RE: playable yet? Part II

RE: playable yet? Part II (Full Version)

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

Message

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/18/2009 8:50:13 PM)
I always enjoyed Whack-a-mole. Especially if you did well and all the tickets came out to go buy cheap cra____ errrrr... cheap crud from the giftshop [sm=00000613.gif]

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/18/2009 9:03:26 PM)
The point was, and is, a debate on how playable the game is at this point. I bought this game the first week it was out with high hopes, that were soon dashed. I have played in a couple of games with Neverman, and although they failed for various reasons, he stuck with the games he started, which is far more than I can say for many other players I have run into. That said, at the time this thread, and a couple of ones before this, started, I did not think this was playable. I am happy to say that I am in a couple now, that now seem to be, and my position is changing. While early, April 05 or earlier, we have yet to run into the game-changing bugs that were so very common in earlier versions. It also helps that especially in one of them, we are going through a 7 player phase in 2-3 days, and yesterday acually made it through the eco phase in one day! Morale of the story, if you have players that are committed to checking if they are up at least once per day, you can ofter get through 2-3 player phases in a day, which while not blazing, is still not that bad all things considered. (I still am a big advocate that some phases need to be done alltogether (Dip/Eco, maybe reinf), and this would only serve to greatly increase speed and thus enjoyment of the game - but that is being discussed in another thread.)

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/20/2009 12:44:35 AM)
The game still has no naval evasion (that I am aware of) and has no combined movement. These are two major issues with the game. Punztdr can go on and on and say "matrix says they are fixing this" but with a lot of these problems they haven't said a thing about fixing them. Until recently I actually thought that "loaning" corps could act like combined movement until I read (I can't believe no one caught this earlier, myself included obviously) that if you loan a corps to a country then that country loses/gains PP in a battle even if that country doesn't have corps present. I have no idea why this was implemented this way but it really throws balance off in the game. I see many things that need to be fixed that are not included in the "Mantis" list, as Putzdger suggests.

ndrose -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/20/2009 1:01:53 AM)
I think the game is playable, and a lot of fun. There are things that could be improved (I like the idea of simultaneous phases for eco and diplomacy), but one thing I think we should recognize is that we all want two things--a faster game, and a more accurate reflection of EiA--and these two things are in tension with one another. EiA had innumerable steps within the phases; it's no easy task to try to get as much of that as possible into a game that can still be played at a reasonable speed by exchange of files.

pzgndr -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/20/2009 1:41:11 AM)
quote: one thing I think we should recognize is that we all want two things--a faster game, and a more accurate reflection of EiA--and these two things are in tension with one another. Bingo. But not only are they in tension, a perfectly accurate recreation of the board game and all of its interactive ftf phases is simply impossible. Compromises are necessary, for better or worse, and that's a fact of life. quote: as Putzdger suggests Oh look. NeverMan is trying to be cute. A sphincter says what? [8\|] quote: I think the game is playable, and a lot of fun. I agree. And most other players who are playing the game seem to agree also. Even the ones who insist it is not playable are basing their opinions on the fact that they are playing the game. So I guess it is playable. QED [:)]

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/20/2009 4:00:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ndrose I think the game is playable, and a lot of fun. There are things that could be improved (I like the idea of simultaneous phases for eco and diplomacy), but one thing I think we should recognize is that we all want two things--a faster game, and a more accurate reflection of EiA--and these two things are in tension with one another. EiA had innumerable steps within the phases; it's no easy task to try to get as much of that as possible into a game that can still be played at a reasonable speed by exchange of files. Yes, a faster game and a classic EiA would do wonders for this game. I disagree with your reasonable speed remark, real-time play (IP via UDP or TCP) would do the trick.

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/22/2009 3:52:53 AM)
IF everyone can be on at the some time

ndrose -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/22/2009 4:05:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: borner IF everyone can be on at the some time Yeah, that would certainly be impossible for me. I'm usually near my computer, and can respond by pbem pretty quickly; but life is sufficiently chaotic that I couldn't promise to be there at a specified time, or to stay there for any length of time. I can see that it would be a nice feature for those who could make use of it, though.

