RE: saddened by poor interface

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: saddened by poor interface

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.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: saddened by poor interface

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 1:17:10 AM

dinsdale

Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline

Mogami,

Is there a reason why a UI should equal game reinvention? Comparing the change in classic opera to moving a game interface into the 21st century is a little over-dramatic, it's not as though the thread discusses turning the game into Medal Of Honour

I often wonder whether some of the great carriage makers were convinced by their dwindling customer base not to consider changing, after all "combustion is unnecessary when you pack so luxury in here, who wants to get anywhere quickly?"

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 151

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 1:33:58 AM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

Please indulge me and read this true story of mine.

I design training software for the US Navy. I was working on a very complicated scenario involving ASW operations. It took me about 5 months just to lay out the design. During this period, I would go to the programmers with an idea and ask "Can this be done?" They would consider it and most of the time they would tell me sure. Well when I finally delivered my design to the programmers for coding, they just about fell out of their chairs. You see, when these things were looked at as individual items they did not appear to be a big deal, but when taken collectively it was almost impossible to do. Those poor programmers had to work many a weekend because the Navy already approved design.

The point is, you guys have listed so many ideas that it would be impractical to implement them all. When would we work on bugs? You can forget sweeping changes to the UI. Adding some filters or additional columns for sorting, or maybe a new page or two might be possible, but a complete overhaul is not in the cards.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

(in reply to Tactics)

Post #: 152

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 1:45:55 AM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck
Like I allready sayed earlier in this thread. All of the comments are appreciated and we definetly do not scrap them. We allways have and will appreciate comments and discussions and we often, in fact very often, have listened to our fans and customers and incoporated suggestions they made.

I'm sure this is true. However what would be really really good for both company and customers is if you were to produce a list of ideas that you have taken on board. This would just serve to quantify and clarify things; it would not imply any commitment to implement anything.

A simple text or HTML file would do ...

Oh and the same thing for bugs would be even better

If you look at the Wish List pinned at the top of the page, you will see notes in blue text that was added by me. It will tell you which items I've added to the list and which ones I have not. As for bugs, I will never post that list.

This is not my day job so I only work on WitP when I have time. Because of my limited time I will only record items found in the threads pinned at the top. I'm not trying to be a jerk but I have to optimize my time. It would be great if you guys created discussion threads like this one to debate the issues and then posted the recommendations in the Wish List.

I must say that I do not have any say in things other than making the list. The developers read the boards and sometimes they pick up ones I don't list.

< Message edited by Kid -- 7/26/2004 11:47:16 PM >

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 153

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 1:57:23 AM

hithere

Posts: 432
Joined: 4/13/2004
From: Atlanta
Status: offline

WOW....took a couple of days off from the forum and *it hit the fan!! just my two cents...but i don't have a big problem with the interface....for the depth of the game i don't see how anyone could make it much simplier.....may combine a few screens, but that prob just is not possible...i can think of a few games that are much simplier (Star Wars:Rebellion anyone?) that had bad interfaces.

_____________________________

Quote from one of my drill sergeants, "remember, except for the extreme heat, intense radiation, and powerful blast wave, a nuclear explosion is just like any other explosion"

(in reply to siRkid)

Post #: 154

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 3:58:17 AM

Panzer76

Posts: 68
Joined: 7/6/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, Don't you tink part of it is simply the product is finished and now all the "I could have done it betters" appear? UV was in development for 2 years. There was an open forum. WITP required another 2 years with an open forum. (And WITP reflects a vast amount of inpput from these forums) And now that it is out people express saddness that the finished product is exactly what it has always claimed it would be. We are told we don't listen or we close our ears. Everyone knew who the designer was. Many of us expected the interface to be exactly what it is. Many of us have no problem with "might have been"
If a person knows how to do it better but also knows exactly what another programmer always does "wheres the beef"?

The problem is that the UV player, coming with suggestions of how the game should be, only sees them in the limitation of the current game, UV. That is, the user can not see the concequences of his suggestions when it comes to the UI, because he has not experienced it. Its the developers responibility to "see the whole picture" and understand that implementing all these wishes will have ramifications for other parts of the game the players do not think about.

_____________________________

Cheers,
Panzer

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

Benjamin Franklin

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 155

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 4:10:05 AM

Panzer76

Posts: 68
Joined: 7/6/2004
Status: offline

Also, I would suggest to you the following:

WiTP could be LESS complex than UV with a better UI.

