playable yet? Part II (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815



Message

borner -> playable yet? Part II (10/11/2008 2:03:04 PM)

I expect to get blasted by Matrix for this but.....

There have been two threads now - not counting this one - about the general feelings playes have about the quality of this game. They have been, by FAR, the most hit threads, and Matrix has shut both down. So, I am opening another one. For those of you that think we are just complaining to complain here, why don't you open a thread about how how playable and problem free the game is, and see how popular that threat gets.

Also, if a thread complaining about the quality of the product we have bought is against the policy of what is "allowed" on the forums, I would love to see a copy of that policy. I understand that once things start getting to personal insults people have crossed the line, but it seems that Matrix is looking for excuses to shut these threads down to try and limit the negatve comments about a product. Personally, the outlet to discuss these issues is the only thing that kept me from calling your company and demanding a refund.


by the way... newest issue, and I will post this in tech support for Marshall.. is I loaded 1.04. On my next turn, I save my land phase as Russia, post my turn to the other players who have done land phases, and when I load the "new" save file - that has a different name than the old one - but an expected change in 1.04, I am back to the start of my land phase!



pzgndr -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/11/2008 2:06:52 PM)

I guess no horse is too dead to beat.  Whack away fellas. [8|]




warspite1 -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/11/2008 2:30:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

I expect to get blasted by Matrix for this but.....

There have been two threads now - not counting this one - about the general feelings playes have about the quality of this game. They have been, by FAR, the most hit threads, and Matrix has shut both down. So, I am opening another one. For those of you that think we are just complaining to complain here, why don't you open a thread about how how playable and problem free the game is, and see how popular that threat gets.

Also, if a thread complaining about the quality of the product we have bought is against the policy of what is "allowed" on the forums, I would love to see a copy of that policy. I understand that once things start getting to personal insults people have crossed the line, but it seems that Matrix is looking for excuses to shut these threads down to try and limit the negatve comments about a product. Personally, the outlet to discuss these issues is the only thing that kept me from calling your company and demanding a refund.


by the way... newest issue, and I will post this in tech support for Marshall.. is I loaded 1.04. On my next turn, I save my land phase as Russia, post my turn to the other players who have done land phases, and when I load the "new" save file - that has a different name than the old one - but an expected change in 1.04, I am back to the start of my land phase!

Warspite 1

I can see both side re the points made by Neverman and Pzgndr - but I suspect Erik closed down the thread recently because the posts stopped being about the game and started to get personal. So if you don`t want this closed too can I suggest you try and keep it a bit friendlier - please? [:-]



borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/11/2008 2:50:31 PM)

I 100% agree. there is no place for personal insults in these threads. While I understand there may be some underage persons reading and posting here, I think the majority of us are over 18, some by more years than we care to admit, and we ALL need to act like it. I also think the general tone of the previous threat had gone from that the game was one step above a disaster, to one that while there were still serious issues and bugs to be sure, overall the patches had improved things.



Jimmer -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/11/2008 5:46:21 PM)

Didn't you READ? It was closed because some <fill in the blank> refused to restrict their comments to the debate, and kept making it personal.

Because said people still haven't learned, I will not take part in this thread.



timewalker03 -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/11/2008 10:56:50 PM)

I frimly believe this is the best thread this board has. It allows the customer the chance to voice their opinion and offer when made some constructive criticism that Matrix should take but I realize they care very little. As we have seen the last week how companies run rampant when they are allowed to do business without consumer oversite. Some of the people on this board have probably lost money over that time from their retirement plans and maybe even from their pockets. I have to say especially now every consumer should be wary of any company that offers any service to people. This game a great example of how a vocal minority get their way and how a silent group becomes more vocal after the fact because they placed their trust in a company to "do the right thing". Because of this we have a game that is nowhere near finished because the ball was dropped by Matrix. Next Matrix is "Using" the consumer to playtest their product and using them to improve it without having to invest much. There are people who don't care about the whole picture here. There is more here than gaining a finished product. It shows how reliable a company is and what character it has by releasing a product that was way beneath sub-par. It shows they lack quality control in their production process, and it shows it should be put in the category of buyer beware. And yes this may be a niche game, but no matter what a company that puts profit before quality is a company that should not be trusted. And for those who are pleased with this game, think of this. Once this game stops making a profit, how much support will there be? As I learned with Max Football, it was a game that was supported by the designer, and when the desinger wanted to put out a for pay expansion, Matrix and David winter seemed to have parted ways. Hence Support for a good game is over. And that was a niche game also. That was a game heavily supported by the fans of the game. Take that as possible future. Support is only as good as the company giving it.



