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: Surface Combat Sux

 
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: Surface Combat Sux Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 8:00:16 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mogami

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I wish I had the replay. Sadly number of hits is nothing I can use to judge.
The game uses a system where ships have a number that reflects their durabilty and weapons inflict damage compared to that duribilty. Being hit hundereds of times in the super structure will not result in a ship sinking during combat. (The fires might do it in later)


Then why is this stat even bothered to be reported. When we see "shell hits", the REASONABLE game player is assuming GUN hits, not AA fire hitting a ship, not 20MM machine gun fire, but 5" MINIMUM shell hits!! If the game is reporting AA gun hits as "shell hits" then that is simply IDIOTIC!

quote:


Do I think 8x8in shells will sink a 7k AK?....Sometimes but not if they are hitting the tower and without special damage when other locations are hit. The ship will be in danger but not in the context of the length of a combat phase. Without below the water line damage the ship will remain afloat longer then that.
If you watch any air strikes against a ship you will see that once the ship sinks the following aircraft are unable to locate. In surface combat ships that sink after a round sink before the next round (change in range) if a ship is a target for more then one round of fire it means it was still floating at the start of the later phase.


Ugh!!! So here we have a game where one SNLF unit, in the same hex, but 59.5 miles away can still engage another unit as if they are co-located, but in Naval combat we making distinctions about a single shell hitting a ship's tower vs a more critical area????? And we are treating AA guns used in a surface action the same as 5", 8" and 16" shells????

What's WRONG with THAT picture???


quote:


Do not place to much into the actual animation. It reflects nothing but who is firing and what ship is the target. It shows no formation or speed or anything. You can not tell a forward ship from a rear ship. And I'm not certain all the hits are genuine.


I have never looked at the animation. I just read the combat reports. I assume all the ships in the list are known, spotted ships. I don't give a damn WHICH ship spotted WHICH ship! At the level of abstraction in a STRATEGIC operational game, it really SHOULD NOT MATTER! As far as I'm concerned two TF's in the same hex are CO-LOCATED just as two LCU's are. All this NONSENSE about this being 5,000 yard from that ship but 20,000 yards fromt he other ship is just that....NONSENSE! If I want a tactical ship to ship combat game, I'll play old Harpoon or such!


Hi, Do you read the stuff you write? Why have air to air combat, Why not just make the game resolve the entire war in 1 turn? So you've never watched the combat animation and it is hard for you to grasp that units do not sit in the middle of a hex. One side owns the hex the other side is shown in the hex but the combat is taking place on the hex side. It was just the easy way to show it. But because the hex has both units you think they are all piled on top of each other?

Actually you are demanding a more tactical model while claiming the reverse. If you don't care about the tactics why do you care about the result? The result is what impacts operations not how the model arrives at them. Are we giving you too much data?


I have a long history with hex based wargames for over 25 years. Units in hexes are almost always assumed to be co-located. It is an integral part of using the hex as a game object. So ABSOLUTLEY YES, at the STRATEGIC LEVEL of this game, I think is 100% appropriate to consider all naval forces in a hex to essentially be almost right on top of each other IN THE MIDDLE of the hex! Forces in the next hex are ALL 60 miles away in the MIDDLE of that hex. If not, then the Naval model in the game really isn't using 60 mile hexes at all but much more fine grained coordinates. LCU's damned sure are assumed, for purposes of combat, to be in the middle!

I just want results that make highlevel, abstract sense. I don't care about tower hits, magazine hits, water line hits. All I know is I have 2CL's 6DD's attacking a pack of 10 kt AK's, all in the same location, and I have spotted and identified all 6 AKs. It is PERFECT LOGICAL sense to assume that those 8 30kts ships should get a good roundrobin of reasonbly evenly dispersed hits on the big, fat, slow targets all CO-LOCATED! To get any more detailed than that is a violation of the basic abstraction level design of the game.

< Message edited by ZOOMIE1980 -- 9/10/2004 6:05:07 AM >

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 361
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 8:08:23 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, LOL really. enemy LCU march into a hex and plop down in the center. And thats the way it has been for 25 years? Well all the games I ever played a hex belong to one player and he gains all the benifits from the hex and the other players moving into the hex only shows he is going to contest control of the hex. I don't think anyone ever before told me they were co existing at it's center.
In many games you moved your forces ontop of enemy forces to show attacks and then as you resolved combet 1 side or the other vacated. If the attacker won the defender retreated (like here) but if the attacker failed he returned to starting hex. (unlike here)
(I've been playing hex based games since 1976) (minatures before that)

_____________________________






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

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 362
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 8:09:38 AM   
Bodhi


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

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
For every posted AAR, it is certainly safe to assume upward 100 or more showing similar result are NOT posted.


