Erik, I respectfully disagree

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Erik, I respectfully disagree

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 >> Erik, I respectfully disagree

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Erik, I respectfully disagree - 2/4/2009 4:29:46 AM

evaamo2

Posts: 102
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

Dear Erik,

I was tempted in the beginning but ended up desisting in replying to one of Herman Hum's "controversial" posts in this board (Subject: "Harpoon"). Your reply to it, however, motivated me to respond, but sadly you chose to lock it down.

I have been a loyal Harpoon user since the H2 days and customer to the recent efforts lead by Jesse Spears to improve the game. I found extremely interesting and positive the involvement of Matrix Games at first, since I thought it was going to move the game much further into the future and expand its audience.

Unfortunately, it is the year 2009 and I can't say I have enjoyed the game. I was one of H3ANW early adopters and have had all the patience in the world, hoping that some day AGSI was going to deliver the game that at least I was waiting for. I have gotten in touch with Russell Sharp and Don Gilman in the past and I can say their respective responses and attitude toward me as a customer have been very kind. But it is in the production cycle and (lack of) quality assurance of the game that I have my complaints. Not a single release has been free of problems, many which might have been easily caught by testing throughly. It shows there is little to no employment of automated or manual testing tools or proceedures, things considered basic in the Software Engineering world. I understand AGSI inherited a complex game engine whose code might have not been of the greatest quality and that definitely needed major overhauls in different aspects in order to be usable or extensible in future versions. But still... after 3 years we customers still don't have a (mostly) bugfree, stable and Harpoon-gameplay-as-we-knew-it consistent release of the product.

To me, the great mistake was introducing new and complex functionality with each update. Having multiplayer was a cool feature, as were the new graphical interface advances, but honestly: was there a need to overhaul key and fragile aspects such as the game mission's code? Was there a real need to build a new graphical database tool, when real bugs still existed? What about modifying the game rules (such as the ECM behavior) in the middle of a maintenance release, such as (iirc) 3.8.x series, which was supposed to stabilize and fix the game, instead of adding things and modifying core functionality? It doesn't make sense to me as a customer and it sure doesn't make sense from a business point of view either!

What you should have done was fix the bugs and build a stable (both single player and multiplayer) version of the game and start adding functionality as new (and paid) versions. Then it would have been up to us customers to either invest in this new AGSI-concept of Harpoon or stay safe (as it has happened with 3.6.3). The game as it is today has a different feel and way to play than previous versions. Changing the gameplay to resemble Harpoon 4.1 paper rules in the middle of the life of the product, which is still being sold and "actively" supported, only brought confusion to some users (like myself) and only proves the disconnection that exists between AGSI priorities and their customers' expectations (at least loyal old-timers). I understand AGSI is free to do with their game as they see fit, but it would have been nice for them to show some courtesy and *ask* their followers (paying customers, thank you) if such modifications were needed/supported/wanted.

In the end, every time I try a new release I feel like I'm learning to play all over again a game I used to feel comfortable with, and used to perform consistently (important thingy in a "simulation"). I hate this new necessity to babysit the engine's correct behavior and performance each time I set up a game since nowadays even weapon behavior has been changed and become inconsistent with regards of previous version of the ANW version of the game! More frustrating is the fact that I no longer know if it is a bug or a new midlife just-introduced-but-unannounced "feature".

All said, I admit I still have hope in that AGSI will fix the mess and build a stable version. As a Matrix Games Director, Erik, just make sure somebody establishes a feature-freeze at some point (short term) and have AGSI and Matrix Games work together by the hand *with* the community towards creating an enjoyable release.

As for me... my actual responsibilities both with my job and my family forbid me to be keep spending time trying to like the game as it is today. That's why, when I compare the enjoyment I got from playing version 3.6 to what I've gotten with ANW, I end up feeling like I got ripped off. Sorry if it sounds harsh, Erik, but it is how I feel. I hope you guys get the game right some time soon.

-E

< Message edited by evaamo2 -- 2/4/2009 4:38:56 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Erik, I respectfully disagree - 2/4/2009 5:20:01 AM

rsharp@advancedgamin

Posts: 430
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

Howdy,

First, I want to continue this discussion. I ask everyone to take the best from each other's post and always add to the discussion. Otherwise, I'll start editing content. Not a threat, just a predictable line of action.

The fictional part of Herman's post was number of releases made. After the initial 3.7, there was 3.8, 3.9, 3.9.1, 3.9.2, and 3.9.3 with 3.9.4 coming out as soon as I do the QA work. The other part of the post I'll respectfully disagree with. 3.9.x has been feature frozen (point of contention use of that phrase may be) and focused on fixing bugs.

