RE: Future Update Progess? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III



Message

ralphtricky -> RE: Future Update Progess? (9/15/2008 1:26:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff Norton


quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

Are we leaderless?


I wouldn't say leaderless... it's more speechless... [:D] hopefully not actionless... [:D]


" We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. "

Not to say Ralph is running amok, but, he is doing yeoman's work on top of his normal toll. I'd buy him a beer/Coke, if he was local...

I'm here. My day job has had me working way too many hours, so I had to back off for a bit. I've got another Beta out to the the Beta Testers, and I've got vacation coming up, so I'm starting to ramp up again. I'm going to update my website later today with a progress report. Unless I broke something, I've got the worst parts finished, I'm sure the Beta Team will b e glad to prove me wrong[&o]. There's also a lot of polishing and smaller pieces to work on.






cesteman -> RE: Future Update Progess? (9/15/2008 1:34:39 AM)

Sweet! Let me know if you need any help! Cheers.



jmlima -> RE: Future Update Progess? (9/15/2008 3:27:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
...
I'm here. My day job has had me working way too many hours, so I had to back off for a bit. I've got another Beta out to the the Beta Testers, and I've got vacation coming up, so I'm starting to ramp up again. I'm going to update my website later today with a progress report. Unless I broke something, I've got the worst parts finished, I'm sure the Beta Team will b e glad to prove me wrong[&o]. There's also a lot of polishing and smaller pieces to work on.


Good thing. Ralph, can you perhaps throw us a morsel, and tell if the supply changes you mentioned on the blog got included on this update?



cesteman -> RE: Future Update Progess? (9/15/2008 9:52:46 PM)

I think we should all just leave him alone so he can get the finished product out to us [:)]



secadegas -> RE: Future Update Progess? (9/16/2008 1:10:21 AM)


I'm 100% in favour of the development of this game.

However i would like to recall that TOAW (in its several versions) is 10 years old and that's because probably isn't a bad system after all.
So IMHO a dramatic change in the game system should be avoided and step by step method should be the option. That would allow more frequent updates solving little problems and obvious bugs and receiving closer feedback from the community.

There is a long list of valid improvements that can be introduced into the system but what are the priorities?

Makes sense waiting "endless" months for a graphic overhaul (as an example) when the much more plain AAA present calculation is obviously distorted?

I don't dare to ask more from TOAD team. I'm sure they are doing the best possible and i'm thankful for that. But please put out some minor update(s) solving "simple" and known issues that greatly annoy who plays everyday.

Come on... last update was more than a year ago...





ralphtricky -> RE: Future Update Progess? (9/16/2008 1:22:55 AM)

Sorry, I wrote up the changes yesterday for the Blog and forgot to hit send.

Unless someone hits a show stopper, there are changes to the turn order and the supply system. I want to move to a system that's gradual and based on the MP of a motorized unit instead of the arbitrary 4 levels we have now. I'm also hoping to allow varable levels for the supply points. It's going to be a bit kludgy, since I really don't want to modify the editor, but I want to support more flexible supply rules. The code changes for this were actually fairly small, but if it works, it should have a large effect on future scenarios. It's faster too.

We actually had a patch ready that fixed several issues, but it hasn't gone out yet. I'll see if I can track down what the status is, and whether we can release it. We'd wanted to bundle some updated scenarios and other things with it, but I'll see if I can get some of that cut down.

Ralph



jmlima -> RE: Future Update Progess? (9/16/2008 10:49:16 PM)

Ralph, thanks for the update. 



ralphtricky -> RE: Future Update Progess? (9/17/2008 1:21:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas


I'm 100% in favour of the development of this game.

However i would like to recall that TOAW (in its several versions) is 10 years old and that's because probably isn't a bad system after all.
So IMHO a dramatic change in the game system should be avoided and step by step method should be the option. That would allow more frequent updates solving little problems and obvious bugs and receiving closer feedback from the community.

There is a long list of valid improvements that can be introduced into the system but what are the priorities?

Makes sense waiting "endless" months for a graphic overhaul (as an example) when the much more plain AAA present calculation is obviously distorted?

I don't dare to ask more from TOAD team. I'm sure they are doing the best possible and i'm thankful for that. But please put out some minor update(s) solving "simple" and known issues that greatly annoy who plays everyday.

Come on... last update was more than a year ago...




If it makes you feel better, my general plan is to make the major changes first, then do minor changes, and facelifts while those are being tested. Problems with those are usually easily tested and pretty obvious.



secadegas -> RE: Future Update Progess? (9/17/2008 12:04:29 PM)

Can't really understand from your words if we're going to have a update soon (i'm refering to the minor one ready to release months ago) or if they will be months before we're able to see one.

