RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War



Message

GoodGuy -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 11:27:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

- Wake Island - I just had a massive LOL. Whoever designed this needs to have his head examined.


Dude, you've got a few interesting points in that posting, but you should stick to the facts and you should strike the right note.

quote:

Single player dudes will play thru all scenarios and variants (some of which are laughable even for SP) by the end of the summer and that will be it.

Erm, no. I got the game like a bit more than a week ago, played all maps on both sides and I'm pretty much done with the game, as there's nothing left to explore (besides MP.. I haven't tried that, but after reading this thread I think I won't even tinker with it).

On Pearl, playing IJN, I sent in all support TGs (right into the harbor) completely ignoring Pearl's airbases, with my carrier group keeping a safe distance so that it wouldn't be spotted. Several full strikes on the anchored ships, PLUS the support groups attacking the remaining US TGs did the job, ALL ships (40) in the harbor sunk. That's as simple as it can get, regarding scenario design, game content/rules and historical accuracy.

I like the game's approach very much, but missing features, disturbing rule details (let alone the small number of scenarios) and the general lack of stuff in the content department keep me from loving the game. If there'll be one or 2 patches, along with some custom scenarios, I'll pick up the game again to see if it's going to be more challenging/thrilling.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

It lies in the developer's stern-willed insistence that the USN and IJN fought these battles the same way. The fact of the matter is, though, that this was not the case.

Yep, definitely.
With an exception maybe, both forces believed that it was necessary to employ large battleships, although some of these ships had a hard time, due to aircrafts and submarines gaining effectiveness and speed significantly (during the course of the war).
Several "movements" within the USN tried to adjust parts of the Naval doctrine, since carrier forces proved to be way more effective.
The advocats of the BBs prevailed and managed to keep them, they even enforced the reactivation of several BBs after the war, although advanced technologies, which were used in new a/c types or submarines (i.e. anti-ship missiles, long-range homing torpedos), appeared to become vital threats during the following decades. Cruisers and frigates, employed as rocket-platforms, turned out to be more effective and carriers became the backbone/main arm within modern naval (non-nuclear) forces.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 11:58:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy
quote:

Single player dudes will play thru all scenarios and variants (some of which are laughable even for SP) by the end of the summer and that will be it.

Erm, no. I got the game like a bit more than a week ago, played all maps on both sides and I'm pretty much done with the game, as there's nothing left to explore


Yes I was insanely optimistic with "end of the summer" prediction. For us who bought the game 7-10 days ago, it's already getting old, nothing to do, nothing to explore, MP being a massive disappointment as I already described at length in this thread. I didn't want to be labelled "negativistic", nay sayer, hater or something, so I wrote "the end of the summer". However, the thought of playing this till the end of the summer would make me cry with desperation.....

I have nothing against games that are short on content or have low replay value. If that's the design decision or limitation then so be it. They should be budget priced though. 20 or 25 bucks for a week of fun is not bad at all, but 50 bucks for 6 scenarios with low replay value and useless MP..... leaves a sour aftertaste in one's mouth.

My main gripe, however, is moronic design for MP scenarios (or moronic design for scenarios, that becomes apparent in MP). This is perhaps the only part of the game where I feel seriously cheated and mislead by the hype/marketing.



sullafelix -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/24/2007 3:50:33 AM)

I am so shocked and amazed at some attitudes toward this game. I'm almost thinking that we are playing different games. CAW since it's original appearance has been the standard for carrier warfare. The AI was always considered to be one of if not the best ever made. With all the discussion and postings about this game for over a year, what did some people think they were getting? maybe it's not some peoples cup of tea but to see it lambasted. Leaves me shaking my head in disbelief. In this age where you are lucky to get any content at all in a game beside idiotic flash.

What would you people think is a good multiplayer game? the few that I have played that are huge in MP are some of the most useless attempts at games I've ever seen. The few that I have played are just a rush to create a huge army and then do a tank rush and one side or the other is gone. No strategy no thinking, no nothing from my point of view. Do you guys like the multiplayer in HPS games? What wargames in your view have excellent MP? I'm not trying to be a smart*** I'm just really confused.



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/24/2007 5:32:31 AM)

It seems to me that what we stand accused of here is not designing MP scenarios exactly the way that some people want. We're almost certainly guilty of that, but lets step back just a moment and think about the crime.