How can you "safely assume" that the unposted AARs will show similar results if you haven't seen them and don't even know for certain that they exist?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
The OVERWHELMING majority of posters seem to agree


Is the criterion for validity the number of posters in a particular thread.

_____________________________

Bodhi

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 363
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 8:16:55 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, LOL really. enemy LCU march into a hex and plop down in the center. And thats the way it has been for 25 years? Well all the games I ever played a hex belong to one player and he gains all the benifits from the hex and the other players moving into the hex only shows he is going to contest control of the hex. I don't think anyone ever before told me they were co existing at it's center.
In many games you moved your forces ontop of enemy forces to show attacks and then as you resolved combet 1 side or the other vacated. If the attacker won the defender retreated (like here) but if the attacker failed he returned to starting hex. (unlike here)
(I've been playing hex based games since 1976) (minatures before that)



Uhh.. Why can an NLF unit track through jungles for five or more turns enroute to a base on the next hex, show that he's 52 mile along, and then a pursuing force decides to leave it's base and enters the next hex on the next turn enroute to the same base. The NLF show now it's 58 miles there, the pursuer shows it is only 6 miles along, but the two engage in combat as if they are on top of each other????? Explain THAT! For purposes of combat, the two are co-located! One may control the hex and get the benifits of that, but the units are STILL CO-LOCATED!!!!!!

Sorry, I;ve written combat simulations for the Pentagon that involve these very same hex based models. Units in a hex are ALWAYS assumed to be CO-LOCATED for purposes of combat resolution, in EVERY thing I have ever encounter, game or otherwise. The entire combat model is usually predicated on that fact. A HEX is the FINEST locational resolution in the game, PERIOD. Otherwise you are operating on the "Harpoon" RTS model.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 364
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 8:20:00 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
For every posted AAR, it is certainly safe to assume upward 100 or more showing similar result are NOT posted.


How can you "safely assume" that the unposted AARs will show similar results if you haven't seen them and don't even know for certain that they exist?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
The OVERWHELMING majority of posters seem to agree


Is the criterion for validity the number of posters in a particular thread.


Because the posters said so! Posting AAR's is a PAIN IN THE ASS. Most don't do it. Almost ALL DON'T DO IT! But they ALL report the same general problem.

The Fact, is PAL, that the programmers AGREE that this is a problem and are going to look at. At least they see things the same way I do! Which makes sense to anyone with a brain larger than a walnut.

(in reply to Bodhi)
Post #: 365
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 8:20:27 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

And the oddity is, this is probably nothing more than a minor forumula tweek to fix.



Don't be so sure about that. The formula you tweak may impact many other situations you don't want to see changed.


Sorry, Joel, I speak from complete ignorance of your code. But it seams a good deal more simple than modifying that upgrade/research thing....


You're right about that.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 366
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 8:24:30 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline 		And BTW, I never considered that Upgrade thing to be a bug or design problem of any kind. The only error there was in communication of intent as far as I'm concerned. Once Mogami explained why it was the way it was, that was plenty good enough for me.....

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 367
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 8:30:11 AM   
Bodhi


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

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Because the posters said so! Posting AAR's is a PAIN IN THE ASS. Most don't do it. Almost ALL DON'T DO IT! But they ALL report the same general problem.


Yes but do you have any data on the users who haven't encountered this problem? Have you seen the majority of results from all WitP games? As with any perceived problem, can you be sure that the few people who post in a thread are indicative of the overall situation? Just as it may be a "pain" to post AARs, it may also be a "pain" for those who don't perceive a particular problem to post and say so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
The Fact, is PAL, that the programmers AGREE that this is a problem and are going to look at. At least they see things the same way I do! Which makes sense to anyone with a brain larger than a walnut.


Don't know if you're trying to insult me here, but if you are it's uncalled for and usually indicative of someone loosing an argument.

_____________________________

Bodhi

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 368
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 8:37:38 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Because the posters said so! Posting AAR's is a PAIN IN THE ASS. Most don't do it. Almost ALL DON'T DO IT! But they ALL report the same general problem.


