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]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 4:15:14 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Caltone

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.


You said it yourself. He's a designer. Software design has NOTHING to do with programming.

(in reply to Caltone)
Post #: 181
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 4:26:46 PM   
Caltone


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

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caltone

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.


You said it yourself. He's a designer. Software design has NOTHING to do with programming.


Since I do both, I will disagree here. He is also a programmer. I refer you to the credits. Gary has always designed and coded his games.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 182
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 5:07:47 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Caltone

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caltone

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.


You said it yourself. He's a designer. Software design has NOTHING to do with programming.


Since I do both, I will disagree here. He is also a programmer. I refer you to the credits. Gary has always designed and coded his games.


Which is his biggest problem. I have a LOT of GG's old source code from his games. Let's just say this, he'd never get a job offer here as a programmer....

(in reply to Caltone)
Post #: 183
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 5:30:39 PM   
Captain Cruft


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

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft
(Outline of basic client-server architecture suggestion ...)

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Yes, ... You are correct

ROFL. Somehow I knew ZOOMIE would agree with me.

I don't think you would need massive horsepower to do it either, it's not real-time. Just a change of mindset from "the game is a record album" to "the game is a software architecture".

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 184
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 5:35:56 PM   
carnifex


Posts: 1295
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Latitude 40° 48' 43N Longtitude 74° 7' 29W
Status: offline
quote:

Let's just say this, he'd never get a job offer here as a programmer....


There's really no reason to talk about Mr. Grigsby's potential employment opportunities in this thread. That was uncalled for.

_____________________________


(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 185
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 5:50:29 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: carnifex

quote:

Let's just say this, he'd never get a job offer here as a programmer....


There's really no reason to talk about Mr. Grigsby's potential employment opportunities in this thread. That was uncalled for.


Lok, I have GREAT admiration for this man. I pretty much stay away from anything in this genre that does not have his name on it, because his titles are the only ones I seem to really enjoy. When it comes to a wargame, we are on the same page.

But GG is NOT a modern programmer, period. When he does do it he still still stuck in the hard coded, fixed array base, procedural world of 640K DOS. He wouldn't know an object from and elbow or C++ from Ada from Modula2 from Fortran, and forget any notion concerning modern techniques like the Standard Template Library, containers, counted "referenced" pointers, inheritance, polymorhpism, encapsulation, relational data modeling, data mining, etc.... He simply has never kept up. He might have been respectible at one time, his Apple IIc code was actually pretty clever at the time, but what was clever and cutting edge in 1989 has no relevance today.

The hardest thing I do in my career is trying to keep up. Out of 40 hr work week, simply keeping up takes 25% of it. I don't think Mr Grigsby has ever bothered to keep up with that part of his skill set at all. And it shows, rather blatanty, in this latest title...

(in reply to carnifex)
Post #: 186
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 5:51:30 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

quote:

ORIGINAL: carnifex

quote:

Let's just say this, he'd never get a job offer here as a programmer....


There's really no reason to talk about Mr. Grigsby's potential employment opportunities in this thread. That was uncalled for.


Look, I have GREAT admiration for this man. I pretty much stay away from anything in this genre that does not have his name on it, because his titles are the only ones I seem to really enjoy. When it comes to a wargame, we are on the same page.

But GG is NOT a modern programmer, period. When he does do it he still still stuck in the hard coded, fixed array base, procedural world of 640K DOS. He wouldn't know an object from and elbow or C++ from Ada from Modula2 from Fortran, and forget any notion concerning modern techniques like the Standard Template Library, containers, counted "referenced" pointers, inheritance, polymorhpism, encapsulation, relational data modeling, data mining, etc.... He simply has never kept up. He might have been respectible at one time, his Apple IIc code was actually pretty clever at the time, but what was clever and cutting edge in 1989 has no relevance today.