And by that I do not mean WiTP should lose ANY accuracy or data, Im only talking about how the data is presented.

Perhaps we could compare the UV-WiTP evolution to the EUII - HOI. Both are using updated game engines, but retaining the basics, while the game has evolved vastly more in complexity.

I would only hope that when the next game by 2by3 (the med perhaps) will be developed, the team would get a outside person (group think happens very easily), with no experience from UV/WiTP to design the UI. Not saying that would be perfect and everyone would be happy, but surely it atleast give the team some good ideas.

With the current UI standard (and its not BAD, mind you) I do not think games like this will ever sell in big numbers. Its simply not accessible enough. Would better UI mean that every Average Joe buying this game? No. Would it make it more accessible and more wargamers would buy it? Yes.

Anyho, its clear that nothing much will happen to WiTP in the UI depeartment, so I just hope lessons learned will be brought to new projects, and Im sure they will.

_____________________________

Cheers,
Panzer

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

Benjamin Franklin

(in reply to Panzer76)

Post #: 156

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 4:10:46 AM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

The problem with WitP is the lack of elegant abstraction. Whoever said above that you would have complete staffs of officers working to decipher and organize all the info thrown at the player in this game was on the right track. I don't like staff work. I don't mind -- in fact I usu. insist upon -- logistical considerations. However, use an elegant abstraction of some kind for this to make it a good game. Given the immensity of raw data the player(s) must address themselves, I hardly think any given game will be a meaningful "simulation" of WWII Pacific action. The manipulation of so many component parts virtually insures improper usage by players. No PC game can model reality at its lowest level. Finding the proper mix of detail (for excitement level) and abstraction (for enjoyable gameplay) is the key to a successful design. Too much of one or the other will diminish the project.

Only by breaking this monster down into small, UV-size segments could we hope to salvage some meaningful gameplay. I am a grognard. This one's beyond me as it currently stands.

_____________________________

(in reply to Panzer76)

Post #: 157

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 4:17:50 AM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

Please indulge me and read this true story of mine.

I design training software for the US Navy. I was working on a very complicated scenario involving ASW operations. It took me about 5 months just to lay out the design. During this period, I would go to the programmers with an idea and ask "Can this be done?" They would consider it and most of the time they would tell me sure. Well when I finally delivered my design to the programmers for coding, they just about fell out of their chairs. You see, when these things were looked at as individual items they did not appear to be a big deal, but when taken collectively it was almost impossible to do. Those poor programmers had to work many a weekend because the Navy already approved design.

The point is, you guys have listed so many ideas that it would be impractical to implement them all. When would we work on bugs? You can forget sweeping changes to the UI. Adding some filters or additional columns for sorting, or maybe a new page or two might be possible, but a complete overhaul is not in the cards.

Nor would such an complete overhaul even be desirable at this point. Probably even counter-productive as I've at least gotten more comfortable with it, quirks and all.

More detailed sorting, if not too hard, would be nice, and a nicety that may not be that hard, are some more general info screens that use charts or something, rather than tabular data listings. For instance, the pool data or production rate data might make more sense if view graphically in a bar chart rather than a tabular display. Such stuff does not really involve changing the interface, just overlaying a display idiom on top of existing data.

(in reply to siRkid)

Post #: 158

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 4:33:59 AM

Bodhi

Posts: 1267
Joined: 8/26/2003
From: Japan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine
Only by breaking this monster down into small, UV-size segments could we hope to salvage some meaningful gameplay. I am a grognard. This one's beyond me as it currently stands.

I'm not a grognard, and although I don't agree with you yet, I'm beginning to wonder if you're correct.

When I first started UV I found it a bit overwhelming. However, after perservering it became playable and the scope was just about right for me to handle without resorting to anything more complex than a notepad now and again.

