Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Postpone Netplay Development

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Postpone Netplay Development Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Postpone Netplay Development - 3/18/2017 7:36:43 PM   
AllenK


Posts: 7259
Joined: 2/17/2014
From: England
Status: offline 		This is a call to postpone further work on Netplay until a stable version of the basic solitaire game is working properly and bug free. I can't see how netplay will ever work if the basic game doesn't. Isn't spending precious development time on fixing netplay bugs like putting the cart before the horse?

Out of our four games, only Game 2 appears to be free of problems for the moment but the CW player hasn't tried convoy routing.

Game 1 - Can't manually route convoys, factory not repaired when it should and unit not showing on the Use Oil list when it should have and now not reorganised. This in addition to an earlier problem when US lend-lease BP's would not travel to the UK on US convoy chains, even though the rules say they should. This meant a complex work around involving resurrecting CW killed pilots by re-inputting combat rolls in order to compensate the BP losses.

Games 3 and 4 can't get beyond CW setup due to MadEx's.

This is not a good advertisement for the state of the game.
Post #: 1
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/18/2017 9:17:48 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline 		+1

I would really appreciate a word from Matrix at this point. I know that Netplay was considered to be really important to Matrix when Erik appeared on here 2-years ago and there was much discussion on how this game progresses.

Well its been almost 2-years and whilst there has been some progress on netplay, this has not been anywhere near what was hoped/expected(?)

But far worse is that this intense effort up that particular cul-de-sac, has meant two things:

a) The more netplay is worked on, the more regression bugs seem to rear their ugly head and stop players who are playing solitaire or by PBEM from completing games.

b) There has been no progress on key aspects - and I mean fundamental areas - of the game that simply don't work or are still missing.

There are players still making AAR to advertise this fine game - and the 4-player AAR has a more than respectable 80,000 hits - but when it all comes crashing down like it has, what does that do for those potential purchasers out there?

How much time and effort is to be expended on something that stubbornly refuses to work - while areas that could help sales - e.g. single map campaigns being available, a useable convoy system, remaining supply issues, Japan/Soviet Peace etc are simply ignored?

Please, please please Matrix/Erik can you comment on your view of this situation?

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to AllenK)
Post #: 2
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/18/2017 10:08:46 PM   
davidachamberlain

 

Posts: 326
Joined: 1/21/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Please, please please Matrix/Erik can you comment on your view of this situation?

Why don't you send him a PM? Though I expect that he reviews some of these messages, he is not going to read everything and guess there is a call for specific attention.

Dave

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 3
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/18/2017 10:18:48 PM   
davidachamberlain

 

Posts: 326
Joined: 1/21/2014
Status: offline 		Allen, though I can understand your frustration, I can not agree with your proposal.

Back when they started looking in the 2.3 and 2.4 series of fixes, there was an understanding (or maybe belief) that the base functionality was mostly there. Then, the focus shifted to Netplay and some of those fixes may have broken functioning non-Netplay features.

If you really are not interested in Netplay, you should probably go back to the 2.2 version and there is a good chance that the features you want to use are there and let Steve work through the current series of defects until those are resolved (both for Netplay and other modes).

As you should expect, there is additional complexity in dealing with making sure that both players are using the correct data and that does make some things more challenging. I have seen how Netplay impacts the Production because it allows parallel access to certain phases rather than serializing them as occurs in Solitaire and Head to Head.

I won't debate on the merits of using Netplay or not. Personally, I have several friends chomping at the bit for this to be expanded beyond 2 to 4 or more. For now, we are using screen sharing with 2 player netplay, but could share across more screens with Solitaire.

As mentioned earlier, that is where the game was back in version 2.2. We need to move past that. Certainly the risk is there that unbroken features may become broken and need to be fixed again. And, there will still be some bugs that have existed all along that will be discovered.

I hope that makes some more sense to you.

I will trust Steve has his priorities in line and will also trust that continued diligence into minimizing re-introducing defects that have previously been fixed occurs.

Dave

(in reply to AllenK)
Post #: 4
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/18/2017 10:35:35 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: davidachamberlain

Allen, though I can understand your frustration, I can not agree with your proposal.