The hardest thing I do in my career is trying to keep up. Out of 40 hr work week, simply keeping up takes 25% of it. I don't think Mr Grigsby has ever bothered to keep up with that part of his skill set at all. And it shows, rather blatanty, in this latest title...

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 187
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 6:55:33 PM   
Arnir


Posts: 482
Joined: 10/12/2002
From: Alberta. In Texas.
Status: offline
I don't know what the future of wargaming holds, but I don't see a pay each month model being successful unless it put the greatest generals of all time in as your opponents. (Even then...) I can only speak for myself but I don't want to keep paying a company for a product I have purchased. I might be turned off by the mmorpg market.

If I have the game like WitP I can play it whenever I want to play it. If I still have the proper hardware, that means 2010-2020 if I so choose. Not so with a server game. If business is too light, they shut down and I'm out all my money plus future playing. If it is too successful, then I get to pay increased monthly fees to cover their increasing costs. (Somehow all the new customers never seem enough to pay the costs, they have to charge everyone more). If my ISP is taking a holiday (luckily they have only done it once so far) I can't play the game.

For me, as a wargamer, I want the game to work on my computer and my computer alone. (Maybe a friend's computer so we can play each other). A good wargame to me isn't a work in progress, I don't want to see it constantly change. Just get it to work properly and I'm happy. A lot of people here, I must admit, have strong opinions about what working properly means. For good or bad, the market for WitP is a niche that forms a bit of a family. (Dysfunctional perhaps at times?) There has been so much hype about this game that I think unreasonable expectations were formed.

I think that the monthly subscription idea might be more succesful if a great and flexible wargame engine was developed and by logging on you could access different scenarios/battles/theatres, etc. The Total War series I could see as maybe working on a subscription business.

On a different note, as a consumer I get alarmed by Microsoft wanting to move to subscriptions instead of purchasing the software, etc. This isn't meant to insult any individual, but I wish software would actually run properly before the industry gets even more greedy.

< Message edited by Arnir -- 7/27/2004 10:57:24 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 188
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 7:04:01 PM   
Captain Cruft


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

ORIGINAL: Arnir

I don't know what the future of wargaming holds, but I don't see a pay each month model being successful unless it put the greatest generals of all time in as your opponents. (Even then...) I can only speak for myself but I don't want to keep paying a company for a product I have purchased. I might be turned off by the mmorpg market.

If I have the game like WitP I can play it whenever I want to play it. If I still have the proper hardware, that means 2010-2020 if I so choose. Not so with a server game. If business is too light, they shut down and I'm out all my money plus future playing. If it is too successful, then I get to pay increased monthly fees to cover their increasing costs. (Somehow all the new customers never seem enough to pay the costs, they have to charge everyone more). If my ISP is taking a holiday (luckily they have only done it once so far) I can't play the game.

For me, as a wargamer, I want the game to work on my computer and my computer alone. (Maybe a friend's computer so we can play each other). A good wargame to me isn't a work in progress, I don't want to see it constantly change. Just get it to work properly and I'm happy. A lot of people here, I must admit, have strong opinions about what working properly means. For good or bad, the market for WitP is a niche that forms a bit of a family. (Dysfunctional perhaps at times?) There has been so much hype about this game that I think unreasonable expectations were formed.

I think that the monthly subscription idea might be more succesful if a great and flexible wargame engine was developed and by logging on you could access different scenarios/battles/theatres, etc. The Total War series I could see as maybe working on a subscription business.

On a different note, as a consumer I get alarmed by Microsoft wanting to move to subscriptions instead of purchasing the software, etc. This isn't meant to insult any individual, but I wish software would actually run properly before the industry gets even more greedy.


Fair comment. Unfortunately it seems people are taking what I said literally when I was just giving an outline of how a client-server game might work. Of course there should be an option whereby you can get a server bundled in with the client so you can run the thing standalone. The actual separate server might only be used for "extra" features like Tournament Mode or Multiplayer or whatever. I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud.