Erik Rutins -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/12/2008 2:28:11 AM)

Let me be crystal clear. The previous thread was locked due to personal attacks among forum members, not due to feedback. We read, we listen and we support.



borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/12/2008 3:50:49 AM)

To be fair, I doubt that if Matrix got a bailout, they would use the money for expensive Spa treatments!!!!



borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/12/2008 4:42:11 AM)

By the way.. Yes, Jimmer, I did read. However, I think that in any thread, if people cross the line and get into personal insults, those should be dealt with in a one off method by Matrix. As for some people not learning, if you are referring to those type of personal comments, I totally agree.



pzgndr -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/12/2008 2:52:20 PM)

quote:

while there were still serious issues and bugs to be sure, overall the patches had improved things


Great point! For the sake of continued discussions about the general feelings players have about the quality of this game, it would be most helpful to focus on current issues and building concensus for ongoing improvements. That's a healthy debate. Continued rantings about past issues which have been discussed to no end and already fully acknowledged by Matrix staff and Marshall Ellis (many already resolved) are not at all helpful at this point. I mean really, what is Matrix supposed to do right now that they haven't already done? Nothing will undo what has been done, nothing will change the past. One would think wargamers could understand this simple concept, being at turn 15 and the situation is what it is, you have to do such and such to move on and win. Bitching about stuff that happened on turn 2 won't change anything. Maybe it makes some folks feel better to vent their unhappiness, but it still won't change anything right now. We all need to move on and eventually win by having a great game. That is the collective goal, yes? [8D]




timewalker03 -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/12/2008 3:22:02 PM)

pzgndr no matter what you have to have some sort oversite in a project like this. Look at what happens when a company listens to a few people and enacts that, rather than taking what the overall majority wanted and still wants. EiA became EiH because of a few and it was few people made the suggestion to look into the rules for EiH. They then came in contact with I believe his name is Michael Treasure and from there the amoeba this game is was created. When it came down to it Matrix and Marshall took it upon themselves. Once the game was released they then realized that it really was not the popular choice. I do fully understand that EiA could not be a direct crossover. That is very obvious to anyone who played the board game. For those who have said using EiH to make up for historical accuracy of the game use that argument to make the case for EiH must realize there was some license taken by Avalon Hill originally to create a playable game. AH also through the Generals tried their best to make up for some of the games problems the original game had. And if you go all the way back to the first release of EiA you will recall all of the French infantry corps were 25I 3C. I remember my first game ever played where France had all corps maxed out and Charles lost 3 straight battles to the monster that was France. So this was a flawed board game. Also the best version of this game was the Naval Academy or was it Air Force Academy version of the game which streamlined a lot of the game and also made the game closer to accurate without changing game mechanics much. I have been burned by Matrix before with games, and I just hope furiously that it doesn't happen again. Right now things still do not look good.



Erik Rutins -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/12/2008 4:34:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
Great point! For the sake of continued discussions about the general feelings players have about the quality of this game, it would be most helpful to focus on current issues and building concensus for ongoing improvements. That's a healthy debate. Continued rantings about past issues which have been discussed to no end and already fully acknowledged by Matrix staff and Marshall Ellis (many already resolved) are not at all helpful at this point. I mean really, what is Matrix supposed to do right now that they haven't already done? Nothing will undo what has been done, nothing will change the past.


Thanks, Pzgndr, I agree. That is not to say that criticism should stop, we learn from it and listen. But I think it would be refreshing if the arguments that have been made repeatedly by the same people and acknowledged by us could be laid to rest.



Jimmer -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/13/2008 1:41:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Thanks, Pzgndr, I agree. That is not to say that criticism should stop, we learn from it and listen. But I think it would be refreshing if the arguments that have been made repeatedly by the same people and acknowledged by us could be laid to rest.

Not "laid to rest" so much as "put on a back burner". While I don't necessarily agree, they definitely have the right to both their opinion AND the argument. However, there's a right time for such arguments, and it's not now (IMO).

By the way, since the title of this thread is "Playable yet...", I'll answer that part: Yes. It's not Civ V yet, and certainly not full EiA, but it's definitely playable. In fact, it's quite enjoyable. The AI is still not "good", but it has bypassed some humans with whom I have played FtF.



NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/13/2008 2:35:40 AM)

This thread is pointless.

Matrix really doesn't care, that's the bottom line. I will never play another game made by this company. I will probably only finish out the EiANW games I have started and then I will be done. I will not playtest for this horrible company or report any bugs I find or give any feedback in any way simply because I don't believe that this company listens.