Actually, before we do that, I'd like to get one thing of my chest. Although we don't make a song and dance about it, and plaster kangaroos all over the cover, SSG all live in Australia. That's on the other side of the world to most of our customers, so while you're typing, we may well be sleeping. It really annoys me when we get accused of virtual cowardice, and here I mean you, Oleg, when it's just the operation of some fundamental natural laws at play. I'm assuming that it's OK with you guys if we do sleep. I logged on yesterday morning, our time, and answered all post. I'm doing so now, (Sunday morning our time), and I think that's good enough.

Secondly, while we're at it, lets address the issue of tone. It is so very easy to get carried away, in an impersonal medium like this, and speak to people in a way that you would never do in real life. We must resist that temptation and keep things civil, otherwise we are all the worse off.

So to return to the main question. There are always diverging views on the approach to multiplayer games. Some people just want to replay historical situations with the AI replaced by a human player. For them, it's the historicity that is paramount. Other people want to emphasize the contest, and for them a level playing field is most important. While there will always be some tension between the two approaches, these things can be managed.

So lets examine what CAW has going for it. It has a stable and practical realtime multiplayer system. Let's think about that. Most wargames don't have realtime multiplayer at all. Many games (not just wargames) that provide multiplayer fail on the stable/practical part of the equation. If we hadn't spent our limited time and resources on creating that then this conversation wouldn't be happening at all.

So what can be done. As has been pointed out, issues with victory levels, can easily be changed in the Editor. Alternatively, you could just agree on some house rules to ignore victory conditions and just compare Victory Points to decide a multiplayer outcome. You could equally agree that if player announces that he's running for it, and that his naval forces will no longer conduct offensive operations, then those forces will not be pursued past a certain point.

Now I know that some people will say that we should have put in some sort of exit point. They're right, but as I said, we felt we had to concentrate on getting the fundamentals of multiplayer right. It is the sort of thing that we can add to a patch, and we will.

That brings me to my last point. SSG has a very long history of listening to its customers and improving and supporting its games. Carriers at War will be no different. People can contribute to the wishlist thread, or even start a separate multplayer wishlist, and we'll take all suggestions seriously and respond as we have already been doing.

Carriers at war is only just out. No game is ever perfect in all things to all people, but they can be made better. People can choose to work with us to improve it, or not, as they see fit.

Gregor



GoodGuy -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/24/2007 5:57:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05

The AI was always considered to be one of if not the best ever made.


Do you mean best AI of all naval sims? If not, I'd have to disagree. The most thrilling, variable and complex AI I've seen was in the Airborne Assault engine, easily the best engine on the market (HttR and COTA), and Korsun is/was excellent too.


quote:

With all the discussion and postings about this game for over a year, what did some people think they were getting? maybe it's not some peoples cup of tea but to see it lambasted....

I've read some announcements/news and liked the approach when I read the specs for the retail version, but I didn't know/own the "ancient" original incarnation. Well, regarding ppl lambasting the game... whoever you've got in mind there, I do understand some of their statements and where they're coming from, as I'm somewhat disappointed myself. But let me quote Gregor:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:27 pm by Gregor Whiley, SSG (Run 5 forums)

"Carriers at war fights a single battle, like Midway or Coral Sea, at a time and doesn't try to do entire campaigns like Uncommon Valour, it concentrates on the excitement and tension of a single engagement. There's plenty of that, so if you buy it you won't be disappointed."


Comments like these and SSG's superb reputation led to me buying the game. Unfortunately, I did not find "plenty of that", and, as a matter of fact, I am rather disappointed. Now, this might come down to personal taste or to ppl not wanting to wait for custom scenarios, but, despite the game's excellent general approach, it contains silly/weak spots (content/rules, etc.).

Ppl who are buying wargames (let's ignore personal tastes for a second) do expect historical accuracy (let's say for historic missions), quite some replay value, and/or a good basic package.... they'd be buying what we call more "commercial" products.... games for the masses, otherwise.
Many are picky, which makes it even harder for developers to survive in this niche-market. But that's where these devs use to be the most customer-friendly species, as they use to listen to their customers in order to make a good product even better, although they're already serving a niche-market.
This niche's extraordinary customer support keeps some ppl glued to one or another company, and I hope that this doesn't die.
But when ppl are criticizing products this might not necessarily mean that they're lambasting or vituperating, but that these ppl want to help to improve a product, to make it good or even better.

