable then it will just hurt the game in the end. I Doubt Chris Taylor would restrict modding though, he seems to clearly understand that in an RTS game, modding is what keeps the game alive, but it is mostly just negative news we are hearing from the development of the game.

About the Developers calling some people including myself on the forum "Newbie Beta Testers", i understand their frustration in hearing people's negative comments towards their product in Development but at the same time we pay for the game and most of what we hear is negative information regarding the Development of the game compared to what we read the game to be when it was preordered. It's not like no one has offered suggestions at the same time as posting their thoughts about what they dislike about the game, our opinion is free to be expressed, we paid to be a part of the community. I doubt anyone who has paid for the Beta including myself is just randomly trashing the people involved in the game, our frustration is fueled from what we see and hear regarding the game and that information does not come from our side.

Maybe devs shouldn't tell beta testers that they do not intend to change Generals in any significant way, especially if that isn't the case. Also, clearing the air on just how far the anti-cheating system goes, potentially killing the modding in an engine that is purpose built to allow easy modding, would set us at ease.

Look, this isn't a case of some poorly informed whiney trolls mouthing off.  DeadMG is quoting Gnats3 on the Generals and Sorian on the anti-cheating mechanism. These guys know their stuff, especially Sorian.  When that guy expresses concerns about the modding, red flags immediately go up.

I hear you.  It must be very frustrating as a developer to see this sort of response.  You invite somebody to your unfinished house - to give you feedback on how things are coming along, maybe tell you how the floor plan might be improved, perhaps let you know if you're making any really big mistakes - and then all they do is complain that the house isn't finished yet. 

"Gee, I should probably stop going into unfinished houses. I can see through the walls and there's always sawdust everywhere.  Plus, there's no indoor plumbing and electricity is only in parts of the building!  What a disappointment!"

That said, I don't see how it isn't in your interests to encourage modding.  Look at what it has done for so many other games, including WC3, where your inspiration for Demigod originates.  Modding = longevity which is not a bad thing.  But I'm sure GPG / Stardock is fully aware of that.

As for other comments about Generals etc...while players shouldn't make final judgments about a game months before it is released, neither should developers ever tell the testers "yeah, we're not going to change X, so deal with it."  If players really think something is wrong with X, then changing it should never be ruled out, though obviously maybe changes to X might not be as much of a revamp as testers may suggest - more of a compromise.  Testers are part of the development process, that's why you invited them to play your game months before it was released.  They're not just here to find bugs.  Again, though, I'm sure GPG and Stardock totally know all this already.

1)
Actually we paid to enter this unfinished house. We understand that the house is under construction although we question why the size of the house only supports 3 bedrooms instead of the 4 bedrooms shown on the architectual plans of the house... this is surely not what was planned before the house was being created.

2)
The viewer of the house: "Gee, i can see through the walls and there is sawdust everywhere! What? No electricity in all rooms?!"

The builder of the house: "Yes, the sawdust is a side effect of building the house. We like that the walls have holes in them and we do not want to have electricity in all the rooms of the house and you all will just have to guess why that is so"

All these metaphors are becoming quite distracting. If you pay up front for a house, then you have a contract that clearly states what can and cannot be changed. You also don't have thousands (up to infinite amount) of people buying little shares in a 3/4-room house (at least, I've never heard about it). When purchasing a house, it also ultimately belongs to whoever purchases it, it does not belong to whoever is building it.

Stick to explaining the current situation with the game instead. Otherwise it's just confusing.

There's nothing wrong with this sort of feedback.  If the developers are being stupid (like in your response to my example) then fine, you have every right to complain.  Part of our purpose here (I would hope) is to point out to the developers when their implementation of the game is going astray from what the game looks like it is supposed to be. 

My point with the example is just to say that when you have people complaining that the game is a bad game months before release and it's only because of bugs / instability issues (not gameplay / mechanic / concept issues) then that's kind of ridiculous.  In other words, it's silly when testers act as if the game in Beta is the way the game is going to be at release and then complain based on that assumption, just as if you acted like the unfinished house was not going to be finished.

It's an extremely flawed metaphor, as I just pointed out. And when you use flawed metaphors, you end up discussing the metaphors instead of the original topic. Like we are now.

Edit: And noone understands what the hell people are trying to say. Are we monkeys now? Who gets the sawdust? Are the tools the builders are using even real - or - is it possible that there is no hammer?

You've never been involved in the construction industry have you.

Regardless, we paid to be part of the beta, we're entitled to share our opinions.  IMO the RTS elements to this game are a complete joke, and nothing like what was promised.

Old Interview

Who's the liar?

And that's why you shouldn't be using metaphors unless they are perfect matches. It's rubbish. It doesn't hold up. We don't need an educating example that fundamentally doesn't describe something the way it is.

It seems like the Dev's have a solid image of where they want this to go. People that are attempting to make this game more DotA-like are going to be sadly disappointed as they are just tired of hearing that argument.

More importantly we need to find out what the Dev's want and do our best as beta testers to facilitate their needs. Remember, it's their game, not ours. We're enjoying the fruits of their labor.

As for the general-assassin diversification, though it seems as though the micro is minimalized, perhaps it's just not well capitalized?

Should you decide to summon the units, they can simply tag along wherever you go, and you're that "assassin with summons".

Should you decide "oh yeah, my general can hold his own here. Why don't I do something more productive with my minions?" and move your minions to another location, possibly turning the tides for a push, taking down a tower, etc... aren't there now actual uses for micro? Perhaps it's time to zoom out that map and see how much that's going on that your general can affect that an assassin could not. You have more options to exert your influence than an assassin does. The assassin can only be in one place at a time. With minions, you can spread your influence all over!

-Perhaps the addition of items that give more mobility to your minions (such as an "astral recall" type of effect) would improve upon this concept.

The gripe that seems to be going around is that a General has no real incentive to even do anything else with the units. You can spam summon them and refill your mana periodically.

An interesting suggestion was just to buy the singular units at a fixed cost. This would give a higher incentive to actually micro the units to keep them alive instead of just summoning them again (perhaps even give them abilities of their own) and allows for a more tangible representation of gold.