Beyond that, I'll say that you are, on the whole, correct. AGSI had taken actions provoking already hostile players. Further, our QA process was definitely a shame. Our feature implementations were poorly planned and should have been more transparent. I am responsible for it. I am going to move forward though and will not dwell on past mistakes. Just the lessons from them.

We have tried to engage old-timers in the past and will again. Finding the right mode of communication that will handle every ego is not going to be an easy one. Still, with a more stable game I think productive discussion can be had.

Some of the changes we are putting into effect:

-Future model changes will be done all at once and will be optional.
-We've hired QA wonks to test and develop automated tests for us.
-Beta testing will be open (now) and eventually, totally transparent. We're cleaning up our issue tracker so it is an accurate picture. We will not however delete any issues.

I'm also looking to get the best behaviors out of 3.6 and use them in the latest 3.9.4 release. Optionally. If I feel a 3.9.5 (3.9.x is the feature freeze, not 3.8) is necessary, then I'll make it so while maintaining 3.10.x as a development branch for new features.

I appreciate your time in posting and, of course, I'd appreciate your testing but I understand real life intercedes.

As always, thanks for your feedback.

Regards,

< Message edited by rsharp@advancedgamin -- 2/4/2009 5:24:41 AM >

_____________________________

Russell
Advanced Gaming Systems
Home of Computer Harpoon

(in reply to evaamo2)

Revisions: 1 | Post #: 2

Problem - 2/4/2009 7:20:17 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Otherwise, I'll start editing content. Not a threat, just a predictable line of action.

The fictional part of Herman's post was number of releases made. After the initial 3.7, there was 3.8, 3.9, 3.9.1, 3.9.2, and 3.9.3 with 3.9.4 coming out as soon as I do the QA work. The other part of the post I'll respectfully disagree with. 3.9.x has been feature frozen (point of contention use of that phrase may be) and focused on fixing bugs.

Thanks for the warning of impending censorship. I'll be doubly sure to save all future messages posted to Matrix for archival purposes.

This claim is a load of nonsense. All file releases by Matrix can be seen by everyone at: ftp://ftp.matrixgames.com/pub/Harpoon3ANW/

As one can see, there clearly isn't even a 3.9.1 release. It was pure beta and never saw the light of day. Of course, if you accept AGSI's assertion that "Beta = Official release", then there have been over 20 releases within the past year. Anyone want to agree that a Beta release is sufficient for your $50?

No one can even call the 3.9.0 release a legitimate patch. Sorry, it is impossible to dignify that boondoggle with the term. 3.9.0 made ANW entirely and completely unplayable due to the Bomb non-drop bug.

3.9.1 does not even exist

3.9.2 was trying to fix 3.9.0
3.9.2a and 3.9.2b were trying to fix the Half the 3.92 splash screen missing bug created by 3.9.2

3.9.3 was trying to fix the Crash during UnRep bug created by 3.9.0

So, that's why the entire group of 3.9.x releases are all the same 'patch' and not individual ones. They may be seperate files, but that's about all they are.

3.9.x has not been frozen, either. This is utter fantasy. A totally new feature was added in 3.9.4.6 Beta that cause a CTD. see

When discussing Harpoon, always check out the facts for yourself. Trust no one. (Myself included

)

(in reply to rsharp@advancedgamin)

Post #: 3

RE: Problem - 2/4/2009 7:28:15 AM

rsharp@advancedgamin

Posts: 430
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

The change logs for each release were posted in their announcements on this forum. You can see what was done for each.

Which totally new feature caused a crash in the beta release?

Thanks,

_____________________________

Russell
Advanced Gaming Systems
Home of Computer Harpoon

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 4

Problem - 2/4/2009 7:36:23 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: evaamo2

I was tempted in the beginning but ended up desisting in replying to one of Herman Hum's "controversial" posts in this board (Subject: "Harpoon"). Your reply to it, however, motivated me to respond, but sadly you chose to lock it down.

[snip]

Unfortunately, it is the year 2009 and I can't say I have enjoyed the game. I was one of H3ANW early adopters and have had all the patience in the world, hoping that some day AGSI was going to deliver the game that at least I was waiting for. I have gotten in touch with Russell Sharp and Don Gilman in the past and I can say their respective responses and attitude toward me as a customer have been very kind. But it is in the production cycle and (lack of) quality assurance of the game that I have my complaints. Not a single release has been free of problems, many which might have been easily caught by testing throughly. It shows there is little to no employment of automated or manual testing tools or proceedures, things considered basic in the Software Engineering world. I understand AGSI inherited a complex game engine whose code might have not been of the greatest quality and that definitely needed major overhauls in different aspects in order to be usable or extensible in future versions. But still... after 3 years we customers still don't have a (mostly) bugfree, stable and Harpoon-gameplay-as-we-knew-it consistent release of the product.