Back when they started looking in the 2.3 and 2.4 series of fixes, there was an understanding (or maybe belief) that the base functionality was mostly there. Then, the focus shifted to Netplay and some of those fixes may have broken functioning non-Netplay features.

If you really are not interested in Netplay, you should probably go back to the 2.2 version and there is a good chance that the features you want to use are there and let Steve work through the current series of defects until those are resolved (both for Netplay and other modes).

As you should expect, there is additional complexity in dealing with making sure that both players are using the correct data and that does make some things more challenging. I have seen how Netplay impacts the Production because it allows parallel access to certain phases rather than serializing them as occurs in Solitaire and Head to Head.

I won't debate on the merits of using Netplay or not. Personally, I have several friends chomping at the bit for this to be expanded beyond 2 to 4 or more. For now, we are using screen sharing with 2 player netplay, but could share across more screens with Solitaire.

As mentioned earlier, that is where the game was back in version 2.2. We need to move past that. Certainly the risk is there that unbroken features may become broken and need to be fixed again. And, there will still be some bugs that have existed all along that will be discovered.

I hope that makes some more sense to you.

I will trust Steve has his priorities in line and will also trust that continued diligence into minimizing re-introducing defects that have previously been fixed occurs.

Dave


Regression bugs are to be expected at this stage. So if you don't want to test netplay, stay away from the latest versions and go back to an earlier one...


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to davidachamberlain)
Post #: 5
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/18/2017 10:44:11 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: davidachamberlain

If you really are not interested in Netplay, you should probably go back to the 2.2 version and there is a good chance that the features you want to use are there

warspite1

If that were true there would have been no wish to upgrade. 'the features you want to use' - but that are not to be found in 2.2.0 includes a working CP/Production system and a supply system that works in Egypt to name just two (there are of course many more).

You disagree with the proposal in favour of further netplay work. That is your opinion and that is fine - but please do not suggest 'there is a good chance that the features you want to use are there [in 2.2.0]' when it is clear from every AAR and the bug reports that that is not the case. Mostly we have got around problems with work arounds and sub-optimal bodge jobs, until now when - having upgraded - we appear to have a couple of game killers having got all the way to 1942.

I 100% agree Matrix need to 'move past that [2.2.0]' but it would be nice if later versions did something about the fact that - and I repeat - fundamental areas do not work and they get some attention too.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 3/18/2017 10:48:20 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to davidachamberlain)
Post #: 6
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/18/2017 10:57:00 PM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 4774
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: offline
it is simple, looking at the timeline the game should have a working solitaire and netplay, by now.

going back now and fixing solitaire, would mean that the company have to admit, that they released a unfinished game. (and it is still unfinished)

really nice that people have payed big buck, years ago, at it is still unfinished

_____________________________

the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

if you have questions or issues with the game, just contact me on Michaelbaldur1@gmail.com

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 7
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/18/2017 11:07:02 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur


it is simple, looking at the timeline the game should have a working solitaire and netplay, by now.

going back now and fixing solitaire, would mean that the company have to admit, that they released a unfinished game. (and it is still unfinished)

really nice that people have payed big buck, years ago, at it is still unfinished
warspite1

Well what is done is done and there is no point dragging the mistakes of the past up. But what can be done is deal with the now. Matrix view is that netplay has to be adopted. Forgetting regression bugs for the moment, this has meant that many big problems that were there on day one still remain.

Someone said above that if one doesn't want to test net play then they should go to an earlier version of the game. Well that is all I ask for - provided that that earlier version gets appropriate treatment to make it workable. Netplay has taken 2-3 years and could well take another 2-3 years. Why not set aside the next 6 months (or whatever) in order to get the non-netplay version in good working order?

At least Matrix can then say they have a game that is workable for solitaire and PBEM. Instead, this insistence on netplay to the exclusion of all else (optionals, production, supply, one map games etc) means that players suffer the worst of both worlds. Solitaire/PBEM (which could be got working) doesn't and Netplay (which is more of a challenge - definitely doesn't).


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 8
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 1:38:22 AM   
4personalbusiness

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 11/23/2016
Status: offline 		v2.3.4 is working well for PBEM. Lars and I are now in MJ44 and haven't encountered anything fatal. Yes, some work-arounds have been required, but the game is playable. Sounds like we better just hold here until the big wheels turn past this whole netplay thingy... Pete

PS, from my perspective as a PBEM-only player, without MWIF (such that it is), I would still be pushing around counters and maniacally crunching numbers on Cyberboard like I did back in the olden days of 2002 when I came back to the game. OK, I probably would switch to VASSAL, but still...

