2 months to release and the game feels like pre-alpha and is a letdown. Please delay the release.

Which is a good thing because this is a game about...war?
With that many players you will be playing on multiple starting planets anyway.

Until it support 40 players, it doesn't support 40 players. Claiming otherwise and say it's a feature is quite far-stretched.

Yes, because if you have design goals, and don't build your engine with those in mind, THAT will end well. ;-)

There is nothing far fetched about it. We could already pretty easily bump up to 20 or so players, even with all the optimizations yet to do. But frankly, until we get more lobby control in, which is one of the things we're actively working on, we feel it's probably better to hold off.

Because who wants to double the chance of receiving an in-lobby troll? without the proper tools to kick the troll, they will begin to thrive an multiply... we can't have that.

Most people are pretty nice about it but yes. That is one of the larger problems.

Can't wait.

I am not saying anything about trusting them because they are confident/appear to be/etc. That, like people said before, could be acted or any number of things (though I doubt it).

I am saying that they have a great deal more experience than we do judging if a game should be released or not, and we can help them by providing telling them everything we find about the game, good or bad. That is our job, and what happens with that information is their job. Of course, input/advice on units, balance, GUI and all that is a good thing too, but lets not overdo it and try to do their job by saying when they should release the game.

The real reason I trust them is exactly what I said before- they are here, reading these posts and listening to a great community. They have proven that they are utilizing the resource they have here, and even if they have to postpone a release or release something that isn't their final vision at first, we will see that vision eventually and it will be everything we have hoped for.

I kind understand you.
But im more worry about the 1v1 gameplay then be worry about moore then 4 players for now.

I personaly, and im just talk off what i like ,dont get confuse,its good players got diferent feelings and likes.
I dont see any fun, play a rts with moore then 12 players on this kind planets.

And again i say its just me and i now many like it and waiting for it, and i respect that since we cant all like the same things.

On a fps like call off duty ghost ,or similar ...ok that can be fun...
Let us not forget what an rts is .

Yeah, it's totally possible to have 40 players games with p2p model just like in Spring. The simulation speed would be limited by the slowest computer, but there is no need for forced command delays, also you don't need massive upload bandwidth to host a big game.
Like unconsumable mentioned, for the client-server model, if the players' views are not limited like in a FPS or MMORPG game, the need of bandwidth would grow as the players see more and more things at once.
Anyway, many autohosts on the Spring server actually limit the player count for a better multiplayer experience, so having many players in a single map is not really important for a RTS game.

it´s not about it beeing important ... it´s about having the Option for those who are intrested ... and i don´t doubt that there are intrested people to it ...

this game is all bout scaleability ..
be it armies, individual units or the battlefield you and/or others play on
it wants to offer something for everybody while keeping the macrofocus-philosophy
be it for those that just seek their quick competitiv matchfix or those who want the more epic team or multifaction broad area of battle experience
weither or not the gameplay, unitrooster and ui-functions suffice for that scaleability is to be seen

I for one am not super interested in high level play and the minute balancing that needs to be done (at least not as a priority, as a more casual player), and am TOTALLY interested in the ability to have 20, 30 or 40 player games over a huge star system, with people sending out units to different planets all over the place, and huge battles between 4-6 people on a few planets. To me, that is definitely worth striving for, as it is, to me, something truly unique in this genre, which is what we are here for, right?

I am used to wait for release dates and the actual release,
in SC2 (or all Blizzard Games) the release date is published when the game could be fully released the day before,
so why are you mocking the devs for release dates?

When money is out they will have to release it, ready or not it will come,
and after all they have financial interest too.
1.8 billion is a small budget to make a game like Blizzard SC2.

So I do not mind waiting that gameplay will get better.

FA shows that you would need a massive upload for every player instead of only for the server. I don't see how that is any better.
Also the part about the slowdown is already a problem with setups like 4v4 in FA (okay maybe not anymore as much, CPUs get faster after all). Having a 20v20 results in a very high chance that somebody with a pentium 4 is in there.

From that perspective it is quite understandable why PA uses server client.

EDIT:
Or how does Spring fare bandwidth wise when you play 20v20?

I would like to see a filter that filters out the people that are expecting to get a new TA game or another franchise follow up instead of a brand new game and concept that PA is. I remember playing a rts game on colicovision back in the day, but I didnt cry and whine when C&C came out in 1995 and was a totally different experience.

Yeah it is totally unexpected that people want a TA follow up when PA is announced as a spiritual successor!
Oh wait....

Yes, exactly, SPIRITUAL successor. What most people are whining about here is that the game is not a true successor that adresses everything TA did and builds on that. Spiritual and in spirit of can mean whatever Uber entertainments decides it means. Thanks for complementing my argument.

"Spiritual" is a wording used for legal reasons. It was stated multiple times that PA should be more like TA than like Supcom. It isn't however and that makes people sad.

To me, it feels exactly like a follow on to TA...

From the first developer interviews the devs were quite clear that this would be a new game experience in addition to reviving a genre that economists and game analysts decleared dead. I dont object to all the "bring back TA" arguments on principle as they are good valid points but there is good constructive criticism and then there is these drama queen "this game is not what I demand" threads like these, and the most annoying part is that they try to hide it by playing condescending like the OP.