Ppl emitting constructive critizism should strike the right tone, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05

In this age where you are lucky to get any content at all in a game beside idiotic flash.

And that's why I described the niche-devs' situation. In these forums, we are not talking about games for the masses, games where developers can get away with selling half-as*sed/unfinished + buggy software (with a massive amount of sloppy programming), as they turn over high volumes, but about wargames.
Customers in the wargaming sector aren't as easy as fans of the mass game sector, imo, they don't put up with everything, and I'm convinced that these wargame-devs are aware of it.
During all those yrs of gaming on the computer I've come across some wargamers who refrain from emitting constructive criticism in order to protect the sensitive "plants" -> the wargame developers. But, as a customer, I've got the right to say where I experience weaknesses or deficiencies within a given product, I think, be it a niche-game or a "mass-game".

Just to clarify, I'm not saying CAW contains a massive amount of bugs (I've experienced one bug only, and hmm.. 3 or 4 CTDs now). It's a solid product.

quote:

What would you people think is a good multiplayer game? the few that I have played that are huge in MP ...[]... that I have played are just a rush to create a huge army and then do a tank rush and one side or the other is gone. No strategy no thinking, no nothing from my point of view.

Well, this would be a perfect description for any RTS á la Command and Conquer, Starcraft or similar games (even Company of Heroes has a tiny bit more depth). It doesn't sound like a description of any of the excellent wargames/sims I've purchased during the last 18 yrs, well .... maybe Civilization had such features partially, along with those wargames where the player with the bigger stack of units uses to win a local battle.

quote:

What wargames in your view have excellent MP? I'm not trying to be a smart*** I'm just really confused.

Again, Airborne Assault. The problem with that series is that it's hard to find opponents, since there's no BattleHQ (central server) where ppl could meet, also, it's like a niche-game within a niche-market. The MP (of HttR/COTA) is excellent, nevertheless, and I have yet to find a more challenging game for MP. Bonus (and my personal fav): It's "pausable continous play" (dev statement) , but this makes it a niche-game within a niche.
Pausable real-time was another feature on the spec sheet which made me buy CAW, btw.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

People can choose to work with us to improve it, or not, as they see fit.


Fair enough. How about releasing a demo to collect feedback prior to the release of a retail (or addon/sequel?)?



sullafelix -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/24/2007 4:03:36 PM)

You are correct. What I meant to say was the best AI up until HTTR and Ageod's games. As far as content I have seen more than a few posts on other forums about people not buying the new CAW because they are still playing the old CAW and it has much more content. But, I believe given time and the internet as it is now. There will be much more content within six months compared to the first incarnation. As far as the lambasting I was always told you get more fly's with sugar than vinegar.

I myself was drooling when Battlefront was being released. Then through searching I found out that it would not have the AI abilities of for want of a better term the original Battlefronts. I was extremely disappointed. I still bought but I'm hoping their will be a rethinking and a patch that would add it back in. A company like SSG who released a wargame for free ( TAO ) not very long after it was on sale, plus the fact that they keep releasing better versions of it. Seems to me a company that will try to fufill buyers wishes and comments.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/24/2007 4:45:43 PM)

quote:

So to return to the main question. There are always diverging views on the approach to multiplayer games.


I appreciate your post even though I don't find it very encouraging. It's obvious scenario testing in MP was very lacking to put it mildly. It's hard for me to convey how disappointed I am with CAW MP, or MP in wargames in general. In FPS games we have a whole subgenre of online-only FPS games, designed to be played exclusively in MP, and this genre is already bursting with quality titles plus new ones are being developed and released on a monthly basis. Kiddy RTS, same thing - tons of quality MP titles. Developing even a primarily single player game without quality MP subsystem, specialized MP maps and whatnot is considered suicide in those genres.

In serious wargaming - yeah I know it's a niche genre and all - we have developers constantly ignore all forms of human vs human play (H2H), perhaps including it as an afterthought, implementing it badly, never testing scenarios in H2H etc. Turn based wargames include PBEM, but usually only with very basic of options, no encription, no security, sometimes not even a basic stuff like turn replay (see recent posts on CEAW board) and are reluctant to do any improvements to PBEM thru patches, as they consider it a waste of time and energy since "most players play solitaire anyway", which is not always true but is repeated like a mantra. I don't know the SSG's track record regarding PBEM, so I *might* have been wrong to use this thread and this game to spill the accumulated bitterness over MP for the whole genre, but hey, if that's the only thing I did wrong, I am guilty as charged, no regrets.

