(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific

Message

dpstafford -> (12/8/2002 7:17:23 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SoulBlazer [B]Let's also realize it may take a month or more before we see another patch. [/B][/QUOTE] Do you speak for Matrix on this? If it takes a month to correct this arguably "show stopper" bug, and by that I mean US level bombers wiping out whole IJN squadrons in air-to-air combat, then the game is effectively dead.

SoulBlazer -> (12/8/2002 7:28:07 AM)
And it's not doing that in my PBEM games, on both sides. Speak for yourself. No one is forcing you to use the newest patch or even play the game.

David Heath -> (12/8/2002 7:31:14 AM)
Hi Everyone I am going to say this plain and simple, you can't have it both ways. We always said we do our best to fix the bugs. We then went on to say we wanted to add features that you the players wanted. I think we can safely say we done that. We are currently on the forums fixing and making adjustments quickly. We are not making you wait 3-4 months for a patch. I am starting to think maybe we spend way to much time on the fourms. I will DEFEND the UV playtesters to the end.... they have done a great job. Anyone who thinks we are not going to have a few bugs or issues are really out of touch. I admit that every now and then a bug catches us and we jump to correct this. My last point is to the PBEM players WHO THE HECK TOLD YOU RUN OUT AND UPGRADE. Sorry for shouting but come on.... If you got a PBEM games going keep both UV EXE remember the installer takes the old EXE and renames it with .BAK at the end. All anyone need to do is to rename the files to say UncommonValorOld.exe and complete their current PBEM games. This would allow you to test the new version and once you feel safe move over. I do not understand for second why anyone would be upset that we are trying to make the game better with such simple ways to make everyone happy. David

SoulBlazer -> (12/8/2002 7:33:43 AM)
Thank you David, for saying in a more more effective way what I've been trying to say all along. :D

dpstafford -> (12/8/2002 7:41:29 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SoulBlazer [B]And it's not doing that in my PBEM games, on both sides. Speak for yourself. No one is forcing you to use the newest patch or even play the game. [/B][/QUOTE] Speaking for myself, two of my PBEM opponents quit our games over bug/patch related problems. A third, Hanno Meier, has suspended our game pending a fix. So, if any of you guys out there who think the 2.11 game is OK, and would like to play the Japanese against me in Scenario #17, bring it on. I need the opponents.

DSandberg -> (12/8/2002 7:48:12 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Heath [B]I am going to say this plain and simple, you can't have it both ways. We always said we do our best to fix the bugs. We then went on to say we wanted to add features that you the players wanted. I think we can safely say we done that.[/B][/QUOTE] Oh yeah, I think that is a very, very safe assumption. :) As far as I am concerned, once the fix for "bomber sweeps" becomes available, I'll be of the opinion that UV is as polished and finished of a product as I've ever seen. You should be proud of yourselves. There are always going to be a few users for whom the cup is half-empty. As a fellow developer I know that as well as anyone. I hope you won't succumb to letting those few people dictate how you feel about your efforts on this program. - David

dpstafford -> (12/8/2002 7:53:16 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Heath [B]I do not understand for second why anyone would be upset that we are trying to make the game better with such simple ways to make everyone happy. [/B][/QUOTE] Interesting. Yours is the first support group that I have ever seen that has essentially said, that their patches are potentially so bad that you shouldn't install them. Perhaps the update process should include a fresh disclaimer with each download. I don't feel that is a reasonable for you to ask me to go back to a version that had all the minesweepers hit mines so I can avoid the version where all the zeros get shot down attacking bombers. To begin negociating with a potential opponent for SIDE, SCENARIO and VERSION?!?

USSMaine -> (12/8/2002 8:07:26 AM)
I for one have more than gotten my money's worth out of UV and it just keeps getting better. As with all great things sometimes the road is a little bumpy but then that's half the adventure ! I can certainly appreciate the difficulties in getting everything just right to make everybody happy. As a former software and data developer I don't envy the Matrix staff ! I truly appreciate their great work and continued efforts. Keep up the great work Matrix!!