MWIF is fun.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 9
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 2:43:31 AM   
davidachamberlain

 

Posts: 326
Joined: 1/21/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
If that were true there would have been no wish to upgrade. 'the features you want to use' - but that are not to be found in 2.2.0 includes a working CP/Production system and a supply system that works in Egypt to name just two (there are of course many more).

You disagree with the proposal in favour of further netplay work. That is your opinion and that is fine - but please do not suggest 'there is a good chance that the features you want to use are there [in 2.2.0]' when it is clear from every AAR and the bug reports that that is not the case. Mostly we have got around problems with work arounds and sub-optimal bodge jobs, until now when - having upgraded - we appear to have a couple of game killers having got all the way to 1942.

I 100% agree Matrix need to 'move past that [2.2.0]' but it would be nice if later versions did something about the fact that - and I repeat - fundamental areas do not work and they get some attention too.

I think my points may have been misunderstood, but maybe my assumptions were wrong. You might know different.

1) 2.2 was supposed to be close enough to start cleaning up Netplay and in the process to uncover and fix more problems.
2) The important point IS that quite a few of these problems are regression related. Most of the problems I encountered in Solitaire used to work.
3) I agree that the product was released early without all of the NECESSARY issues fixed. Maybe price was higher than the quality deserved.
4) All of the versions since 2.1.4 are still BETA. The tolerance for issues with a BETA is supposed to be much higher. That is why my suggestion is that if a person is not willing to tolerate working with a version that is not currently stable, the version that is available which is production is 2.1.4. Every version since then has been the open BETA.

Dave

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 10
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 3:07:19 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: davidachamberlain
4) All of the versions since 2.1.4 are still BETA. The tolerance for issues with a BETA is supposed to be much higher. That is why my suggestion is that if a person is not willing to tolerate working with a version that is not currently stable, the version that is available which is production is 2.1.4. Every version since then has been the open BETA.

Dave
Dave, I tend to agree with you except that version 2.1.4 was released in January 2016, which is well over a year ago. I don't have a list but my general sense is that there have been a lot of non-netplay bugs fixed in the numerous public betas since.

At one point the manual routing of convoys function was working but was "broken" in some version before 2.1.4 was released. While tedious one could get their convoys routed more optimal when this feature was woking. One of my major frustration with convoy routing is that the program often uses an extra sea area when unnecessary. Specifically, when I route an oil point form the USA to Great Britain and the program forces me to start the route in Caribbean, instead of the East Coast, using 4 CPs instead of 3, with no way of overriding it. It's especially frustrating when this breaks a route that needs that CP in the Caribbean. Another similar and as frequent occurrence is the routing of a RP from India to the Great Britain, where the program insists on starting the sea route in the Bay of Bengal, instead of the Arabian Sea, again unnecessarily using a CP that breaks another route that needs that CP.

I know some here disagree with me, but that's why I have no problem editing the game file to "make right" these sorts of things when I can. It's either taking 5 minutes to do this or spending 2 to 3 hours trying to get it right and often times not succeeding.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to davidachamberlain)
Post #: 11
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 3:26:50 AM   
davidachamberlain

 

Posts: 326
Joined: 1/21/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958
Dave, I tend to agree with you except that version 2.1.4 was released in January 2016, which is well over a year ago. I don't have a list but my general sense is that there have been a lot of non-netplay bugs fixed in the numerous public betas since.

At one point the manual routing of convoys function was working but was "broken" in some version before 2.1.4 was released. While tedious one could get their convoys routed more optimal when this feature was woking. One of my major frustration with convoy routing is that the program often uses an extra sea area when unnecessary. Specifically, when I route an oil point form the USA to Great Britain and the program forces me to start the route in Caribbean, instead of the East Coast, using 4 CPs instead of 3, with no way of overriding it. It's especially frustrating when this breaks a route that needs that CP in the Caribbean. Another similar and as frequent occurrence is the routing of a RP from India to the Great Britain, where the program insists on starting the sea route in the Bay of Bengal, instead of the Arabian Sea, again unnecessarily using a CP that breaks another route that needs that CP.