When I saw CAW I thought "wow this is going to be SO different". My enthusiasm for CAW MP shows in like half a dozen threads I opened etc. To cut this not very long story even shorter - current MP with current scenarios on current maps is crap. Sorry mate it's crap, period.

Had you tested ES, SC or Wake scenarios for like twice vs human terrible shortcomings I listed would become very obvious. Of course, AI is too "honorable" to sacrifice CVs to launch on transports while threatened by enemy CVs in Wake scenario, but that's exactly what a sneaky human would do, knowing that sinking two rusty Marus will bring him decisive victory, regardless of lost CVs. Your "honorable" AI might retreat when damaged, but "crazy" human will be ready to sacrifice CVs to get the Marus if Marus, in your ridicolous scenario design, mean victory. Being cornered on the open ocean etc. - again your honorable AI might be programmed to stop at the lattitude of Lunga and never pursue, but a human will pursue (after all it's the smart thing to do).

I am using "honorable" to describe the AI while I really mean to say "stupid" or "very limited". I did play vs AI and I cannot for the life of me understand those raising the AI to heavens. It's very very limited and usually timid. AI rarely or never transfers squadrons to forward airfields (something a human player will do in the first milisecond). AI never forms large groups to share CAP. AI never uses baits and ambushes. Sure, a full IJN CV TF strike will obliterate USN player's force but that's not exactly because of fantastic AI, that's because IJN aircraft and pilots are modelled as uber elite, and victory requirements are ridicolous. Playing as uber-Japs I can beat the USN AI in this game blindfolded and drunk. But hey no complaints from me regarding the AI because I expect the AI to be crap that's why usually the only thing I care for in games is H2H anyway. AI works for AI dudes which is fine. MP does NOT work for MP dudes like me which is NOT fine.

I do feel I was led to believe CAW MP will be worthwhile, but it simply isn't, and I don't think it will ever be. And it irritates me to see the full price tag on a game that interests me primarily for MP, and implements the said MP badly.

quote:

It has a stable and practical realtime multiplayer system.


Not really "stable" now that YOU mentioned it. I had numerous crashes and slowdowns - all reported thru your Debug tool BTW, and some reported here on the board as well.

quote:

Carriers at war is only just out. No game is ever perfect in all things to all people, but they can be made better. People can choose to work with us to improve it, or not, as they see fit.


Nice propaganda mate but it rarely works like that. We'll see, I am ready to wait while playing other games (hey nothing better to do anyway) but I remain suspicious. I learned thru experience - whenever a developer or publisher gets to the "you can edit it in editor" argument you know there is something wrong with the system and it will never be corrected by the "you can edit it in the editor" guys. There's one even worse argument "use house rules". Perhaps I might in enormously huge monster like WITP, but here, what, because you made maps ridicolously small?

I did try to use house rules, and had the guy laugh at me when I asked him not to pursue my USN forces if I decide to retreat to south on the miniscule Santa Cruz map.... Know how this game ended? My damaged USN TFs did a full circle and retreated towards **NORTH** and NE thru that channel in between Rabaul and Buka!! I was running full steam towards Kwajalein when the scenario ended. Nowhere to go nowhere to hide.... [8|]



Scott_WAR -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/24/2007 8:12:01 PM)

I have to agree with Oleg here. ALL games are slowly starting to be more MP balanced,....... because they have to be. VERY few games that are not MP capable, no change that, very few games that dont have a GOOD MP component sell well any more. Its called the internet, and it has become popular over the last few years. Any company that is foolish enough to think that the internet isnt an important part of a game now deserves to fold and go out of business.

I havent tried carriers at war in MP yet, but from playng many MP games, wargames included, and from what I see being described here, it looks as if CaW is in serious trouble. I was very concerened about the extremely small number of scenarios when I first fired up CaW, but figured MP would be its saving grace. Obviously it isnt, and now I wonder if the game will last at all, and have to really question the cost of the game considering how little game there actually is.


Then there is the question of future updates to the game. As Oleg stated, any time I hear a developer mention "it can be fixed with the editor" I know with almost 99% accuracy that the developer isnt planning oin fixing anything, but instead consider the inclusion of an editor as the ultimate patch. I hope that isnt the case here, becasue that isnt true. If the game is going to prosper or fail based on MP, then the MP scenarios must be "OFFICIAL" before they will be used by the majority.