Yes but do you have any data on the users who haven't encountered this problem? Have you seen the majority of results from all WitP games? As with any perceived problem, can you be sure that the few people who post in a thread are indicative of the overall situation? Just as it may be a "pain" to post AARs, it may also be a "pain" for those who don't perceive a particular problem to post and say so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
The Fact, is PAL, that the programmers AGREE that this is a problem and are going to look at. At least they see things the same way I do! Which makes sense to anyone with a brain larger than a walnut.


Don't know if you're trying to insult me here, but if you are it's uncalled for and usually indicative of someone loosing an argument.


Responding to an insult with an insult, for sure. The fact is the overwhelming majority of posters in this thread feel that there is a problem with surface combat vs unescorted transport TF's. Only four or five AAR's or AAR fragments were posted, but many simply claimed they've seen the same thing REPEATEDLY. I have seen about a dozen such results since I installed the game back in early July. I posted on AAR. Most of the other didn't post a single one.

But I think it is perfectly safe to assume from the large body of posts in the thread, that very large majority of those posting here, percieve a problem. Joel Billings, a game programmer, apparently agrees that there is probably is a problem, at least with daylight engagements of this kind. Which of course means, again, those reporting a problem seem to carried the day......just as they did in the upgrade thing, the auto-victory toggle thing, the Allied ASW thing, and the AI death spiral thing......

(in reply to Bodhi)
Post #: 369
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 8:38:33 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, No what I think he said was that is was working as designed. (meaning it is not a bug) But they will look again and if it does not seem like too much trouble for such a minor issue they will tweek 1 part of it.

There are 13 pages of this thread. Count the actual number off posters to this 13 page thread that report a problem. Count the actual number of users that post no problem. Now tell me again what overwhelming means to you?

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/10/2004 1:41:14 AM >

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Bodhi)
Post #: 370
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 8:41:25 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, No what I think he said was that is was working as designed. (meaning it is not a bug) But they will look again and if it does not seem like too much trouble for such a minor issue they will tweek 1 part of it.


I think that's all those reporting the problem want. That includes me.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 371
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 8:50:31 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline 		Overwhelming.....well from what i can tell you are about the only one who sees NO problem of any kind. A few others see a potential problem but not enough of one to worry much about since such engagements are rare anyway. The rest are hung up on it. What 20 or so see at least some kind of problem. 2 or 3 agree it;s no big deal (I'm actually one of those, it's broken to me, but it is something that I think will only happen a half dozen or so times in a 1500+ turn game) and then .... you ... who seems to see no problems of any kind with any aspect of this game.....

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 372
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 9:03:50 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline 		I think what they are getting at Zoomie is all people posting in this thread, problem or not, is less than 40. That is only a fraction of the at least 1,000 (or even 500) people that own WiTP. He is saying you aren't getting a good enough sample to make any conclusions as to whether it is or is not a problem. YOu have heard from only a select few people.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 373
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 9:08:25 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I think what they are getting at Zoomie is all people posting in this thread, problem or not, is less than 40. That is only a fraction of the at least 1,000 (or even 500) people that own WiTP. He is saying you aren't getting a good enough sample to make any conclusions as to whether it is or is not a problem. YOu have heard from only a select few people.


True, for sure. But these are the people that consider it important enough to post about it. I think is it logical to extrapolate the percentages to the overall population. I mean Gallup polls a 1000 people on the Presidential election in the US, and extrapolates that to represent almost 200,000,000 potential voters.....

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 374
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 9:09:16 AM   
Bodhi


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

ORIGINAL: Bodhi
Don't know if you're trying to insult me here, but if you are it's uncalled for and usually indicative of someone loosing an argument.
quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Responding to an insult with an insult, for sure.



Sorry don't see any insult there, only an observation that when someone starts insulting someone else it's usually a sign of a loosing argument. Besides which, is it an insult if you loose an argument?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Overwhelming.....well from what i can tell you are about the only one who sees NO problem of any kind. A few others see a potential problem but not enough of one to worry much about since such engagements are rare anyway. The rest are hung up on it. What 20 or so see at least some kind of problem. 2 or 3 agree it;s no big deal (I'm actually one of those, it's broken to me, but it is something that I think will only happen a half dozen or so times in a 1500+ turn game) and then .... you ... who seems to see no problems of any kind with any aspect of this game.....