However, WitP, being on a much larger scale, is proving difficult to manage at the moment. I have a few ideas forming on how I might make things easier to manage for myself, but the interface seems restrictive, and there's no way I can find to get the data out of WitP so I can format it how I'd like. For example, for one idea I'd need a list of base names and their x/y coordinates. This is available for both sides in the list bases screen, but there's no way I can get that info out from the game without scrolling through each line and writing the name and coords down! You can't even do a simple copy/paste on the data in the list bases screen! (Of course if someone knows how to get at this data, or has it available please put me out of my misery

)

It's too late for WitP, but it would be nice if list screens were more like the datagrids you see in may applications, where the user has control over which columns to display, the column order, the width of columns, and the column(s) to sort by. My big fear of WitP was that the larger amount of data would be difficult to handle, and I was hoping that the user would have more control over what was displayed, or failing that, a mechanism whereby the data could be "exported" from the game.

_____________________________

Bodhi

(in reply to Capitaine)

Post #: 159

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 4:52:41 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I've been here before. Nothing to do with the UI issue it's that other issue that divides gamers. I've struggled to define it before and so will likely fail here as well but perhaps someone will see what I mean and be able to choose the correct verbiage to express it.

There are players who are not concerned with winning a game. They are more interested in the experience win or lose. They are after several things enlightenment perhaps. One of their major complaints in the past has always been the outcome of the war is produced by built in conditions and not game play. (Call it conduct of the war) There is no chance to alter anything. Sure they can win a battle here or there or even the game from time to time but only as a result of luck (usually in the form of an opponent or AI that is exploited rather then the game mastered) These players do not mind doing the dirty work. The really hard work at planning and coordination. They don't quit the game in adverse situations because they are enjoying the experience. All they ask is an honest game.

Then there are the players who really want to win. Often they want to reverse the verdict of history and win with the side that lost. But they want to be in charge of the battles and have the program handle the details. (basically "First with the most" is their motto). They are not interested in details (also known as the "click fest") They want action. The most important things are being able to organize everything in a short time so they can fight the war.

I'm not the one to judge the merits of either since what makes a person play war-games and where they find enjoyment is personal and a matter of taste not correctness.

Now it is often supposed that Grognard means stickler for detail. That is only a side effect.
A Grognard is a player loyal to the class of game in the historical department but also who follows particular companies and designers. A Grognard buys products from his company by his designer sight unseen.
UV/WITP were designed with the Grognard from the start. Grognard testers and a forum that had a few Grognards watch dogging and questioning every rating, map hex. No project can ever be all inclusive or it will never be complete. A lot of Grognard desires were left out. A lot of non Grognard items were introduced.

The final result is something that will make a very few people very happy. Be playable with reservations to more and something incomprehensible to many.
I don't think a game can actually have too many details for a Grognard (as long as they actually have some impact no matter how slight) There are players who in a strange way are searching for some sort of truth. In a game of pure mathematics where combat is a product of weaponsxnumbers a lot of history is ungamable. Can a game on Antietam ever be honestly done and have play balance? Does anyone suppose that had they been in place of McClellan the war would have continued much past Sept 18 1862? But there are players who would want a game on that subject to not only allow a victory for the South but allow them to destroy the Army of the Potomac. Could a Grognard design or play such a game? The Southern player would almost have to be one who was able to pay attention to detail. The actual result was a testament to the tactical skill of the Confederate command. That they could achieve a draw was astounding. Few players of such a game would even begin one with that as their objective but given the hindsight any Union player would have only a host of built in restrictions could save even the most skilled Southern player. Yet there are those who would willingly play the South every game while others considered it a one sided waste of time.

I'm struggling here to explain that their are persons who think the value is in the detail. Detail is tedious and boring. But they would refuse a program feature that told them what to do, how to interpret the detail. And then there are players who would be happy if from time to time the program issued them orders "attack Saipan, use these forces. Everything is organized and ready"

Interface means something different to me. Now I admit it is because I have grown use to the present system and I can make it do what I want and understand it. I might like a new interface better. That has never been what I am trying to say. My point was my focus was on having the detail present in a form I could access. Since this exists I am happy. Less detail better interface would be for me a step backwards. No more detail and yet still better interface would be nice but I have always known exactly what the interface was going to be like and never did it cross my mind to engage in improving it rather then busy myself with getting as much detail included in a manageable form.

