RE: The Near Future.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront



Message

Pillar -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/8/2011 6:40:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 7thcav

The forums may appear dead but I check a couple of times a day for patch updates and there is always somebody here just nobody is posting. Any performance gains will be a huge help towards getting things moving again.I wish the coders luck on what has to be a frustrating task. Ironically one thing I have noticed is that the solution to many of the complaints I have heard from others in conversation about PCO could be easily resolved by reading the manual !!!



Same here, I wasn't posting because I thought the forum was dead.

Catch 22 lol!



Pillar -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/8/2011 6:41:23 AM)

There is a huge thread on gamesquad.com's combat mission forum on PCO btw. (Active)



Jacko -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/8/2011 9:25:33 AM)

With all respect for forum discussions, but I think it is rather pointless in this case. CMBN is a superb game. But so is PCO. For me the atmosphere of a game decides whether it is a winner or not. AI must be solide of course, graphics are important, but a wargame must feel right. And both games feel right for me. CMBN is more of a polished, finished game. PCO still is a rough diamond, but if enough time and energy is invested it can be become an absolute classic. Let's never forget how the CM-series began. CMBO looked horrible and the AI was revolutionary for it's time, but definitely had it's flaws too. What PCO most of all needs is better graphics for the vehicles and a smoother performance. When that can be realized the followers for this game will stream in, mods will appear and it's fame will spread. As soon as the performance problem is solved bigger maps and more units should be made possible and than it is up to the wargamers of this forum to make this game immortal with superb maps, great mods and breathtaking battles. I'm convinced this game hasn't even started to show what it can do. Hang around everyone and you will never leave this game again. 



Mad Russian -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/8/2011 5:30:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jacko

For me the atmosphere of a game decides whether it is a winner or not. AI must be solide of course, graphics are important, but a wargame must feel right.

PCO still is a rough diamond, but if enough time and energy is invested it can be become an absolute classic. Let's never forget how the CM-series began. CMBO looked horrible and the AI was revolutionary for it's time, but definitely had it's flaws too. What PCO most of all needs is better graphics for the vehicles and a smoother performance. When that can be realized the followers for this game will stream in, mods will appear and it's fame will spread. As soon as the performance problem is solved bigger maps and more units should be made possible and than it is up to the wargamers of this forum to make this game immortal with superb maps, great mods and breathtaking battles. I'm convinced this game hasn't even started to show what it can do. Hang around everyone and you will never leave this game again. 


+1

Good Hunting.

MR



JMass -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/8/2011 5:34:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jacko
What PCO most of all needs is better graphics for the vehicles and a smoother performance.


This is also my thoughts!



7thcav -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/8/2011 6:13:11 PM)

Personally I think those models that have been updated for PCO have been nicely done.One has to remember that this is not a shinny new game engine and the budget in terms of geometry ( not talking money or time here ) for a model is probably considerably tighter then CMBNs.

PCOs models may not look as good as CMBNs but its my opinion that in the things that really count as in the armor penetration and damage modeling for instance PCO is the better title.



7thcav -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/8/2011 6:16:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sztartur

Well I you want you can test my scenarios now [:)]. Unfortunately I am not so active as I was those days. Much lesser time much more demanding job(until I still have it). 


Your scenarios have always been amongst the best....I would be happy to test for you again.

Regards
7thcav



sztartur2 -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/8/2011 6:35:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jacko
... For me the atmosphere of a game decides whether it is a winner or not. AI must be solide of course, graphics are important, but a wargame must feel right.


I could not have defined my preferences better myself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jacko
PCO still is a rough diamond, but if enough time and energy is invested it can be become an absolute classic.  


Absolutely agreed.

Definitely this game is not complete. which is not a tragic problem if one could see a clear plan how and when does Matrix want to solve the:
1. Infantry model
2. Destructible terrain and Buildings
3. Bigger maps

What I see as a real problem is that Matrix is communicating very poor way. I have begged for information more than a day ago and me together with other people interested have not any answer yet. Even a timely communication about delays make better credit then no information at all.

