Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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).

quote:

ORIGINAL: AllenK

Just to acknowledge and thank Steve and Eric for their response.

The latest 2.4.3 hot-patch appears to have got manual convoy over-rides working again and also fixed the factory repair .

I hope we shall be shortly resuming gaming with the patch and then future updates in order to contribute to the testing programme (but from the Solitaire perspective).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Hope you enjoy playing against yourself, must be fascinating.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Hope you enjoy playing against yourself, must be fascinating.

quote:

what you are proposing is that those who don't enjoy Solitaire (¡!) or PBEM will have to wait even more time to play the game. At the moment, what we have got is nothing.

We paid our money for the game too. Just sayin'...

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Hope you enjoy playing against yourself, must be fascinating.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AllenK

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Hope you enjoy playing against yourself, must be fascinating.

I haven't been playing against myself. Four of us have been using Solitaire mode to enjoy MWiF as World in Flames was meant to be played: Multiplayer. The gaming experience, playing as teams, with such honourable and fair minded players as Warspite1, Orm and Mayhemizer has been by far my most enjoyable experience of this game.

Brian Brian's two thoughtful posts provide a very good summary of the current problems with Netplay. It's only 1 vs 1 and the non-phasing player has a lot of waiting around while having to remain logged in online. These constraints will not change anytime soon, if ever.

Playing as we do, there is no necessity for everyone to be online together. As long as one person from each team is online during the phases where interaction is needed, it isn't that much slower than Netplay. The difference is the necessity to take a screen shot, post it and wait for the response, rather than having the dialogue box appearing on the other player's computer. The difference can be as little as a couple of minutes and, playing as we do, we have AAR's that pretty much write themselves. We can also be playing several games simultaneously.

It's all a compromise. For us, the primary importance is the team play, which we can only do in Solitaire. Others may well differ in their priorities (which is fine) but the basic game mechanics have to work or there is no game at all.

I posted the positive report about set-up without MadEx's, using 2.4.3, because other players, as well as ourselves, had reported or confirmed the MadEx's in setup with previous versions. If you can't get past setup without a MadEx, you haven't got a game for anyone to play, Solitaire or Netplay. The post both acknowledges the ongoing work and commitment Steve gives to the development of the game and lets him know changes appear to be successful.

If you know of a better way for progress to be made then perhaps you should enlighten us instead of resorting to the type of post quoted above.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

quote:

ORIGINAL: AllenK

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Hope you enjoy playing against yourself, must be fascinating.

I haven't been playing against myself. Four of us have been using Solitaire mode to enjoy MWiF as World in Flames was meant to be played: Multiplayer. The gaming experience, playing as teams, with such honourable and fair minded players as Warspite1, Orm and Mayhemizer has been by far my most enjoyable experience of this game.

Brian Brian's two thoughtful posts provide a very good summary of the current problems with Netplay. It's only 1 vs 1 and the non-phasing player has a lot of waiting around while having to remain logged in online. These constraints will not change anytime soon, if ever.

Playing as we do, there is no necessity for everyone to be online together. As long as one person from each team is online during the phases where interaction is needed, it isn't that much slower than Netplay. The difference is the necessity to take a screen shot, post it and wait for the response, rather than having the dialogue box appearing on the other player's computer. The difference can be as little as a couple of minutes and, playing as we do, we have AAR's that pretty much write themselves. We can also be playing several games simultaneously.

It's all a compromise. For us, the primary importance is the team play, which we can only do in Solitaire. Others may well differ in their priorities (which is fine) but the basic game mechanics have to work or there is no game at all.

I posted the positive report about set-up without MadEx's, using 2.4.3, because other players, as well as ourselves, had reported or confirmed the MadEx's in setup with previous versions. If you can't get past setup without a MadEx, you haven't got a game for anyone to play, Solitaire or Netplay. The post both acknowledges the ongoing work and commitment Steve gives to the development of the game and lets him know changes appear to be successful.

If you know of a better way for progress to be made then perhaps you should enlighten us instead of resorting to the type of post quoted above.

All of us are still here because we understood that before there was a multiplayer there should be a solitaire. This sounded reasonable and the experts said so as well.

What IMO is not so reasonable is that, because of a few glitches [A few glitches? So that would be the effectively game ending ones then?] of the (supposedly) depurated [that understanding is based on what exactly??] solitaire, the agonizingly slow process of making a multiplayer (after everything else except AI is made) [Total and utter nonsense - everything is made? What except for the bugs that still exist, except for the rules that haven't been coded, except for the scenarios that haven't been coded. So everything else is made apart from those you mean?] is stopped almost as soon as it was started [so when did the focus turn mainly to netplay? And you say it has been stopped as soon as it started???? - what crazy definition is that????]

