Harpoon Hq Statement

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Harpoon Hq Statement

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> Harpoon 3 - Advanced Naval Warfare >> Harpoon Hq Statement

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Harpoon Hq Statement - 3/25/2007 2:45:23 PM

goodwoodrw

Posts: 2661
Joined: 2/14/2005
Status: offline

I have just been browsing several items and locations on Harpoon3 ANW. Apart from having trouble accessing some of 3rd party data bases and not being able to get some going, notably WW2 data base, I have stumble across comments from the Harpoon HQ website stating most of the scenarios from the old DBs won't work on versions 3.7 or 3.8 and gamers should stick to version 3.6, can some one enlighten me on this please. The comment was made that 3.7 was so buggy that the developers just changed it to 3.8 to hide the problems. I have just toying with the game so far, but it seems the age old problems with refuelling still exist. refuellers won't refuel and I can find any reference of logistics in the manual. As an old old owner of most Harpoon creations I have mulled over the purchase of this game for many months, the of forking out $65 was made on the Matrix claim, that many old bugs were fixed and third party Db were easy to access, sadly its not been a good start, I need some one to convince me quickly I have done the right thing before I go off my platform.

_____________________________

Formerly Goodwood

Post #: 1

RE: Harpoon Hq Statement - 3/25/2007 5:04:16 PM

Flankerk

Posts: 417
Joined: 6/21/2006
Status: offline

I think this is frankly a ridiculous line of argument.
On the one hand you are saying that people are refusing to bring their databases up to date, yet at the same time you indicate that the editors have not been made available to all. I can understand the editors being refused to those who copy others work. I can't honestly see why they are refused to those who publicise bugs.

You also indicate that people within the community are not helping the development of the game. Those same people posted a listing of bugs in July 2006, many of which have yet to be addressed. I agree progress is being made, but in a wargame, critical combat related bugs are surely a priority?

People welcome the addition of new elements, and MP is a good example. But for me the actual combat phase isn't quite there yet.

_____________________________

"Alas poor Yorick,I knew him Horatio"

#1 Quote of the Harpoon Community.

Post #: 2

RE: Harpoon Hq Statement - 3/25/2007 6:08:54 PM

Flankerk

Posts: 417
Joined: 6/21/2006
Status: offline

Once the combat related bugs I discussed with you can be sorted, I think we'll be a lot closer to a more complete game. The speed issue you mention in another thread, and if that has a big impact would also make a welcome difference.

_____________________________

"Alas poor Yorick,I knew him Horatio"

#1 Quote of the Harpoon Community.

Post #: 3

RE: Harpoon Hq Statement - 3/25/2007 10:24:33 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flankerk

Once the combat related bugs I discussed with you can be sorted, I think we'll be a lot closer to a more complete game. The speed issue you mention in another thread, and if that has a big impact would also make a welcome difference.

I agree with Steve on this one. I use the game as a tool to model naval combat. For now I've got to use both versions of the game to accomplish certain things. I think some fixes would go a long way to getting me to use one game (H3 ANW)and some of them include the things Ragnar has listed. If they're not fixed thats okay. I'll stick to what I've got or move on to something that has it.

Thanks!

(in reply to Flankerk)

Post #: 4

RE: Harpoon Hq Statement - 3/26/2007 1:07:28 PM

goodwoodrw

Posts: 2661
Joined: 2/14/2005
Status: offline

G'day again, I have played a couple of scenarios over the weekend, the game appears to be much faster than old versions, however I still can't get refuelling to work, please point mein the right direction or where is it mention in the manual or a hot key may suffice
thanks

_____________________________

Formerly Goodwood

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 5

RE: Harpoon Hq Statement - 3/29/2007 2:41:23 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

As someone who is looking at purchasing a version of Harpoon to replace the ultra-old Harpoon 1 and 2 games I have and is concerned at what is being said about V3.6 vs 3.7/3.8 could someone explain why it appears to be fundamentally impossible for AGSI to allow both a V3.6 an 3.8 patch to be available so that players can choose which version they use?

I play a lot of WiTP and at least with WiTP there seems to be a fair bit of freedom in which patch people are playing with. If the switch from 3.6 to 3.7/8 is, arguably, accompanied by several unwanted bugs then why not just allow players to "downgrade" from 3.8 to 3.6 if they so choose? It would seem to be a public relations coup and would allow those who justifiably or unjustifiably hate 3.7 and 3.8 to stick with 3.6.