Yamamoto -> (12/8/2002 8:36:45 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dpstafford [B] Interesting. Yours is the first support group that I have ever seen that has essentially said, that their patches are potentially so bad that you shouldn't install them. Perhaps the update process should include a fresh disclaimer with each download. [/B][/QUOTE] Let's try and keep this in perspective, shall we? This is a game. I work for a company that makes medical devices. We recently had a stop-shipment order because of a bug found in the software. The bug produced erronious results that could have FATAL consequences. We're not talking about crashing your system. We're talking about killing a real human person. (The bug was fixed and a patch issued within 48 hours, by the way but we're still going to get raked over to coals by the FDA). One problem I am having with the newest patch is that it seems to lock up my computer when I exit the game. Its very irritating but at least it won't kill me. Yamamoto

David Heath -> (12/8/2002 9:13:21 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dpstafford [B] Interesting. Yours is the first support group that I have ever seen that has essentially said, that their patches are potentially so bad that you shouldn't install them. Perhaps the update process should include a fresh disclaimer with each download. I don't feel that is a reasonable for you to ask me to go back to a version that had all the minesweepers hit mines so I can avoid the version where all the zeros get shot down attacking bombers. To begin negociating with a potential opponent for SIDE, SCENARIO and VERSION?!? [/B][/QUOTE] With the way you twisted my words around you must be a lawyer. :rolleyes: I never said our patches are so bad don't install. What I said was if you a playing PBEM game and you want to make sure there are no ill effects because of a new patch DO NOT play the new patch with current on going PBEM games. Once you feel the patch is good upgrade fully then. If you do not feel its reasonable then there is nothing we can do for you. You just have to wait the next patch or stop playing PBEM games. David

Chiteng -> re: Yamamoto (12/8/2002 9:17:44 AM)
I think you are correct, you must have a sence of proportion. Dave and staff dont let the nay sayers bait you, even if you like to think 'I' am a naysayer =) I cant wait to buy Empire in Arms =)

Michael Walker -> Get Real (12/8/2002 9:21:07 AM)
David, I hope you realize that the vast majority of gamers are silently enjoying the game, while a few gadflies on both ends monopolize the boards. To those of you complaining, what would you prefer: 1) a game released and not supported? I'll bet my next paycheck you'd be taking the opposite tack and complaining how the company didn't care. 2) a game released and perhaps patched once or twice in the whole life of the game? I have scores of games, board and PC that are almost really good games, but someone just didn't bother to finish the job. 3) a game lavishly supported by human beings, who being human are not capable of anticipating every problem that might arise -- but are committed and active resolving problems in the most expeditious manner imaginable. Jeez, how can anyone complain that a company is giving a product TOO MUCH support??? What software to you own that has never been patched? The worst thing you can say about Matrix is that they try so hard to be responsive, they may jump the gun in their attempts to please the customer. Sadly, some people can't be pleased and seem to enjoy whining even more than gaming. Mike

pasternakski -> (12/8/2002 9:49:33 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SoulBlazer [B]I'm afraid I don't.....I've always been on the daft side. :) I guess that's why I went into history and libraries. :) Not much in the way of creative thinking. Let's also realize it may take a month or more before we see another patch. [/B][/QUOTE] Then let me try to clarify as one who has spent an entire academic life in history and libraries - where creative thinking is at a premium, and I am as good at it as anyone else. Please give this game a break. Let it breathe and live for at least a minute or two. I want to see the fullness of its being before being acquainted with the facts of its autopsy. I want to enjoy (yes, the idea here is "fun," as I understand the nature of game playing) UV for what it is before it has to evolve into what it is not. This is a game, not a treatise. This is an expression of the Matrix/2by3 guys' talents as designers and developers, not a place where we substitute our creative judgments for theirs. Matrix/2by3 is the best. Their efforts at customer satisfaction are tremendous. I have enjoyed Gary Grigsby's games for as long as there have been Gary Grigsby games. UV is unequalled anywhere or by anyone. UV is a great moment in the evolution of computer/war gaming. I love it. Leave it alone and let me play it for a minute, willya? That's all I ask.