However thanks for all your efforts [&o]



pionier -> RE: Future Update Progess? (10/11/2008 9:15:48 AM)

yeah thank you very very much ;-)

can't wait for the patch!





L`zard -> RE: Future Update Progess? (10/12/2008 2:52:35 AM)


Roll on, Toaw IV !!!



Silvanski -> RE: Future Update Progess? (10/12/2008 3:59:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: L`zard


Roll on, Toaw IV !!!


Let's get TOAW 3.3 or 3.4 rolling first [;)]



Jo van der Pluym -> RE: Future Update Progess? (10/12/2008 8:05:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

Let's get TOAW 3.3 or 3.4 rolling first [;)]



Only the questionis when[&:]
There is [sm=character0267.gif] that there is a update, but to now it is not released.



macgregor -> RE: Future Update Progess? (10/12/2008 4:39:11 PM)

I always check operational warfare for Ralph's blogs. Naturally I want to know every bit of minutia though it's probably best he only post the important milestones. I'm not sure why he doesn't post more here because I would think there's more traffic, but maybe he has more of an audience of his peers there, likely to make more insightful comments that he can actually use. As this is one of my regular stops, I would like to see more activity. [sm=innocent0001.gif]



Jeff Norton -> RE: Future Update Progess? (10/14/2008 12:08:15 AM)

Amen, Bro. Mac...

I'm lighting a candle...[sm=sterb032.gif] (no candle smilie....)



pionier -> RE: Future Update Progess? (11/4/2008 7:49:38 AM)

two big points, I am wondering if they where already considered?

1. will there be a new save system. For exampel it would be easy to decide for the two pbem game partners how many saves are ok. So you could make easy one question at the beginning. How many saves are aloud durning one turn 0-10 for exampel. If you set this to 1. YOu can only save one time.
I think this is would be a nice improvement.

2. Why is the next turn calculated at the beginning of the first player. This makes Theater options which occur not on a determined date a bit weak.
for exampel. I can calculate fite or The great war (pierro / mc brigde) as often as i like to get the best result. This would be better placed at the end of player two. Then noone can take a look and easily recalculate the game.

so what you thinking?





Curtis Lemay -> RE: Future Update Progess? (11/4/2008 4:15:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pionier

two big points, I am wondering if they where already considered?

1. will there be a new save system. For exampel it would be easy to decide for the two pbem game partners how many saves are ok. So you could make easy one question at the beginning. How many saves are aloud durning one turn 0-10 for exampel. If you set this to 1. YOu can only save one time.
I think this is would be a nice improvement.

2. Why is the next turn calculated at the beginning of the first player. This makes Theater options which occur not on a determined date a bit weak.
for exampel. I can calculate fite or The great war (pierro / mc brigde) as often as i like to get the best result. This would be better placed at the end of player two. Then noone can take a look and easily recalculate the game.

so what you thinking?


Item 2 is already in the wishlist. As for item 1, reloads of the same save are the issue. And our efforts on that don't seem to have worked very well.



ralphtricky -> RE: Future Update Progess? (11/7/2008 1:04:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pionier

two big points, I am wondering if they where already considered?

1. will there be a new save system. For exampel it would be easy to decide for the two pbem game partners how many saves are ok. So you could make easy one question at the beginning. How many saves are aloud durning one turn 0-10 for exampel. If you set this to 1. YOu can only save one time.
I think this is would be a nice improvement.

2. Why is the next turn calculated at the beginning of the first player. This makes Theater options which occur not on a determined date a bit weak.
for exampel. I can calculate fite or The great war (pierro / mc brigde) as often as i like to get the best result. This would be better placed at the end of player two. Then noone can take a look and easily recalculate the game.

so what you thinking?


I've got #2 pencilled in to be fixed, there's a way to generate the same random numbers. You should currently trigger a 'reload' message by doing that reload, though. This will help keep people from cheating on Elmer, though[:-]

I'm not sure why you'd want to limit saves? Can you explain? It shouldn't hurt anything to save, and people have different scheduels.




ralphtricky -> RE: Future Update Progess? (11/7/2008 1:09:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I always check operational warfare for Ralph's blogs. Naturally I want to know every bit of minutia though it's probably best he only post the important milestones. I'm not sure why he doesn't post more here because I would think there's more traffic, but maybe he has more of an audience of his peers there, likely to make more insightful comments that he can actually use. As this is one of my regular stops, I would like to see more activity. [sm=innocent0001.gif]

I keep meaning too, but my day job's been a real pain recently. I need to get into the habit of posting at least weekly. I'll do that later this week.

Things are moving along nicely at the moment. I think that the major pieces are nailed down, and I'm starting on the little pieces.