Mardonius -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/22/2009 11:51:42 AM)
I'm with Nathan. Something to do with four kids and two and a half jobs.

pzgndr -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/22/2009 12:27:15 PM)
I'm suppose there may be a couple of larger play groups of 6-7 players willing to glue themselves to their computers for hours at a time on a regular basis for a long haul game. More likely may be 2-4 players plus AI playing shorter scenarios in reasonable periods of time. IP is desireable but it's not critical right now for most. Getting those other scenarios completed and improving the AI so players actually have something to play via IP is more important first.

pzgndr -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/22/2009 9:19:41 PM)
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]

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/23/2009 1:00:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pzgndr Playable yet? ROTFLMAO [:D] No, it's not, at least not in the spirit of the word playable.

mr.godo -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/23/2009 4:24:58 AM)
quote: Whining and complaining will not change anything or help accelerate the ongoing development towards final completion. Please help out, or just go away. We are helping. They need to stop the current development and start with an EiA 2.0 that has a practical gameturn and more player involvement than just moving your pieces and waiting for everyone else to move their pieces. This is not a community effort. I did not sign up for a community effort. I paid money for a game I thought I could enjoy with distant friends, not an aberration of the game or something cobbled together. Glorify this game all you want, but the fact is that this game will never be playable because of the amount of time it requires for you to wait around. Wow! You can 4 player it in less than a year? Impressive, but not practical. If you want to get rid of the realistic feedback, I have a price. Buy my key. Until then, I'll play the game solo and cringe at the thought that I could be waiting three days while other people are busy ignoring their emails.

pzgndr -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/24/2009 1:06:02 PM)
quote: the fact is that this game will never be playable What fact? There is plain evidence to the contrary. On one hand we have folks like Trax provide an AAR of an actual completed game, blemishes and all, which establishes as fact that the game is playable. Period. On the other hand, we continue to get spurious assertions that the game is still not playable and perhaps will never be playable. That is a personal opinion. This "discussion" is clearly not about playability any more, if it ever was; it is about something else entirely. quote: Whether you like it or not, it IS an exercise in development and does require a certain degree of community effort. If that's not to one's personal liking, one should not buy these niche wargames. But some folks buy them anyway expecting them to be what they are not and then complaining about it. That's just stupid. Stupid is as stupid does. - Forrest Gump

ereiser -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/24/2009 4:30:21 PM)
Is the game playable?� At this point, it's all up to your expectations. This is a GRAND strategy campaign game.�The game that it is based upon was meant to be played by 7 people FtF.� 25 years ago, we seemed to manage that on a fairly regular basis, but then we all grew up (marriage, kids, jobs, illness, etc., etc.).� Even FtF (playing 2x/month), it could take over a year to play a game.� Why invest that much time in a single game?� Because with 7 human players, it is, by far, on of the best�games I've ever played!� The combinations of diplomacy and military play over an extended campaign period are outstanding. That said, this computer game is a means of continuing that game tradition while dealing with the complexities of life.� A game is going to take a long time, but is playable because you only need to devote a short period of time each day to playing it.� It takes patience and encourages�a long view of strategy (yes, the opposite of our instant gratification society!).� In that regard, it is very playable (though yes, we do need a few more bugs worked out).� The corollary being, if you're not willing to devote the extended time to play, then it is not playable. For the solo player against the AI, it is not a very good game (I consider that�mainly to be training in how to operate the game system).� The AI improvments that have been made help a little, but like most any computer game, it's just a matter of figuring out the AI's weaknesses are and exploiting them.� It can be fun, but not as rewarding. As for IP play, you're back to the same problems that FtF games had, getting a number of people with widely varying schedules and commitments, together at the same time. Regards, Eric