To me, the great mistake was introducing new and complex functionality with each update. Having multiplayer was a cool feature, as were the new graphical interface advances, but honestly: was there a need to overhaul key and fragile aspects such as the game mission's code? Was there a real need to build a new graphical database tool, when real bugs still existed? What about modifying the game rules (such as the ECM behavior) in the middle of a maintenance release, such as (iirc) 3.8.x series, which was supposed to stabilize and fix the game, instead of adding things and modifying core functionality? It doesn't make sense to me as a customer and it sure doesn't make sense from a business point of view either!

What you should have done was fix the bugs and build a stable (both single player and multiplayer) version of the game and start adding functionality as new (and paid) versions. Then it would have been up to us customers to either invest in this new AGSI-concept of Harpoon or stay safe (as it has happened with 3.6.3). The game as it is today has a different feel and way to play than previous versions. Changing the gameplay to resemble Harpoon 4.1 paper rules in the middle of the life of the product, which is still being sold and "actively" supported, only brought confusion to some users (like myself) and only proves the disconnection that exists between AGSI priorities and their customers' expectations (at least loyal old-timers). I understand AGSI is free to do with their game as they see fit, but it would have been nice for them to show some courtesy and *ask* their followers (paying customers, thank you) if such modifications were needed/supported/wanted.

In the end, every time I try a new release I feel like I'm learning to play all over again a game I used to feel comfortable with, and used to perform consistently (important thingy in a "simulation"). I hate this new necessity to babysit the engine's correct behavior and performance each time I set up a game since nowadays even weapon behavior has been changed and become inconsistent with regards of previous version of the ANW version of the game! More frustrating is the fact that I no longer know if it is a bug or a new midlife just-introduced-but-unannounced "feature".

All said, I admit I still have hope in that AGSI will fix the mess and build a stable version. As a Matrix Games Director, Erik, just make sure somebody establishes a feature-freeze at some point (short term) and have AGSI and Matrix Games work together by the hand *with* the community towards creating an enjoyable release.

I just can't resist another controversial 'Herman Hum' post.

Eloquently put and already part of a 5-point proposal presented to AGSI. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1925918

1. Feature Freeze
2. Dissolution of private bug discussion fora
3. Fully public Beta process
4. Distribution of all scenario/database files with Patches
5. Paid/professional bug testing

It's nice to see others thinking along the same lines.

(in reply to evaamo2)

Post #: 5

Problem - 2/4/2009 7:36:53 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Which totally new feature caused a crash in the beta release?

You told me on IRC discussion that you added a feature that generated a "Profile" file in the ANW folder. Anyone trying to run 3.9.4.6 Beta and playing MP would suffer CTD after CTD after CTD.

_____________________________

(in reply to rsharp@advancedgamin)

Post #: 6

RE: Problem - 2/4/2009 7:51:11 AM

rsharp@advancedgamin

Posts: 430
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

The profiling feature existed since 3.7 but is usually not enabled for Release builds. It's something for the developers. I left it on and that was my mistake.

1. Feature Freeze - Ongoing discussion on this one. (See the line(s) above)
2. Dissolution of private bug discussion fora - Nah, we're contracturally bound to this. -edit: Just for our Pro. Most beta discussion happens in my e-mail, IRC, and this forum.
3. Fully public Beta process - Partially done. I'll make a build available tomorrow by url. Mantis will be public when the QA guys are ready for it to be public.
4. Distribution of all scenario/database files with Patches - Nah, self serving on your part too.
5. Paid/professional bug testing - In progress.

Thanks,

< Message edited by rsharp@advancedgamin -- 2/4/2009 7:53:09 AM >

_____________________________

Russell
Advanced Gaming Systems
Home of Computer Harpoon

(in reply to hermanhum)

Revisions: 1 | Post #: 7

Problem - 2/4/2009 10:09:18 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

1. Feature Freeze - Ongoing discussion on this one. (See the line(s) above)

I'm looking at the "Harpoon 393 Changelog" that came with the patch. A copy has been attached to this message for your convenience. Taking only from this document, I think that these new features have been added since 390

quote:

H3 ANW - H3Cx - 3.9.2
=====================
- 0002532: [UI] Request for Notification - Weapons vs Ice (VCDH)

Other (undocumented) new features for 3.9.2 include (but are certainly not limited to):

- Ballistic bomb drop ranges. Planes that fly higher/faster can release bombs further from the target than set by the database editor. (This may be in contention since this attempted feature is what made ANW 390 unplayable in the first place.) However, the repercussions are serious. Pre-3.9.0 scenarios would have been written for air defences that expected the enemy to be dropping bombs from a certain range (about 2nm). Now, those planes can drop and hit their targets 13nm+ and nullifies most scenarios.