I have red many rumors about PCO like having serious problems with coding, developers leaving and the game being dead as whole. If Matrix does not give information it will backfire. The game is already neglected in the gaming clubs. at least those few faithful should be informed properly IMHO.

Sorry for this but I believe it was time to write it. I would happily support PCO with my skills and limited time but I need to see a clear future If I invest my scarce gaming time into something.

Yours Respectfully,
Artur.



Jacko -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/8/2011 6:36:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 7thcav

Personally I think those models that have been updated for PCO have been nicely done.One has to remember that this is not a shinny new game engine and the budget in terms of geometry ( not talking money or time here ) for a model is probably considerably tighter then CMBNs.

PCOs models may not look as good as CMBNs but its my opinion that in the things that really count as in the armor penetration and damage modeling for instance PCO is the better title.


I really do not expect CMBN quality. Of course not. But graphics are very important and a large part of the vehicles is at the moment simply not good enough. Don't forget this is also a very important factor in attracting new gamers to this game. Some vehicles in PCO are beauties, others are beasts, as I have said before. Sure, armor penetration, damage modeling, AI etc. is very important, but graphics are the visit cards of a game.

And as much as I like PCO, it is NOT the better title compared to CMBN. CMBN is a new game and very well researched and developed. PCO must try to reach the level of CMBN, or get as close as possible. Now there's a challenge.



7thcav -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/8/2011 6:58:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jacko

quote:

ORIGINAL: 7thcav

Personally I think those models that have been updated for PCO have been nicely done.One has to remember that this is not a shinny new game engine and the budget in terms of geometry ( not talking money or time here ) for a model is probably considerably tighter then CMBNs.

PCOs models may not look as good as CMBNs but its my opinion that in the things that really count as in the armor penetration and damage modeling for instance PCO is the better title.


I really do not expect CMBN quality. Of course not. But graphics are very important and a large part of the vehicles is at the moment simply not good enough. Don't forget this is also a very important factor in attracting new gamers to this game. Some vehicles in PCO are beauties, others are beasts, as I have said before. Sure, armor penetration, damage modeling, AI etc. is very important, but graphics are the visit cards of a game.

And as much as I like PCO, it is NOT the better title compared to CMBN. CMBN is a new game and very well researched and developed. PCO must try to reach the level of CMBN, or get as close as possible. Now there's a challenge.


As far as the armor penetration and damage modeling is concerned thats your opinion and your entitled to it. However I don't view your opinion as the only valid one and the fact that you don't agree doesn't confront me even slightly.. I too have both titles and like you have been comparing them for some months now and find things to be very much the opposite in that area.

However I do agree that graphics and other things such as the infantry modeling will have to improve for the next version of Panzer Command to be competitive. The bulk of my comments refer to the threads title "The Near Future" which to me refers to what they are able to accomplish with the exsisting game engine and the restrictions that come with it.



Enigma6584 -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/8/2011 7:20:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 7thcav

As far as the armor penetration and damage modeling is concerned thats your opinion and your entitled to it. However I don't view your opinion as the only valid one and the fact that you don't agree doesn't confront me even slightly.. I too have both titles and like you have been comparing them for some months now and find things to be very much the opposite in that area.


That is fine. You are indeed entitled to your opinion. As far as armor penetration and damage modeling is concerned, there is a lot going on under the hood with CMBN. I don't see how you can say PCO does better modeling of that issue than CMBN. Some modelling and/or damage may not be in CMBN but then again one can say the same for PCO. Two different approaches to a WW2 tactical combat simulation. I for one view CMBN to be a more polished product and truth be told, prefer it over PCO at this time. Both games will improve over time with the additions and patches to the base game. I'm sure we will see many additions and preferences manifesting themselves in the coming future.