Honestly, the words "house rules" and "it can be fixed with the editor" to me mean, "we are done spending time and money on this, you have the tools available......you fix it..... thanks for the money".

Right now I am optimistic though, Matrix has too good of a name as far as support and updating games to allow this to ruin its reputation.



GoodGuy -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/24/2007 8:44:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

Right now I am optimistic though, Matrix has too good of a name as far as support and updating games to allow this to ruin its reputation.


Well, yeah, but you do know that Matrix is the distributor, not the developer, in this case, right? :P.



Scott_WAR -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/24/2007 8:55:23 PM)

Oh yeah, but if a company wants to continue using Matrix as a publisher, they should be required live up to a certain standard of support.



sullafelix -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/24/2007 9:24:15 PM)

Ok I don't want to start a flame war, but. The " developer " you are talking about is SSG, not some fly by night first game company. Please understand that SSG was the wargame company when you guys were in diapers. Also any polls I've ever seen that discounting mmpg's the amount of MP is 1-3 %. Very few grognards play MP because of the way that opponents twist the rules.

If the game is that bad in your eyes why hasn't anyone posting here asked for a refund? I saw one or two threads where people really didn't like the game and Matrix said they would work with them. It also looks like there are 1-100+ posts about people who are missing out on the real world because they can't stop playing.




Scott_WAR -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/24/2007 9:46:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05

Ok I don't want to start a flame war, but. The " developer " you are talking about is SSG, not some fly by night first game company. Please understand that SSG was the wargame company when you guys were in diapers. Also any polls I've ever seen that discounting mmpg's the amount of MP is 1-3 %. Very few grognards play MP because of the way that opponents twist the rules.

If the game is that bad in your eyes why hasn't anyone posting here asked for a refund? I saw one or two threads where people really didn't like the game and Matrix said they would work with them. It also looks like there are 1-100+ posts about people who are missing out on the real world because they can't stop playing.




Yes, they are an old wargame company, hopefully this fact wont hurt them, and they will remember to evolve as gaming evolves. This subject is a perfect example of where the "old ways" dont work in the modern world. The internet is an accepted and expected part of PC gaming now, time to move on in to the new century.

Yes a lot of old wargamers dont/didnt play MP all that much, and yes part of the reason is because a lot of players play within the rules the games designer implemented, and those rules are not suited for MP, "twisting" them as you called it,......... which is EXACTLY the problem we are discussing. Many game developers have realized this and have started developing their games to be as good, and in most cases BETTER, during MP.

You dont see us asking for a refund because most of us have been dealing with Matrix for years, and know the refund policy. I have never wanted a refund from Matrix for any games I have bought before, and dont for this game. It has potential, and SSG has been around a long time. I'll wait and see.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/24/2007 10:11:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05
If the game is that bad in your eyes why hasn't anyone posting here asked for a refund? I saw one or two threads where people really didn't like the game and Matrix said they would work with them. It also looks like there are 1-100+ posts about people who are missing out on the real world because they can't stop playing.


What?? Asking for a refund on a public forum is about the most childish thing one can do. It's not like I am going to stave because of 50 bucks, it's just that I feel cheated and mislead by advertising and am voicing out my opinion here. No big deal. People "who miss out on the real world because they can't stop playing" should try playing vs other humans to see how deeply flawed scenarios they play vs AI really are. But hey, if they enjoy the game the way it is who am I to tell them what to do? And who are you to tell ME what to do?

I don't understand why do people like you even bother posting in a MP related thread. Do you play multiplayer? How many MP games have you played? Do you want to play vs me so I can show you face to face what's so deeply flawed in those scenarios? Please, if you want a MP game let me know. Otherwise go play single player and enjoy the "excellent AI".



bradfordkay -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/24/2007 10:22:19 PM)

"I did try to use house rules, and had the guy laugh at me when I asked him not to pursue my USN forces if I decide to retreat to south on the miniscule Santa Cruz map.... Know how this game ended? My damaged USN TFs did a full circle and retreated towards **NORTH** and NE thru that channel in between Rabaul and Buka!! I was running full steam towards Kwajalein when the scenario ended. Nowhere to go nowhere to hide."

C'mon, Oleg. The map edge has always been a problem as long as wargames have existed, it doesn't matter how large the map is (unless you're using a globe as your map). Look at WITP...