I agree that this company has used every excuse to get rid of threatening threads and has refused to sticky them after repeating asking. Matrix simply could have deleted the "personal" attack posts, still locked the thread and stickied it. Did they do that? No. Instead they agree with the person making personal attacks and defend that person. Why? Because that person is defending them and their product/company. All of this makes perfect "business" sense so good for them. I'm glad they are at least making some smart business decisions.



borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/13/2008 2:50:07 AM)

Bottom line IMO is that there is a lot of fustration out there, both about the deisgn of the game, and how Matrix reacted to this at first. I do think the tone of the post here from the poeople at Matrix has become different over time. I think they know that releasing this game as a supposedly finished product, and the changes they made going away from EiA,  were mistakes. Problem is, the feedback they were getting at the time pointed them this way, so now what happens? I think the game is close enough to EiA to be good eventually. I also think that to a certain extent, any release was going to have some bugs, given how complex things were, and the crying from the old threads to get it out NOW!!!! What put me off at first was the general tone of denial from Matrix, but again, that seems to have gotten better.

There are still bugs, but the Host editor does help. (To use an old example I brought up in the last thread - the lost CAV corps- The host can at least replace my $. Not the greatest solution, but better than before.) 



Erik Rutins -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/13/2008 3:44:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Matrix really doesn't care, that's the bottom line. I will never play another game made by this company. I will probably only finish out the EiANW games I have started and then I will be done. I will not playtest for this horrible company or report any bugs I find or give any feedback in any way simply because I don't believe that this company listens.


I'm very sorry to read this. It is of course your prerogative to do whatever you think is right, but I can say that we do care and we do listen.

I don't see any attacks by pzgndr here, am I missing something? I do think that you and Timewalker could stand to relax a bit though. We've been honest about the mistakes we made on this game and have been working to correct them. When you continue to argue despite evidence to the contrary that we are not paying any attention to our customers, it starts to move from criticism into the realm of bashing.

Based on our last exchange, I thought you had understood that in fact we had faced up to the issues and were working to deal with the constructively. What happened to that?

The previous thread was locked solely because it was degenerating into personal attacks among forum members. You can check other forums, we do the same there when that happens, it has nothing to do with whether we are supporting a game or not.

Regards,

- Erik



Erik Rutins -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/13/2008 3:50:00 AM)

Oops. I went back to look at the older thread and saw that pzgndr was one of the posters making personal attacks there, which explains the comment by NeverMan, as pzgndr was attacking him. Unfortunately, I can't always keep every poster's name straight in my head and I did not recall all the forum poster names that were involved in that when I posted in this one. Too many forums, too many threads, apologies.

So to be clear, my response to pzgndr here was strictly because I agreed with his point in this thread and did not in any way indicate any support for his behavior in the previous thread. Personal attacks are off limits.

Regards,

- Erik



Cunctator -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/13/2008 5:58:06 AM)

My only goal is to play Empires in Arms (or in harm or a weird mix of both).
I don't care if matrix really is using his customers to playtest this game, because, as I said before, I just want to play this game and I don't care of the rest.
I waited for years this game.
So now I want to play it.
It could have been better, but unfortunately human race is not perfect.
All I see is that every day one small centimeter (or inch if you prefer) is conquered along the way leading to perfection.
I'm currently playing 4 PBEM games; one is in 1807, one in 1806 and the others are alive and kicking in 1805.
To the question on playability I would answer : yes it is playable.... buggy, but playable.
AI is still a tutorial-level challenge for any human player that can use it to learn the game or the interface.
On this side many improvements are to be expected, but this game is based on diplomacy, and AI will never be a real challenge for anybody.
This game is made for Pbem or (in the future) for Tcp/Ip.
Ave




pzgndr -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/13/2008 12:53:53 PM)

quote:

When you continue to argue despite evidence to the contrary that we are not paying any attention to our customers, it starts to move from criticism into the realm of bashing.


Erik, you are starting to recognize the true problem here.

quote:

Matrix really doesn't care, that's the bottom line. I will never play another game made by this company. I will probably only finish out the EiANW games I have started and then I will be done. I will not playtest for this horrible company or report any bugs I find or give any feedback in any way simply because I don't believe that this company listens.


This has been Neverman's fundamental attitude for quite some time, now clearly stated by himself. Most of us here fully recognize all of the problems and issues with the game, and for the most part are gritting our teeth but continuing to help move this game forward. It takes time. Unfortunately a few do not share a positive optimistic attitude and persist in dragging the forum discussions down into the gutter.

quote:

I went back to look at the older thread and saw that pzgndr was one of the posters making personal attacks there, which explains the comment by NeverMan, as pzgndr was attacking him.


