Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

I think they just like to stir things up and watch the chaos!

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

1. There's no question or doubt that Marshall has put a ton of work into this thing. No one is questioning Marshall's work ethic, that is certainly not in question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

Well, Eric, I know you asked Neverman, but the question is too much to resist. Likely the shortest answer that the game came out with some critical bugs that took time to uncover and fix, and I think many of us who were not on the forum before 2007 were not prepared for the initial set backs this caused. I would say that the internal game testing (both the actual game and the concept) process failed in this case to uncover some serious problems, and may be flawed.

For a longer list of major problems, I would include the following (not in order of importance):

1. Bugs (this was almost licked in 1.04, but came back with a vengeance in 1.05)
2. Security during battles (the Marshall has proposed an acceptable fix due for 1.06)
3. Naval Evasion (also in proposed for 1.06?)
4. Very slow game PBEM speed (need to automate/compress some player interactions beyond skipping, not sure how this was missed in game design).

So, 1.06 might fix problems 1 to 3. Then a couple of improvements to speed up non-AI play (problem 4), and we'd have the game that most of us wanted about a year ago (1.07?).

Some outstanding second rank issues would be to get rid of automated single corps battles, too many insignificant minors willing to fight the Grand Armee to the death (slows game and is unrealistic), a better naval system (no light fleets and maybe naval chits?), and a better graphic interface.

The Marshall has come along way, and my sense is we are maybe over half way there.

quote:

For starters, the entire EiH disaster. But that's really just the beginning.

And rather than doing a classic EiA as a base and building on top of that EiH is used for the base and now classic EiA is going to be a "scenario" of that? Just seems inside out to me.

quote:

the real problem comes in that Marshall/Matrix are still willing to question solutions/features which even the majority of the community thinks needs to be changed, this is a problem. This was their ORIGINAL problem too, which is why we have some craptastic EiH variation! Even more damaging then just the product is that Marshall/Matrix seems to be unable to learn from their mistakes, which is not good.

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



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

Freedom is not Free.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Actually, I did. You said:

quote:

For starters, the entire EiH disaster. But that's really just the beginning.

And rather than doing a classic EiA as a base and building on top of that EiH is used for the base and now classic EiA is going to be a "scenario" of that? Just seems inside out to me.

That's not an answer to my question. This is just criticism of the original release and design. We _have_ listened on these issues and we have already announced plans to create a more "pure" EIA scenario. Without getting a time machine and going back to the original design and changing it, that is the only possible way to resolve this request at this point. As I said, everything cannot be done all at once, but we've acknowledged this and stated our desire and plan to address it. How this shows that we are ignoring feedback is beyond me.

I asked for a very specific example of your original claim. You said:

quote:

the real problem comes in that Marshall/Matrix are still willing to question solutions/features which even the majority of the community thinks needs to be changed, this is a problem. This was their ORIGINAL problem too, which is why we have some craptastic EiH variation! Even more damaging then just the product is that Marshall/Matrix seems to be unable to learn from their mistakes, which is not good.

Again, very specifically, how is this true? I don't mind you saying "I still don't like the game because it doesn't have feature X or rule Y.". But I take umbrage to claims that we are not listening to the community or learning from past mistakes.

Regards,

- Erik

quote:

Neverman - I don`t believe you. ...you choose to make the most lazy, ill-considered and unhelpful response - unbelievable!

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

For your fourth point, I'm not sure how to do this as the game could tend to be slow. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on what can change...while not changing the game (ie. combining phases and such.) The EIA purists should be jumping all over this, whacking it with the "no-no" stick.

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear
Two suggestions (that have also appeared elsewhere).
1. The game should allow some phases that re revealed simultaneously in the board game (dip and eco) to be played simultaneously in the matrix version (i.e. no need to wait for the player in front of you to do his turn before you for these phases) maybe combine a sim dip and sim eco phases.
2. Allowing players to toggle between full EIA when at war, and some sort of peace mode, as most of the time, most players are at peace, and strict adherance to the game sequence is an unnecessary hindrance. Skipping does this somewhat, but teh game should take this further with allowing players to pre-program their reinforcements during their dip phase, and select an autoforage option for the next land phase.