It is only fair to acknowledge that AGSI has significantly reduced the number of new features since 3.9.0. However, even one additional feature (not in direct response to a bug) is too many since they often spawn additional bugs, IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

2. Dissolution of private bug discussion fora - Nah, we're contracturally bound to this. -edit: Just for our Pro. Most beta discussion happens in my e-mail, IRC, and this forum.

3. Fully public Beta process - Partially done. I'll make a build available tomorrow by url. Mantis will be public when the QA guys are ready for it to be public.

No one's asking about the private corporate discussion areas (i.e. budgets, business, marketing, etc). The area causing / creating the most number of bugs and greatest havoc is this CCC area where new ideas are supposedly being discussed according to the group's description. It, along with your private Mantis bug-tracking system, are probably the primary sources of all buggy ideas since ideas seem to be hashed out quite poorly.

No one has all the answers. The process can only benefit from additional viewpoints that players, DB editors, scen designers, MP server owners, etc. bring along with their different perspectives and experiences.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

4. Distribution of all scenario/database files with Patches - Nah, self serving on your part too.

And asking your paying customers to provide free beta-testing for your corporate gain, isn't? At least my request serves all database authors and scenario designers and not any particular group.

Here's the crux of the matter. Speaking only for myself, I currently test after each Official Release and post the results. However, if you want me, personally, to test and send reports BEFORE you release, then you'll have to provide the entire community with something for the effort. It makes no difference to me. PlayersDB materials have no problem getting distributed. The bug results get discovered and posted either way. The only difference is that getting bug reports before release can save AGSI the embarassment of another 3.9.0 boondoggle [see Bomb non-drop bug].

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

5. Paid/professional bug testing - In progress.

Good for you. I hope that they are worth it.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to rsharp@advancedgamin)

Post #: 8

RE: Problem - 2/4/2009 10:18:50 AM

FreekS

Posts: 323
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

I agree with everything Evaamo-2 said.

3.7 brought in MultiPlayer and a few bug fixes at a considerable cost in new bugs.

Russell acknowledged that bug fixing and testing have been handled badly.

There seems to be a plan for more open bug fixing.

This is all positive.

However in my opinion there are still lots of problems beside bug-fixing with ANW:

1. AGSI has no policy to maintain backwards compatibility with existing scenario's/databases. In fact some of the new features are breaking existing scenario's, even when these are rebuilt using the latest ANW Scenario editor batch process.

For example in 3.9.x AGSI put in 'smarter' bomb range logic whereby bombs dropped from higher altitude and with higher speed drop further. This makes all carefully designed defenses around airbases ineffective, and means scen designers have to relocate all guns for example. AGSI never told scen designers about this AND implemented the feature badly (planes at 31m altitude drop iron bombs 2nm forward; and planes at 18000 meter can drop bombs on Afterburner 15nm away and get hits)

AGSI maintains that its the responsibility of the scen/DB designer to maintain scens (and it is), but give virtually no help or information on what to change.
The combination of no policy of backwards compatibility of scenario's, poor listening, poor information on changes, and the waves of bugs in every (Beta) release have driven away all but one of the Community database-editors.
The official databases of the game (I don't even know which are official!) are mostly in poor shape (HUD excluded) and so are the scens shipped with the game; even the tutorials are not maintained.

So in my opinion, AGSI is trying to give the players a better Game Engine. They are not contributing to providing players with a combination of Game Engine, Database and Scenarios that actually work.

2. There is no public plan on future changes. No real dialog to investigate what features players want and are willing to pay for. I am also on the page that bugs must be fixed in current commercial version and I'll consider to pay for new features in new releases, provided the old releases are largely bug-free and the features are valuable. Untill the bugs are fixed though, I cannot imagine any features I'd be willing to pay for.

Now, I'm willing to stick with ANW and help test; hoping I'll continue to see progress (because I have seen progress) along the lines outlined above.