(in reply to Arnir)
Post #: 189
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 7:08:24 PM   
Arnir


Posts: 482
Joined: 10/12/2002
From: Alberta. In Texas.
Status: offline
Fair enough. We should keep in mind that this is a creative discussion and not an actualy contract proposal. But what grognard doesn't immediately jump to details.

I should point out that despite what my comments might suggest, I think that thinking outside of the box is a good thing.

PS - I really can spell in real life, but get me online and it all disappears.

< Message edited by Arnir -- 7/27/2004 11:09:00 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 190
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 7:10:10 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
Well thats the difference between the Everquest model and the wargame client-server model. Just as with the Wolfpack Empire game of the 1990's you can elect to purchase the server as well as the client. The server AND client can run on the same machine even though a machine running the server and client would have to be a little horsier than one running JUST a client.

Or better yet, within your group of PBEM grognards one guy can host the server using a VPN and the other two, three, five, whatever can just run clients. Or you could elect to run from a subscription based "big-iron" server that has power for large multi-player games or just bigger more complex games.

And remember, the server component is just an engine, and would be designed to be a highly configurable engine. Essentially, with the right tools, you could design your own wargame to run on the server engine(s) as the server model would be along the lines of an "expert system" style. And all you graphics programmer types can design whatever presentation layer client with as many or as few bells and whistles, DirectX 3D surround-sound wizardry you could ever dream up! The server side could care less.

So subscription based playing may not be for you, but it may very well be for others, as we have seen here. This kind of design would work equally well for both.

(in reply to Arnir)
Post #: 191
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 7:15:27 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arnir

I don't know what the future of wargaming holds, but I don't see a pay each month model being successful unless it put the greatest generals of all time in as your opponents. (Even then...) I can only speak for myself but I don't want to keep paying a company for a product I have purchased. I might be turned off by the mmorpg market.

If I have the game like WitP I can play it whenever I want to play it. If I still have the proper hardware, that means 2010-2020 if I so choose. Not so with a server game. If business is too light, they shut down and I'm out all my money plus future playing. If it is too successful, then I get to pay increased monthly fees to cover their increasing costs. (Somehow all the new customers never seem enough to pay the costs, they have to charge everyone more). If my ISP is taking a holiday (luckily they have only done it once so far) I can't play the game.

For me, as a wargamer, I want the game to work on my computer and my computer alone. (Maybe a friend's computer so we can play each other). A good wargame to me isn't a work in progress, I don't want to see it constantly change. Just get it to work properly and I'm happy. A lot of people here, I must admit, have strong opinions about what working properly means. For good or bad, the market for WitP is a niche that forms a bit of a family. (Dysfunctional perhaps at times?) There has been so much hype about this game that I think unreasonable expectations were formed.

I think that the monthly subscription idea might be more succesful if a great and flexible wargame engine was developed and by logging on you could access different scenarios/battles/theatres, etc. The Total War series I could see as maybe working on a subscription business.

On a different note, as a consumer I get alarmed by Microsoft wanting to move to subscriptions instead of purchasing the software, etc. This isn't meant to insult any individual, but I wish software would actually run properly before the industry gets even more greedy.


Fair comment. Unfortunately it seems people are taking what I said literally when I was just giving an outline of how a client-server game might work. Of course there should be an option whereby you can get a server bundled in with the client so you can run the thing standalone. The actual separate server might only be used for "extra" features like Tournament Mode or Multiplayer or whatever. I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud.


I've actually put a great deal of thought behind this over the past year or so. I design and write client-server architected code for living and if there is a genre of game ready made for a client-server architecture, it is the turn based game genre. Very low end requirement on data flow, very easy segmentation of the presentation layer from the transaction processing layer. And after all, games like WitP are surprising similar to vanilla database transaction processing applications in the mainstream business world. Remarkably similar. Your map is nothing more than a static visual representation of the latest snapshot of your database.