Let's be generous and say that there are 30 posters in this thread that have a problem with this aspect of WitP (although I think your value of 20 may be nearer the mark). Now another assumption: WitP has sold 1,000 copies - don't know if this is reasonable or not, but when the very first patches were released via the forum, the number of downloads was soon in the 700-800s. Now, my walnut brain can't handle the calculation as it can't do decimals, but I'd hazard a guess that a small percentage of users are concerned about this issue. I just wonder how the other few hundred users view this problem. I assume your "overwhelming" was directed to the many who either don't perceive a problem, or can't be bothered to post.

_____________________________

Bodhi

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 375
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 9:09:28 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline 		Very true. But they are randomly selected. Here, you have mostly people who consider it a problem, and a few trying to defend it. Hardly an equal, random sample. It's biased.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 376
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 9:10:34 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

Let's be generous and say that there are 30 posters in this thread that have a problem with this aspect of WitP (although I think your value of 20 may be nearer the mark). Now another assumption: WitP has sold 1,000 copies - don't know if this is reasonable or not, but when the very first patches were released via the forum, the number of downloads was soon in the 700-800s. Now, my walnut brain can't handle the calculation as it can't do decimals, but I'd hazard a guess that a small percentage of users are concerned about this issue. I just wonder how the other few hundred users view this problem. I assume your "overwhelming" was directed to the many who either don't perceive a problem, or can't be bothered to post.



If you figure 20 people, and 800 sold, that comes out to 2.5 percent who think it is a problem.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Bodhi)
Post #: 377
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 9:11:57 AM   
Bodhi


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

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
True, for sure. But these are the people that consider it important enough to post about it. I think is it logical to extrapolate the percentages to the overall population. I mean Gallup polls a 1000 people on the Presidential election in the US, and extrapolates that to represent almost 200,000,000 potential voters.....


Yes but Gallop try very hard to get a random sampling of voters, WitP users who delight in 13 page discussions and "consider it important enough to post about" may not be typical users. So, I'm sorry even my walnut brain balks at your extrapolation.

_____________________________

Bodhi

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 378
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 9:13:34 AM   
Bodhi


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

ORIGINAL: Tankerace
If you figure 20 people, and 800 sold, that comes out to 2.5 percent who think it is a problem.


I was trying to nudge you towards 1000 copies sold as I mentioned I can't do decimals.

_____________________________

Bodhi

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 379
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 9:25:37 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline 		LOL... in that case...it comes out too.... lets see.... 2 percent even. A measley 2 percent, or 1 out of every 50 people who own the game.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Bodhi)
Post #: 380
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 9:27:39 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Thats not true. But it appears pointless after so many tries to point out that I need to know more then "It's broken" to test. You don't know it is broken. You just don't like a result you got. Then someone else with a result like that posts Soon every bad result is a broken routine. You squeal until someone says we'll look at it. But you ninnies don't understand the moment a tester posts in your thread your problem is being looked at.

When we come back and ask "who was in command" "retire or not retire" "movement before combat" "weather" "ammo " and everything else we are looking. When we go to great lengths to explain how it supposed to work we don't get "ah ok but thats not what happened" we get "why are you defending this crap"

In truth there are times where you will not damage as much as you wish. Whether the mechanism for protecting transports is giving too much protection is the issue being looked at. Not whether surface TF always inflict signicant damage. (They will not always do so. Other things contribute to that beyond mere ship speed and gun size)

I don't care what is changed. As I said from the start this is a non issue with me. I only care about 1 thing. Are the results produced being produced correctly. I know most of what I am looking for. I catch flak because I try to explain to others how the results are supposed to be produced so rather then making a post like "my results sux the game is broke" We get a detailed explantion of what happened. We've posted many times that if you think something is out of whack just be able to repeat the event and send in a save.
How hard is that? If it is a bug and we get a save it will get fixed right then and there.

A bug is when the game does not work as designed. A result you don't agree with but that is the result of proper function of game is not a bug. A bug gets fixed right away (as soon as we can repeat it with a save) Something not everyone is happy with has to be occuring at a rate that warrents a change that the majority of players agree with.