7thcav -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/8/2011 7:40:31 PM)

My opinion is based on what I see in game in relation to what history tells me. Nether game is perfect or is ever likely to be in that regard but personally I see fewer conflicts with what was reality in PCO then I do in CMBN more polished or otherwise. For me it serves no purpose to be biased in my estimation of things. The sun does not rise and set over battlefront and CMBN ...its a good game but not due any special consideration on my part and I won't treat it any differently then I would any other title.........have a nice day.



Mad Russian -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/8/2011 8:26:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sztartur


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jacko
... For me the atmosphere of a game decides whether it is a winner or not. AI must be solide of course, graphics are important, but a wargame must feel right.


I could not have defined my preferences better myself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jacko
PCO still is a rough diamond, but if enough time and energy is invested it can be become an absolute classic.  


Absolutely agreed.

Definitely this game is not complete. which is not a tragic problem if one could see a clear plan how and when does Matrix want to solve the:
1. Infantry model
2. Destructible terrain and Buildings
3. Bigger maps

What I see as a real problem is that Matrix is communicating very poor way. I have begged for information more than a day ago and me together with other people interested have not any answer yet. Even a timely communication about delays make better credit then no information at all.

I have red many rumors about PCO like having serious problems with coding, developers leaving and the game being dead as whole. If Matrix does not give information it will backfire. The game is already neglected in the gaming clubs. at least those few faithful should be informed properly IMHO.

Sorry for this but I believe it was time to write it. I would happily support PCO with my skills and limited time but I need to see a clear future If I invest my scarce gaming time into something.

Yours Respectfully,
Artur.



Like many of you, summer is a busy time for the development team as well. All the things that summer means were multiplied by the development team working on the upgrade that became PCO for over 2 years. It was time for some of us to take a short break too.

1) Where is the game system going? Not sure yet. Current issues need patched first and foremost. Until the current issues are fixed I don't expect to see a roadmap to where PC is heading. The Western Front has always been the area most discussed. Now, whether that includes the 1930's - early 1940's and mid 1940's I have no idea.

2) Are there plans for expansions or further patches? Yes. I personally am working on an expansion and would support other ideas that have been discussed.

3) My own personal preferences are that the system moves towards a true construction kit. Will that mean a totally new engine? Don't know. Would I continue to support the PC engine in it's current format with improved infantry-artillery-CAS-AAA and destructible terrain. Yes, I would.

At the moment any comments you will get from us will all be our own personal preferences and nothing from the team; since the team is working on the patch and not anything for PCO future projects. Well, except the expansion I'm working on. That is an ongoing project at the moment.

What's interesting is that PC was considered dead for the 2+ years we were working on it and right up to the point of release we were being told how it would never be patched and the system was dead. The entire time Matrix was buying the code, having us continue work on it, and getting two new coders. One of which also didn't work out.

So, just because you don't see anything rippling across the top of the water doesn't mean that there aren't things moving under the water.

I've also been on your side of the line though.

There have been comments made about how poorly PCO is doing, and that I should maybe be embarrassed for my association with PCO. I'm curious about that. I've always heard, if you don't like something, go do it yourself. So, I/we did. And now, somehow I'm supposed to be embarrassed for that. I think most of that is simply gamer loyalty, since I used to be heavily associated with another game system.

Or maybe it's how PCO turned out that I'm supposed to be embarrassed about. In which case I don't get that either. We put two years worth of work into a game system that had issues. From where I sit, I'm far from being embarrassed about the results. We put a game together that lets as many of those that bought the original games as possible play the new one, as well as upgrading the new one so much as to supersede the older versions.

In the far future I wouldn't be surprised to see PC be replaced with a newer code. Will that be now? I don't know. Probably not.

I'd like to see the game made into a construction set. Where you simply use the tools put into the scenario/campaign/operation editor to depict whatever time frame you like. To use basic terrain textures to create any terrain on earth. Then simply add vehicles, infantry, artillery or air and FIGHT. Is that going to happen right now? I don't know. We seem to be slowly moving in that direction.