I know some here disagree with me, but that's why I have no problem editing the game file to "make right" these sorts of things when I can. It's either taking 5 minutes to do this or spending 2 to 3 hours trying to get it right and often times not succeeding.

I agree that other non-Netplay bugs have been fixed. However, many of those were found during this more intense testing cycle to get Netplay cleaned up. Before the Netplay related testing and fixing even started, most of the known non-Netplay bugs were fixed. It may be that many had not yet been discovered. It is my belief that because of the Netplay work, with an assumed to be stable version, that most of this additional testing has occurred and many of these bugs have been fixed (including non-Netplay). Most bugs found in Netplay were not exclusive to Netplay. They affected all modes, including Solitaire.

Regardless, the current testing efforts (by all of us - many more testing now than a year ago) are finding these and Steve is working harder than ever to resolve them as quickly as possible with that elusive goal to get a stable version 3.0 out there to build upon for the other scenarios and optional rules BEFORE considering further Netplay (for more than 2 players) or AI.

We just need to be patient and give him some time and our testing efforts to get that accomplished. We will be happier for it.

I think it needs to be clear that without the Netplay testing going on, the complexity of the scenarios as a result of multiple players would be far less than necessary to identify many of these problems.

Dave

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 12
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 3:42:59 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: davidachamberlain

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958
Dave, I tend to agree with you except that version 2.1.4 was released in January 2016, which is well over a year ago. I don't have a list but my general sense is that there have been a lot of non-netplay bugs fixed in the numerous public betas since.

At one point the manual routing of convoys function was working but was "broken" in some version before 2.1.4 was released. While tedious one could get their convoys routed more optimal when this feature was woking. One of my major frustration with convoy routing is that the program often uses an extra sea area when unnecessary. Specifically, when I route an oil point form the USA to Great Britain and the program forces me to start the route in Caribbean, instead of the East Coast, using 4 CPs instead of 3, with no way of overriding it. It's especially frustrating when this breaks a route that needs that CP in the Caribbean. Another similar and as frequent occurrence is the routing of a RP from India to the Great Britain, where the program insists on starting the sea route in the Bay of Bengal, instead of the Arabian Sea, again unnecessarily using a CP that breaks another route that needs that CP.

I know some here disagree with me, but that's why I have no problem editing the game file to "make right" these sorts of things when I can. It's either taking 5 minutes to do this or spending 2 to 3 hours trying to get it right and often times not succeeding.

I agree that other non-Netplay bugs have been fixed. However, many of those were found during this more intense testing cycle to get Netplay cleaned up. Before the Netplay related testing and fixing even started, most of the known non-Netplay bugs were fixed. It may be that many had not yet been discovered. It is my belief that because of the Netplay work, with an assumed to be stable version, that most of this additional testing has occurred and many of these bugs have been fixed (including non-Netplay). Most bugs found in Netplay were not exclusive to Netplay. They affected all modes, including Solitaire.

Regardless, the current testing efforts (by all of us - many more testing now than a year ago) are finding these and Steve is working harder than ever to resolve them as quickly as possible with that elusive goal to get a stable version 3.0 out there to build upon for the other scenarios and optional rules BEFORE considering further Netplay (for more than 2 players) or AI.

We just need to be patient and give him some time and our testing efforts to get that accomplished. We will be happier for it.

I think it needs to be clear that without the Netplay testing going on, the complexity of the scenarios as a result of multiple players would be far less than necessary to identify many of these problems.

Dave

Dave, again I tend to agree with what you write. It's just that my "morale" is a bit shaken when I see the "four horsemen of the AARs" as frustrated as they are.


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to davidachamberlain)
Post #: 13
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 4:49:29 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AllenK
Game 1 <snip> This in addition to an earlier problem when US lend-lease BP's would not travel to the UK on US convoy chains, even though the rules say they should.

I don't mean to sidetrack the discussion, but could you provide more detail on this problem? Was the USA at war or had it passed Unrestricted Naval Warfare at this point in the game? If not, which rule do you refer to?