Does ungainly mean the same thing as unmanageable? It is good we have person expert in UI on the forum and I sincerely hope they are able to impact future designs. If this is the intent then it is a benefit. If however UI is being used to explain results then I do not concur. I know this to be true not because I can't handle criticism but because I myself find the UI easy to use and more then sufficient for allowing me to gather the data, manipulate the detail and mange the game. Not once has a poor tactical result provoked in me the feeling "stupid interface is to blame"

All games in my experience are both strange, bewildering and wonderful early on. Many games I thought unplayable because of their complexity I now look on as the work of the simple minded. WITP after 2 years still produces in me wonder and awe and promises me such exploration that I am afraid I will never be able to completely plumb it's depth.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 7/26/2004 10:07:41 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Capitaine)

Post #: 160

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 4:54:23 AM

SunDevil_MatrixForum

Posts: 783
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Tempe, AZ
Status: offline

Mogami

Do not wear yourself out, you still need to write some AARs in the future. Pace yourself, pace yourself.....

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 161

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 4:55:00 AM

CommC

Posts: 467
Joined: 8/3/2002
From: Michigan, USA
Status: offline

It may be too late for major changes to WitP, but the frustrating part is that all of these suggestions, for bigger buttons, more user friendly displays, more information more readily available to the player, were made when UV came out and as WitP was in development two years ago. All these suggestions and requests from players were summarily and completely ignored.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bodhi)

Post #: 162

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 5:04:36 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Well I take exception to that post. I don't think a person has to search very hard to find features that were suggested by players of UV as desired improvements to WITP.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to CommC)

Post #: 163

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 5:16:39 AM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I've been here before. Nothing to do with the UI issue it's that other issue that divides gamers. I've struggled to define it before and so will likely fail here as well but prehaps someone will see what I mean and be able to choose the correct verbage to express it.

There are players who are not concerned with winning a game. They are more interested in the experiance win or lose. They are after several things enlightenment prehaps. One of their major complaints in the past has always been the outcome of the war is produced by built in conditions and not game play. (Call it conduct of the war) There is no chance to alter anything. Sure they can win a battle here or there or even the game from time to time but only as a result of luck (usally in the form of an opponenet or AI that is exploited rather then the game mastered) These players do not mind doing the dirty work. The really hard work af planning and co-ordination. They don't quit the game in adverse situations because they are enjoying the experiance. All they ask is an honest game.

Then there are the players who really want to win. Often they want to reverse the verdict of history and win with the side that lost. But they want to be in charge of the battles and have the program handle the details. (basically "First with the most" is their motto. ) They are not interested in details (also known as the "click fest") They want action. The most important things are being able to organize everything in a short time so they can fight the war.

I'm not the one to judge the merits of either since what makes a person play wargames and where they find enjoyment is personal and a matter of taste not correctness.

Now it is often supposed that Grognard means stickler for detail. That is only a side effect.
A Grognard is a player loyal to the class of game in the historical department but also who follows particular companies and designers. A Grognard buys products from his company by his designer sight unseen.
UV/WITP were designed with the Grognard from the start. Grognard testers and a forum that had a few Grognards watch dogging and questioning every rating, map hex. No project can ever be all inclusive or it will never be complete. A lot of Grognard desires were left out. A lot of non Grognard items were introduced.

The final result is something that will make a very few people very happy. Be playable with reservations to more and something uncomprehsable to many.
I don't think a game can actually have too many details for a Grognard (as long as they actually have some impact no matter how slight) There are players who in a strange way are searching for some sort of truth. In a game of pure mathematics where combat is a product of weaponsxnumbers a lot of history is ungamable. Can a game on Antietam ever be honestly done and have play balance? DOes anyone suppose that had they been in place of McClellan the war would have continued much past Sept 18 1862? But there are players who would want a game on that subject to not only allow a victory for the south but allow them to destroy the Army of the Potomac. Could a Grognard design or play such a game? The Southern player would almost have to be one who was able to pay attention to detail. The actual result was a testament to the tactical skill of the Confederate command. That they could achive a draw was astounding. Few players of such a game would even begin one with that as their objective but given the hindsight any Union player would have oonly a host of built in restrictions could save even the most skilled Southern player. Yet there are those who would willingly play the South every game while others considered it a one sided waste of time.

I'm struggling here to explain that their are persons who think the value is in the detail. Detail is tedious and boring. But they would refuse a program feature that told them what to do, how to interpt the detail. And then there are players who would be happy if from time to time the program issued them orders "attack Saipan, use these forces. Everything is organized and ready"

Interface means something different to me. Now I admit it is because I have grown use to the present system and I can make it do what I want and understand it. I might like a new interface better. That has never been what I am trying to say. My point was my focus was on having the detail present in a form I could access. Since this exists I am happy. Less detail better interface would be for me a step backwards. No more detail and yet still better interface would be nice but I have always known exactly wat the interface was going to be like and never did it cross my mind to engage in improving it rather then busy myself with getting as much detail included in a managable form.