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 192
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 7:53:10 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
I've played a number of the "space conquest" genre of games, such as VGA Planets, Stars and Space Empires. All of these work on a model similar if not exactly a client-server model. I agree that it would work very well for WITP and similar games. Multi-player WITP sounds like a dream come true to me.

Those games did not impose a subscription-based service for the engine (server) side. Some folks did setup their own servers and offer to host games for a small fee. Others did it for free to play with their friends or because they enjoyed the game themselves. This is probably the only model which the market would accept, and it could very well bring in some revenue for the publisher if they had a competitive offering. I don't, however, think it would be the solution to the revenue issue, as too many would not acquire the game without the ability to play for free if they desired.

I also don't think that splitting the client from the server in the pricing model would be of any benefit. Games of this magnitude require a lot of effort to learn, and those serious about playing would be almost forced to acquire both client and server just to play for learning purposes.

All ideas worth hashing about, though.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 193
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 8:17:43 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
Yes, lot of unknowns because no one has ever really done this before. The Wolfpack folks once boasted and on-line community of around 2,000 at it's peak, but some 100,000+ had downloaded the server and over 1,000,000 clients had been downloaded over several years. The online part was free, though, no subscription and most of the clients were free, although the really top end clients costed upwards $30.00 a pop, so who knows if there is any revenue possibility at all?

Be interesting to try, though. Maybe it just ends up being a standard boxed title that installs as two exe's on one or two computers, or maybe there's enough demand for a revenue stream hosted server at some point. Either way, it's a concept worth some exploration but, unfortunately, will require a somewhat substantial capital investment up front for even a concept feasability study. And not a single line of code exists today nor even a rudimentary initial design spec.

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 194
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/27/2004 9:23:44 PM   
Kizsam

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 7/27/2004
Status: offline
Hello people!

I have been around these forums from time to time over the years, mostly to find out some info about Pac War. However, this is the first time I have taken the time to register and post. (Don't want to wear my two little fingers out by posting.)

I have been a passionate wargamer for many many years, I started out with board wargame like European Theater of Operations and Pacific Theater of Operations. In recent years (15years or so) I bought a computer and proceeded to buy every and any "War" game I could get my grubby little hands on. That's not to say I have played them all, far from it most likely. Anyway, about three weeks ago I found myself with heaps of time (on holidays) and not much to do. So I boot up my PC and decide to have a go at Panzer General 2, a game which I had previously collected dust on my bookshelf after at least two unsuccessful attempts to "get into it". Two scenarios into the grand campaign was all I could take, too simplistic and too small. So then I thought "hey, how about the monster Barbarossa scenario for TOAW". I promptly headed over to warfareHQ to look for the said scenario. A few minutes later I had found it and whilst going over the scenario notes I remembered that it was not set up for AI, being too big and too complex for it to cope, which left one option...PBEM...which was too much down time for my appetite at that particular time. Besides I had this niggling feeling that I needed something more, I wanted a grand strategy wargame rather than an operational or tactical level game. So I started thinking; Star Wars Rebellion... BAH!; War in Russia...Never ever figured this one out (GG's Pac War being the prime reason) ; Pac War...been at least two years since I have played that and it is a bitch to play, I would have to learn all over again. I thought "hey!, they were making a newer version of that" (Been at least two years since I had been here) I figured waltz on over here and see what was going on. To my utmost delight and great deal of excitement, I discovered that it was released and available for download! (yeah, this is getting a bit longwinded and pointless, but this is my introduction so bear with me, I will get to the point, after which you will be flat out getting two words out of me. ) So I grabbed the credit card, purchased a copy and proceeded to download the game (CD to come by post). Two hours into the download my PC locks up, Grrrr. Reboot and try again, two hours and 45 minutes later the download completes! WOOHOO...burn a backup copy...install...crank it up...Fatal error: 722...WTF! I stuffed about trying to figure it out, nothing works. I figure, maybe a file was corrupted during download, so off I toddle and start the download again...three hours later... install...Fatal error: 722. The next day I think , perhaps the game does not like my video card or something... I take the burnt copy and try to install it on my wifes PC, her CD rom proceeds to chuck a wobbly (It's and old 24x that has stuck with her PC through many upgrades but which does not like to read burnt CDs ). Half way through pulling the cases apart (I am getting desperate) so I could put one of my CD ROMs in her case and install the game my wife walks in...