Thanks.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to AllenK)
Post #: 14
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 10:07:02 AM   
AllenK


Posts: 7259
Joined: 2/17/2014
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: AllenK
Game 1 <snip> This in addition to an earlier problem when US lend-lease BP's would not travel to the UK on US convoy chains, even though the rules say they should.

I don't mean to sidetrack the discussion, but could you provide more detail on this problem? Was the USA at war or had it passed Unrestricted Naval Warfare at this point in the game? If not, which rule do you refer to?
Ty
Thanks.


It's detailed in the AAR. Essentially, having implemented the various US Entry Options to allow the US to send BP's or resources to CW using it's CP's, the game wouldn't do it. US had a chain of 2 unused CP's in each of the 3 sea zones to the UK but the 2 BP's it was trying to send didn't go. Discussion at the time confirmed it was a fault.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 15
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 10:34:58 AM   
AllenK


Posts: 7259
Joined: 2/17/2014
From: England
Status: offline 		Please don't think I am not interested in Netplay. Multiplayer would be fantastic.

I'm not calling for development to be halted while other parts of the game are made available for Solitaire. I can see the arguments for that point of view though. What I am asking is for priority to be given to fixing the various regression and previously unidentified bugs thrown up through the testing. If this can then be released as a new version I am then more than happy for netplay development to resume.


(in reply to AllenK)
Post #: 16
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 10:47:37 AM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline 		Well, let it be known that I'm frustrated too. Progress is slow and it looks like it's going three steps forward, two steps backward.

But things are pretty clear to me. If you are playing this game and use a beta test version, one agrees that regression bugs may appear. If that happens, you get stuck, the same way I'm stuck (don't know it things are fixed in the latest version yet) with two solitair and three netplay games going on at my end, because of bugs appearing in production, convoy routing and air-to-air combat.

That's the way this is going and that's what you can expect to happen. It's unfortunate that you can't continue with your AAR games for now, but the only thing what one can do at that moment is to put all your bugs in the Tech forums and wait for things to get fixed.

And yes, it's the programmer who decides on what comes first.

Patience is what you need now. Give Steve the time to fix things and don't ask that you get priority for bug fixing. I don't do so either (frustrating as some bugs are, especially where production planning and convoy routing are concerned).

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to AllenK)
Post #: 17
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 11:35:25 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline 		Firstly you don’t need to let it be known you are frustrated too. You have been here as long as just about anyone and put in tons of effort to try and get this moving forward. That is recognised by me and I have no doubt by many (all) others here too.

We are largely on the same page over many issues but I have to say I disagree with you on the last post. Not about needing patience – we’ve all proved we are patient or we wouldn’t still be here so I agree about that. Again I fully agree that if one chooses to be a public beta tester, then by the nature of the deal, bugs will be found. But there are two areas where I think the point is being missed:

1. Who decides? Well during the 2015 discussions I always got the impression that it was Matrix driving the need for netplay as a priority. If that is not the case well I’ve misinterpreted what was said. If I haven’t well I would like some communication from Erik over how he sees things. Sometimes on a journey paths taken, and even ultimate goals, need re-evaluation. Netplay has been concentrated on (to the exclusion of things that really needed to be put right) for so long – what is the level of confidence that this will ever be achieved? Simply put, is keeping the game unplayable for all, the right choice just in order that the total focus can be maintained on something that is proving consistently illusive?

2. But the main point is this. More than one person has said that the answer here (if not wanting to run the risk of regression bugs) is sticking with an official release. Okay. Here is a problem. The last non-beta release was well over a year ago. That official release had major issues which we all know about so will not repeat here (I cannot recall if there were any game ending ones but I think we can take as read that that was most likely).

Right so what does the person playing with that version do? According to the suggestions above, he waits for another official release. Okay so the game – for which a lot of money has been paid – is unplayable for over a year now. He sees some things – maybe including what ended his game before – being fixed in AAR’s and updates, but there is no official version so he continues to sit and wait….. From a customer service point of view that is completely wrong surely?


But anyway, I’ve said my piece and I hope that – as in 2015 – there will be a considered response from Matrix to this, whatever that may be – even if it’s just to let us know that they are still watching things and are proactively keeping the plan under review.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 3/19/2017 12:03:25 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 18
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 1:30:30 PM   
AllenK


Posts: 7259
Joined: 2/17/2014
From: England
Status: offline 		"Give Steve the time to fix things and don't ask that you get priority for bug fixing."