It would also, more importantly from my point of view, give someone who is considering a new purchase the option of saying "Well, I have the option of both versions and will just go with whichever one I feel is better" in terms of bugs etc. It would remove some of the perceived risk from new purchases and that can only help sales.

So, any shedding of light possible?

Post #: 6

RE: Harpoon Hq Statement - 3/29/2007 4:17:05 AM

danrhayes

Posts: 51
Joined: 6/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

As someone who is looking at purchasing a version of Harpoon to replace the ultra-old Harpoon 1 and 2 games I have and is concerned at what is being said about V3.6 vs 3.7/3.8 could someone explain why it appears to be fundamentally impossible for AGSI to allow both a V3.6 an 3.8 patch to be available so that players can choose which version they use?

I play a lot of WiTP and at least with WiTP there seems to be a fair bit of freedom in which patch people are playing with. If the switch from 3.6 to 3.7/8 is, arguably, accompanied by several unwanted bugs then why not just allow players to "downgrade" from 3.8 to 3.6 if they so choose? It would seem to be a public relations coup and would allow those who justifiably or unjustifiably hate 3.7 and 3.8 to stick with 3.6.

It would also, more importantly from my point of view, give someone who is considering a new purchase the option of saying "Well, I have the option of both versions and will just go with whichever one I feel is better" in terms of bugs etc. It would remove some of the perceived risk from new purchases and that can only help sales.

So, any shedding of light possible?

v3.6 predates the current marketing arrangement with Matrix.

Daniel

_____________________________

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 7

RE: Harpoon Hq Statement - 3/29/2007 3:43:54 PM

cuthbo2001

Posts: 103
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline

ompared to 3.8, version 3.6 is a fundamentally flawed program. We have a wiki page set up to list the improvements. The What is New in Harpoon 3 ANW page.

Aw c'mon, So I have been playing a fundamentally flawed program for three years. A program that was quite happily sold by AGSI . Can I get my money back on the basis of this statement. I thought we were moving on. On the same basis 3.7 and its incarnations could be argued are "flawed". I have moved on the basis that like many people the things I am looking for are not a priority at present. Fine no problem. However comments like this do nothing to bring a bit more harmony to the community.

Post #: 8

RE: Harpoon Hq Statement - 3/29/2007 4:49:40 PM

NEC1163

Posts: 8
Joined: 12/31/2006
Status: offline

I think if the Harpoon Community would back up for a moment, take a breath, then start looking at where we're going with this program, that would go a long way towards healing this rift. There are a few things we need to acknowledge:

1 - Software has bugs. Short of "Hello World", you'll be hard pressed to find one that doesn't.

2 - AGSI did not commit time and resources to this software to see it fail.

3 - Constructive criticism solves problems - destructive criticism creates them.

We used to have a saying in the Navy - one I'm sure many of you have heard before...

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Many people on both sides have had their feelings hurt (you can see that in this thread and many others), but that doesn't matter because that won't solve the problem either.

The bottom line is that 3.8 ANW and the concepts behind the current direction that the software is taking is the right move. It is unfortunate that many third-party scenarios don't currently work, but if we all dug our heels in over new version compatibility issues, we'll never get anywhere.

DOS? Windows 3.11? Windows 95? Is anybody reading this using IE 3?

I'm sorry if I've upset anyone, but I'm getting tired of this argument - It's the same one that's been going on for some time.

Mark D.

(in reply to cuthbo2001)

Post #: 9

RE: Harpoon Hq Statement - 3/29/2007 5:50:49 PM

cuthbo2001

Posts: 103
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline

In reply to NEC 1163

That is my point, maybe not made well. There is considerable body of skilled harpooners out there who could be part of the solution. Lets stick with the facts. Yes harpoon 3.6 has limitations , so does 3.7. Lets not make history in our own image by down playing 3.6
Maybe better tell us the limitation of both and let us choose. Then developers might get feedback on user priorities in order to make an informed decision about wher to go.

(in reply to NEC1163)

Post #: 10

RE: Harpoon Hq Statement - 3/29/2007 6:26:44 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

quote:

No software development company in their right mind would spend bandwidth, time, or money on an older and very flawed version of a program.

Well, with all due respect I know of several companies which have hosted various patch versions on their server when people were leery of upgrading to the latest and greatest version. I understand your point re: bandwidth, time, money etc but surely the decrease in confrontation between yourselves and various portions of the user community would be worth the fairly minimal investment in terms of bandwidth that hosting V3.6 would represent.