Wife: What are you doing?

Me: Putting one of my CD ROMS into your PC so I can install this game, because your CD ROM won't read the burnt CDs.

Wife: Why won't mine read it?

Me: Because it's old...(no idea really, just my guess )

Wife: Why haven't you put a new one in?

Me: because this one works just fine...(big hole in my argument here )

Wife: How much are CD ROMs? ( anything more then twelve months old is past it's use-by-date in my wife opinion )

An hour later I have a her sparkly new CD ROM installed ( and she has a big sparkle in her eye ) and War in the Pacific installed ... kick start the game... Fatal error: 722... Grrrrrrrrrrr

I get on the web and try to get some support from Matrixgames...click support link, scroll down, click Tech support... blank page! OMG!
Check the downloads section for a patch...Nada!
Next step, send an e-mail with all relevent information to Matrix support (I have an address from the e-mail they sent me when I purchesed the game). Then I sit down to wait...do an odd job..check e-mails...pace...sit...check email...so on and so forth.

Wife: who is this company?

Me: they are a small group of people who make war games.

Wife: And you can't buy the game in a shop?

Me: No... they are a small company who make war games for a small group of people.

Wife: You've been ripped off!

Me: No I haven't. They have been around for a while now and I have known about this game for a few years. And that's too elaborate to be a hoax.

Wife:

Two days later Tech support link still dead and no reply to my e-mail. I am getting desperate. I had not been completly idle these past two days either. I had read every post in the "Tech support for gamers by gamers forum" to see if anyone else had experienced this "Fatal error: 722" and if they had found a way to fix it.....nothing. The majority of posts were about other games entirely, the few that were about Witp were simple little problems anyway, nothing like my "Fatal error: 722". What the hell would a gamer know about this problem anyway? So I resigned myself to my fate and decided it was time to post on the forums and see if by some miracle someone could help me out (I really don't have a problem posting on a public forum, I am not some paranoid scitzofrenic or anything, it's just that in my experience someone has already asked the question and some other person has answered it... and I prefer to read then to type ). So I give my two fingers a bit of a warm up and proceed to the forums. On my way into the "Tech support for gamers by gamers" forum I think, there are only what? three posts about Witp in there, why not cut straight to the chase and post it in the Witp forums? Clickety click and in I go...Sub Forums! OMG! WAR IN THE PACIFIC SUPPORT!..My heart stopped!...Clickety click and in I go...at the top of the forum...Top: [FAQ] Interim Update: Fix for Fatal Error 772 and Tutorial Crash I thought I had died and gone to heaven. My next thought...

So between slapping myself around the head and telling myself what a ****ing idiot I was and jumping up and down for joy, I downloaded the patch. I installed it and, holding my breath, kick-started the game. Woop! Woop! Woooop! Away she went, didn't miss a beat.

Now your all probably thinking "what a fool" . Well in my own defense I must say, I didn't think to look beyond "Tech support for gamers by gamers". They have a Tech support forum and then a tech support sub-forum, who would have thought?(Yeah, Yeah, I know, you all would have ). I didn't get a reply to my email and the Tech suport forum link was dead (fixed now btw). My thinking went something like this... small company...can't afford to have proper tech support so they set up a forum and let the gamers help themselves, with a little imput from the tech guys from time to time. After all, doesn't the manual say to go to the forums if you have any problems?

Anyway, enough of amusing you (or boring you) with my little dilemma.