Perhaps you didn't mean this the way it comes over. I am not asking that I get priority for bug fixing. I'm asking for development priority to be changed so all those who have bought and persevered with this game at least get a solitaire version that is playable without bugs, bodges, workarounds and postings to Tech Support. Warspite1 makes the point very well.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 19
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 6:00:45 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline 		I had two version 2.2.X games going that went into pause mode due to RL issues. Neither had game stopping bugs. One of them is in ND43. Yes some workarounds were required.

And version 2.2.X is public beta, whereas the "official" public release is 2.1.4. But the reason the focus on NetPlay increased was because 2.2.X was pretty stable.

Unfortunately a long running bugaboo has been Production.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to AllenK)
Post #: 20
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 6:07:48 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline 		To me, it looks to be perfectly logical that regression bugs will appear when Steve is working to get netplay bugs out of the way. The point is: if regression bugs are found, what is than the best way to proceed? That's not for us to decide.

So asking for a postponement of netplay development will not fix your problems at all. If Steve fixes a regression bug, will that bug not cause a regression bug in netplay again? And if Steve than later fixes the netplay bug, will he know what happened in solitair a couple of months ago and can he remember this?

In the situation where we are in now, we need to accept that if one uses a beta test version after the netplay challenge started, regression bugs might appear in solitair. So if you don't test netplay and don't want to accept this, why use the latest beta version?

I've accepted the chance of regression bugs appearing, because I think netplay bug fixing should now have the same priority as solitair bug fixing. Otherwise we will never see a netplay version of this game appearing, which is needed.

< Message edited by Centuur -- 3/19/2017 6:09:45 PM >

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to AllenK)
Post #: 21
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 6:15:32 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline 		+1

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 22
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 7:14:58 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
I've accepted the chance of regression bugs appearing, because I think netplay bug fixing should now have the same priority as solitair bug fixing. Otherwise we will never see a netplay version of this game appearing, which is needed.
I agree, but daggummit the capability to manual set convoy routes that aren't immediately overridden by what the game wants to do needs to be fixed! This capability once existed but was broken a while back. I'll argue that this capability is one of the essentials for any play whether solitaire, hotseat or the vaulted netplay. Am I really asking for too much here?


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 23
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 7:22:19 PM   
AllenK


Posts: 7259
Joined: 2/17/2014
From: England
Status: offline 		I agree Netplay is needed but it will never work properly if the basic game mechanics remain bugged.

It makes no logical sense to carry on trying to build the roof when the walls aren't structurally sound. It makes even less sense if the effort to put the roof on keeps breaking chunks off the walls.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 24
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 8:36:15 PM   
davidachamberlain

 

Posts: 326
Joined: 1/21/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AllenK

I agree Netplay is needed but it will never work properly if the basic game mechanics remain bugged.

It makes no logical sense to carry on trying to build the roof when the walls aren't structurally sound. It makes even less sense if the effort to put the roof on keeps breaking chunks off the walls.

Allen, I think because you were not looking at this product several months ago you missed the fact that before any work started on substantial testing of Netplay, the known unresolved defects were few. The initial work was all about making sure that Solitair and Head-to-Head errors was resolved.

Your analogy is totally out of place. We are a year past that point now where the Netplay testing is going stronger after a couple years of focusing exclusively on Solitaire and Head-to-Head.

If anything, the additional testing for Netplay has uncovered the new problems (that affect both Netplay and Solitaire) and some fixes to those problems re-introduced previously fixed solitaire problems.

If only addressing the solitaire problems was still the priority (as it was early last year), the job would be considered mostly done with just minor tweaks.

Dave

(in reply to AllenK)
Post #: 25
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 8:51:23 PM   
AllenK


Posts: 7259
Joined: 2/17/2014
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
I've accepted the chance of regression bugs appearing, because I think netplay bug fixing should now have the same priority as solitair bug fixing. Otherwise we will never see a netplay version of this game appearing, which is needed.
I agree, but daggummit the capability to manual set convoy routes that aren't immediately overridden by what the game wants to do needs to be fixed! This capability once existed but was broken a while back. I'll argue that this capability is one of the essentials for any play whether solitaire, hotseat or the vaulted netplay. Am I really asking for too much here?