Is this the development team that can make all this happen? I think, with the improvements we made to PCO, that we could do it. But it's not just about the development team and what we want. This game series, above all others, is about wargamers and what they want. I've been very vocal about PCO. It's because I think it's far past the time where gamers have a say in what games are made. What features they have in them and how they play. Game companies complain about profits. The answer is simple; make games the GAMERS want. PCO has been touted as one of those rare games where that's happened and is continuing to happen. Which is all well and good, but PCO should be the first step in this process not the last. I think you'll find that's exactly where we are in the process. We are on the bottom step. The only way to go is up. We moved the series off the ground floor but we're still only on the first step. Think of what that means as to where this game series could go.

In short;

* PCO was made by gamers for gamers. It's not perfect but we never claimed it was. It was only ever intended to be a patch, then an upgrade and finally it became it's own game.

* The series is continuing to be patched and issues fine tuned. Especially the way the game operates on the different systems we all have.

* Graphics can, and will be, a lot better as Matrix determines that the system requirements include more modern machines than PC:OWS was designed to play on.

* Expansions are already being worked on. More are to come. The target date for my expansion is this current year.

* Once the patch is finished we can actually start to think of where PC goes from here.

I would personally like to thank every single one of you that has had any opinion, comment or suggestion that has to do with PCO. This game series was made by gamers for gamers. All your input is considered. We may not implement every suggestion but we discuss everyone of them. So, thanks for helping make PCO what is and hopefully we'll make another big leap forward with the next game in the series.

Good Hunting.

MR



Jafele -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/8/2011 8:57:52 PM)

I believe in you guys. Take your time, I don´t mind to wait for a long time if the game is going to be strongly improved. There´s no hurry if all of you are working hard in the correct path.

We´ll give you as many ideas or suggestions as possible, but never forget you´re the designers. Continue doing it on your own way and the game will have a stronger personality or even become a classic. This is the only way.

Thanks again!



sevenpointsix2 -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/9/2011 12:43:25 AM)

I've been computer gaming for over 30 years now and in that time span there've only been a handful games/sims that have really stood out in terms of "value". Assessing a computer game’s value can be very subjective I admit, but certain key factors are universal and pretty much agreed upon:

1. Does it play & do as advertised? -Yes

2. Is it relatively bug free? -Yes

3. Does it break new ground in terms of content originality and game engine design/implementation? - To some degree, but not totally expected, because PCO is a continuation of an established game series.

4. Can it be replayed multiple times while maintaining user interest? -Yes

5. Does it have good aftermarket support? -Yes


An unexpected PCO super value is the Map Maker module inclusion. It alone is easily worth the full package price of only 34 buck$. What makes it such a great value is the incorporation the Google Earth digital elevation model (DEM) import capability, and a very well designed user interface. You can literally create a battlefield scenario anywhere that Google Earth covers, and that’s just about everywhere. I created a map of my own neighborhood in the tradition of THQ’s HomeFront game … so cool! Even its use of the freeware Paint.net graphics program was a perfect choice. Anyway, nuff said.

The core PCO battle program is absolutely stuffed with canned battle scenarios which again is a great value. The game mechanics and user interface range from good to excellent, all of which makes for an exciting and rewarding gaming experience and long nights at the keyboard.

Well, there’s tons more good stuff to say about PCO but I think I’ve already made my point. It is a great value! Even if you’re a CMBN grognard you should still include PCO in your collection because it just adds more great gaming moments to your overall WW2 sim experience, and without being content redundant (Normandy vs. Ostfront).




Thomm -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/9/2011 1:04:52 AM)

Finally played the demo.

One thing that I have to mention is that the graphics look much better than the screenshots suggest, most of all because of the insane frame rate on my system. Of course the objects are comparatively simple, but I do not mind that at all.

What I do not like is the deviation from CMx2 camera controls. For me it would be better to adhere to a common standard, not to re-invent the wheel.