Does ungainly mean the same thing as unmanagable? It is good we have person expert in UI on the forum and I sincerly hope they are able to impact future designs. If this is the intent then it is a benifit. If however UI is being used to explain results then I do not conncur. I know this to be true not because I can't handle critism but because I myself find the UI easy to use and more then sufficent for allowing me to gather the data, manipulate the detail and mange the game. Not once has a poor tactical result provoked in me the feeling "stupid interface is to blame"

All games in my experiance are both strange, bewildering and wonderful early on. Many games I thought unplayable because of their complexity I now look on as the work of the simple minded. WITP after 2 years still produces in me wonder and awe and promises me such exploratiion that I am afraid I will never be able to completly plumb it's depth.

Again, good articulation of the issue. While I have been more critical of underlying developmental choices, I have held steadfastly that this is a great game for ALL types of wargamers. The developers have tried to strike a delicate balance by allowing the player to let the computer take care of vast amounts of detail or let the player do it. The problem is, very few trust the computer to take care of the details well enough for their satisfaction, so even though they would like to let it handle things, they don't, and that leads to frustration.

When we see the AI (or whatever you call it) take the auto-convoy TF's right through Japanese held bases it makes one distrustful of the computer controlled parts of the game. I would be more than happy to just let the Japanese aircraft production take care of itself, but after that masterpiece the other day on Japanese aircraft production, I became convinced the default management wasn't very good.....so yet another detail I'd rather ignore I felt I had to dig into.

There are times, I swear, that reading the forum too much, makes the game LESS enjoyable, kind of from an "Ignorance is Bliss" sort of thing. It's like medical professionals make the WORST patients. They simply know too much. I was content to let the computer control aircraft production, but one glance at one thread, ended that contentment forever....

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 164

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 5:47:53 AM

CommC

Posts: 467
Joined: 8/3/2002
From: Michigan, USA
Status: offline

Yes, certainly, many player suggestions since the UV days have been incorporated into WitP, but I think most would agree that many interface-related suggestions have been on the table a long time, and have been largly ignored by the WitP dev team.

_____________________________

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 165

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 6:31:02 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

I don't agree, CommC. I liked the interface in UV, and the devs have implemented big improvements in most of the things I didn't like. It's now a lot easier to examine and sort air groups by fatigue and morale. Mousing over a TF now provides much more info on TF load, home, and destination. I'd still like a few more keyboard shortcuts, but for whatever reason, WiTP actually feels less mouse-centered to me than UV.

Moreover, the UI is really a minor concern for me. I can learn any reasonable interface. What counts is gameplay and features. WiTP has both of these in spades. I think maybe folks should chill out and fire up the game. We've got the best computer wargame ever made in our hands now. Let's go enjoy it.

(in reply to CommC)

Post #: 166

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 6:43:44 AM

Bodhi

Posts: 1267
Joined: 8/26/2003
From: Japan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius
We've got the best computer wargame ever made in our hands now. Let's go enjoy it.

Probably the correct attitude.

I'm sure most will eventually find a way of working with, or around, the UI. At the end of the day it IS a superb game. Maybe time to go and hunt out some unaccompanied transports.

_____________________________

Bodhi

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 167

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 8:24:24 AM

Panzer76

Posts: 68
Joined: 7/6/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami
There are players who are not concerned with winning a game. They are more interested in the experience win or lose. They are after several things enlightenment perhaps. One of their major complaints in the past has always been the outcome of the war is produced by built in conditions and not game play. (Call it conduct of the war) There is no chance to alter anything. Sure they can win a battle here or there or even the game from time to time but only as a result of luck (usually in the form of an opponent or AI that is exploited rather then the game mastered) These players do not mind doing the dirty work. The really hard work at planning and coordination. They don't quit the game in adverse situations because they are enjoying the experience. All they ask is an honest game.