Ralph





ralphtricky -> RE: Future Update Progess? (11/8/2008 2:56:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I always check operational warfare for Ralph's blogs. Naturally I want to know every bit of minutia though it's probably best he only post the important milestones. I'm not sure why he doesn't post more here because I would think there's more traffic, but maybe he has more of an audience of his peers there, likely to make more insightful comments that he can actually use. As this is one of my regular stops, I would like to see more activity. [sm=innocent0001.gif]

I keep meaning too, but my day job's been a real pain recently. I need to get into the habit of posting at least weekly. I'll do that later this week.

Things are moving along nicely at the moment. I think that the major pieces are nailed down, and I'm starting on the little pieces.

Ralph

I just realized that I'd answered the wrong question[&:]I am trying to post to the Wiki one way communications. There's also a private forum that the TOAD team uses to talk about features, in more details. The discussions I've seen here can become quite heated because of the personalities involved. If I get involved, thing seem to go downhill as everyone pushes 'their' solution. I'm happy watching the discussion to see if it comes to a conclusion.

Ralph



alexzhz -> RE: Future Update Progess? (11/9/2008 10:57:44 AM)

I wonder if the security of PBEM will be improved in 3.4 ?I think SSG set a good example in security.In TOAW,when you press ctrl+alt+del,and shut down the game,then your turn can be played again and again till the best ending appear,however,the anti-cheat system in TOAW can not detect this.
This situation is quite serious while playing not too big scenarioes,especially small ones.



alexzhz -> RE: Future Update Progess? (11/9/2008 11:10:40 AM)

To resolve the security prblem,I think the best way is saving step by step,also do not allow you to open the PBEM files more than 1 time.



macgregor -> RE: Future Update Progess? (11/9/2008 1:38:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I always check operational warfare for Ralph's blogs. Naturally I want to know every bit of minutia though it's probably best he only post the important milestones. I'm not sure why he doesn't post more here because I would think there's more traffic, but maybe he has more of an audience of his peers there, likely to make more insightful comments that he can actually use. As this is one of my regular stops, I would like to see more activity. [sm=innocent0001.gif]

I keep meaning too, but my day job's been a real pain recently. I need to get into the habit of posting at least weekly. I'll do that later this week.

Things are moving along nicely at the moment. I think that the major pieces are nailed down, and I'm starting on the little pieces.

Ralph

I just realized that I'd answered the wrong question[&:]I am trying to post to the Wiki one way communications. There's also a private forum that the TOAD team uses to talk about features, in more details. The discussions I've seen here can become quite heated because of the personalities involved. If I get involved, thing seem to go downhill as everyone pushes 'their' solution. I'm happy watching the discussion to see if it comes to a conclusion.

Ralph


I for one have read the wishlist and am content that anything I've wanted has been addressed. TBS I do understand what you're saying. By 'the Wiki' I'll assume you mean http://operationalwarfare.com. You'll do whatever you see fit and communicate accordingly, I just like to know the status once in a while.

If one can save a .pbl and then reopen it(the.sal) without his opponent receiving the 'reload' message that means my previous opponent did reopen the .pbl file. If one can cheat by hitting ctrl+alt+delete then perhaps it should still generate the 'reload' message. As one who suffers power outages occasionally, I know I would have to explain(if autosave doesn't grab it), though I still think it's the best solution.



alexzhz -> RE: Future Update Progess? (11/9/2008 2:21:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I always check operational warfare for Ralph's blogs. Naturally I want to know every bit of minutia though it's probably best he only post the important milestones. I'm not sure why he doesn't post more here because I would think there's more traffic, but maybe he has more of an audience of his peers there, likely to make more insightful comments that he can actually use. As this is one of my regular stops, I would like to see more activity. [sm=innocent0001.gif]

I keep meaning too, but my day job's been a real pain recently. I need to get into the habit of posting at least weekly. I'll do that later this week.

Things are moving along nicely at the moment. I think that the major pieces are nailed down, and I'm starting on the little pieces.

Ralph

I just realized that I'd answered the wrong question[&:]I am trying to post to the Wiki one way communications. There's also a private forum that the TOAD team uses to talk about features, in more details. The discussions I've seen here can become quite heated because of the personalities involved. If I get involved, thing seem to go downhill as everyone pushes 'their' solution. I'm happy watching the discussion to see if it comes to a conclusion.

Ralph


I for one have read the wishlist and am content that anything I've wanted has been addressed. TBS I do understand what you're saying. By 'the Wiki' I'll assume you mean http://operationalwarfare.com. You'll do whatever you see fit and communicate accordingly, I just like to know the status once in a while.

If one can save a .pbl and then reopen it(the.sal) without his opponent receiving the 'reload' message that means my previous opponent did reopen the .pbl file. If one can cheat by hitting ctrl+alt+delete then perhaps it should still generate the 'reload' message. As one who suffers power outages occasionally, I know I would have to explain(if autosave doesn't grab it), though I still think it's the best solution.