If you are starting to test a multiplayer, basing yourself on a solitaire that is supposed to be working fine (almost perfect) [I think you need to read a few more threads on this game], to step back and repair a couple of issues [same wrong analysis and conclusion as above] cuts the testing process in two. Or more than two, because I fear that every time a patch creates a new problem, the same people (the solitaire - 5%- gamers) will cry "bloody murder" if Steve doesn't stop everything and solve those problems [then you believe wrong because once again you haven't concerned yourself with the facts, or what has been written and explained by Erik and Steve i.e. the point of this is to get an official version out for those who purchased the game, do not want to be a beta tester, but do want to be able to take advantage of any progress in the last 14 MONTHS]. I doubt it is possible to program efficiently like this, I know you cannot test a game like this. [Not according to the programmer of this project - I think I'll take his word over yours thanks]

But also saying that people claim that they need to be helped earlier because they paid for it years ago sounds like a bad joke, especially for those like me who bought the game right when it was created and have not had even one hour of fun, unlike the former. [So let's be crystal here. Anyone who bought the game from the start, but have had some enjoyment playing the game solitaire (or even PBEM) (even though unable to finish a game - and with no means of hoping to play to the end) should just suck it up and not ask for anything else because they had the temerity to get some enjoyment from a game in solitaire that they bought supposedly with a working solitaire game - unlike those who bought netplay on spec. But YOU of course are more deserving yes?]

Anyway I don't blame Steve so much about this one, he has to try to please everybody and I guess Matrix too, and he is just trying to do his best. He also believes that this will take 2 weeks (we'll see, bugs are tricky).[No you choose to blame the likes of AllenK and I because we asked for a fair, reasonable and very sight deviation from the plan that doesn't really affect netplay development for the worse???? Go figure]

But I would suggest him to make a stable version and then not recommend any more newer versions for solitaire [Good plan - so long as you and your needs are taken care of that is completely fair and equitable yes? So if we are here in another 12 months and netplay still isn't working properly, you want no new official version so players cannot take advantage of bug fixes in the meantime?], to develop directly for MP or he will have the same problem all the time. Had he done this now people who like solitaire couldn't complain, because their version would be still there for them, while he develops ours. In fact, that's what he should have done here, IMO, it's not the latest solitaire version the one not working, it was the first multiplayer version which was giving you problems with the solitaire. [As I said, you haven't properly understood the state of the game presently]

Regardless that he may later make a new solitaire version upgrading the features that need to.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I think a lot of the tension in this thread comes from an unfortunate title. As I understand it the bugs that prompted the OP were gamebreaking in both solitaire and netplay. Fixing them *was* working on netplay, but it also helped solitaire players. The point was that fixing issues that only affected netplay while ignoring the regression bugs that were breaking both versions of the game seemed pointless. Why does it matter if players screens are out of synch if you can't convoy resources anyway? I can't think of any bugs in solitaire that wouldn't also affect netplay, and when they are game breaking, they hurt everyone. So the decision was very properly made to address the worst of the regression bugs before tackling new stuff. Why is this even an issue?

quote:

Once Solitaire is stable and bug free, freeze this until such time as additional options, scenarios or AI are coded and then release these as upgrades. Meanwhile, Netplay development can proceed in parallel and perhaps need a separate exe file

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

---

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

---

Sad to see a fellow member answer like this without ptovocation or even comments on my part on his posts.

I guess Valium is at the order. Orfidal may be good too.

Dissapointed.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Belle is NOT suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and if anyone says she is I'll grab my torch and pitchfork!

http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/10/7-reasons-beauty-and-the-beast-is-not-a-tale-of-stockholm-syndrome/

quote:

There is a fantastic video on Youtube about the "Beauty and the Beast" which argues, in all seriousness, that Belle is simply a victim of the "Stockholm Syndrome

quote:

Whoa! Some people do seem to take everything seriously these days.........The video I watched was made in good fun.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

There is a fantastic video on Youtube about the "Beauty and the Beast" which argues, in all seriousness, that Belle is simply a victim of the "Stockholm Syndrome

quote:

Whoa! Some people do seem to take everything seriously these days.........The video I watched was made in good fun.

You said the video - and thus the message - was made in all seriousness. There was no link so I did not see what exactly was said and simply took what you said on face value. But then you said it was just for fun so am a little confused by that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

There is a fantastic video on Youtube about the "Beauty and the Beast" which argues, in all seriousness, that Belle is simply a victim of the "Stockholm Syndrome

quote:

Whoa! Some people do seem to take everything seriously these days.........The video I watched was made in good fun.

You said the video - and thus the message - was made in all seriousness. There was no link so I did not see what exactly was said and simply took what you said on face value. But then you said it was just for fun so am a little confused by that.

In satire, the form is not the content.

That girl I linked the videos of (I checked: her name is Jenny Nicholson) made a video where "in all seriousness" she examines the "unfortunate implications of TBatB". Yet, her intent is satirical.

Watch her video about what went wrong with "Batman vs. Superman". She notices how Henry Cavill's face never shows any kind of emotion - and so all the subplot about "I'm a human being!" obviously fails. Then, in all seriousness she proposes this solution: just put small animatronic devices under Cavill's face, so that - off screen - puppeteers can make him show emotion when needed.

Again, the style of the delivery is serious - and this is what makes the satire even more side-splitting.

I'm starting to guess, at the old age of 47 years old, that some people, by being unable to take things in a way different from the literal one, are actually missing a lot about what is going on around them.

Now, let's return to talk about the "now we are serious - no really!" plans about finishing MWIF - and let's the satire emerge by itself

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