The reason I crawled out of my little hole to post here is because I agree wholeheartedly with some of the things that have been said in this thread. I have spent the better part of three weeks playing or learning to play Witp. First off, let me say it is a huge improvement on pac war. The game looks great and the and detail and scope have me drooling. Perhaps because I have played pac war in the past it was easy for me to get a grip on the workings of the game. As far as setting up task forces and sending troops to XX,XX destination, giving planes orders and whatnot, I have no problems. Making a task force to carry 15000 load points of troops on APs...no sweat. However, trying to find the ships you are after in a list a mile long is a bit of a pain (no biggie), but if extra filters could be put in place that would be great. Something like the selection/deselection in the auto-convoy screen except insted of toggling yes or no, it makes the selected types of ship/LCU/plane appear or disapear from the list. I can live without this but it would be nice. Someone mention having the scroll bar only cycle down one page, when you click it on the blank part (not the arrows or the slider, the bit in between) instead of going to the point in the list corresponding to where on the scroll bar you clicked. This would be a nice alternative, or possibly both could be done ( I have no idea if any of this is possible without too much effort and recoding...).

Being able to minimise base screens etc would make thing easier. Having to close a screen check the map, reopen the screen is cumbersome and it is something I seem to have to do quite alot which amplifies the issue. Furthermore, the database and LCU lists etc do not remember where you were when you closed the screen which makes the aforementioned problem into a nightmare. Perhaps this will decrease with familairarity though. At the moment though I find myself dreading the thought of having to close a screen just to have a look to see the units location or whatnot.

The combat animations screen covers the hexes which contain the troops/ship/planes that are fighting. As it is I believe that the hex in which combat takes place is centered, although I am not entirely sure. I would like to see a system in place where the combat hex is offset to the left of the combat animation screen so that you can see it and get a better point of reference.

The Sigint and OP screens need some help. As far as I am concerned , they may as well not even be part of the game. I never use it, and I never will as they stand now. Someone tell me where hex 76,89 is without looking at the map? Pretty much says it all... Perhaps the sigint and OP screens can be cut in half vertically , so we can see the map, and set the XX,XX co-ord so you can just click it and zoom you straight there without having to close the respective screens.

Well that's my 2 cents worth, would be nice if it happened, but I am not holding my breath.

Happy wargaming people.

(in reply to Caltone)
Post #: 195
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/28/2004 12:21:23 AM   
usecase

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 3/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

I wonder if some of the non Matrix programming types who have contributed so much, for so long, to this thread could design a utility or 2 so we can pull the much desired info out of the Game for review by Alt-Tab out.

John McDonnel did a nifty little one that`s on Spooky`s site that archives all the Signet reports allowing you to review and even print them out from the desktop.

One that lists all your air units current strength and losses by day would be one that could be helpful.



Thanks for the kind words Black Cat, your cheque is in the post :).

I've just started work on a utility to (hopefully) make some of the operations and sigint data somewhat more useful. However, as far as I can see, the only information available to a third-party developer is the ascii output in the text files produced each turn, plus static information extracted from the .dat files. The saved game files themselves are compressed and encrypted. I wouldn't attempt to reverse engineer the save games in any event - I'm sure most people's pleasure in PBEM would be spoilt by the thought that their opponent could decipher their turn file and get an unfair advantage.

At this point, all I have is the ability to nominate bases that I'm interested in. Any information (combat, operations info, sigint) that matches those bases is aggregated and presented. It's probably not useful enough to release at the moment, for two reasons. First, it's useless for PBEM games. Second, I have dual monitor setup, which I guess is still fairly exotic.

Still, looking forward at what might be possible for any community developers - my view is that the following is eminently doable:

1. Intelligence aggregation.
2. Task force vectors (course, speed, ship quantity and, in certain cases, name - from which type can be inferred).
3. Top pilot performance.
4. Reconnaisance activity aggregation.
5. Base changes (fortifications et al).
6. New arrivals (though I think the patch will address this in any event).
7. Nicer combat summaries.

