Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: FM WarB

How does the Russian player know that if he has managed not to get wiped out in '41 or nlt mid '42 the German player won't just quit because he did not achieve the overwhelming victory he felt himself entitled to?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FM WarB

How does the Russian player know that if he has managed not to get wiped out in '41 or nlt mid '42 the German player won't just quit because he did not achieve the overwhelming victory he felt himself entitled to?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jklilly

It's about communication. When the game stops being fun for you, you inquire if it is still fun for your opponent. If he is haing a good time, I play on without complaint.

quote:

I've never had problems with this. One think I do miss with the server is the email messages with the turns. You learn a little about your opponents, and they become friends. The server is convenient however.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I only quit when I am winning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

My vote goes for removing the auto-win conditions for the German side. That way Axis players would know what they have before them when they start another 1941 capaign, and would remove "one attempt at auto-win or I quit when that fails" mentality. They would have to brace themselves for longer game, where victory would be determined by the location of frontlines in 1945 comparing to historical ones. Battleground games didn't have that "sudden death" mode and you always knew that playing a 200+ turn campaign on PBEM is a major commitment. Of course surrenders happen, as one side judges it's situation hopeless, but that is unavoidable. You would have to force players to deposit real cash somewhere, that would be lost if they quit :) However, when you have a chance to win the game in 25 turns, a perspective of another 250 looks bleak. But when you start the game and know that the conclusion will come only after 275 turns, it's different in that you are prepared to live with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FM WarB

How does the Russian player know that if he has managed not to get wiped out in '41 or nlt mid '42 the German player won't just quit because he did not achieve the overwhelming victory he felt himself entitled to?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kswanson1

quote:

ORIGINAL: FM WarB

How does the Russian player know that if he has managed not to get wiped out in '41 or nlt mid '42 the German player won't just quit because he did not achieve the overwhelming victory he felt himself entitled to?

wanker Axis players. But than Axis players don’t have a corner on the market of suddenly disappearing without a trace the moment things get a bit too tough. I had a Russian player disappear after I capped Leningrad and Moscow.

Take the bad with the good. Russian players need to suffer the pain of the summer of 1941 to achieve the unrestricted nirvana of the "blizzard". Axis players get to do their romp in the summers of 41 and 42. Than they need to let the other guy have his fun come winter time.

Having said that, some of the errors injected mid-game as a result of un-play tested patches or aspects of patches that were obviously not play tested will drive the most patient gamers to the brink of tossing the WiTE disk into the fire place.

Me --I'm one of the consumers of this product -- has to suffer through errors in code and design which can't possibly have been play tested adequately given the rate at which patches are being released. Nothing against the actual play testers. They can only do what they can do. If they aren’t given adequate time to play test rules changes and code changes, than they cant possibly be expected to detect obvious problems before patches are released to the public. The consumers are than expected to function as guinea pigs in this minefield.

If I sound bitter -- ;o) -- well that would be because I am bitter. I have no desire to quite a game mid stream as either the Russkies or the Axis. But when the outcome of the game is being affected each time a new patch gets injected into the game it becomes pretty tempting to shelve this experiment. It’s like playing a baseball game when in the 7th inning the umpire arbitrarily tells one team that they can no longer have a center fielder.

Test it first -- AND give play testers time to test all aspects of patches. Enough with the slam bam thank you ma’am -- "here's a new patch" --we'll let the folks that bought the game do the testing for us and figure out where our errors are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kswanson1
Test it first -- AND give play testers time to test all aspects of patches. Enough with the slam bam thank you ma’am -- "here's a new patch" --we'll let the folks that bought the game do the testing for us and figure out where our errors are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

That's it, I QUIT.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: kswanson1
Test it first -- AND give play testers time to test all aspects of patches. Enough with the slam bam thank you ma’am -- "here's a new patch" --we'll let the folks that bought the game do the testing for us and figure out where our errors are.

Gee...it's cute when they're so naive.

Given the resources that small niche game developers have, and the unpaid nature of the testing team, this would probably push the patch cycle to once every 20 years, or so. I can't speak for you, but I would bet that the majority of the "consumers" of this product would greatly prefer to be the guinea pigs in the necessary iterative process of ongoing public testing of the product, than to wait that long for a patch to come out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cookie monster
Perhaps your game CD Key is now etched into your mind much like your bank cards input number.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

I think this is the first time in my life that over the past couple of days I have heard complaints about too many patches being released. Pavel is releasing beta patches to the testers at about the rate of four per week. I have never seen that kind of support anywhere else in my wide range of gaming in 25+ years.

Trey