A definition of whining is: to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way. There is a difference between making a statement of fact and making a personal attack. Erik, since you consider my posts to be attacks, I apologize and will refrain from responding to whiners from now on. As Neverman says, it's pointless. How Matrix deals with the obvious bashing is up to you guys. Good luck. I'll go back to playing EiA for a while. [:)]



Jimmer -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/13/2008 4:11:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
... When you continue to argue despite evidence to the contrary that we are not paying any attention to our customers, it starts to move from criticism into the realm of bashing.

...

The previous thread was locked solely because it was degenerating into personal attacks among forum members. You can check other forums, we do the same there when that happens, it has nothing to do with whether we are supporting a game or not.

Regards,

- Erik

What you might want to do to facilitate people understanding this concept (that you lock threads for personal attacks) is have a person not involved with the game or game discussion be responsible for locking the threads. This would be tough, because that person would have to answer "reported posts" on a product he/she doesn't work with. But, if that were done, then there could be very little argument that the locking was done to shut people up.

Having been involved in various forums for a long time, I've seen a tendency for the forum users to attack a the person who locked the thread as being partial to one side or the other (usually the opposite to the one that person holds). Even normally excellent posters can somehow be dragged down by a series of bad posts. Frequently, it's not even possible to determine "who started it" (as if we're sixth graders).

I've been caught in it myself, and it's hard to recognize when one is posting. What I've always tried to do (usually after being prompted by another poster or a moderator) is take a short break (a few minutes) and reevaluate. It's amazing that something that took days or weeks to build up can be eliminated in only a few minutes. But, it's not always easy, even though short.

Putting in an "impartial" moderator helps by making it clear that the person making the decision to lock a thread is NOT one of the participants, and also is NOT emotionally tied to the discussion (i.e. by being part of the team that supports the product). In other words, that person has an insulator around himself as regards THIS game (he may very well be involved in OTHER games; just not the one in question).

Make sense?



anarchyintheuk -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/13/2008 8:39:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: timewalker03

pzgndr no matter what you have to have some sort oversite in a project like this. Look at what happens when a company listens to a few people and enacts that, rather than taking what the overall majority wanted and still wants. EiA became EiH because of a few and it was few people made the suggestion to look into the rules for EiH. They then came in contact with I believe his name is Michael Treasure and from there the amoeba this game is was created. When it came down to it Matrix and Marshall took it upon themselves. Once the game was released they then realized that it really was not the popular choice. I do fully understand that EiA could not be a direct crossover. That is very obvious to anyone who played the board game. For those who have said using EiH to make up for historical accuracy of the game use that argument to make the case for EiH must realize there was some license taken by Avalon Hill originally to create a playable game. AH also through the Generals tried their best to make up for some of the games problems the original game had. And if you go all the way back to the first release of EiA you will recall all of the French infantry corps were 25I 3C. I remember my first game ever played where France had all corps maxed out and Charles lost 3 straight battles to the monster that was France. So this was a flawed board game. Also the best version of this game was the Naval Academy or was it Air Force Academy version of the game which streamlined a lot of the game and also made the game closer to accurate without changing game mechanics much. I have been burned by Matrix before with games, and I just hope furiously that it doesn't happen again. Right now things still do not look good.


Sorry to sound like a jerk here, but vague unsubstantiated statements really burn my a#$e. Just to be clear, who were these "few people"? If you were aware of what those few people wanted why didn't you speak up and counteract them? If you knew that the company (what company?) listened to those few people, why did you buy the product? How do you know what the "majority wanted and still wants"?

Since we seem to be voicing our opinions as to what the majority wants and still wants or what the "popular choice" is, I definitely lean towards EiH over EiA. As you stated, EiA wasn't going to be a direct port because (IMHO) it was unplayable w/o houserules.

BTW, you weaken your argument by listing yet another version of the game and declaring that best. How many versions and combination of versions are there? How could any publisher/programmer have made a choice of versions or combination of versions that would have satisfied this lot?



iamspamus -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/14/2008 2:34:26 PM)

Why does Matrix need an "impartial" moderator? It's their forum on their site. Sounds like they can do what they want. I don't have a problem with that.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
... When you continue to argue despite evidence to the contrary that we are not paying any attention to our customers, it starts to move from criticism into the realm of bashing.

...

The previous thread was locked solely because it was degenerating into personal attacks among forum members. You can check other forums, we do the same there when that happens, it has nothing to do with whether we are supporting a game or not.

