RE: playable yet? Part II (Full Version)

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



Message

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (3/31/2009 7:41:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

That's odd. Here I thought some of you were pining for TCP/IP implementation so you could do just that....


This is Tuesday. TCP/IP usually comes up on Thursdays... [:D]


I'm going to go ahead and assume that you do work for the gov't and that you didn't read my post since it was probably too long and "wordy" for you.



Thresh -> RE: playable yet? Part II (3/31/2009 8:18:00 PM)

Not at all.

I do wonder why you think his definition of playable is not  correct though.


Todd



pzgndr -> RE: playable yet? Part II (3/31/2009 10:25:06 PM)

quote:

I'm going to go ahead and assume ... that you didn't read my post since it was probably too long and "wordy" for you.


This is yet another incorrect assumption on your part. See post #328 above. Not that it matters. [8|]



NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (3/31/2009 10:38:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Not at all.

I do wonder why you think his definition of playable is not  correct though.


Todd


I don't agree with it. I don't think most do, that's why. I already stated, if you had bothered to read my posts, that if we are going under his definition of playable then I agree with him the game is playable.

I can code a playable game in under 5 minutes given his definition. Would you like to play that game?



Dancing Bear -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/1/2009 3:00:44 AM)

I'm with neverman on this one.

Playable=fun>>pain

The purpose of speeding up the game is to increase the fun, by a) reducing the time commitment (good for players), and b) opening the game up to a wider audience (good for Matrix).

But the speed should not scarifice the core EIA aspects of the game as stated elsewhere, so there are limits to how fast it can go. However, sim dip/eco fits this criteria.

A 7 player game in less than a year that reasonable people with outside lives living in multiple timezones can play would be a great target. Pzgrndr, make sure you understand the part about having an outside life, i.e. not a year of spending every free moment logged on waiting for a turn.



borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/1/2009 3:15:15 AM)

Pz seems to think the game is fine. That's one vote.



Thresh -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/1/2009 7:30:53 AM)

To bad the process isn't as democratic as we want it to be, eh Borner?

Todd



Thresh -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/1/2009 7:34:59 AM)

Then by your definition my copy of Empire Total War isn't playable.

And that's a game given a lot more support and bigger development budget from a much bigger company.

Are we demanding perfection out of the box (or straight from the download as it were these days) where any sort of patch should be unnecessary because the game as released is perfect?

Do we have faith in the process that's bringing the game to a standard we all like (and very probably expected)?

And if we don't have any faith in that process, why participate any further? As you once said, you aren't being paid for it, so whats the point and purpose? Catharsis of some sort?

Todd



pzgndr -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/1/2009 12:27:53 PM)

quote:

Your definition => playable = being able to be completed


quote:

Pz seems to think the game is fine. That's one vote.


It is entertaining to a point to discover what I seem to be saying and thinking, despite not actually saying or thinking these things. If you knuckleheads could provide some actual quotes and proper context about things, then perhaps others might take you more seriously. As it is, these rantings are pretty much meaningless. I leave it for the peanut gallery to determine who has credibility and who does not. In the meantime, I'll sit back with my bag of popcorn and see what I might say or think next. [sm=00000613.gif]

To review the bidding for whoever else follows this silly thread, there are spurious assertions offered here and some of these deserve a rational rebuttal.
1) Matrix has no remedial action plan to fix bugs and provide improvements/enhancements. Well, yes they do and Erik Rutins and Marshall have repeatedly announced their commitment to fix the bugs and provide improvements and enhancements. The critics refuse to acknowledge these announcements.
2) PBEM is incrediably slow and players have to sit around waiting for their turn. Duh, this has been the case for decades, and is still the case for benchmark PBEM games using VASSAL or other software. Well, EiANW provides comparable capability with its recent bug fixes and phase skipping. Simultaneous dip/eco phases will provide additional speed improvements, plus with EiANW's standing orders and other automated features it should prove to be faster than traditional PBEM using VASSAL. How fast is fast enough? The critics will not say so we don't know what they really want.
3) We have no way of knowing what the future development plans are. Hmm, does any game developer or software developer provide detailed plans about future patches?? We have the Mantis bug tracker that lists all issues under consideration for resolution, for those willing and able to check it. If something should be added, then add it. Issues are being worked off, too slowly for most all of us but still being worked off, and there appears to be a reasonable balance between bug fixes, PBEM improvements, AI improvements, and other enhancements. Eventually, if/when all issues on Mantis are resolved, would even that be enough to satisfy the critics? Who knows.