I get the units to move without having read the manual, but I could not fully control what was going on. Next stop will be the manual.

Best regards,
Thomm



Mad Russian -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/9/2011 1:13:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thomm


What I do not like is the deviation from CMx2 camera controls. For me it would be better to adhere to a common standard, not to re-invent the wheel.


Best regards,
Thomm


Considering this is not a CM series game of any version I think the camera controls can be excused for being different.

I have some ideas for those in the future. We'll see how that works out.

Good Hunting.

MR



JMass -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/9/2011 1:46:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thomm
What I do not like is the deviation from CMx2 camera controls. For me it would be better to adhere to a common standard, not to re-invent the wheel.


This is subjective, I prefer PC camera controls, for me they are far more intuitive that CM controls.



7thcav -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/9/2011 2:42:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thomm

Finally played the demo.

One thing that I have to mention is that the graphics look much better than the screenshots suggest, most of all because of the insane frame rate on my system. Of course the objects are comparatively simple, but I do not mind that at all.

What I do not like is the deviation from CMx2 camera controls. For me it would be better to adhere to a common standard, not to re-invent the wheel.

I get the units to move without having read the manual, but I could not fully control what was going on. Next stop will be the manual.

Best regards,
Thomm


Me thinks you have the re-inventing the wheel thing a bit backwards. Panzer Command is older then CMx2 with Winter storm being released in 2006 so if anything CMx2 deviated from Panzer Command.[;)] I have to agree with JMass's comments above and it is one of the reason I prefer PCO...to me the Camera controls are more comfortable and intuitive.



Erik Rutins -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/9/2011 3:04:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sztartur
I have red many rumors about PCO like having serious problems with coding, developers leaving and the game being dead as whole. If Matrix does not give information it will backfire. The game is already neglected in the gaming clubs. at least those few faithful should be informed properly IMHO.


PCO has an active developer, the next expansion is being worked on, but the priority is finishing the PCO update. We plan to improve or add all three of those points in future releases.

Regards,

- Erik



sevenpointsix2 -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/9/2011 5:17:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sztartur

... I have red many rumors about PCO like having serious problems with coding, developers leaving and the game being dead as whole. If Matrix does not give information it will backfire. The game is already neglected in the gaming clubs. at least those few faithful should be informed properly IMHO ...


I spent many hours (perhaps 30 or more) over a period of days researching PCO before I finally decided to buy it and I never once came across anything remotely like "rumors about PCO like having serious problems with coding". Also, what do you mean by "If Matrix does not give information it will backfire"? [&:]



Jacko -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/9/2011 5:26:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Considering this is not a CM series game of any version I think the camera controls can be excused for being different.



I agree. The camera controls are no priority. At first I didn't like it, but I'm used to it now and it is fine. Better graphics and smoother performance are most important. After that we need a steady stream of detailed and interesting battles. I'm experimenting at the moment with large battles like the ones George MC made for CMBB, but the performance factor is still spoiling part of my fun. There is nothing that attracts serious wargamers more than well developed and historically accurate battles with good briefings and a realistic OOB. I don't like random battles with two units of each. I'm not interested in them, because they don't feel like the real thing to me. I want to read a good and interesting briefing first and then feel like it is up to me to re-write history. I want a map based upon reality or at least convincing enough to make me feel I'm really there. What we also need is more maps of historical locations, so people can make their own battles. In that regard Close Combat was perfect with it's set of historical, beautiful maps. CC itself, well, didn't like it much to be honest, but those maps...







Jacko -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/9/2011 5:34:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sevenpointsix2


quote:

ORIGINAL: sztartur

... I have red many rumors about PCO like having serious problems with coding, developers leaving and the game being dead as whole. If Matrix does not give information it will backfire. The game is already neglected in the gaming clubs. at least those few faithful should be informed properly IMHO ...