SoulBlazer -> (12/8/2002 11:44:55 AM)
Again, nobody said you had to install the patches. I also feel like I was insulted, but I'll let that pass because you were kind enough to give me game help eariler.

mogami -> Scenario (12/8/2002 12:26:58 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dpstafford [B] Speaking for myself, two of my PBEM opponents quit our games over bug/patch related problems. A third, Hanno Meier, has suspended our game pending a fix. So, if any of you guys out there who think the 2.11 game is OK, and would like to play the Japanese against me in Scenario #17, bring it on. I need the opponents. [/B][/QUOTE] Hi, I'm your Huckleberry whats your e-mail?

dpstafford -> (12/8/2002 1:01:02 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Heath [B]With the way you twisted my words around you must be a lawyer. [/B][/QUOTE] Not a lawyer. Just honed my "skills" on the Art of Wargaming forum....... I'll wait........

Nikademus -> Re: Scenario (12/8/2002 1:40:35 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B] Hi, I'm your Huckleberry whats your e-mail? [/B][/QUOTE] Hi guys......lets all breathe deeply and relax. We all want a playable and historically accurate game. Matrix will deliver. They said they're looking into this. I dont speak for the company, only myself....but one who has been here from the start back before Steel Panthers version 1.0 was released, and while I have not agreed with every decision made by the company, i still stand behind them 100%, because of their proven commitment of listening to the customers and providing a quality product, however many patches it takes......and the patches themselves are proof of their continued devotion to this oft times seemingly thankless task. Compared to my Fighting Steel experience, this place is a grognard's dream. Mogami.....I'll be your Huckleberry if you've got time. (I googled at the amount of games you said you had going!) I want to experience my first PBEM and from your AAR's you seem the most likely to hand me my tail with a reciept and 30 day warrenty Interested? I can only promise a turn a day, but would try to do more as schedule permits.

Wolftrap -> (12/8/2002 1:58:21 PM)
While I don't post often and love the game and the support Matrix has given it I must take exception to David's comment about the play testers. Just using 2.10 and and 2.11 as examples I have experienced the no replacement pilot issue and now the F-17's. Both issues took me less than 5 game turns to identify. The first is certainly not a minor bug that made it out the door though the second can be argued. In the end it's either a case where the play testers didn't do their job or the parameters Matrix used to select testers is faulty (not enough hardware profiles etc). Maybe the longterm solution is to allow all future patches to be open beta'd before "official" release.

Ron Saueracker -> Nine posts and 5 turns and now you are both an expert and a thorough tester... (12/8/2002 2:17:34 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wolftrap [B]While I don't post often and love the game and the support Matrix has given it I must take exception to David's comment about the play testers. Just using 2.10 and and 2.11 as examples I have experienced the no replacement pilot issue and now the F-17's. Both issues took me less than 5 game turns to identify. The first is certainly not a minor bug that made it out the door though the second can be argued. In the end it's either a case where the play testers didn't do their job or the parameters Matrix used to select testers is faulty (not enough hardware profiles etc). Maybe the longterm solution is to allow all future patches to be open beta'd before "official" release. [/B][/QUOTE] I was going to take the high road and not chip in, but... Both the "issues" you address have been something Matrix has been working on for a while now. Why not give everyone a break and read the forums before making such sweeping conclusions? You would then understand more fully what you are talking about. I'm going back to work now... In any case, as Mike has said he is working on the "issues" this very minute so this is a moot thread. ;)

DSandberg -> (12/8/2002 2:22:23 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wolftrap [B]I have experienced the no replacement pilot issue and now the F-17's[/B][/QUOTE] Hehe! F-17's, eh? I like that, although it took me a few seconds to figure out that you weren't referring to a certain 70's prototype jet fighter. :p

zman -> re: devil's advocate (12/8/2002 3:02:29 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Wood .[B]The issue of Japanese fighter to Allied bomber kill ratios is one upon which we are currently working. [/B] Mike- Thank you for your attention to this issue. I have been keeping up with the forum chat since prior to UV's release, yet I haven't posted until recently when I found that one area of the latest patch was flawed.. Each successive patch has improved my gaming experience-- and when this item is addressed, I will return to UV and definitely enjoy the experience. I must confess that I am continually amazed, amused, and, on occasion, disturbed at the emotional level of many posts. Argument is stimulating-- vitriol is nauseating