Honestly I can't see why you wouldn't do it except that it could be represented as an admission that V3.8 isn't up to scratch... which would be a misrepresentation since hosting V3.6 would admit nothing regarding the state of V3.8 but would represent a major olive branch to those rightly or wrongly disgruntled end-users who can't play the scenarios they want. For such a small investment it just seems crazy to allow this sort of upset.... I re-iterate that while I had Harpoon 1 and 2 I never purchased Harpoon 3 so don't have any axe to grind on either side.... although, obviously, I'd be more likely to purchase Harpoon 3 if I could try V3.6 and 3.8 since then I can settle on whichever version I feel works best.... Even then though it seems like a spectacular own goal to, in one fell swoop, render all of the hundreds of scenarios which have been produced by the community completely unplayable.

As an aside:
Can someone point me to a few threads pointing out improvements and possible disimprovements in V3.8 vis a vis V3.6? I'm interested in purchasing but I've learnt that when an entire community is split it is usually a sign of some major issues... It seems to me it HAS to be more than just database incompatibility screwing up all of the previously produced scenarios ---- although as someone who has modded several games I can understand just how infuriating it can be to have that happen ( especially since it seems the V3.8 scenario/database editors aren't being freely released to the community, a decision one must really question if true).

P.s. Please, I'm not interested in stirring up any more fighting ( I haven't seen the fights but they've been alluded to here and I know how the net works... or rather often fails to....), I'm just looking for information so I can make a decision.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 3/29/2007 6:30:17 PM >

(in reply to cuthbo2001)

Post #: 11

RE: Harpoon Hq Statement - 3/29/2007 9:30:56 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

VCDH,

Good points. I suppose I'm contrary because despite all you have said, yeah, nothing convinces me like trying something and then trying its successor so I'd still like to try 3.6 so I can compare and contrast the two just to be sure. I understand your position though and certainly your explanation and some more research I've done online shows 3.8 to be much more full-featured ( albeit still with bugs present).

As to the editor - It still leaves a bad taste in my mouth that it seems players won't get access to at least some of the powerful database editors as part of an effort to prevent others misrepresenting others work as theirs. It seems to penalise the many for the sins of the few. OTOH I doubt I'll bother much with database editing so it is less of a practical point and more of a philosophical point for me.

I suppose that altogether this means that later this weekend I'll be dipping into my wallet for the creditcard for this one.

Post #: 12

RE: Harpoon Hq Statement - 3/29/2007 11:27:35 PM

Vincenzo_Beretta

Posts: 440
Joined: 3/13/2001
From: Milan, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VCDH

Please allow me to compare v3.6 to v3.8

...

Earth rotation opposite to reality

This was to better simulate the "spirit" of the Harpoon community

quote:

ORIGINAL: VCDH

...

Passive Sonar detection while platform is at Flank Speed

I.e. very slow

quote:

ORIGINAL: VCDH

...

Fragmentation type warheads cause damage way out of proportion to their warheads

Again, a way to portray the daily way of living in the community...

_____________________________

Post #: 13

RE: Harpoon Hq Statement - 3/30/2007 12:09:50 AM

Vincenzo_Beretta

Posts: 440
Joined: 3/13/2001
From: Milan, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
As to the editor - It still leaves a bad taste in my mouth that it seems players won't get access to at least some of the powerful database editors as part of an effort to prevent others misrepresenting others work as theirs. It seems to penalise the many for the sins of the few. OTOH I doubt I'll bother much with database editing so it is less of a practical point and more of a philosophical point for me.

Nemo, don't give to this issue too much importance. Not all the calls of "plagiarism" that you hear out there are grounded on facts, and actually most of them (the loudest, usually

) have no grounds at all. This is, at least, what some basic research regarding what is considered "plagiarism" in the real world shows (I did it for unrelated, professional reasons, since I'm bot working in the videogaming field and a published comic-book author, but of course I took opportunity to check upon things related to our hobby, too). Just look at the kind of work done on DBs for games ranging from WitP to TOAW, as a serene, common effort and for the benefit of all, and you will see how many of the howls you hear over here, in the Harpoon community, do seem to stem more from personal issues than from factual truths.

Beside, since we all hope that "no one is guilty until proven othervise", I don't think that new players should be bothered by the alleged "sins of the eldest" :o)

3.6.x was the last version of Harpoon for a long time, so some DB designers were able to "creatively" circumvent the issues in that game by tayloring the DBs around them. Not everybody is happy about how (and the fact that) the game evolved, but Dale is right in saying that ANW is now the "live and growing" version of H3. Just think about multiplayer!
True, as ironic as it may seem, fixing some issues caused the need to rewrite parts of the unofficial Dbs which had grown "around" 3.6.x. Some DB writers did or are doing that - others, maybe, find it a lot of work for what they do not feel is a sufficient payoff. So they call for 3.6.x to remain as an "alternative". This may be true, and maybe they where happier when 3.6.x ruled and their DB was the lone king of the hill... but it is still a personal call by the Db designer - which may be heeded by the player or not.