Then there are the players who really want to win. Often they want to reverse the verdict of history and win with the side that lost. But they want to be in charge of the battles and have the program handle the details. (basically "First with the most" is their motto). They are not interested in details (also known as the "click fest") They want action. The most important things are being able to organize everything in a short time so they can fight the war.

I think this divison is way too simplistic. Most people have traits froom both of the "groups" you desciribe. And how does wanting to win turn into a wish for a click feast game

The thing I have been driving for all the time is not to dumb the game down, but make it more accessable through better UI.

Little enjoyment, only frustration comes from a cumbersome UI.

_____________________________

Cheers,
Panzer

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

Benjamin Franklin

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 168

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 1:56:29 PM

Captain Cruft

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft
A simple text or HTML file would do ...

Oh and the same thing for bugs would be even better

If you look at the Wish List pinned at the top of the page, you will see notes in blue text that was added by me. It will tell you which items I've added to the list and which ones I have not. As for bugs, I will never post that list.

Yes I knew about the Wish List thread and thank you. I do realise that lack of time is an issue.

Now, let's be controversial for a minute. I think the nub of this whole issue is that the game is woefully underpriced. It's just not economic for the developers to do much.

So, how do you get to charge more? Obviously, selling the game at an up-front price of $500 is not going to work. The answer - stop acting like the music business and move to what I shall call for the sake of argument the "Everquest model" or perhaps the "phone company model".

Details:-

Separate out the front-end (map/unit editor) from the back-end (combat resolution engine)
Separate out the AI player, let's call it Mr Bot.
Put the back-end and Mr Bot on a server
Make Mr Bot configurable or maybe even scriptable so that players can create their own improved versions
Make the front-end available for download at a reasonable price e.g. $29.99
Charge a monthly fee, say $9.99, to use the server to play either other humans or Mr Bot and family. Turns (game state files) get uploaded to the server via a web interface or email. The server then informs players via email when their combat resolutions have run and delivers to them (again via web or email) their revised game state files and combat replay.
Make the first month free

People will generally not baulk at paying a monthly fee for something that they want. This way, the dedicated players who carry on for 2-3 years+ will generate a revenue stream of $200-500+ each. Others who just dabble will only end up paying about the same amount as they would for any other game. You use more you pay more.

Obviously not something that can be done for any existing game like WitP, but for the future ... ?

< Message edited by Captain Cruft -- 7/27/2004 12:01:37 PM >

(in reply to siRkid)

Post #: 169

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 2:14:10 PM

Panzer76

Posts: 68
Joined: 7/6/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft
Now, let's be controversial for a minute. I think the nub of this whole issue is that the game is woefully underpriced. It's just not economic for the developers to do much.

I would argue that the game is not underpriced, far from it, its overpriced. It has a too limited market, thus a high price. To attract a bigger market, you need to make the game more accessible, and, we are back to the UI (among other things) again ;)

You are arguing that the realtive few people that would buy the game as it is has to shoulder the costs, and that gets pretty expensive for the few customers there is.

These are two different business strategies, I know which one I would go for. Alas, I do not make that call, and Im sure there are plenty of people that are happy I dont ;)

_____________________________

Cheers,
Panzer

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

Benjamin Franklin

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 170

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 2:44:10 PM

MikeToth

Posts: 73
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Cleveland Ohio USA
Status: offline

My only gripe with the interface is the fonts............. totally unreadable.....

Matrix - if you fix anything please fix this.... give a a choice or use a more legible font. These old eyes can't make heads or tails out of them.

thanks much

(in reply to Panzer76)

Post #: 171

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 2:50:25 PM

FirstPappy

Posts: 744
Joined: 9/12/2000
From: NY, USA
Status: offline

This is not a game I would pay "subscription" prices for. For me, those games are reserved for when I want instant and constant interaction with other subscribers or a highly animated application. With WitP, you are mostly looking at a map and various charts etc. If I'm paying a monthly fee, I'd better be getting my money's worth by having tons of bits and bytes flowing through that port constantly.

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 172

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 3:05:30 PM

Captain Cruft

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pappy
This is not a game I would pay "subscription" prices for. For me, those games are reserved for when I want instant and constant interaction with other subscribers or a highly animated application. With WitP, you are mostly looking at a map and various charts etc. If I'm paying a monthly fee, I'd better be getting my money's worth by having tons of bits and bytes flowing through that port constantly.

That is of course your perogative.