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/24/2009 5:37:47 PM)
I agree, the idea behind PBEM is thatrveryone does not have to be around at once.... so it's the same old debate from several threads. Go back to base EIA, not EiH, and give up a little by having dip/reinf/eco phases done at teh same time, and shave off DAYS per game month by doing so. I consider myself an EiA purist, and would never argue to do these at the same time face to face, but to me it's a good trade off

mr.godo -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/24/2009 9:17:12 PM)
quote: quote: Whether you like it or not, it IS an exercise in development and does require a certain degree of community effort. If that's not to one's personal liking, one should not buy these niche wargames. But some folks buy them anyway expecting them to be what they are not and then complaining about it. That's just stupid. Stupid is as stupid does. - Forrest Gump You can't help yourself in demeaning people, can you panzer grenadier? Nowhere do I see Matrix claiming to be a community based effort. They have a staff who game, they listen to their customers, but they do not rely on their customers to help with game development actively. This is the licensed version of EiA. Why shouldn't there be some expectation to it resembling the boardgame? I find the interface to be about as complex as colonization from the early 1990's. I disagree with the notion that this is a complex game. The strategies and tactics may be complex, but the mechanics of the game are not.

pzgndr -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/25/2009 3:11:51 PM)
Well mr.godo, considering the snarky and demeaning comments made about the game, Marshall Ellis, and Matrix Games, a few rebuttals should be fair. This game will never be playable? Never, ever?? Uh-huh. [sm=00000613.gif]

Tarleton -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/25/2009 3:23:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pzgndr On the other hand, we continue to get spurious assertions that the game is still not playable and perhaps will never be playable. That is a personal opinion. This "discussion" is clearly not about playability any more, if it ever was; it is about something else entirely. This whole thread seems pretty useless to me. I am playing it. I am enjoying it. Unplayable? Who thinks so? 5 balding 50 year old men in their Mom's basement? [sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000289.gif]

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/25/2009 3:53:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pzgndr Well mr.godo, considering the snarky and demeaning comments made about the game, Marshall Ellis, and Matrix Games, a few rebuttals should be fair.� This game will never be playable?� Never, ever??� Uh-huh.� [sm=00000613.gif] Why do you have such a problem with people giving an honest opinion about a game they have spent good money on?? Doesn't that alone give them the right to voice their opinion? I guess you only want to hear opinions you agree with. Wow, what a great society that makes! Dude, since Matrix really doesn't care what people post (obvious since you continue to insult people who give their honest opinion ABOUT A GAME!!!) go ahead insulting. I guess you can consider "playable" literally, like you have done. I guess my expectations just aren't as low as yours (which is to be expected considering the quality of your posts). I have finished AI games since the first release, does that qualify as playable simply because I finished a game? As far as Tarleton, I'm not 50 and I don't live with my mom.... although I am starting to lose my hair. [:(]

pzgndr -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/25/2009 10:18:24 PM)
quote: Why do you have such a problem with people giving an honest opinion about a game they have spent good money on?? Doesn't that alone give them the right to voice their opinion? I do so hate repeating myself for those who don't get it the first, second or third time, but here goes... quote: Allow me to be clear. A person's right to complain is not the issue. The validity of any of the complaints is not the issue. I don't disagree with any of the bug reports. I don't disagree that develepment of this game could have been different, could have been better. With regard to Neverman in particular, I agree that classic EiA OOB scenarios should be developed, that TCP/IP play be implemented, and most of the other issues that he has raised be resolved. But, all of these issues have been raised and discussed, and IMHO adequately addressed; i.e., Marshall Ellis and Matrix Games have acknowledged the issues, resolved most of them already, and are committed to fixing the remaining issues. The thing is, it will take time to fix all of those remaining issues and players need to be patient. There is no alternative. Whining and complaining repeatedly with increasing frequency and being more vocal about it each time accomplishes absolutely nothing. That is not "venting"; that is something else entirely and it is uncalled for. And the rest of us do not have to put up with it. NeverMan, you have gone well beyond just "giving an honest opinion." You bash. You bash repeatedly, and you do so in your own insulting and demeaning manner. It is uncalled for. Poor poor you. What I don't understand is why Matrix Games continues to tolerate this nonsense. [&:] Once upon a time I spent my good money on Hearts of Iron. I didn't like it. I'll note that others who did not like it and posted negatively on the Paradox forums had their threads ruthlessly deleted and usually got themselves banned. It was a technique. I was hopeful that Hearts of Iron II would be better. I spent good money on that one too and didn't like it. Oh well. Did I plant myself on the Paradox forum and repeatedly bash the developers and the game company? No. My bad. Caveat emptor, yes? [;)] Alright. Your turn. [sm=sterb029.gif]