Freek

< Message edited by FreekS -- 2/4/2009 10:23:24 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to rsharp@advancedgamin)

Post #: 9

Problem - 2/4/2009 10:29:48 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FreekS

1. AGSI has no policy to maintain backwards compatibility with existing scenario's/databases. In fact some of the new features are breaking existing scenario's, even when these are rebuilt using the latest ANW Scenario editor batch process.

I agree with all of both Evaamo and Freek, too.

This point could use a bit more clarification. Quite often, H2/H3 scenarios have problems functioning in the ANW. However, this lack of backward compatabilility is not limited to H2/H3 scens. It also affects scenarios written with ANW 3.7.0, 3.8.0, 3.9.0, 3.9.3, etc. Scenarios written with earlier ANW versions are often found not to work after later patch releases, too.

_____________________________

(in reply to FreekS)

Post #: 10

RE: Problem - 2/4/2009 4:16:12 PM

rsharp@advancedgamin

Posts: 430
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

Freek,

quote:

1. AGSI has no policy to maintain backwards compatibility with existing scenario's/databases. In fact some of the new features are breaking existing scenario's, even when these are rebuilt using the latest ANW Scenario editor batch process.

The policy is to make model changes optional and not default. The example of changing bombing ranges in 3.9.2 is breaking with that policy. I'll look at making it optional. The options themselves being new features but this is a comprimise.

quote:

The combination of no policy of backwards compatibility of scenario's, poor listening, poor information on changes, and the waves of bugs in every (Beta) release have driven away all but one of the Community database-editors.

The rest of the policy of backwards compatibility is to not to worry about it. I'm going to make ANW the better version and hopefully we can all use one version. Still a bit down the road if the feedback says nothing else.

You can't say I haven't been listening to anyone that will grab my ear without lying.

quote:

2. There is no public plan on future changes. No real dialog to investigate what features players want and are willing to pay for. I am also on the page that bugs must be fixed in current commercial version and I'll consider to pay for new features in new releases, provided the old releases are largely bug-free and the features are valuable. Untill the bugs are fixed though, I cannot imagine any features I'd be willing to pay for.

That was the point of the C3 group. However, it was pretty much dead on arrival with the usual politics gumming everything up. Still, new features and which bugs to fix were to be decided there by the pillars of the community.

When that didn't work I came to the Matrix forums and invited everyone to post about their favorite/most hated bug. I've always engaged, explained, and usually taken action to fix the issue.

quote:

Now, I'm willing to stick with ANW and help test; hoping I'll continue to see progress (because I have seen progress) along the lines outlined above.

Thanks!

Herman,

quote:

The area causing / creating the most number of bugs and greatest havoc is this CCC area where new ideas are supposedly being discussed according to the group's description. It, along with your private Mantis bug-tracking system, are probably the primary sources of all buggy ideas since ideas seem to be hashed out quite poorly.

So that's pure speculation right?

Thanks for the feedback! Keep it coming.

_____________________________

Russell
Advanced Gaming Systems
Home of Computer Harpoon

(in reply to FreekS)

Post #: 11

RE: Problem - 2/4/2009 5:43:09 PM

FreekS

Posts: 323
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Herman,

quote:

The area causing / creating the most number of bugs and greatest havoc is this CCC area where new ideas are supposedly being discussed according to the group's description. It, along with your private Mantis bug-tracking system, are probably the primary sources of all buggy ideas since ideas seem to be hashed out quite poorly.

So that's pure speculation right?

Thanks for the feedback! Keep it coming.

Suggesting Herman is speculating is inviting the publication of a long list of evidence! I tend to agree with herman on this, having seen in Mantis points being awarded to all sorts of weird and wonderfull idea's - some of which I suspect of causing issues.

Yes Russell, you have been listening and that very much appreciated. The difficulty we ALL have is to bring the minds of all experts and novices together and hash out priority bugs and priority new features, AND to then be willing to stick with those.

The strategy you are outlining is attractive as it promises backwards compatibility will be possible.

May main point remains however that player experience is Game engine + Database + Scenario (and SE and DBE for some).

Freek

< Message edited by FreekS -- 2/4/2009 5:44:27 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to rsharp@advancedgamin)

Post #: 12

RE: Problem - 2/4/2009 6:50:16 PM

rsharp@advancedgamin

Posts: 430
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

Freek,

quote:

The difficulty we ALL have is to bring the minds of all experts and novices together and hash out priority bugs and priority new features, AND to then be willing to stick with those.

We attempted to create some sort of republic with C3. That proved intractable for AGSI and the community so now we're now at a dictatorship with me as the dictator. I'll poll people and listen as much as possible for what needs to be done. You'll just have to wait and see what the results are.

