RE: Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty? (Full Version)

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

Message

pzgndr -> RE: Current difficulty? (4/7/2010 5:53:48 PM)
quote: So we should all agree with Pz or shut up? Not necessarily. You are perfectly free to keep doing what you've been doing for years now (ie, whining) and expecting different results. Let us know how the hopey/changey thing works out for y'all. [:D]

wworld7 -> RE: Current difficulty? (4/7/2010 7:31:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: borner So we should all agree with Pz or shut up? [sm=00000506.gif] Perhaps, the correct answer to borner's question here is somewhere between these two extremes. Discussion/debate of various EIA topics is not the problem. Cult-like twisting of facts to fit a particular point of view is. Not surprisingly Neverman provides a good example today. He is not alone, as many people with different points of view have often twisted and warped facts in this forum. quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan While I agree with Skanvak.... I'm inclined to believe what Grognot believes, and that is that this game was poorly designed (ie. is not coded robustly or modularly), so it's a moot point. Except that Grognot didn't say the game was poorly designed, nor not robustly, he did make a correct statement of how it would not be feasable to open up the program if the program was not modular to start with. From a modular angle I believe this to be true. Where this discussion comes off the rail and crashes is when Neverman takes this to mean that if it wasn't modular to begin with it must be poorly coded, or just not robust. The facts of life in regards to programming do not support Neverman here. Modular is one way, but far from the only way creating robust code. As for being poorly coded, once again until Neverman or anyone else sees the source code this is just an opinion that he keeps repeating but cannot support with any substance. Modular: Marshall is the only one who knows the design of this program. Maybe he did use this practice or maybe he or Matrix had a different view of thier goal, perhaps different techniques were called for. There is no right or wrong, turning a vision into a language that computers understand is an art form. I hope this makes sense, I also hope the discussion of EIA continues as it is mostly enjoyable even though it will have little if any effect on the game. Honest, Robust and Open discussion is a good thing in my humble opinion.[:)][:)][:)]

NeverMan -> RE: Current difficulty? (4/7/2010 8:04:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish quote: ORIGINAL: borner So we should all agree with Pz or shut up? [sm=00000506.gif] Perhaps, the correct answer to borner's question here is somewhere between these two extremes. Discussion/debate of various EIA topics is not the problem. Cult-like twisting of facts to fit a particular point of view is. Not surprisingly Neverman provides a good example today. He is not alone, as many people with different points of view have often twisted and warped facts in this forum. quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan While I agree with Skanvak.... I'm inclined to believe what Grognot believes, and that is that this game was poorly designed (ie. is not coded robustly or modularly), so it's a moot point. Except that Grognot didn't say the game was poorly designed, nor not robustly, he did make a correct statement of how it would not be feasable to open up the program if the program was not modular to start with. From a modular angle I believe this to be true. Where this discussion comes off the rail and crashes is when Neverman takes this to mean that if it wasn't modular to begin with it must be poorly coded, or just not robust. The facts of life in regards to programming do not support Neverman here. Modular is one way, but far from the only way creating robust code. As for being poorly coded, once again until Neverman or anyone else sees the source code this is just an opinion that he keeps repeating but cannot support with any substance. Modular: Marshall is the only one who knows the design of this program. Maybe he did use this practice or maybe he or Matrix had a different view of thier goal, perhaps different techniques were called for. There is no right or wrong, turning a vision into a language that computers understand is an art form. I hope this makes sense, I also hope the discussion of EIA continues as it is mostly enjoyable even though it will have little if any effect on the game. Honest, Robust and Open discussion is a good thing in my humble opinion.[:)][:)][:)] You should take your own advice, I never said that code couldn't be robust if not modular. I used the word "or" in the quote you gave. Again, maybe you should take your own advice, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon. Secondly, I don't need to see the code. Marshall has explicitly stated regarding several issues that the code is not robust enough to accept some of the needed changes (ie. that "this is hard coded into the engine", as one example). Again, you have no idea wtf you are talking about, as usual.

wworld7 -> RE: Current difficulty? (4/7/2010 11:13:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan You should take your own advice, I never said that code couldn't be robust if not modular. I used the word "or" in the quote you gave. Again, maybe you should take your own advice, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon. My error and I apologize for it. quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan Secondly, I don't need to see the code. Marshall has explicitly stated regarding several issues that the code is not robust enough to accept some of the needed changes (ie. that "this is hard coded into the engine", as one example). My point is not that the code is robust or not, it was that Grognot did not say it was. My point was that you implied he did and agreed with him to support your position that the code was written poorly. Yes, Marshall did say certain areas were less than robust. The leap you take to saying it is poorly written code is where you crash and burn. Without seeing the code, you have no support for this statement. Yet, you repeat it over and over with your implications, jabs and digs at the game. Somehow expecting if you say it enough it will become true. Sorry, but this is not how computer programs work, at least in reality. Robust code can be poorly written or it can be Mona Lisa quality. The same holds true for non-robust code. quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan Again, you have no idea wtf you are talking about, as usual. Once again, mature comments just flow from you as you type. I'm comfortable that my experiance with software more than meets the standard for being able to talk about this subject at an advanced level. So yes, I do have an idea of what I am talking about. If the day ever comes when the code is released please attempt to prove the quality of the code is poor. If you don't have the knowledge or experiance for this get some help. The answer may surprise you.[:)] Be well,

borner -> RE: Current difficulty? (4/8/2010 12:29:54 AM)
Pz, you have to work for Martix. I am thrilled you are happy with the current product. Personally, when I shell out $70+ for a game, I expect better results. Plus, in my opinion, it is silly a game would be designed where you have to commonly load a dozen more files that are in order to simply pick up where the last one left off. I really do not care if you disagree, as based on the games I have been in, I know I am not alone in this. I will let you get in the final word on how unreasonable my position is or how I should be happy that the game has improved from where it was. [sm=00000924.gif]

pzgndr -> RE: Current difficulty? (4/8/2010 12:06:51 PM)
quote: I am thrilled you are happy with the current product. WTF is your major malfunction in life? No, I am NOT "happy" with the current product. There are still bugs to fix, promised features to implement, game options to consider, AI enhancements and improvements to make, editor issues to resolve, classic EiA map and OOB and other scenarios/campaigns to implement, etc. The difference here is how most folks recognize that we are where we are and nothing is going to change the past, and that the mature thing to do is to help move towards where we should be. Pissing and moaning about game design decisions made years ago changes nothing and accomplishes nothing now. Perhaps you several "experts" feel so much better about yourselves with all of your backseat driving "advice"? Nice. Good for you.