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/24/2007 10:35:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
C'mon, Oleg. The map edge has always been a problem as long as wargames have existed, it doesn't matter how large the map is (unless you're using a globe as your map). Look at WITP...


I rarely have problems with edges in wargames, and I've never had one in WITP (and I played that game for bazillions of hours). Do you have CAW? This below is the map for Santa Cruz scenario. The upper (north) part has been cut off to make pic smaller, but the left, right and bottom borders of the map are as they come in the game. Notice how operationally shallow the USN positions is (TFs are in their almost-starting positions) and that it's impossible to escape/retreat towards Australia or Caledonia.

If you're playing with timid and honorable (in fact = stupid) AI it will work because AI never pursues. It just lingers in its position moving to and fro for like 50-100 miles. But if you play vs human for like 10 bloody minutes it becomes obvious how confined and flawed this setup is, and you end up cornered in the botom left or bottom right (what is in reality just an open sea).

There are only 7 scenarios in the game, and they can - fortunatelly - be playtested very quickly. I cannot for the life of me understand how could they let something SO obvious like this pass by them. Possible answer - they never properly tested MP play....


[image]local://upfiles/1633/C0A7E510B78A400690484EDE820ACE15.jpg[/image]



GoodGuy -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/25/2007 2:53:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05

Ok I don't want to start a flame war, but. The " developer " you are talking about is SSG, not some fly by night first game company. Please understand that SSG was the wargame company when you guys were in diapers.

'scuse me, but my experience as a customer (+player) of computer games goes back as far as such developers entire history too, almost, since I started to buy games in 1984. My first serious (since I don't count hot-seat or split-screen sessions) MP experiences started around 1991 or 1992 on the Commodore Amiga, when we connected 2 Amigas via serial ports or when we were using phone lines/modems for PC MP-sessions in 1994. My online-multiplayer experience started around late 1995.
So, I'd say i wasn't in diapers anymore back then and that I know what I'm talking about when I share thoughts about computer gaming.

Furthermore, a customer of a given company should judge the company by the quality of its actual products on the shelfs and not by the general reputation or by achievements made during past decades. When I come across a new piece of software, fancy names or reputations, once installed, won't cloud my view when judging content or quality.

I understand the fact that developers can't release flawless/perfect games all the time, so there's a chance that a given company has somewhat weaker games/periods and strong periods. When ppl come across a weaker game, they'll be carefully watching reviews/forums for new games from the developer in question, most likely.

You should acknowledge the right of other customers to express their opinions, and, in general, you shouldn't condemn other customers (as if they just spit on your lil pic of a saint) just 'coz they won't "buy" the hype around pioneer company XY.

quote:

Also any polls I've ever seen that discounting mmpg's the amount of MP is 1-3 %. Very few grognards play MP because of the way that opponents twist the rules.


No. There are various reasons for wargamers not playing MP, the most common might be badly designed MP sections, due to either lack of experience or lack of attention from the programmers'/testers' side, amount of time which has to be dedicated to lenghty MP sessions, "tradition" to play either against the AI or vs a human player via PBEM. Besides me thinking that such polls are not representative in any way, I don't think that the shadowy existence of MP in wargames is a result of rules being twisted.

Looking at my personal gaming history and at the history of others and at the wargames' approaches, many/if not most wargamers didn't even know how to spell [:D] "online-gaming" by 1996, I'd say.
Interesting enough, there are still many wargamers who never tried any other MP-type than PBEM or hotseat games. But I guess this is rather due to reasons listed above, along with these ppl being more familiar (or in love) with turn-based games, which would be very time consuming if being played online. The ideal online version of a wargame would be a real-time game, which is still not widely accepted in the wargamer world, it's a niche within a niche-market. But these games will prevail sooner or later, imho.

The internet became a major platform for all kinds of games, and internet games, where ppl can interact with each other online in many different ways, had their share in promoting computer gaming. Online-MP gaming is widely accepted and popular in many genres these days, and companies who fail to take that into account may die eventually, or loose customers, or may have to focus on consoles (even consoles have online capabilities nowadays, though).

But even in the wargame niche-market (other) companies will come up with good/better MP sections.

quote:

If the game is that bad in your eyes why hasn't anyone posting here asked for a refund?

That's kinda ridiculous.... I don't like running home to cry on mommy's shoulder. [;)]
Seriously now, my general opinion is that developers of good/excellent games deserve to get all the support (by buying their products) they can get.
The problem here was that advertizing and spec sheets were missing a few key facts and/or were misleading. And I really did not like that part of the show.