mr.godo -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/25/2009 11:24:57 PM)
Tic tac toe is playable. Are you going to set up a tournament with your friends so you can see who the best tic-tac-toe player is? I don't think so. But it's playable, right? This game is not, in my opinion, a worthwhile representation of EiA. There's my honest opinion as a gamer and a software tester. (Incidentally, I have both HoI and HoI2. World War II by the minute. That's a niche game. It's very abstract. THAT is a complex game. You bought the first one, didnt' like it, and then bought the second one and didn't like that either? Fool me once...) From the Matrix website, the description of EiA claims it is the officially licensed version. While one of the reviews is 404, the other is still there and is written by some armchair boardgamer. "The Matrix Games version of EIA keeps the boardgame phases intact; diplomacy, reinforcement, naval, ground and once every three turns an economic phase." Hmm. Ground. "The Ground Phase". Maybe he means "Land". I don't think they left the "Diplomacy" phase intact. Anyway, my point is that this is advertised as EiA and there are a number of individuals who are not happy with the implementation. EiA deserves better than this. Caveat emptor in spades.

Thresh -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/26/2009 3:14:20 AM)
I think quite a few people have the definition of "Officially Licensed Version" wrong. It does not always mean a complete carbon copy of the board game, no matter how much some of us may want it to be. Yes, quite a few of us are not happy with the game. Some of us are doing what we can to help. Repeatedly posting on the forum how much you don't like the game for what it isn't is not help. Todd

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/26/2009 3:44:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh I think quite a few people have the definition of "Officially Licensed Version" wrong. It does not always mean a complete carbon copy of the board game, no matter how much some of us may want it to be. Yes, quite a few of us are not happy with the game.� Some of us are doing what we can to help.� Repeatedly posting on the forum how much you don't like the game for what it isn't is not help.� Todd So not voicing your opinion would help? Or should we all just agree that we love the game with all our heart and nothing should change? How do you think things change? They change by people who want change voicing their opinions. One of the MAJOR problems with this game is that NOT ENOUGH people voiced their opinions years ago and now we have an EiA/EiH hybrid that most are unhappy with. You're right, I guess we should just be thankful for what we get and just stfu...

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/26/2009 3:48:59 AM)
no, it mostly does not. However, when others tell pepople they do not have a right to complain, or say they think the game is good as is, that is bound to get a reaction from some. The game is getting better. I think for the most part, as I have said before, Matrix understands the mistake they made in going with "EiH" instead of trying to get as close to EiA as possible. I will lay odds that once the "classic" senario is ready, 80%+ of the new games started will be that version. There are still bugs, but these are getting fewer. Everyone is entitled to an opinion if this is ready to play or not, and free to express it. If you are tired of reading the same thing over and over, well.............

Thresh -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/26/2009 5:20:03 AM)
Neverman, I dated a girl one. Nice girl,until she went of her meds and went psycho. I woke up one early morning, about four AM, and she was in the apartment complex parking lot beating the crap out of a car with a Lousiville slugger. She had already slashed the tires, and she was screeching at the top of her lungs how much she loved me and what a mistake I was making by breaking up with her as she smashed every window. As if somehow slashing the tires and beating the crap out of a defesneless car was supposed to get me to change my mind and say "Hey, the girls a psycho freak, but she cares! What was I thinking when I broke up with her?!?" I get that you dont like the current iteration of the game. I get that you don't like past iterations, and am reasonably sure you won't like future versions. That is your opinion, which you have expressed repeatedly. But I sincerely doubt expressing it the way you have chosen to do so is going to cause Marshall to sit up inbed at three AM, slao hishead in disgust and say "Dammit, Neverman was right all along, lets scrap seven years hard work and start over from square one!" This game could be a lot better, and I think there are quite a few people working to make it better. Hey, it could always be worse... Todd

