Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:


Erik said:
With that said, I've said before that we don't plan to let this game fade into oblivion. Perhaps, a bit of patience and trust in us may be rewarded in the future.

Hmm...cryptic statement....a portent of possible changes...the world wonders

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:


Erik said:
With that said, I've said before that we don't plan to let this game fade into oblivion. Perhaps, a bit of patience and trust in us may be rewarded in the future.

Hmm...cryptic statement....a portent of possible changes...the world wonders

Naah, screw The Changes.... WITP 2! WITP 2!!

3D! Better interface! Flashy colors! Harrison Ford as Bill Halsey! Will Smith as Simon Bolivar Buckner! Hale Berry as Nurse! Lucy Liu as Yamamoto!

quote:


With that said, I've said before that we don't plan to let this game fade into oblivion. Perhaps, a bit of patience and trust in us may be rewarded in the future.

Regards,

- Erik

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Tristanjohn,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
I couldn't care less about VPs. I only care about game play itself. If gamers are so lame as to require VPs then they're beyond hope here. Maybe they could petition Matrix to somehow address the altered VP issue at the same time, though again, that sounds like an utter waste of development resource to me.

Unfortunately, when you are in charge of actually developing a wargame, you can't discard issues that affect entire systems and game balance so easily. Solutions need to take all cascading effects into account or your players will roast you alive.

quote:

It's been awhile since I said this, so let's review:

There is almost no aspect of this game system that came out of the box correct, or even close to correct.

Now we can all chew on that for awhile. An unpopular statement, no doubt, but God's bare truth nevertheless.

I have no interest in hearing you repeat that viewpoint again, or in spending time I don't have to waste disagreeing with you. We read these forums and consider all suggestions - yours included. If you want to insist that you haven't been heard, that we lack will or have a bad attitude, perhaps some who haven't been here for months to read our many replies and see our many efforts will believe you. In the past, we implemented a number of constructive design suggestions, none of which turned out to be easy or trivial to get into the game and working. We are now focusing on the few remaining stubborn bugs, as this game was released in July of 2004 and it is now January of 2006.

As for all the constructive suggestions in this list from other posters, I'm hopeful that we'll be able to spend some time on other points in the future, but right now it's just bugs, not redesigning any portion of the game. I have nothing against discussions that may lead to a consensus on one model or another, but the negative commentary you are well known for no longer has a place here. Either be constructive, or leave.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Now I'm sorry if criticism rankles the compay so dearly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

With that said, I've said before that we don't plan to let this game fade into oblivion. Perhaps, a bit of patience and trust in us may be rewarded in the future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Now I'm sorry if criticism rankles the compay so dearly.

Pffffttt... now you really think you're *that* important do you?

O.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

With that said, I've said before that we don't plan to let this game fade into oblivion. Perhaps, a bit of patience and trust in us may be rewarded in the future.

That's an encouraging statement! I was under the impression that further major changes to the code were not to be expected. I think the entire board has been under that general impression. Of course I've been gone for six months, so it could well be you posted this thought of yours then. But again, when I came back the word still was that more major changes were not likely, so it seems clear I'm not the only one who missed that.

As for agreeing to disagree, I'm always prepared to accept that deal when nothing better's up. I choose to more or less live by that creed. It's wise. Again, I'm just sorry the company takes everything by way of criticism so close to heart.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

With that said, I've said before that we don't plan to let this game fade into oblivion. Perhaps, a bit of patience and trust in us may be rewarded in the future.

That's an encouraging statement! I was under the impression that further major changes to the code were not to be expected. I think the entire board has been under that general impression. Of course I've been gone for six months, so it could well be you posted this thought of yours then. But again, when I came back the word still was that more major changes were not likely, so it seems clear I'm not the only one who missed that.

As for agreeing to disagree, I'm always prepared to accept that deal when nothing better's up. I choose to more or less live by that creed. It's wise. Again, I'm just sorry the company takes everything by way of criticism so close to heart.

Given the manner that the various 1.7X beta's unfolded (each with very good intentions and hard work from probably just a few individuals) I'm betting that Matrix will never admit to actively pursuing design changes at all even if they are currently under test. The community was kinda hard on them for the v1.7X beta problems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

With that said, I've said before that we don't plan to let this game fade into oblivion. Perhaps, a bit of patience and trust in us may be rewarded in the future.

That's an encouraging statement! I was under the impression that further major changes to the code were not to be expected. I think the entire board has been under that general impression. Of course I've been gone for six months, so it could well be you posted this thought of yours then. But again, when I came back the word still was that more major changes were not likely, so it seems clear I'm not the only one who missed that.

As for agreeing to disagree, I'm always prepared to accept that deal when nothing better's up. I choose to more or less live by that creed. It's wise. Again, I'm just sorry the company takes everything by way of criticism so close to heart.

Given the manner that the various 1.7X beta's unfolded (each with very good intentions and hard work from probably just a few individuals) I'm betting that Matrix will never admit to actively pursuing design changes at all even if they are currently under test. The community was kinda hard on them for the v1.7X beta problems.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Who's running this phantom account?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ideologue

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Who's running this phantom account?