From just aggregating some of the data that people have already provided on Spooky's site, it would be possible to produce a nice electronic gazetteer and some calculators for logisitics planning.

Just food for thought.

Cheers,

John.

(in reply to Black Cat)
Post #: 196
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/28/2004 1:24:39 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
See, its this kind of independent ingenuity that makes me wonder why there aren't more serious OpenSource gaming efforts out there. You are all clever fellows.

(in reply to usecase)
Post #: 197
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/28/2004 1:45:08 AM   
Black Cat

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: usecase

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

I wonder if some of the non Matrix programming types who have contributed so much, for so long, to this thread could design a utility or 2 so we can pull the much desired info out of the Game for review by Alt-Tab out.

John McDonnel did a nifty little one that`s on Spooky`s site that archives all the Signet reports allowing you to review and even print them out from the desktop.

One that lists all your air units current strength and losses by day would be one that could be helpful.



Thanks for the kind words Black Cat, your cheque is in the post :).

I've just started work on a utility to (hopefully) make some of the operations and sigint data somewhat more useful. However, as far as I can see, the only information available to a third-party developer is the ascii output in the text files produced each turn, plus static information extracted from the .dat files. The saved game files themselves are compressed and encrypted. I wouldn't attempt to reverse engineer the save games in any event - I'm sure most people's pleasure in PBEM would be spoilt by the thought that their opponent could decipher their turn file and get an unfair advantage.

At this point, all I have is the ability to nominate bases that I'm interested in. Any information (combat, operations info, sigint) that matches those bases is aggregated and presented. It's probably not useful enough to release at the moment, for two reasons. First, it's useless for PBEM games. Second, I have dual monitor setup, which I guess is still fairly exotic.

Still, looking forward at what might be possible for any community developers - my view is that the following is eminently doable:

1. Intelligence aggregation.
2. Task force vectors (course, speed, ship quantity and, in certain cases, name - from which type can be inferred).
3. Top pilot performance.
4. Reconnaisance activity aggregation.
5. Base changes (fortifications et al).
6. New arrivals (though I think the patch will address this in any event).
7. Nicer combat summaries.

From just aggregating some of the data that people have already provided on Spooky's site, it would be possible to produce a nice electronic gazetteer and some calculators for logisitics planning.

Just food for thought.

Cheers,

John.


John

If anyone should get a check it should be someone like you who has put his work and skill and knowlege where his mouth is and done something of lasting value to the Community and Matrix Games.

Thank You Sir, You walk the walk.

Hopefully, when things settle down, someone from Matrix/2x3 will see your work and posts and perhaps " enlighten " you on aspects the code so third party developers can contribute to the " legs " of WITP. It surely is in their self interest to do so


Take care and I look forward to your work.

Rich

(in reply to usecase)
Post #: 198
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/28/2004 1:47:53 AM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline
There is at least one apparently serious Open Source wargaming effort. It's an American Civil War game but beyond that I know nothing ... ( Civil )

It seems to me though that there is a problem with wargames and open source, which is how to decide on the "right" combat resolution routines. As we know, everyone has their own, often vehement, opinion on this sort of thing. Having a benevolent dictator who decides what is what (i.e. as in proprietary games) is possibly the only solution.

P.S. usecase - good luck with your add-on. Oh and while you're at it could you knock up a decent scenario editor? I spent some time a while back trying to work out the format of SPWaW scenario files (uncompressed version). The actual scenario bit was understandable enough but the map part was frankly beyond me.

< Message edited by Captain Cruft -- 7/27/2004 11:55:11 PM >

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 199
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/28/2004 1:59:08 AM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

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....


Cool...maybe I can help...<<<rumages around in drawer for copy of Atari Assembler>>>

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 200
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
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]
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

1.250