pzgndr -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/26/2009 12:16:39 PM)
quote: So not voicing your opinion would help? Or should we all just agree that we love the game with all our heart and nothing should change? (sigh) I'll go out on a limb here. I'll make a scientific wild-ass guess and boldly assert that nobody, absolutely nobody, would agree that the game as-is is a perfect finished product and that nothing should change. I'll further assert that everyone would like to see all issues on the bug tracker list resolved and working smoothly. So that everyone - the pbemers, tcp/ipers, hotseaters and solitairists - the EiA classicists, the EiHers and the off-the-wall-modders - everyone, should eventually find some modest satisfaction with the game. So why make such an asinine comment that some players don't feel any change is needed? [8\|] NeverMan, do you just not get it? The point is not about voicing opinions but the obnoxious manner you and a few others use to try to get your personal priorities to the top of the list, and the almost-daily hissy fit you throw because the toy you bought doesn't work right. Poor you. What the heck do you really expect to happen on a daily basis when you voice your "opinion" for the umpteenth time?? quote: I guess we should just be thankful for what we get and just stfu... No, just stfu, take a number, and wait your turn for game improvements like the rest of us are doing. It's bad enough being in this waiting room without having to put up with your nonsense. I note that others besides myself are also getting totally fed up with this. Your opinions have been voiced, acknowledged, and are on the list for resolution. If you have something brand new to add, then add it to the bug tracker list. Then chill out.

Tarleton -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/26/2009 12:27:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh <Snip brilliant freaking metaphor which has now entered my vocabulary> Thresh, you are a philosopher for our modern age. I will now call that type of behaviour "Psycho 4 AM girl-Logic". Pat

iamspamus -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/26/2009 12:32:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pzgndr quote: So not voicing your opinion would help? Or should we all just agree that we love the game with all our heart and nothing should change? (sigh) I'll go out on a limb here. I'll make a scientific wild-ass guess and boldly assert that nobody, absolutely nobody, would agree that the game as-is is a perfect finished product and that nothing should change. I'll further assert that everyone would like to see all issues on the bug tracker list resolved and working smoothly. So that everyone - the pbemers, tcp/ipers, hotseaters and solitairists - the EiA classicists, the EiHers and the off-the-wall-modders - everyone, should eventually find some modest satisfaction with the game. So why make such an asinine comment that some players don't feel any change is needed? [8\|] NeverMan, do you just not get it? The point is not about voicing opinions but the obnoxious manner you and a few others use to try to get your personal priorities to the top of the list, and the almost-daily hissy fit you throw because the toy you bought doesn't work right. Poor you. What the heck do you really expect to happen on a daily basis when you voice your "opinion" for the umpteenth time?? quote: I guess we should just be thankful for what we get and just stfu... No, just stfu, take a number, and wait your turn for game improvements like the rest of us are doing. It's bad enough being in this waiting room without having to put up with your nonsense. I note that others besides myself are also getting totally fed up with this. Your opinions have been voiced, acknowledged, and are on the list for resolution. If you have something brand new to add, then add it to the bug tracker list. Then chill out. "This game sucks" accomplishes nothing. "This game sucks, it could be better if ..." works. Neverman, you want a classic scenario. It's being worked on. Ok. So, let's hear the complaint AGAIN of the same thing. As someone said, you didn't like it in the beginning, you don't like it now, and I assume that you won't like it in the future...even with a "classic" EIA scenario. THAT is what is irritating. Mardonius. HFJ and others say that they don't like some stuff and then proceed to make suggestions on what could change. Will all of the suggested changes be implemented? Possibly, but probably not. But giving constructive criticism EVEN IF YOU'RE UNHAPPY, rather than just repeating the "I hate this game" mantra, will go along way. So, to close, no one is saying "you can't say what you want". Say whatever you want. But we also have the right to say what we want. So, if, in some people's opinion, the comments are demeaning, repetative, or non-constructive then we will continue to pound on them. Is that fair? Jason

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (1/26/2009 12:41:50 PM)
That's fair yes, but being insulting is not, which pzndgr has been time and time again. On top of that, I have given TONS of constructive criticism to this game over the last FOUR YEARS, which most of you weren't even here for, so I'm not sure where that comes from but whatever. THIS thread is about whether the game is playable and I STILL don't think it is. Everytime a new version comes out I am going to post here.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.28125