Enough for now. The v1.06 patch should be out shortly and hopefully we can move beyond this thread and all of the meaningless arguments it contains.



NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/1/2009 1:14:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I just have to repost this from Trax's AAR above:

quote:

Our four player group has compleated EiANW with a French victory in December of 1812.
Finish order with percentage; France 101, Spain 89, G.B. 88, Turkey 83, Russia 60, Austria 51, Prussia 38.
Ai Spain and Turkey did nothing to deserve their fininshing positions!

In our game France won two unconditional peace treaties from both Austria and Prussia. GB won a
conditional peace from the Turks. Russia was invaded twice by France but was never defeated.
Our game had human players for France, GB, Austria and Russia. After about 1806 we found it preferable to let
the Austrian player also control Prussia.
We started our game about the first of February 2008 and finished mid January 2009. There was
about 5 game months of do-overs with the early problems in the game. Progress has been steady for quite
a while now. This adds up to about 1700 turns in 350 days an average of 5 player turns
per day. We did have several weeks of no play so the average of 5 turns is misleading. On a good
evening we often could get through two phases of a game month.
Our group is going to shuffle countries and start again.


Playable yet? ROTFLMAO [:D]


So, what about Trax's game makes you say it is playable?



pzgndr -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/1/2009 4:20:22 PM)

What do you mean, what makes "me" say it's playable?  Trax reported his group played and completed a game.  If you want to argue the semantics of the word "playable" with regard to Trax's game then argue with Trax.  You go ahead and tell HIM the game he and his group actually played really wasn't playable, and the game they actually finished really cannot be completed.  Go ahead.  We'll all just sit back and watch how it turns out.



NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/1/2009 4:40:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

What do you mean, what makes "me" say it's playable?  Trax reported his group played and completed a game.  If you want to argue the semantics of the word "playable" with regard to Trax's game then argue with Trax.  You go ahead and tell HIM the game he and his group actually played really wasn't playable, and the game they actually finished really cannot be completed.  Go ahead.  We'll all just sit back and watch how it turns out.


No, you quote his post and then write "Playable yet? ROTFLMAO [:D]"....

It was an obvious attempt at being condescending, implying that he finished a game so the game must be playable. If you meant something other than this please let us know.



Dancing Bear -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/2/2009 12:37:30 AM)

Pzgndr, for the benefit of us knuckleheads, can you reference the exact post where Matrix last posted the remedial plan?

Also, while there has been one speed improvement, what's your estimate on the amount of time commited by Matrix so far to developing additional speed developments vs improving the AI. Would you say it has been about equal?

Below is quoted from Pzgndr:
To review the bidding for whoever else follows this silly thread, there are spurious assertions offered here and some of these deserve a rational rebuttal.
1) Matrix has no remedial action plan to fix bugs and provide improvements/enhancements. Well, yes they do and Erik Rutins and Marshall have repeatedly announced their commitment to fix the bugs and provide improvements and enhancements. The critics refuse to acknowledge these announcements.
2) PBEM is incrediably slow and players have to sit around waiting for their turn. Duh, this has been the case for decades, and is still the case for benchmark PBEM games using VASSAL or other software. Well, EiANW provides comparable capability with its recent bug fixes and phase skipping. Simultaneous dip/eco phases will provide additional speed improvements, plus with EiANW's standing orders and other automated features it should prove to be faster than traditional PBEM using VASSAL. How fast is fast enough? The critics will not say so we don't know what they really want.
3) We have no way of knowing what the future development plans are. Hmm, does any game developer or software developer provide detailed plans about future patches?? We have the Mantis bug tracker that lists all issues under consideration for resolution, for those willing and able to check it. If something should be added, then add it. Issues are being worked off, too slowly for most all of us but still being worked off, and there appears to be a reasonable balance between bug fixes, PBEM improvements, AI improvements, and other enhancements. Eventually, if/when all issues on Mantis are resolved, would even that be enough to satisfy the critics? Who knows.