borner -> RE: Current difficulty? (4/8/2010 8:39:10 PM)
such language. [:-]

Thresh -> RE: Current difficulty? (4/11/2010 2:01:41 AM)
JFC, my one year old doesn't whine as much as some of you, and he's teething. Borner, is Pzgndr's language the only thing you take exception to, or do you want to point out where else in his post you disagree with or wish to prove him wrong on? Many of us are not "happy" with the current state of the game. Many of us are doing what we can to make it better. Some are contributing more than others. And incessant posting about what should have been done is nowhere near close to "contributing". Todd

NeverMan -> RE: Current difficulty? (4/11/2010 6:31:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh And incessant posting about what should have been done is nowhere near close to "contributing". Todd This is simply inaccurate. Matrix/Marshall do look to these forums to see what needs to be done and whether it's right or wrong, the group that shouts loudest (posts the most) usualy gets heard. IN FACT, this is practically the basis for what is wrong with the game now, not enough people who knew wtf they were talking about posted back when this game was first bieng ported.

Thresh -> RE: Current difficulty? (4/13/2010 4:29:33 AM)
Having more posts makes your argument more relevant? That's a new one. And as an aside, some of you still have no idea wtf your talking about. If you did you wouldn't keep carping over decisions made a few years ago that can't be undone. T

StCyr -> RE: Current difficulty? (4/13/2010 6:26:33 PM)
You need to reflect the past if you want to learn from the mistakes made in the past. Thresh, which decisions do you have in mind that can�t be undone ? Is this "can�t be undone" your contribution ?

NeverMan -> RE: Current difficulty? (4/13/2010 10:12:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan You should take your own advice, I never said that code couldn't be robust if not modular. I used the word "or" in the quote you gave. Again, maybe you should take your own advice, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon. My error and I apologize for it. quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan Secondly, I don't need to see the code. Marshall has explicitly stated regarding several issues that the code is not robust enough to accept some of the needed changes (ie. that "this is hard coded into the engine", as one example). My point is not that the code is robust or not, it was that Grognot did not say it was. My point was that you implied he did and agreed with him to support your position that the code was written poorly. Yes, Marshall did say certain areas were less than robust. The leap you take to saying it is poorly written code is where you crash and burn. Without seeing the code, you have no support for this statement. Yet, you repeat it over and over with your implications, jabs and digs at the game. Somehow expecting if you say it enough it will become true. Sorry, but this is not how computer programs work, at least in reality. Robust code can be poorly written or it can be Mona Lisa quality. The same holds true for non-robust code. quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan Again, you have no idea wtf you are talking about, as usual. Once again, mature comments just flow from you as you type. I'm comfortable that my experiance with software more than meets the standard for being able to talk about this subject at an advanced level. So yes, I do have an idea of what I am talking about. If the day ever comes when the code is released please attempt to prove the quality of the code is poor. If you don't have the knowledge or experiance for this get some help. The answer may surprise you.[:)] Be well, Ok, what is your experience with software? I don't need to know how the engine of a car works if the car won't take me from point A to point B without breaking down!!!

NeverMan -> RE: Current difficulty? (4/13/2010 10:13:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh Having more posts makes your argument more relevant? That's a new one. And as an aside, some of you still have no idea wtf your talking about. If you did you wouldn't keep carping over decisions made a few years ago that can't be undone. T Why can't these things be undone? It's just code, it can be rewritten/redesigned.

Thresh -> RE: Current difficulty? (4/14/2010 2:11:01 AM)
StCyr, Reflecting on the past is fine. Continually reliving the past in an effort to affect the present, not so helpful. I think the inclusion of certain aspects of Empires in Harms was a mistake from the outset. I said as much when the decision was announced. T quote: ORIGINAL: StCyr You need to reflect the past if you want to learn from the mistakes made in the past. Thresh, which decisions do you have in mind that can�t be undone ? Is this "can�t be undone" your contribution ?

Thresh -> RE: Current difficulty? (4/14/2010 2:13:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan I don't need to know how the engine of a car works if the car won't take me from point A to point B without breaking down!!! But I'm reasonably sure you'll be bitching out the designer/manufacturer of said engine whilst waiting for AAA to arrive and tow said car away...

Thresh -> RE: Current difficulty? (4/14/2010 2:15:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan Why can't these things be undone? It's just code, it can be rewritten/redesigned. Which is currently being done. Right? Or are you miffed its not being be rewritten and undone fast enough to meet your requirements of what the game could be. If that's the case, you're not exactly the first in line. T

NeverMan -> RE: Current difficulty? (4/14/2010 2:18:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan I don't need to know how the engine of a car works if the car won't take me from point A to point B without breaking down!!! But I'm reasonably sure you'll be bitching out the designer/manufacturer of said engine whilst waiting for AAA to arrive and tow said car away... No doubt! Who cares if I'm the first in line? What does that have to do with anything? [&:]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.734375