AGSI certainly hasn't given up on involving more of the community but we will have to change our approach.

_____________________________

Russell
Advanced Gaming Systems
Home of Computer Harpoon

(in reply to FreekS)

Post #: 13

Dictatorship - 2/4/2009 7:46:35 PM

FreekS

Posts: 323
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

OK, so you're the Dictator of the game engine, Herman can be the Dictator of PlayersDB, I can be the Dictator of my scens and we'll all just dictate to each other as ever. Any other Dictators are welcome to jump in.

I think I'll go back to scen-building - I have some idea's how to improve Vulcan in the Falklands battleset.

Freek

P.S. by the way it seems to me that CCC was also just one more closed Dictatorship; far from a Republic. Of course this is conjecture as it was a secret Dictatorship!

< Message edited by FreekS -- 2/4/2009 7:48:20 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to rsharp@advancedgamin)

Post #: 14

RE: Dictatorship - 2/4/2009 7:53:26 PM

rsharp@advancedgamin

Posts: 430
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

P.S. by the way it seems to me that CCC was also just one more closed Dictatorship; far from a Republic. Of course this is conjecture as it was a secret Dictatorship!

That perception alone, while not yours alone, was enough to kill it.

_____________________________

Russell
Advanced Gaming Systems
Home of Computer Harpoon

(in reply to FreekS)

Post #: 15

Problem - 2/4/2009 8:18:41 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

The example of changing bombing ranges in 3.9.2 is breaking with that policy. I'll look at making it optional. The options themselves being new features but this is a comprimise.

[snip]

You can't say I haven't been listening to anyone that will grab my ear without lying.

That's pretty ironic coming from someone who just confessed to breaking his own policy and refuting his own claim that no new features had been added since 3.9.0.

I guess anyone who doesn't agree with AGSI is simply outright lying. Especially since it is AGSI and Matrix who are unable to provide any facts and evidence when called to the carpet.

Since AGSI still doesn't quite understand the mood of the community, I'll offer a personal perspective. Your customers aren't going to chase after you like a child waving a nickel at the ice cream truck hoping that it will stop. If you want help, post up your problem and, invariably, you'll get a public reply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

We attempted to create some sort of republic with C3.

By AGSI personally selecting only those members it wanted for membership, this was in no way a 'republic' and much more akin to the Vichy/Quisling governments of WWII and the Afghan puppets under the Soviets.

(in reply to rsharp@advancedgamin)

Post #: 16

RE: Problem - 2/4/2009 8:37:05 PM

rsharp@advancedgamin

Posts: 430
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

quote:ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin We attempted to create some sort of republic with C3. By AGSI personally selecting only those members it wanted for membership, this was in no way a 'republic' and much more akin to the Vichy/Quisling governments of WWII and the Afghan puppets under the Soviets.

We picked the board that would elect new members. Had to start somehwere but I do understand why everyone thought AGSI had their hands in the elections. We really didn't but that's a moot point at this stage.

I've got the idea of doing the same thing but starting with those who have been elected Harpooner of the year with the current AGSI employees removed. Then they can elect new members from there. It wouldn't be a perfect solution but it is an interesting idea.

Thanks,

_____________________________

Russell
Advanced Gaming Systems
Home of Computer Harpoon

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 17

RE: Problem - 2/4/2009 8:46:32 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

I've got the idea of doing the same thing but starting with those who have been elected Harpooner of the year with the current AGSI employees removed.

It's pretty significant to note that neither of the two latest recipients of the Harpooner of the Year Awards were involved in CCC especially since the award was given for:

quote:

* A person who gives of their time, talents and riches to the Harpoon community.
* An award given yearly to recognize the efforts of the above.
* The yearly Pooner Award recognizes extraordinary effort often within (but not restricted to) a single 12-month period.

(in reply to rsharp@advancedgamin)

Post #: 18

Problem - 2/4/2009 8:50:06 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FreekS

having seen in Mantis points being awarded to all sorts of weird and wonderfull idea's - some of which I suspect of causing issues.

[snip]

hash out priority bugs and priority new features, AND to then be willing to stick with those.

Seems as though you have much more access to this secret society than anyone else. Just more proof that it is an unceasing fount of problems.

There is absolutely no need for new features. None, whatsoever. It's a red herring by the developers in a vain attempt to mask their buggy situation.

No one cares about any 'new features' you have planned. If you go back to the origins of Harpoon2, no one bought that game with the future expectation that it would have multi-play capability or even a DB editor. They DID expect it to have UnRep, Limited Aircraft Logistics, and Air-to-Air Refueling because they were promised on the back of the box.