Exactly. Convoys were not working properly in the official 2.1.4 or 2.2.0 either and the issues were never fixed before launching into getting Netplay working.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 26
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 10:06:50 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline 		And this stuff is exactly why I have pretty much stayed away from playing this game (WiF is one of the best games ever and easily one of my favorites). The lack of support for MWiF has also caused me to have pause about purchasing other Matrix products.

I played the game a lot when it first came out, but frustrations of having to use work arounds because of supply issues and also the convoy system pretty much ruined any enthusiasm I had for the game. I was ready to jump back in when I heard the half map game was getting close, but that has been a long time ago.

The only reason I come here any more is to watch the AAR's the "4 amigos" have going. At the same time I get a chance to check on status of the game, but it seems every monthly report is the same and we get a report of "bugs were fixed" with no other progress on any other area of the game being made.

I would like to see some more engagement from Matrix to try to satisfy the player base and people that bought this game. 4+ years guys and we still don't have a working game with no foreseeable future of anything getting fixed.

That there is still traffic in here despite all the issues should tell Matrix something. Question would be if anyone who is listening actually cares.

(in reply to AllenK)
Post #: 27
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 10:30:13 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon
4+ years guys and we still don't have a working game with no foreseeable future of anything getting fixed.
I disagree with you on this. Hopefully I don't jinx myself but I'm currently in a PBEM game and AAR with Pat and we-ve just finished turn 19 and are about to start turn 20 (Nov/Dec 1942). This game been running since the first of July of last year. Also, I've completed at least 4 solo games on which I've posted an AAR. So please don't take my current frustration as I believe the game is not working. For me it is working and is, by far, the best investment in any board or computer game I've ever made.


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 28
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/19/2017 10:49:05 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		OK, here's a perfect example of MWiF messing up my convoy routes. I had routed through the Pacific an RP from Malaya to Toronto. Note that that the entire CP chain I had set up for this RP, which was working as intended, is now idle. The intended chain was 6 CPs long. Instead, MWiF decides to route this RP in the other direction through the Med and requires 8 CPs. To add insult to injury this unintended route takes up CPs that cause two factories to go idle. The first is a CW factory at Manchester which was being supplied by an oil point routed from Venezuela. The second is a French factory at Paris being supplied by an RP from Hanoi, French Indo-China. I plan on not even messing with these routes to try to fix them, which in the end after an hour or two would be probably be futile anyway. I plan to edit the game file and give both the CW and French an extra oil point that they can supply to these two idle factories.

P.S. I just realized that this forced route causes 3 not 2 factories to go idle. The third is in Lille France which was supposed to be supplied by an RP from Kayes, Senegal.

So this example of convoy routing gone wrong and without the ability to override and make that override stick, results in three allied factories unnecessarily going idle. In the old days before I figure out how to edit the game file to make this right I'd spend hours pulling my hair out and still not get it the way I wanted!




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 3/19/2017 10:55:00 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 29
RE: Postpone Netplay Development - 3/20/2017 5:55:59 AM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1686
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline 		4personalbusiness wrote:
quote:

v2.3.4 is working well for PBEM. Lars and I are now in MJ44 and haven't encountered anything fatal. Yes, some work-arounds have been required, but the game is playable. Sounds like we better just hold here until the big wheels turn past this whole netplay thingy... Pete


I completely agree. I am currently playing this version with a long distance opponent (Australia). We have gotten through M/J'41 with out too much trouble. One minor one a while back which was resolved, and now the one posted in tech concerning the Algerian MIL. I highly recommend players go to this version. Stay there until Netplay is complete (which I have my doubts about).

Concerning Netplay, if I cant keep a wireless connection to it, then its fairly useless. Maybe I need a better router, or maybe Matrix/Slitherine do not have the necessary infrastructure. Even if MWiF Netplay was completely bug free and working 100%, if it means I have to pay more money just to play this game (router upgrade, or deal with cables running across the floor...which my wife already vetoed anyway) then forget Netplay. I don't see it as Steve's fault. Matrix is a terrible company for many reasons. I think they are forcing Netplay. I would rather see optionals, scenarios, and a manual convoy system added to 2.3.4





_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to 4personalbusiness)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Postpone Netplay Development Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.797