You can either send a support message to [email protected] mentioning the specific bug report number(s) and we’ll have a direct communication there, out outline the bug report number(s) here with an expanded discussion on what the issue is. It might be that your specific reports lack enough information to be reproduced and if you let us know the number here we can check it out specifically.
Can you file a bug report with a save in which this happens with steps on how to reproduce this (please reference the bug report number)? Looking through our backlog as of now I do not see any patterns of secure zone bug reports.
It’s difficult to tell from only this text but I assume you’re trying to do a joint secure zone with split security checkpoints? This is not a supported design and will probably cause your passengers to enter into a departure area where they, through the secure zone checkpoint, believe they have access to the boarding desk but then as their path is blocked they do not.
The tool is used as a verification system for the player to ensure that a passenger can get from point A to point B, and highlights through with zone portals it does that. If there is no path available then it cannot show a path, so I am not sure I understand what you’d like it to express? The tool was rolled out as a response to a very large amount of bug reports coming in from users who did not understand the core mechanics of transitioning persons between zones, a number that fell after the release of the tool.
Well, we’ve always ran a complaint driven development process and If this would have been a bigger issue during the rollout of this feature we would have acted on it. We still might of course but as I survey the ACEO community I am not seeing a large number of requests for this feature as opposed to intersecting runways, for example.
The feature is indeed intended to only limit access on a per road node basis and does not contain a system for excluding access to whatever is behind it (although we do make some limitations to ensure that buses for example are not spawned in road areas where they have no access whatsoever to any bus stops).
Implementing it the way you’d like would be extremely complex since you in ACEO basically have close to limitless options of constructing and laying out your road networks. It would certainly be possible but the calculations involved would be very heavy, if you for example were to have 10 number of parking lots that were delimited by 50 different node restrictions, that would put a significant additional strain on the simulation engine as it would need to be something that is calculated per vehicle and location every time it would try to perform a parking activity. That’s always one of the core aspects we’ve had to think about as we designed and implemented features into this game, every safety system we implement will pull in a negative performance direction and in most cases we’ve opted for performance instead of 100% solid feedback systems. That’s because we do agree with the general philosophy that @88ekke outlines. When it comes to management games, part of the fun and part of the beauty is debugging the pathing issues you’re faced with. But I also fully understand if you don’t like this aspect of the game, it would come down to a matter of taste in my opinion.
As for your other points, especially 7, I would again request bug reports and then perhaps mentioning them either here or via [email protected] so that we can have a specific look at them in relation to the discussion we’re having here.
The ACEO code base is in general working well but it is not something we’d want to build another game on, correct. You are of course entitled to your opinion in regards to the game’s quality and stability but as developers we need to look at the bigger picture. With a Steam rating of between 85 to 90 percent across 4500 reviews, and just now more recently a few different reviews from minor news-outlets which range between 50 to 80 percent, factoring in that this is a 22 euro game with a 7 percent return rate (which is below the Steam average of about 8 to 9 percent) and an average play time of 44 hours (median 15 hours) - it would appear as if most people are enjoying the game. Just wanted to shed some light on what number’s we’re looking at.
That is great. The games industry overall certainly needs more customers voting with their wallet, not pre-ordering games and not continuing to buy titles from studios they don’t have any faith in. If the way we develop our games or the quality of our titles fail you meet your, or anyone elses, demands we always ask that you leave an honest review and voice your opinion (like you’ve done) so that other’s can make a more informed purchase. In the end, if enough players are not satisfied, that is an obvious indication to us that we are doing something wrong and will need to change direction in order to achieve those happy customers.
I think we’ve always been pretty clear on communicating that this issue is in fact, and always has been definitely our fault and if that is not apparent then I am highlighting that once again now. It’s a result of extremely ad-hoc development over several years resulting in quirky systems and clunky controls and something that players today both hate and love. Again something that comes down to taste in regards to whether or not you like the game.