That's the same situation ANW faces today. No one cares that you are promising future features XYZ. We just want the ABC features you've already promised to be functional.

_____________________________

(in reply to FreekS)

Post #: 19

RE: Problem - 2/4/2009 9:05:31 PM

rsharp@advancedgamin

Posts: 430
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

Herman,

C3 was about bugs and future features. Not just one or the other. You vastly overestimate its impact.

I've laid out the steps that we are taking to change and a lot of them match your wishes for the community. You can continue to harp on the problems or can accept my invitation to be part of the solution.

Thanks,

< Message edited by rsharp@advancedgamin -- 2/4/2009 9:06:34 PM >

_____________________________

Russell
Advanced Gaming Systems
Home of Computer Harpoon

(in reply to hermanhum)

Revisions: 1 | Post #: 20

Problem - 2/4/2009 9:21:49 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

One can only hope that the changes and invitation fare better than the Mantis.Harpoon5 idea that absolutely no one cared about or used.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1799684

(in reply to rsharp@advancedgamin)

Post #: 21

RE: Erik, I respectfully disagree - 2/4/2009 9:29:53 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Evaamo2 et. al.,

Thanks for your input. I definitely appreciate the constructive criticism. Russell's post (quoted below) speaks for me as well in this case and I agree with everything he said.

I do want to emphasize that did freeze (or attempt to freeze) the features in 3.9.x and that entire series of releases after 3.9.0 has been focused on bug-fixes.

The problems you discuss in general, we agree with and have been working to solve, with great success in some areas and limited success in others. We and AGSI are committed to continuing the present course, which we feel is the right one (and is not the same course we were on before 3.9.x).

Regards,

- Erik

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Howdy,

First, I want to continue this discussion. I ask everyone to take the best from each other's post and always add to the discussion. Otherwise, I'll start editing content. Not a threat, just a predictable line of action.

The fictional part of Herman's post was number of releases made. After the initial 3.7, there was 3.8, 3.9, 3.9.1, 3.9.2, and 3.9.3 with 3.9.4 coming out as soon as I do the QA work. The other part of the post I'll respectfully disagree with. 3.9.x has been feature frozen (point of contention use of that phrase may be) and focused on fixing bugs.

Beyond that, I'll say that you are, on the whole, correct. AGSI had taken actions provoking already hostile players. Further, our QA process was definitely a shame. Our feature implementations were poorly planned and should have been more transparent. I am responsible for it. I am going to move forward though and will not dwell on past mistakes. Just the lessons from them.

We have tried to engage old-timers in the past and will again. Finding the right mode of communication that will handle every ego is not going to be an easy one. Still, with a more stable game I think productive discussion can be had.

Some of the changes we are putting into effect:

-Future model changes will be done all at once and will be optional.
-We've hired QA wonks to test and develop automated tests for us.
-Beta testing will be open (now) and eventually, totally transparent. We're cleaning up our issue tracker so it is an accurate picture. We will not however delete any issues.

I'm also looking to get the best behaviors out of 3.6 and use them in the latest 3.9.4 release. Optionally. If I feel a 3.9.5 (3.9.x is the feature freeze, not 3.8) is necessary, then I'll make it so while maintaining 3.10.x as a development branch for new features.

I appreciate your time in posting and, of course, I'd appreciate your testing but I understand real life intercedes.

As always, thanks for your feedback.

Regards,

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to rsharp@advancedgamin)

Post #: 22

RE: Erik, I respectfully disagree - 2/4/2009 11:41:14 PM

FreekS

Posts: 323
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
We and AGSI are committed to continuing the present course, which we feel is the right one (and is not the same course we were on before 3.9.x).

Regards,

- Erik

Erik,

And so are the players, scen and DB designers contributing to this thread. Everyone wants the game to improve and I believe everyone is recognising positives steps are being taken (but they want more which is great.

Freek

< Message edited by FreekS -- 2/4/2009 11:42:03 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 23

RE: Erik, I respectfully disagree - 2/5/2009 2:16:18 AM

Kegel

Posts: 37
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline

That Progressive Insurance chick is hot. She needs my bone.

(in reply to FreekS)

Post #: 24

RE: Erik, I respectfully disagree - 2/5/2009 2:25:22 AM

rsharp@advancedgamin

Posts: 430
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

<car braking noise>

What? haha

_____________________________

Russell
Advanced Gaming Systems
Home of Computer Harpoon

(in reply to Kegel)

Post #: 25

RE: Problem - 2/5/2009 6:28:34 AM

kipallen

Posts: 76
Joined: 5/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

quote:

quote:ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin We attempted to create some sort of republic with C3. By AGSI personally selecting only those members it wanted for membership, this was in no way a 'republic' and much more akin to the Vichy/Quisling governments of WWII and the Afghan puppets under the Soviets.