I am.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

As much as I would like to see some major design changes, just fixing the bugs would at least let us play the game with a lot less pain and frustration. Nothing like finding your USN CV TF commanded by Lt Oi as it sails into battle with KB. Of course having a Staff Officer( with 0, 0 stats ) is even worse. I will side with Matrix Games and 2x3, getting the bugs ironed out is the first priority since it seems that often new bugs appear with changes in functionality.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

Why the staff officer has 0/0 stats is beyond me. Why not 40/40 or somesuch?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

As much as I would like to see some major design changes, just fixing the bugs would at least let us play the game with a lot less pain and frustration. Nothing like finding your USN CV TF commanded by Lt Oi as it sails into battle with KB. Of course having a Staff Officer( with 0, 0 stats ) is even worse. I will side with Matrix Games and 2x3, getting the bugs ironed out is the first priority since it seems that often new bugs appear with changes in functionality.

Why the staff officer has 0/0 stats is beyond me. Why not 40/40 or somesuch?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADavidB


I must be the only regular Allied player and occasional Japanese player who likes PDU. I use it happily to balance out my forces, give myself sufficient replacements, and move obsolete planes to backwater units. I'd like more flexibility with PDU. For example, those Dutch units that we all save from the DEI should be allowed to be given "excess" planes such as P-39s. That's the sort of thing that all "refugee" air units did during the War.

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

As much as I would like to see some major design changes, just fixing the bugs would at least let us play the game with a lot less pain and frustration. Nothing like finding your USN CV TF commanded by Lt Oi as it sails into battle with KB. Of course having a Staff Officer( with 0, 0 stats ) is even worse. I will side with Matrix Games and 2x3, getting the bugs ironed out is the first priority since it seems that often new bugs appear with changes in functionality.

Why the staff officer has 0/0 stats is beyond me. Why not 40/40 or somesuch?

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

The only major combat ships I’ve lost are 3 BB’s, 1 CL and 7 DD’s. The rest are AK’s, AP’s and MSW’s along with about 30-40 PT boats and 18 Subs. Most of the subs were lost to KB’s uber ASW aircraft sweep north of Darwin within one week. We have since implemented a house rule limiting how many planes in a group may be set to ASW and no search aircraft of any kind may be set lower than 6000 feet. This change has made a huge difference in sub survivability.


Jim

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

As much as I would like to see some major design changes, just fixing the bugs would at least let us play the game with a lot less pain and frustration. Nothing like finding your USN CV TF commanded by Lt Oi as it sails into battle with KB. Of course having a Staff Officer( with 0, 0 stats ) is even worse. I will side with Matrix Games and 2x3, getting the bugs ironed out is the first priority since it seems that often new bugs appear with changes in functionality.

Why the staff officer has 0/0 stats is beyond me. Why not 40/40 or somesuch?

12/08/2004 v1.40

New Player Requested Features:

14) Some ground units, ships or task forces had a leader displayed with a rank of warrant Officer “WO”. Except for very small Japanese units, such as a barge, this indicated no leader was present. Tried to bullet proof this, as much as possible, from the saves received. Should this occur again, the leadership abilities of the theater command will be used, with a penalty applied and “Staff Officer” should be indicated as the leader.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Jim,

Two things. First, what version are you running? The air ASW scenario you describe is vastly better in 1.795 Beta. I know you might want to stay away from a Beta, this is just FYI.

Second thing. The Mohawk is not nearly equal to the Tony ("Yes the Tony’s are better aircraft but not by much" - wrong IMO). Your a/c was distinctly outclassed, you were at long odds, and your pilots' experience was (reportedly) much lower than their opponents'. In this particular case, I would say the only problem is what Tom Hunter pointed out. Maybe a few Mohawks should have survived by not even getting into the fight (being out of position or whatever). In the engagement the way you describe it, I would expect 90-95% losses of the Mohawks in return for 0 or at most a couple of kills.

Sorry to hear your guys got hit by a train...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ideologue

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Who's running this phantom account?

I am.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADavidB


I must be the only regular Allied player and occasional Japanese player who likes PDU. I use it happily to balance out my forces, give myself sufficient replacements, and move obsolete planes to backwater units. I'd like more flexibility with PDU. For example, those Dutch units that we all save from the DEI should be allowed to be given "excess" planes such as P-39s. That's the sort of thing that all "refugee" air units did during the War.

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

I agree completely, so there's at least two of us...

Wise Men Still Seek Him

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

The blacksheep squadron spent about 12 weeks in theatre with Corsairs and scored about 126 kills. That’s 10.5 kills a week or about 1.5 a day and they are considered to be one of the more successful air squadrons. In WitP they’ll score 10-20 kills a day easily. The model needs severe tweaking.

Jim

Wise Men Still Seek Him

quote:

Well, yes .. BUT: WitP players are insanely aggressive with things like CAP and Sweep. How many times do you think the Black Sheep Squadron, for example, flew 100% CAP for days on end? Yet players do it all the time because our soldiers are silicon and no one gives the SLIGHTEST thought to saving human lives. It's just the nature of the beast. What's more, we don't really care (not like they did) about losing. Hey, if we lose 20,000 troops in a bungled amphibious invasion it;s no big deal ... just start over - or, at worst, lose VP's in a GAME.

Wargames will always allow us to be incredibly aggressive vis-a-vis our historical counterparts.