Originally a complete 10 year game required players to interact with the game over 3,400 times (this is the combined total for all players). Skipping reduces this to about by about a third. If the above are implemented, we get down by another third, and have a game than can be played in a year or two, instead of three to five years, which is a playable amount.

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



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

Freedom is not Free.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I'm pretty sure Marshall/Matrix said that in their opinion, combined phases wouldn't save any time... not nearly as much as "skipping" phases (which has saved close to ZERO time in the game I'm playing). Sorry, if I'm not being specific.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I'm pretty sure Marshall/Matrix said that in their opinion, combined phases wouldn't save any time... not nearly as much as "skipping" phases (which has saved close to ZERO time in the game I'm playing). Sorry, if I'm not being specific.

Skipping won't save time IF you don't use it Neverman LOL!

From what I am seeing, skipping does help. You should never be waiting on the Prussian naval anymore :-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I'm glad YOU are seeing an improvement in YOUR game times. Maybe this will help make the game more enjoyable to YOU.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

Well Neverman, the Marshall has you there.

Skipping works well when a player is at peace and nothing is going on, for instance Austria and Prussia are under enforced peace with France, and all the minors are gobbled up, why do they need a diplomacy or non-reinforcement phase? On the other hand, a player can't afford to skip when at war, so depending on where your game is, you should see more or less skipping. Perhaps there is a lot going on in your game (or everyone else is too intimidated to try).

There games out there, where if a player does not do his turn in 24 hours, the host skips his turn. These games scarifice tolerance for speed. Why not apply this same militant attitude to skipping. If you are at peace, you must continuously skip reinforcement, or other wise the host will take off a political point loss for wasting time (like an icing penalty in hockey). If you apply this rule, you might see some big gains in speed, and it is not as harsh as the 24 hour rule can be, so playing this way doesn't make the host a super bad guy.

However, don't get me wrong, I do not believe skipping is the final solution to game speed. It is just one, pretty limited tool.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I'm glad YOU are seeing an improvement in YOUR game times. Maybe this will help make the game more enjoyable to YOU.

Now, now, Neverman! I was just sharing my observations. Am I'm allowed to share even if they are not the same as yours? LOL!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I'm glad YOU are seeing an improvement in YOUR game times. Maybe this will help make the game more enjoyable to YOU.

Now, now, Neverman! I was just sharing my observations. Am I'm allowed to share even if they are not the same as yours? LOL!

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I'm glad YOU are seeing an improvement in YOUR game times. Maybe this will help make the game more enjoyable to YOU.

Now, now, Neverman! I was just sharing my observations. Am I'm allowed to share even if they are not the same as yours? LOL!

LOL, of course!!

However, if you are making your opinion (or really a statement as you say it) based solely on your observation then you are doing exactly what Erik claimed you weren't doing, which I said you were.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

Hi Neverman
I have to ask what is the value of being able to adjust on the fly during the reinforcement phase, when you are at peace and have no reinforcements coming? Remember the game clears your skip setting if there is a DOW or you take control of a minor, and you can always react in the land phase. Isn't doing your reinforcement under these circumstances essentially wasting time?
I do get why diplomacy and naval skipping (except AU and PR) are not popular. Skipping these phases needs some sort of agreement amongst players to "do nothing" in order to rapidly advance a game through something like a winter of enforced peace/blockades.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

Hi Neverman
I have to ask what is the value of being able to adjust on the fly during the reinforcement phase, when you are at peace and have no reinforcements coming? Remember the game clears your skip setting if there is a DOW or you take control of a minor, and you can always react in the land phase. Isn't doing your reinforcement under these circumstances essentially wasting time?
I do get why diplomacy and naval skipping (except AU and PR) are not popular. Skipping these phases needs some sort of agreement amongst players to "do nothing" in order to rapidly advance a game through something like a winter of enforced peace/blockades.

Well, you might want to react to someone else's move. If you skip your next Reinf Phase and then your neighboring country starts to move aggresively toward you, it MIGHT be beneficial to have that Reinf Phase not be skipped. I can definitely see ways to take advantage of your "soon to be but he doesn't really know" enemy because he is deciding to skip some Reinf Phases, but by all means, if it works for you.

EDIT: I would REALLY like to see Dip and Eco phases done simul, as the Dip phase is pretty much SIMUL now except that the actual turns are done in order. The Eco doesn't effect much since builds are private. Reinf phase is another debate altogether.