I spent many hours (perhaps 30 or more) over a period of days researching PCO before I finally decided to buy it and I never once came across anything remotely like "rumors about PCO like having serious problems with coding". Also, what do you mean by "If Matrix does not give information it will backfire"? [&:]


You don't seem to spend much time at the forum, so you might have missed some information. And Sztartur already explains why the lack of information can backfire. PCO isn't a hot issue at the wargaming forums of this world. It should be, but it isn't. And the few people still around are waiting for the patch to give new life to PCO. I know I am. And discussing it's flaws is helping the developers to make it better. It must be made better or this game will die a quiet death, like PC did. The handful of people who are hanging around at this forum now, won't save this game. We need masses.

I'm really interested in PCO and would like to make good battles for it. But large battles are almost unplayable at the moment. Apart from that I really don't like some of the graphics. I only play in winter time, on winter maps, so I can use the winter models of all vehicles, to make it look better. I know it is all personal taste and discussable, but quite a few of my wargaming friends are waiting for this game to be lifted to the next level before they step in. I'm hearing a lot of comments on the graphics and performance. Everybody knows the upgrade must be good and convincing, also the people behind this game, or they wouldn't be working so hard at it at this very moment. The next upgrade must be a victory bulletin, or PCO will fade away.



sevenpointsix2 -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/9/2011 6:26:39 AM)

Thanks Jacko, I appreciate you taking the time to explain.

However, my question still stands concerning sztartur's comment "I have red many rumors about PCO like having serious problems with coding, developers leaving and the game being dead as whole". Where is that written or posted? As I've already stated, I've spent days researching PCO and never saw any comment(s) like that. I want PCO to evolve too, but I'm not sure if sztartur's comments, without supportive data (links, publication titles and dates, etc.), is a particularly good way to encourage Matrix Games to make those improvements. Also, sztartur's made reference to reading "rumors". Rumors generally are not based in facts, but rather are just vehicles for uninformed people to make equally uninformed statements. IMHO the PCO development team deserves better than that ...



Jacko -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/9/2011 6:42:44 AM)

I think you'll find Sztartur is a very dedicated member of this forum, sevenpointsix. And as long as this world exists, there will be rumors. Every game and every company knows problems. There's no need to go into this any further. We all support the PCO development team.  



sztartur2 -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/9/2011 6:52:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sevenpointsix2

...

However, my question still stands concerning sztartur's comment "I have red many rumors about PCO like having serious problems with coding, developers leaving and the game being dead as whole". Where is that written or posted? ...


Look around the wargaming clubs supporting Combat Mission and you will find it all.




Thomm -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/9/2011 8:43:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 7thcav

Me thinks you have the re-inventing the wheel thing a bit backwards. Panzer Command is older then CMx2 with Winter storm being released in 2006 so if anything CMx2 deviated from Panzer Command.


Mmmh, okay. Good point!

Best regards,
Thomm



sevenpointsix2 -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/9/2011 1:53:09 PM)

OK guys, I've learned a lot. How silly of me to have been thinking for the better part of my life that rumor mongering is a bad thing to be involved in. I know now that it's really an effective means of communication, and anyone who participates in it is actually a righteous dude. [sm=innocent0009.gif]

Anyway, nuff said. - Thanks so much [:)]



Jacko -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/9/2011 2:27:02 PM)

Nuff said indeed. 



sztartur2 -> RE: The Near Future.... (8/9/2011 6:39:59 PM)

Since I have just been accused by being a rumor monger (every day I learn new words :) ). Well my friend, I did not read and spread the rumors all over the community, instead I asked for clarification from the ones it related to. Matrix people were kind enough to clarify the situation thus these are rumors no more. So much for rumor mongering.

I also know by experience, that if people are not informed they will create information for themselves which will be rumors. This would backfire.  Now that the situation was communicated again there is no place for rumors.

For everyone, by all means I am not against Matrix I have many of their games (Is there gold sponsorship? :) ) and I believe if one has doubts or is uncertain about things then he should ask and clarify.

I hope I could make myself clear.






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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.78125