Well, I gotta admit that my view got clouded at one point, before I could asses/judge the content, namely at the point where I had to pull out my digital wallet, as in my books the dev's name uses to stand for quality/a certain amount of content. Lesson learned.

If a developer's product is meant as "launch-platform" for future custom-scenarios, the dev should clearly state just that, at least on the spec sheets. I would totally accept/support that kinda PR policy, but may think twice b4 purchasing such a product.

Last but not least, as I already stated b4, I'll give the game another chance after patches/custom scenarios have been released.



sullafelix -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/25/2007 4:11:28 AM)

Well you bring up valid points. I knew exactly what I was getting and I'm happy with it. From what I read it was going to be a 2007 version of CAW. But, I did have the advantage of having owned it and played it and it's descendants to death.I wasn't accusing anyone of running home to mommie. I would be the first person at the counter bithching if a product didn't live up to what it was advertised as. as a matter of fact I've done it plenty of times in this lie and hype world. It seemed that some people were just trashing it and if I felt the way that some of the posts came across I would be asking for my money back.

Unfortunately in this internet age you have no idea if the person that is trashing a game works for another company or is just a goat with a pencil in it's mouth trying to stir the pot. Sorry, I hope the MP problems you see are fixed.



mjk428 -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/25/2007 4:11:49 AM)

Looks like the same map that's used in the original. Not really surprised that the scale wasn't changed. I guess it would be nice if it included Noumea & Oz but it doesn't and never has - it's always been 2/3rds Jap controlled. The better player should take the Allies in MP.

How hard would it be to whip up some generic maps and OOBs (Red vs. Blue) for the MP players? Wouldn't want to see the scenarios altered for the sake of "play balance". [8|]

Still, it's kind of fun to see the MP players with their panties in a bunch for a change...

To paraphrase what the AI players are told whenever they compain in the WitP forums:

CAW is meant to be played against the AI! Think of MP as a training tool. [:'(]



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/25/2007 4:16:58 AM)


quote:

Looks like the same map that's used in the original. Not really surprised that the scale wasn't changed. I guess it would be nice if it included Noumea & Oz but it doesn't and never has - it's always been 2/3rds Jap controlled. The better player should take the Allies in MP.


Thanks for underlining my point. I never played "the original" so I could not compare, but apparently maps are just copy/pasted with no MP testing or customization. (There was no MP support in the original game right?) Not to say "modernization".

quote:

CAW is meant to be played against the AI! Think of MP as a training tool. [:'(]


LOL! [:D] Exactly... Could use it as my new sig [:D]



bradfordkay -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/25/2007 5:56:30 AM)

I haven't received my new CAW yet. I have played all the original releases of CAW, and recall this being the case with those scenarios then as well. At that time CAW had no multiplayer element to it at all.

It appears that you have a valid complaint about at least those scenarios (in as far as the map area in concerned), but I feel that you aren't presenting the complaint is the most effective manner. I've never believed in namecalling as a way to encourage someone to listen to you...

My intention for this installation of CAW is to play it while waiting for PBEM turns in WITP, so I guess that this won't be a big problem for me. The original release of CAW had only a few scenarios , but in the long run they had created scenarios covering nearly every carrier action of the war.

SSG has been around a long time, and has had a great record of supporting their product, so I'm not too concerned that this release of CAW is showing some initial limitations. I'm expecting plenty of future scenario releases to allow me keep playing this game for some time like I did the original.



Adam Parker -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/25/2007 6:06:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

CAW is meant to be played against the AI! Think of MP as a training tool. [:'(]


LOL! [:D] Exactly... Could use it as my new sig [:D]


[sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif]



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/25/2007 6:09:59 AM)

OMG, Oleg has killed Hamachi!!!

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



[image]local://upfiles/21246/F365C91E0B0A4526B701653BE23D09C0.jpg[/image]



Adam Parker -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/25/2007 6:18:12 AM)

a) Randomisation of TG's within historical boundaries.
 
b) Randomisation of TG ship positions in the strike screen.
 
c) Larger maps with more maneuver room.

All these would definitely boost the current scenario spread.


d) More scenarios.
 
e) Random scenario generator - AH's Flight Commander 2 had an exceptionally easy one.