That's the key problem,developers should solve it to prevent TOAW
falling low.



alexzhz -> RE: Future Update Progess? (11/9/2008 2:27:12 PM)

I can't imagine that all PBEM player of TOAW are now becoming cheaters.We know it's not their fault though. Lacking intendance in PBEM caused this situation.



pionier -> RE: Future Update Progess? (11/28/2008 9:58:58 PM)

One big point. What will be done for the Air System? I am playing fire in the east. And MY JU-87 for exampel will destroy not even one T-26.

I think the game schould simulate that aircraft attacks against Trucks or Tanks schould be more efficent.

Is there something planed to cahnge it?



macgregor -> RE: Future Update Progess? (1/12/2009 3:10:42 PM)

Perhaps I should learn to like shorter scenarios. My problem is I'm a big scenario guy. Unfortunately,while the big scenarios show TOAW's potential, they also tend to expose TOAW's weakness as well. My fear is that Ralph is simply not a big scenario guy. Though I respect his style. Apparently programming is as much of an art as a science, and he seems to be inspiration driven. This is how I imagine the best programming is done, it may take a long time however. WITP looks like an excellent scenario. Though the WITP players' interest in TOAW leads me to believe TOAW has more potential. If I thought they were working on a European compliment to WITP perhaps I'd buy in. Hopefully in a few months the long-awaited 'World in Flames' will be released, though I feel TOAW has yet more potential than even this masterpiece. This post is actually just a bump for a thread that appeared to be sinking into the Marianas Trench.



ralphtricky -> RE: Future Update Progess? (1/12/2009 4:27:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
Perhaps I should learn to like shorter scenarios. My problem is I'm a big scenario guy. Unfortunately,while the big scenarios show TOAW's potential, they also tend to expose TOAW's weakness as well. My fear is that Ralph is simply not a big scenario guy. Though I respect his style. Apparently programming is as much of an art as a science, and he seems to be inspiration driven. This is how I imagine the best programming is done, it may take a long time however. WITP looks like an excellent scenario. Though the WITP players' interest in TOAW leads me to believe TOAW has more potential. If I thought they were working on a European compliment to WITP perhaps I'd buy in. Hopefully in a few months the long-awaited 'World in Flames' will be released, though I feel TOAW has yet more potential than even this masterpiece. This post is actually just a bump for a thread that appeared to be sinking into the Marianas Trench.

Despite my having a degree in 'Computer Science' (and Math) I can tell you that programming is NOT engineering. It's a much younger field, and there is still a tremendous amount of creativity involved in any programming. If you give 10 people a problem, you can expect at least 12 working solutions. I don't see this changing any time soon. That's part of why outsourcing programming generally isn't the cost savings that people expect.

I actually do prefer the smaller scenarios, but I do want to make the larger sceanrios work better. I don't have the time it takes to devote to the larger scenarios, but I can understand their appeal. I'm also not the only person involved with the game, I've got an excellent team that's helping me stay balanced.[&o]

Are the weaknesses that you see captured in the wish list? If so, they should be adressed eventually. Right now, we're taking a closer look at overruns and some of the issues reated to 'ant' attacks that have been brought up as well as several wishlist items. You'll be happy to know that I've also been fine-tuning some of Elmer's issues with naval units and have achieved a significant speed up of his movement. You won't see a significant overhaul of the naval ystem until the next major release, but we are planning on doing some fine tuning. If you want to start up a thread that talks about what you see as weaknesses, please do, and I'll be glad to listen to the discussion.

Ralph



macgregor -> RE: Future Update Progess? (1/12/2009 4:41:53 PM)

Thanks for your quick response Ralph. I erased a long email I was about to send you because, essentially, the stuff is on the wishlist. All my vivid imagination can do is envision how the dream game would play, which I'm sure you've already given careful thought and hopefully, some work. I'm sure there is nothing you are addressing that doesn't need it. Everything you've said so far makes sense. And who am I anyway? I can't even get the bioed to work! To say I'm somewhat challenged at game design would be an understatement.



ralphtricky -> RE: Future Update Progess? (1/13/2009 12:55:06 AM)

Thanks for the vote of confidence!

I'm 100% positive that there are going to be features in the patch that people feel are unnecessary, My hope is that people won't agree on which ones weren't necessary.

Design is even more an art than programming. They're also distinctly different, and many games will attest. User Interface design actually has rules, and isn't as tough as overall game design. Getting bioed to work and designing a game are totally different skills. The hardest part of this job is probably going to be when I have to say 'no.' I'm sure someone is going to scream that I'm ruining the game by not modeling the number of rolls of toilet paper dispensed per squad, and allow the player to adjust the minimum TP levels and priorities, for isntance, and ensuring that they impace the chance of retreating from combat.[8|]

Ralph




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.03125