I am just wondering about a solution to the problem of the wargames industry being uneconomic that's all. It's very generous of people to basically give away their work but how sustainable is it?

P.S. The subscription model is rapidly becoming de facto in the mainstream games market.

(in reply to FirstPappy)

Post #: 173

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 3:29:11 PM

GBirkn

Posts: 249
Joined: 5/6/2004
From: the briny deep
Status: offline

Captain Cruft, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree with it. I think that putting this sort of a game on a subscription model would result in drastically lower total revenue. People do not like recurring charges; they'd rather own than rent. And they can tell when someone is taking a product that's inherently own-able and trying to force it into a rental model in order to squeeze more money from the market.

And I don't agree at all that "mainstream games" are going de facto subscription. Subscription games are appropriate in the "MMORPG" area, where you have a genuine need a large set of central servers and many on-line players to make a community seem alive, but even in that context there are more failures than successes. For every Everquest there are several Motor City Onlines.

_____________________________

"War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say let's give them all they want." -- Gen. W. T. Sherman

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 174

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 3:45:52 PM

Captain Cruft

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GBirkn
Captain Cruft, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree with it. I think that putting this sort of a game on a subscription model would result in drastically lower total revenue. People do not like recurring charges; they'd rather own than rent. And they can tell when someone is taking a product that's inherently own-able and trying to force it into a rental model in order to squeeze more money from the market.

Yes, you're right. The trouble is that people are not prepared to pay the real cost of owning the product. Or perhaps I should say that they are not prepared to pay the real cost of a product which will continually improve over its N year lifespan. The way this game is marketed is very much as a one shot affair which to me doesn't make sense given how long it will be used.

quote:

And I don't agree at all that "mainstream games" are going de facto subscription. Subscription games are appropriate in the "MMORPG" area, where you have a genuine need a large set of central servers and many on-line players to make a community seem alive, but even in that context there are more failures than successes. For every Everquest there are several Motor City Onlines.

Again you're right, MMORPGs have lead the way. Other genres are slowly going that way too though, FPS and RTS servers have to be paid for too. What you might find happens is the growth of the "generic gaming service" rather than per-game subscriptions.

(in reply to GBirkn)

Post #: 175

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 4:02:43 PM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft
A simple text or HTML file would do ...

Oh and the same thing for bugs would be even better

If you look at the Wish List pinned at the top of the page, you will see notes in blue text that was added by me. It will tell you which items I've added to the list and which ones I have not. As for bugs, I will never post that list.

Yes I knew about the Wish List thread and thank you. I do realise that lack of time is an issue.

Now, let's be controversial for a minute. I think the nub of this whole issue is that the game is woefully underpriced. It's just not economic for the developers to do much.

So, how do you get to charge more? Obviously, selling the game at an up-front price of $500 is not going to work. The answer - stop acting like the music business and move to what I shall call for the sake of argument the "Everquest model" or perhaps the "phone company model".

Details:-

Separate out the front-end (map/unit editor) from the back-end (combat resolution engine)

Separate out the AI player, let's call it Mr Bot.

Put the back-end and Mr Bot on a server

Make Mr Bot configurable or maybe even scriptable so that players can create their own improved versions

Make the front-end available for download at a reasonable price e.g. $29.99

Charge a monthly fee, say $9.99, to use the server to play either other humans or Mr Bot and family. Turns (game state files) get uploaded to the server via a web interface or email. The server then informs players via email when their combat resolutions have run and delivers to them (again via web or email) their revised game state files and combat replay.

Make the first month free

People will generally not baulk at paying a monthly fee for something that they want. This way, the dedicated players who carry on for 2-3 years+ will generate a revenue stream of $200-500+ each. Others who just dabble will only end up paying about the same amount as they would for any other game. You use more you pay more.

Obviously not something that can be done for any existing game like WitP, but for the future ... ?

Yes, I've been an advocate of the client-server architected turn based wargame concept for a LOOONNNGGG time. Back in the 1990's right up until just a couple of years ago, a small non-profit group, Wolfpack, used to run one of these. The game was known as "Empire". It was a shallow game with lousy clients that used Unix-like command line instructions and never really took off, but the concept was a good one, IMHO.

We have a fairly large group of PBEM players already. I am quite sure these players would love a more responsive, flexible way to play head-to-head and how many posts have we seen concerning a desire for multi-player or team play?