Enough for now. The v1.06 patch should be out shortly and hopefully we can move beyond this thread and all of the meaningless arguments it contains.
[/quote]



borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/2/2009 2:41:10 AM)

the point is some people are happy with the game, some are not. I happen to think the break is at least 30/70 not playable, but that is open to debate. I think the more you played the origional the less the chance you are going to be pleased at this point.  As I have said, I hope Martix stays focused on getting things working, then to enhancements



borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/4/2009 8:57:17 PM)

Forgot to ask this in my previous post.    PZ, you keep calling this thread silly, but you will not go away, I do not understand why. As for bing silly - if it keep you entertained, that is enough for me.




borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/5/2009 1:54:05 AM)

from another thread..... but a year in you STILL cannot add provences to Poland or OE after creation?  Oh yes, lets divert time and resources into a new naval systme before the basics are worked out!  Sorry for the negative tone, but this is inexcuseable from a design standpoint



borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/6/2009 2:09:42 AM)

bored this weekend, tried to play against the AI.... still stupid, but discovered the OE is still broken, and Portugal will not allow it's own cav to be added to it's corps.....  Oh well.



pzgndr -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/6/2009 10:27:23 PM)

[sm=innocent0009.gif]

[image]local://upfiles/11380/51AD11281E364C00863BB6E369DDFA21.jpg[/image]



borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/7/2009 3:55:56 AM)

now that was somewhat cute and creative



StCyr -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/9/2009 11:55:37 AM)

well, if only Marshall would be half that creative, there might be hope...

The game is still a mess, and I bet we will have the same discussion about "playable" in 2 years, if some guys go on and refuse to ignore the reality.
Borner, if you expect the AI to be ai, it is obviously your own mistake.
And if you want to build Cav with Portugal... well, thats just noobis, donīt you think so ?
Please stop complaining - no more "meaningless arguments" wanted!




Marshall Ellis -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/9/2009 12:49:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: StCyr

well, if only Marshall would be half that creative, there might be hope...

The game is still a mess, and I bet we will have the same discussion about "playable" in 2 years, if some guys go on and refuse to ignore the reality.
Borner, if you expect the AI to be ai, it is obviously your own mistake.
And if you want to build Cav with Portugal... well, thats just noobis, donīt you think so ?
Please stop complaining - no more "meaningless arguments" wanted!




OUCH! LOL!
Would you settle for 1/4 that creative? 1/8?



StCyr -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/10/2009 12:09:58 AM)

Hi Marshall- youīr here ? Bug-hunting finished ?  AI works ?  Oh, well... bye.



borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/10/2009 3:30:48 AM)

I did not build it, I could not add the one that came with the free state. yet another bug



borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/16/2009 4:03:58 AM)

yet another game comes to a craching halt due to bugs... gotta love it!




Grapeshot Bob -> RE: playable yet? Part II (4/28/2009 5:30:42 PM)

Still not going anywhere fast?

Sounds like it is still not up to normal playability standards since I bought version 1.00. That was over a year ago.

I'm glad the bugs are being worked out, but seriously, these should have been nailed down well before this game was released.

I still feel like a beta tester, which is unacceptable.

I'll check back periodically but at this rate a genuinely playable game might be available within the next 12 months.