rawink -> (12/8/2002 3:08:44 PM)
I have noticed (And enjoyed) the more violent Air-to-Air combat. and yes, I have noticed some odd outcomes as well. I have also noticed that sending 50+ B-17's and 40+ B-24's to hit a japanese target actually causes real DAMAGE now! before, I couldnt send them all ands get 23 dead grunts, and maybe 2 points damage to airfield.. now I can shut down a base in a few weeks. I have seen bomber raids waste zero's.. I have also had my bombers masacered as well. After a month of both, I think it averages out. and lastly.. [B]THERE IS NO GAME on Earth like UV right now, and nothing that can compete with this product, or the service we have been given since the sale. NOBODY will deal with their product like Matrix has. In fact, they dont HAVE to do anything at all for us.[/B] I appreciate, and support the help and attention to our requests that matrix has given us with UV, and would like to say I stand behind them 110%

pasternakski -> (12/9/2002 12:44:27 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rawink [B]I have noticed (And enjoyed) the more violent Air-to-Air combat. and yes, I have noticed some odd outcomes as well. I have also noticed that sending 50+ B-17's and 40+ B-24's to hit a japanese target actually causes real DAMAGE now! before, I couldnt send them all ands get 23 dead grunts, and maybe 2 points damage to airfield.. now I can shut down a base in a few weeks. I have seen bomber raids waste zero's.. I have also had my bombers masacered as well. After a month of both, I think it averages out. and lastly.. [B]THERE IS NO GAME on Earth like UV right now, and nothing that can compete with this product, or the service we have been given since the sale. NOBODY will deal with their product like Matrix has. In fact, they dont HAVE to do anything at all for us.[/B] I appreciate, and support the help and attention to our requests that matrix has given us with UV, and would like to say I stand behind them 110% [/B][/QUOTE] Well said. I concur (although around here you got to be careful about having me on your side). My worry is that we may see another episode of fixing what isn't broken, with possible unseen side effects that may necessitate another patch to fix the one that was just released that was released to fix ... you get the idea. It gets to be like the old "all for want of a horseshoe nail" object lesson, IMHO.

Wolftrap -> (12/9/2002 1:03:47 AM)
Ron, I'm sorry you didn't like my post however it should be apparent from it I do read the forums. While you may enjoy the emperors new clothes I couldn't let Mike's statement just go by. We are here because we all want the best, least buggy product we can get. The pilot allocation bug was a complete game stopper for many people, certainly not a balancing or historical issue. It was also fixed quickly(Thankyou Matrix). My point however was less about the bug than about the system that is supposed to prevent them. This board has been about sharing idea's to come up with the best game possible. Matrix has done an outstanding job taking the idea's that work and implementing them into UV. I shared an idea to help test future game updates and make them as solid as they possibly can be. Maybe when you get back from work you can share your ideas also.

Grotius -> (12/9/2002 1:30:59 AM)
<< I shared an idea to help test future game updates and make them as solid as they possibly can be. >> For what it's worth, Matrix has already implemented your idea. A few days ago, in the thread "can you say open beta," in the same section as this thread, Matrix asked volunteers to submit e-mail addresses and some tests of bomber-vs-fighter action. I hope more folks contribute to that project, but be warned, it's lots of work! At least it was for me. (Dammit, Jim, I'm a law professor, not a software developer!) I performed three such tests and posted the results; it took me 2 hours to do just that much! I found it difficult to control the HUGE number of variables involved when testing a program as complex as UV: fatigue, morale, experience, range to target, AA, weather, size of/damage to bombers' home base (which might affect how many fly, or how well), nature of target's hex, you name it. I had to transfer planes into position, rest pilots, wait for appropriate weather, etc. -- all to produce 3 halfway acceptable results. And then I logged on and saw that Cap and Gown had come up with a better system of testing than mine. I've beta-tested a number of other games -- can you say 3rd Reich PC! -- and I've always found it tough. Anyway, Matrix deserves applause for its continuing efforts to make the best PC wargame on the market even better.