All these would elongate the game further.


f) Player definable TG composition.
 
g) Smaller map scale meaning longer lasting searches.
 
h Increased realism in launch protocols and time frames.
 
i) Fixing the few bugs such as stuck strikes etc.
 
j) Adding optional FOW in combat resolution to the strike and surface combat screens.

All these would guarantee a legendary game.


My summary perception: Players like fog of war, variety, the hunt and the feeling of planning.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/25/2007 6:22:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
OMG, Oleg has killed Hamachi!!!


Well yes and no, but it wasn't intentional. Disgusted by recent MP experiences as described in this thread I wanted to abandon/unsubscribe CaW Hamachi room. It appears that I clicked one button too much and killed the whole room, as I was the original creator!! It *wasn't* my intention, I just wanted to leave the room, not close it altogether.

Anyhow, since everyone can re-create the CAW room, no harm was done. Someone obviously re-created the room, although it is significantly less populated now [8|]



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/25/2007 5:13:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

f) Player definable TG composition.



This could get a little weird. For instance, as soon as you break up the Kido Butai into six little TG's you're fouling up whatever use the game has as an historical simulation.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/25/2007 5:18:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Well yes and no, but it wasn't intentional. Disgusted by recent MP experiences as described in this thread I wanted to abandon/unsubscribe CaW Hamachi room. It appears that I clicked one button too much and killed the whole room, as I was the original creator!! It *wasn't* my intention, I just wanted to leave the room, not close it altogether.



No problem. It has a biblical quality of sorts, "what Oleg hath giveth, so shall he taketh away." [:)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



Venator -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/25/2007 6:50:43 PM)

quote:

This could get a little weird. For instance, as soon as you break up the Kido Butai into six little TG's you're fouling up whatever use the game has as an historical simulation.




True. But if you had at the start a pool of ships that could be formed into a specified number of task forces and assign to specified 'start areas' then you'd feel like you had more control.

As a hypothetical for instance 3 carriers, 11 cruisers and 16 destroyers that may be divided into 5 (mandatory) groups and assigned to any of six (you can choose which are deployed where) 'start zones' and also assign which groups must fulfill bombardment or invasion missions.. This would allow you to assign forces to task according to your assessment of the initial situation rather than being handed fixed tfs with their objectives set already. More player control.

If you could then allow ships that had sustained more than 50% damage to be detached (perhaps with up to two destroyers as escorts if capital ships) then you'd feel like you had a historical ability that is denied in the current game.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/26/2007 12:29:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Venator
True. But if you had at the start a pool of ships that could be formed into a specified number of task forces and assign to specified 'start areas' then you'd feel like you had more control.

As a hypothetical for instance 3 carriers, 11 cruisers and 16 destroyers that may be divided into 5 (mandatory) groups and assigned to any of six (you can choose which are deployed where) 'start zones' and also assign which groups must fulfill bombardment or invasion missions.. This would allow you to assign forces to task according to your assessment of the initial situation rather than being handed fixed tfs with their objectives set already. More player control.


Yes, options like these would greatly enrich the game, not only in MP. Perhaps the best example of the rigidness of the current system is the Coral Sea scenario - ironically, one of perhaps two scenarios I haven't found any serious game breaking problems with. The Shoho - we know how stupid it was to put this small indefensible CVL in the separate TF. It was a disaster waiting to happen. In CAW we "know" that USN waits for us NE of Midway so we can avoid bombing the island and prepare for CV knifefight right away (something that historical Japanese didn't know) but are not allowed to form our own TFs. Go figure.

However, this is a design decision and as such understandable. Still, in a game design filled to the brim with "player can't do that" stuff, some liberty could go a long way.

I know PoE advocates introducing certain "doctrinal elements" in the game, to give more "national (or historic) flavor" to the game. I am undecided on this because some of PoE's suggestions could make already very content-poor and rigid product even more of a historic Powerpoint slideshow, and less of a game than it is now (and it is already too Powerpoint-ish for many a wargamer's taste).



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/26/2007 2:24:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

I know PoE advocates introducing certain "doctrinal elements" in the game, to give more "national (or historic) flavor" to the game. I am undecided on this because some of PoE's suggestions could make already very content-poor and rigid product even more of a historic Powerpoint slideshow, and less of a game than it is now (and it is already too Powerpoint-ish for many a wargamer's taste).



Nah, I just want some stuff put in that will help balance the game. When I play as the 1942 Japanese/AI, I simply crush the Allies.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)





Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3