My personal feeling is that super allied Taskforce do not exist in Dec 1941 and that is likely the most common factor involved. However Mr Frag has made me aware that he had a result using Tanaka so there is more here then I thought. But we are testing to make sure. I've had good luck so far in my games. But I seem to be on the lucky side and other people are not so lucky as often. If I had been seeing the same results as Japan while testing it would have been reported. I can't report what I don't see. As soon as a forum member posts a problem before I post I go run a few tests of the same item. I posted the results in this thread. Based on those results I felt it was more a matter of TF size and period of war. If you have a save showing these events in progress it would help.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/10/2004 2:31:34 AM >

_____________________________






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

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 381
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 9:27:53 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bodhi
Don't know if you're trying to insult me here, but if you are it's uncalled for and usually indicative of someone loosing an argument.
quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Responding to an insult with an insult, for sure.



Sorry don't see any insult there, only an observation that when someone starts insulting someone else it's usually a sign of a loosing argument. Besides which, is it an insult if you loose an argument?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Overwhelming.....well from what i can tell you are about the only one who sees NO problem of any kind. A few others see a potential problem but not enough of one to worry much about since such engagements are rare anyway. The rest are hung up on it. What 20 or so see at least some kind of problem. 2 or 3 agree it;s no big deal (I'm actually one of those, it's broken to me, but it is something that I think will only happen a half dozen or so times in a 1500+ turn game) and then .... you ... who seems to see no problems of any kind with any aspect of this game.....


Let's be generous and say that there are 30 posters in this thread that have a problem with this aspect of WitP (although I think your value of 20 may be nearer the mark). Now another assumption: WitP has sold 1,000 copies - don't know if this is reasonable or not, but when the very first patches were released via the forum, the number of downloads was soon in the 700-800s. Now, my walnut brain can't handle the calculation as it can't do decimals, but I'd hazard a guess that a small percentage of users are concerned about this issue. I just wonder how the other few hundred users view this problem. I assume your "overwhelming" was directed to the many who either don't perceive a problem, or can't be bothered to post.



There is obviously enough of a volume of complaint, accompanied by quality, logical arguement to

1) Get the programmers to agree that it IS a potential problem worthy to look at

2) To agree that they will likely make engage in some fine tuning for the one problem area, daytime surface combat TF engagement of unescorted transport TF's.

Which is precisely what those complaining about this issue wanted to see.

Billings and Co. agree this area doesn't seem right, so i guess the thread served it's purpose just as the threads on upgrades, VP toggles, Allied ASW, and the myriad of other areas in the above poll the betas seemed overwhelminingly opposed to....

(in reply to Bodhi)
Post #: 382
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 9:34:01 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
True, for sure. But these are the people that consider it important enough to post about it. I think is it logical to extrapolate the percentages to the overall population. I mean Gallup polls a 1000 people on the Presidential election in the US, and extrapolates that to represent almost 200,000,000 potential voters.....


Yes but Gallop try very hard to get a random sampling of voters, WitP users who delight in 13 page discussions and "consider it important enough to post about" may not be typical users. So, I'm sorry even my walnut brain balks at your extrapolation.


Guess it was good enough to get the developers to look at it!

(in reply to Bodhi)
Post #: 383
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 9:36:57 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

LOL... in that case...it comes out too.... lets see.... 2 percent even. A measley 2 percent, or 1 out of every 50 people who own the game.



Yea, and only roughly 12.5% of Americans decide who is President every four years. Only those eligable to vote, that bother to register and then bother to actually turn out and vote. And 51-55% of that group picks the President. In the end 12% or so ACTUALLY choose the President!

Bottom line, if you don't "vote" (participate in the discussion)you are IRRELEVANT.

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 384
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 9:39:13 AM   
Bodhi


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

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
and the myriad of other areas in the above poll the betas seemed overwhelminingly opposed to....


Why do you always seem to see things as ZOOMIE1980 vs the betas? I may not always agree with everything the betas post, but I recognise that they have more knowledge of how the games works, and is meant to work, than any users who've had this game for only a few weeks. I also admire the dedication that they've shown into testing the game to get it to this point. I fail to see why every thread that highlights a possible game issue always seems to include a prerequisite "let's beat on the beta testers" angle to it.

(BTW, any who may still be reading, feel free to use "ZOOMIE1980 vs betas" as the name for your new band.)

_____________________________

Bodhi

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 385
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 9:39:35 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

LOL... in that case...it comes out too.... lets see.... 2 percent even. A measley 2 percent, or 1 out of every 50 people who own the game.