Regards,

- Erik

What you might want to do to facilitate people understanding this concept (that you lock threads for personal attacks) is have a person not involved with the game or game discussion be responsible for locking the threads. This would be tough, because that person would have to answer "reported posts" on a product he/she doesn't work with. But, if that were done, then there could be very little argument that the locking was done to shut people up.

Having been involved in various forums for a long time, I've seen a tendency for the forum users to attack a the person who locked the thread as being partial to one side or the other (usually the opposite to the one that person holds). Even normally excellent posters can somehow be dragged down by a series of bad posts. Frequently, it's not even possible to determine "who started it" (as if we're sixth graders).

I've been caught in it myself, and it's hard to recognize when one is posting. What I've always tried to do (usually after being prompted by another poster or a moderator) is take a short break (a few minutes) and reevaluate. It's amazing that something that took days or weeks to build up can be eliminated in only a few minutes. But, it's not always easy, even though short.

Putting in an "impartial" moderator helps by making it clear that the person making the decision to lock a thread is NOT one of the participants, and also is NOT emotionally tied to the discussion (i.e. by being part of the team that supports the product). In other words, that person has an insulator around himself as regards THIS game (he may very well be involved in OTHER games; just not the one in question).

Make sense?




borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/17/2008 3:00:21 AM)

i agree, this is Matrix's forum, and they should be free to moderate it.



Jimmer -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/17/2008 4:05:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

Why does Matrix need an "impartial" moderator? It's their forum on their site. Sounds like they can do what they want. I don't have a problem with that.

Because people arguing over something they are emotionally attached to sometimes become raging fools, spouting acrid words that get worse and worse. If someone who has a vested interest locks the thread, they just get madder. I'm not sure why, but for some reason people can get a lot more hostile on a forum than they ever would if they met face-to-face.

The point of an "impartial" judgement is to nip that kind of criticism in the bud. When Joe-EIA or Jane-EIH get mad at the guy who locked the thread (claiming partiality), his/her response can be "I don't even know how to play this game. I locked it out because your attacks were not against the game, but against each other.", then they really don't have any argument any more.

And, occasionally, such people will see the light. Those who don't, well, eventually they give up and leave.

Matrix does not "need" to do this. But, it can help in situations where the participants have shown increasing hostility towards each other, especially when such hostility is partially (or wholly) baseless.



Thresh -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/18/2008 3:23:16 AM)

Jimmer,

Can you name one game company's forums who are moderated by a 3rd party?

Todd



Jimmer -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/18/2008 5:13:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Jimmer,

Can you name one game company's forums who are moderated by a 3rd party?

Todd


Not a third party. Just someone not involved with the particular game that forum covers. S/he should still be a Matrix person, I would think.

Sorry. I must not have communicated that well.



baboune -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/18/2008 3:03:12 PM)

My personal answer: No this game is not playable.

Aside from the bad UI, and immense amounts of bugs, it is unplayable because it takes too long to play MP.

I paid for this, waited a year hoping it might get better (trusting MAtrix would somehow fix it), and I am still utterly disappointed.  I get frustrated every time I start the game, which does not happen much any longer. 

Matrix, can I get my money back?



borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/18/2008 3:16:46 PM)

this goes back to an old point in several threads.... there are several changes away from Eia to EiH, but combining eco and dip phases is unpopular as it differs from the origional EiA rules. I would say allow eco, dip and reinf to be done by all players at once. This would greatly speed things up,a nd cause only minor changes to playability. A trade off yes, as seeing who reinforces in front of you is useful, but a trade off that has good value IMO.



Dancing Bear -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/18/2008 7:48:39 PM)

On this last point, I am in 100% agreement with Mr. Borner. It is unfortunate that the game is hamstrung by a strict adherence to the phase schedule, which was the first thing to be thrown out the window by any group that played the board game.

I doubt very much that combining the diplomacy, reinforcement or economic phases would have any affect on game balance. There are relatively easy trade off’s to made to make even the placement of minor troops automatic, or worse case, add a response to a DOW phase that only kicks in when a war starts between major powers or between a major power and a minor with corps.

I would 100% support any such move to make the game faster, and more fun. Right now, the game is not that much fun, and if a game is not fun, why play it?



Thresh -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/18/2008 9:24:19 PM)

quote:

On this last point, I am in 100% agreement with Mr. Borner. It is unfortunate that the game is hamstrung by a strict adherence to the phase schedule, which was the first thing to be thrown out the window by any group that played the board game.


No,it wasn't. 

In fact, the few times I've played where they were all combined caused more headaches in the long run.

Wait until you get DoW'd by someone who was suppose to be your ally, or you get Called as an ally and you can't answer because you forgot to include it in your orders.

Todd





Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.453125