You are correct in that what you have to do is break out the client, which is nothing more than a presentation layer, from the server, which is run on high performance big-iron with a big, fat communications pipe attached to it. Everquest continues to be enormously successful, but it took a while for it to take off. My son is involved in that effort and it is quite vibrant today. They make money selling subscription access but the also make good money selling new clients.

And imagine the possiblities of a client-server model. On the server side you now open up the possibility of using Enterprise level, robust RDBMS's to manage literally millions and millions of "rows" of data, not only for game data but also for the AI to use.

Not only that, you could still offer a standalone version that ships both the server and a client so folks could still do the solitaire thing.

But don't expect Matrix, themselves, to do this. It's going to take a new Partner to take the first steps. Hmmmmm..... sounds like something I might be interested in tackling myself in near future.....

< Message edited by ZOOMIE1980 -- 7/27/2004 2:04:38 PM >

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 176

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 4:03:16 PM

GBirkn

Posts: 249
Joined: 5/6/2004
From: the briny deep
Status: offline

Captain Cruft, I should also say that you're right when you point out that wargaming will be doomed if the economic model doesn't make sense. I don't think that the Matrix and 2x3 folks got into this field in hopes of becoming wealthy (although in a perfect world, as I define it, they'd all be as rich as John Carmack), but they've got to at least cover their costs with a reasonable return on investment, and ideally make a living from what they're doing. As a wargamer, I'll be very much the loser if they can't do that.

I admit that I don't know the solution to this problem, and I hope that a solution can be found.

< Message edited by GBirkn -- 7/27/2004 9:04:45 AM >

_____________________________

"War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say let's give them all they want." -- Gen. W. T. Sherman

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 177

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 4:04:01 PM

GBirkn

Posts: 249
Joined: 5/6/2004
From: the briny deep
Status: offline

<double post by mistake -- sorry>

< Message edited by GBirkn -- 7/27/2004 9:04:27 AM >

_____________________________

"War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say let's give them all they want." -- Gen. W. T. Sherman

(in reply to GBirkn)

Post #: 178

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 4:07:10 PM

Caltone

Posts: 651
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Raleigh, NC USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Any one partnering with Gary in the future best make sure they keep him completely away from the programming side of the house and let him do what he does best.

If not the programming side of the house, what is it exactly you think Gary does?

IMHO the man is the best wargame designer ever. Along with the others in 2by3 and Matrix, he is doing what he does best, giving me and his legions of fans years of gaming goodness. This game is his ultimate achievement and it's what I've been waiting for since PACWAR.

While there are some screens I would like to see (main one is a list of what areas are producing HI and what overages/shortfalls they have), I find the game easy to play and an enjoyable experience. From the majority of your posts, you find the game a chore. If that's the case, perhaps its time to move on? This is an upgrade to a previous design and there is no way or no need to redo the GUI.

_____________________________

"Order AP Hill to prepare for battle" -- Stonewall Jackson

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 179

RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 4:13:20 PM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pappy

This is not a game I would pay "subscription" prices for. For me, those games are reserved for when I want instant and constant interaction with other subscribers or a highly animated application. With WitP, you are mostly looking at a map and various charts etc. If I'm paying a monthly fee, I'd better be getting my money's worth by having tons of bits and bytes flowing through that port constantly.

One could not charge the $30.00/month fees Everquest charges, for sure, because the server side is providing a much different service in what I will call the "Wolfpack" model (a turn-based wargame, Everquest). One may not be able to charge much more than covering the costs of operation + maybe a 10-15% margin on that side. And that final number would largely depend on the volume. The financial backing would need to be able to operate at a distinct loss for two years or so, much like Everquest did, before things start crank up. You'd have to subsist on client-side revenue in the mean-time.

Unlike most Matrix partners, an effort at this type of thing would have to be pretty well capitalized. I doubt it would be a short-term money maker at all, probably operating at a loss for two-three years or so. But long term, if it caught on, and most of the really good multi-player things eventually do, it could be quite profitable, eventually. Good thing is, much less capital is needed on the server side because you are not cramming massive amounts of data down the pipe, eating enormous chunks of RAM for each logon (ala the Everquest model), and 99% of the work is local, number crunching and data access.

(in reply to FirstPappy)

Post #: 180

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: saddened by poor interface