GSB



borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (5/1/2009 4:04:45 AM)

[&o]



Grognot -> RE: playable yet? Part II (5/1/2009 9:11:44 AM)

quote:


OUCH! LOL!
Would you settle for 1/4 that creative? 1/8?


Can't speak for anybody else, but it's not your creativity that worries me, but a suspicion that the actual design of the code base is sufficiently confused as to make it extremely difficult to not only make things work, but to recall what you meant to work and on locating problems when something is possibly not working.

*Small* things like a economic manipulation modifier getting applied to the Spanish Gold die roll are somewhat understandable; that can easily happen if you have a chain of instructions that use the same variable as a modifier for different purposes, and you neglect to reset it properly between the two usages. That can be explained with extremely local and not especially bizarre mistakes. Things like a suddenly reduced (and seemingly unintentionally so) limit on total units plus garrisons are more disturbing. Units teleporting, fleets counters cloning themselves, Portugal getting victory points, PBEM human players turning AI, and hostile stacks cheerfully coexisting in regions without cities -- all of which I have observed in previous versions -- suggest more problematic things like data corruption, which in turn makes me worry about the routines you're using to store and process the data. As any old hand knows, if you mangle the wrong locations in memory you can get extremely bizarre behavior like printf() going SIGSEGV because you wrote garbage over the call stack. There's a reason why I tend to be fanatical about data abstraction, logging, unit testing, exception handling and the like in my own code -- it's enough work tracking down issues when I have to worry about broken libraries, JVM errors, code written years ago by people who are no longer co-workers, and the like.

*That* is what bothers me, more than whether the game is fast, whether it has a scenario editor, or when additional features like adding more territory to the Ottoman Empire get implemented. If the design itself is inherently badly flawed, then seemingly random broken behavior may only be a natural consequence and fixing such bugs may take far more time than it should.



NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (5/1/2009 4:06:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognot

quote:


OUCH! LOL!
Would you settle for 1/4 that creative? 1/8?


Can't speak for anybody else, but it's not your creativity that worries me, but a suspicion that the actual design of the code base is sufficiently confused as to make it extremely difficult to not only make things work, but to recall what you meant to work and on locating problems when something is possibly not working.

*Small* things like a economic manipulation modifier getting applied to the Spanish Gold die roll are somewhat understandable; that can easily happen if you have a chain of instructions that use the same variable as a modifier for different purposes, and you neglect to reset it properly between the two usages. That can be explained with extremely local and not especially bizarre mistakes. Things like a suddenly reduced (and seemingly unintentionally so) limit on total units plus garrisons are more disturbing. Units teleporting, fleets counters cloning themselves, Portugal getting victory points, PBEM human players turning AI, and hostile stacks cheerfully coexisting in regions without cities -- all of which I have observed in previous versions -- suggest more problematic things like data corruption, which in turn makes me worry about the routines you're using to store and process the data. As any old hand knows, if you mangle the wrong locations in memory you can get extremely bizarre behavior like printf() going SIGSEGV because you wrote garbage over the call stack. There's a reason why I tend to be fanatical about data abstraction, logging, unit testing, exception handling and the like in my own code -- it's enough work tracking down issues when I have to worry about broken libraries, JVM errors, code written years ago by people who are no longer co-workers, and the like.

*That* is what bothers me, more than whether the game is fast, whether it has a scenario editor, or when additional features like adding more territory to the Ottoman Empire get implemented. If the design itself is inherently badly flawed, then seemingly random broken behavior may only be a natural consequence and fixing such bugs may take far more time than it should.



What he said.... and what I've said before.



borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (5/2/2009 2:38:22 PM)

[&o][&o]



mr.godo -> RE: playable yet? Part II (5/4/2009 6:57:27 AM)

here here grognot.

the new 6 allows for bypassing corps. I have the dutch defending amsterdam at the start of the game and the brits land, bypass the dutch corps, siege the town and take out my fleet (i have it in amsterdam).  but actually, the fleet just moves to the next port over. gitchy.



Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.453125