Well, being in the business of dealing with the public, I learned very early on the concept of the silent majority. These are the folks who don't complain out loud, they do it by simply not returning a second time. If you only count those who are loudest and fail to take their complaints or numbers seriously, you are taking a risk.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 9/10/2004 2:45:59 AM >

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 386
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 9:42:06 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, You like the word "overwheming" Find a post by me where I say at any time "I am opposed to any change"
Then do some homework before saying I am opposed to anything. For the record the first mention of victory points being turned off was back in Feb 2002. About 3 posts after victory conditions were first explained. Read all the public posts on victory conditons.
The private ones you can't read and I will not post them but in public in more then one post I stated.

1. I am against using points to decide victory.
2. Victory should be the surrender (or not) of Japan.
3. Japanese surrender should be tied to her supply status, Allies agreeing to retain emperor (Unconditional surrender raised allied victory 1 level but Japan would not surrender unless Emperor was kept or cites in Japan were occupied by Allied troops

However once the designers went the point route that is what I tested. When players asked for the auto toggle I was not opposed but I pointed out that if they were getting the ratios then something was wrong somewhere. And that the AI was not designed to play without the VP

_____________________________






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

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 387
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 9:44:17 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Thats not true. But it appears pointless after so many tries to point out that I need to know more then "It's broken" to test. You don't know it is broken. You just don't like a result you got. Then someone else with a result like that posts Soon every bad result is a broken routine. You squeal until someone says we'll look at it. But you ninnies don't understand the moment a tester posts in your thread your problem is being looked at.

When we come back and ask "who was in command" "retire or not retire" "movement before combat" "weather" "ammo " and everything else we are looking. When we go to great lengths to explain how it supposed to work we don't get "ah ok but thats not what happened" we get "why are you defending this crap"

In truth there are times where you will not damage as much as you wish. Whether the mechanism for protecting transports is giving too much protection is the issue being looked at. Not whether surface TF always inflict signicant damage. (They will not always do so. Other things contribute to that beyond mere ship speed and gun size)

I don't care what is changed. As I said from the start this is a non issue with me. I only care about 1 thing. Are the results produced being produced correctly. I know most of what I am looking for. I catch flak because I try to explain to others how the results are supposed to be produced so rather then making a post like "my results sux the game is broke" We get a detailed explantion of what happened. We've posted many times that if you think something is out of whack just be able to repeat the event and send in a save.
How hard is that? If it is a bug and we get a save it will get fixed right then and there.

A bug is when the game does not work as designed. A result you don't agree with but that is the result of proper function of game is not a bug. A bug gets fixed right away (as soon as we can repeat it with a save) Something not everyone is happy with has to be occuring at a rate that warrents a change that the majority of players agree with.

My personal feeling is that super allied Taskforce do not exist in Dec 1941 and that is likely the most common factor involved. However Mr Frag has made me aware that he had a result using Tanaka so there is more here then I thought. But we are testing to make sure. I've had good luck so far in my games. But I seem to be on the lucky side and other people are not so lucky as often. If I had been seeing the same results as Japan while testing it would have been reported. I can't report what I don't see. As soon as a forum member posts a problem before I post I go run a few tests of the same item. I posted the results in this thread. Based on those results I felt it was more a matter of TF size and period of war. If you have a save showing these events in progress it would help.


When 100% of my surface combats show the same general results, yes, it IS broken. When the majority of posters in the forum report similar things, that just further confirms it. I don't really give a damn if they ALL provide you an AAR with a same game file. That's not needed to identify that this is a problem.

And thank Goodness that doesn't seem to be needed by the coders to recognize a problem, either. Posting AAR's, emailing save game files, etc... is a PAIN THE ASS. We only have a few short hours a day to play the game, we damned sure as HELL don't have time to futz with all that CRAP. In these cases, when enough posters state they see the same general problems, that should be ENOUGH to recognize that there is some kind of problem. the team should be able to recreate the general situation on their own without the need of save game files (load any game in the #15 or #16 scen and set up a 2CL, 4-6 DD TF on one side and 10 AK;s on the other. Run it 20 times. You will see the problem....)

Irrelevant, anyway, since they are going to look at and probably tweek this part whether you like it or not....

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 388
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 9:47:42 AM   
Bodhi


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

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Bottom line, if you don't "vote" (participate in the discussion)you are IRRELEVANT.


At the risk of being pedantic, no, he's not irrelevant, he's Tankerace, this is irrelevant

_____________________________

Bodhi

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 389
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 9:48:51 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline 		I cracked up when I read that.... lol.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Bodhi)
Post #: 390
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Surface Combat Sux Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.125