Anyway, regarding the bugs in ANW and 3.6.x, the lists are public since a long time. You can find them, for example, at

ANW 3.7.0: http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/harpoon/42076-known-harpoon-anw-issues.html
H3 3.6.x: http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/harpoon/25821-known-harpoon-3-issues.html

In the same forums you will find more discussion about the various incarnation of Harpoon, with some different and, IMHO, refreshing and useful views on the running debate. My personal one is "ditch 3.6.x and go with ANW - maybe after asking about some more info around if you are unsure of the current level of the software". This is what I did, and I'm an happy harpooner.

Regards,

Vincenzo

< Message edited by Vincenzo Beretta -- 3/30/2007 12:13:12 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 14

RE: Harpoon Hq Statement - 3/30/2007 12:42:42 AM

NEC1163

Posts: 8
Joined: 12/31/2006
Status: offline

Vincenzo makes some great points.

The DB plagiarism issue always seemed odd to me. The capabilities of an Arleigh Burke Flight IIA DDG are the same no matter who entered the data, so I don't know how you could call it plagiarism when another DB uses the same data. Don't get me wrong - I fully realize the difficulties behind obtaining accurate data and the hours of work required to get that data and those who put those hours in should be recognized.

ANW as a "live and growing" version is a good description. There are countless games out there that issue patches only to counter game-stopping crashes and could care less about added functionality and features until they're ready to issue the next $50 incarnation.

My take is that if you want something entertaining for now, then 3.6 would do it for you, but if you want something more than that - something that will last for years, get ANW - you won't be sorry.

Mark D.

(in reply to Vincenzo_Beretta)

Post #: 15

RE: Harpoon Hq Statement - 3/30/2007 12:27:56 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

The DB plagiarising is now officially accepted fact:http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1397134

quote:

It is the belief of several published database developers I have talked to that plagiarism has occurred. There were enough unique items to the source database that appeared in the plagiarized database (and some Scenarios) that there is little likelihood of co-incidence. Due to the realities of the internet, and international parties there is little we can do about the situation except ensure that those we suspect of such behavior do not bear the mark of "Team Harpoon Content Provider". If they were to come clean, apologize, and make amends, the Membership Committee will reconsider.

Of course, contrarian minds are allowed their opinion. Even those best suited for membership to the Flat Earth Society. Or trolls who post only in order to get a rise out of others. Or to start flamewars and then boast publicly about it.

To answer your question, Nemo, this was one of the prime reasons that certain conditions now exist for obtaining some of the more useful editing tools. As long as you don't involve yourself in any objectionable activities you should have no problems whatsoever in getting access to the tools you need to make the most out of Harpoon. You will also find that the vast majority of designers are very helpful and cooperative towards both new and old players alike. To get a taste of how scenarios are submitted and peer-reviewed by fellow Pooners before being published, you are welcome to the Scenario Testing Ground at the HarpoonHQ.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to NEC1163)

Post #: 16

RE: Harpoon Hq Statement - 3/30/2007 4:19:44 PM

NEC1163

Posts: 8
Joined: 12/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NEC1163

The DB plagiarism issue always seemed odd to me. The capabilities of an Arleigh Burke Flight IIA DDG are the same no matter who entered the data, so I don't know how you could call it plagiarism when another DB uses the same data. Don't get me wrong - I fully realize the difficulties behind obtaining accurate data and the hours of work required to get that data and those who put those hours in should be recognized.

I've had a couple of people contact me and explain some things to me so I'd like to clarify and amend my statement.

The data in the DB (missile range, sensor types, etc.) certainly isn't IP, but the body of work known as the DB itself certainly is. The immense number of hours that went into assembling that body of work can't be understated and those responsible for it need to be recognized. The laws concerning copyrights clearly include this type of compilation.

To those of you out there who I may have upset, I apologize.

Mark D.

(in reply to NEC1163)

Post #: 17

RE: Harpoon Hq Statement - 3/30/2007 7:33:47 PM

cuthbo2001

Posts: 103
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline

So to get back on track. Is there somewhere with a list of the problems to be solved with 3.7 etc and a MATRIX priority list.

Post #: 18

RE: Harpoon Hq Statement - 3/30/2007 7:56:58 PM

FransKoenz