We picked the board that would elect new members. Had to start somehwere but I do understand why everyone thought AGSI had their hands in the elections. We really didn't but that's a moot point at this stage.

I've got the idea of doing the same thing but starting with those who have been elected Harpooner of the year with the current AGSI employees removed. Then they can elect new members from there. It wouldn't be a perfect solution but it is an interesting idea.

Thanks,

Herman, I have to back up Rusty on this point. I was one of the C3 "electors." Off the top of my head, I can think of two or three very talented Harpooners I voted against based on their attitudes -- "They didn't play well with others," is the expression that comes to mind. Perhaps I was wrong, but I simply couldn't see how their contributions would outweigh the harm their bickering, name-calling and disruption would have caused.

The point I'm making is that AGSI tried to include the community.

I agree that AGSI must involve the community more and I know of no one at AGSI who disagrees. The problem is one of implementation, not ill will.

Perhaps the idea of starting with Harpooners of the Year might work.

You, Rusty, Erik, Freeks and I all want the same thing -- a smooth, satisfying, bug-free Harpoon. We need to remember that ultimately we're all on the same side.

(in reply to rsharp@advancedgamin)

Post #: 26

Problem - 2/5/2009 6:46:27 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: koelbach

I think we should look and move forward instead of focusing on the last years and AGSIs mistakes. Russel has openly informed about lessons learnt and he has outlined how AGSI plans to improve its dev process and especially quality assurance. This is a new quality of customer relationship which creates hopes.

AGSI's organizational plan is totally and wholly irrelevant. It doesn't matter how they structure or re-structure themselves, what mechanisms they want to use for QA, input, discussion, etc. The only thing that matters is the quality of the end product. How they try to get there is their own business. All anyone can do is make suggestions on the easiest way. Corporate re-organizations are a means to an end and not the solution itself. The last AGSI re-organization was a pretty futile exercise as it changed nothing in the product quality.

< Message edited by hermanhum -- 2/5/2009 7:02:15 AM >

_____________________________

Post #: 27

RE: Problem - 2/5/2009 8:02:45 AM

YankeeAirRat

Posts: 633
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline

Herman,

Over the better part of my judgement I am diving into this. Between you and the folks at HHQ tirades about how the game is messed up or sniping between each other over petty BS on this board (and others), I am absolutely amazed at how this game has sold any units at all. All this hate would scare a possible player away and more then likely did. You are right that AGSI and Matrix has screwed things up when this game was being sold initially. You are right that AGSI and Matrix should have fixed the initial features that were promised when 360 Pacific was selling H2 way back in 1992, that is seventeen years ago. From there they should have slowly added features. However, both Russell and Erik basically offered a public mea culp that they screwed up and were trying to fix things internally on how the game was being updated and fixed. I don't know all the ins and outs with what was happening with the computer Harpoon community because I turned my back on it about six years ago during one of yours and HHQ's initial dust up, I returned to the roots playing it via pen and paper. I have only bought both H3ANW and HCE was to keep support going to AGSI that they will be able to produce a computer game that does it best to replicate the fun that I have had over a weekend drinking beers playing with friends the wonderful rules that Larry Bond, Chris Carlson, and the rest of their crew designed. The only times I have played both the products being offered by Matrix has been completely stock DB's and stock scenario's when I can't get a paper game going on with my friends.
What isn't (and hasn't been) helpful is biting the hand that is feeding us the versions that we currently have. Remember that except for a few die hards in the community both of these games could of been left to the dustbin of computer gaming history.

_____________________________

Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an �International Incident�.

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 28

Problem - 2/5/2009 8:30:10 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat

What isn't (and hasn't been) helpful is biting the hand that is feeding us the versions that we currently have. Remember that except for a few die hards in the community both of these games could of been left to the dustbin of computer gaming history.

I understand the opinion and everyone's got a right to one. Just remember that you wouldn't have been able to even express that much if the only discussion forum for ANW problems was closed and exclusive to only a few members.

What I disagree with is the perspective expressed in this final paragraph. It is backwards, IMO. The users/customers are the hand(s) that feed AGSI and not the way around. Keeping a game alive that is barely breathing due to extensive bugs is not doing anyone a favour. Either it can fix itself or, it deserves to belong in the dustbin of history.

_____________________________

(in reply to YankeeAirRat)

Post #: 29