David Heath -> (12/9/2002 1:37:08 AM)
We are not going to change the way we are currently doing our game development. The playtesters have done a great job. The fact is historical speaking the B-17 could have shot down Zeros in high numbers. If you read Japanesse accounts you will see that they would not really attack to close in fear of being shot down. As I have said before since we are adding features to the game please save your last EXE and do not upgrade until you are sure you will be happy. In its own way it is a kind of open beta test. The Air to air combat has been worked on for a while and most of the issue have been worked out. David

David Heath -> (12/9/2002 1:48:15 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski [B] Well said. I concur (although around here you got to be careful about having me on your side). My worry is that we may see another episode of fixing what isn't broken, with possible unseen side effects that may necessitate another patch to fix the one that was just released that was released to fix ... you get the idea. It gets to be like the old "all for want of a horseshoe nail" object lesson, IMHO. [/B][/QUOTE] This is always possible but "Nothing adventured nothing gain" or lost. We will always being looking to push the mark and increase the level of play our games give you. We added 200+ features since the release, we could have added them to WITP but why wait. We want you not to be just customers but fans. Knowing you are able to put real input into the games you are enjoying and not a bunch of suits are running the show. Remember we are gamers making games for gamers. Yes sometimes the patches may cause a bump in the road and a REAL company would never do that. Yes we are a business but we are also gamers. You got to take the good with the bad I guess :D David

pasternakski -> (12/9/2002 2:10:43 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Heath [B] This is always possible but "Nothing adventured nothing gain" or lost. We will always being looking to push the mark and increase the level of play our games give you. We added 200+ features since the release, we could have added them to WITP but why wait. We want you not to be just customers but fans. Knowing you are able to put real input into the games you are enjoying and not a bunch of suits are running the show. Remember we are gamers making games for gamers. Yes sometimes the patches may cause a bump in the road and a REAL company would never do that. Yes we are a business but we are also gamers. You got to take the good with the bad I guess :D David [/B][/QUOTE] Got it. I fully support improvement, but I am sure you see my concern. It's not a big thing. I just hate to see a lot of you excellent people's hard work go in vain due to an unforeseeable glitch that develops out of nowhere, that's all. I'm sure such occurrences are far more frustrating for you than they are for us. Count me firmly and completely in support of Matrix and all the excellent contributors to these forums whose motives and commentaries further the effort to achieve excellence. By the way, I am completely satisfied with everything about UV v. 2.11. It is far and away the best operational level wargame ever created (I rank Pacific War as the best strategic wargame - for the time being - pending the arrival of WITP).

juliet7bravo -> (12/9/2002 4:33:27 AM)
Speaking as a gamer, Matrix's efforts are HIGHLY appreciated. The upgrade path hasn't been pretty, it's been frustrating as heck on this end, at least to me...but it's been a steady progression to excellence. A considerable amount of this really is an "open beta"...at UV's level of detail and complexity, a great deal of this upgrading really is "voodoo". What Matrix is doing is allowing us to playtest the patches and add our input into the process...they're not just dumping a patch into our laps and telling us "Like it or not, here's the final patch, have a nice day,and don't forget to buy our next game". Being able to get on here and have a "voice" in this progression is also HIGHLY appreciated. EVERYONE gets listened to, and even those people who aren't all-knowing grognards get the opportunity to make their point.

Ross Moorhouse -> (12/9/2002 8:58:37 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dpstafford [B] Really. With US level bombers shooting down everything in sight, the game is not currently playable. And you advocate leaving it that way???? Maybe the beta testers are the problem......... [/B][/QUOTE] I will not standby and see my testers accused unfairly like this dpstafford. You have put words into my posts by saying I have told customer to drop dead. Now this. You have no idea the number of hours these guys have put into this game. Time that came from their free time. How dare you accuse the testers. When you have no idea what goes on in the background. These guys are some of the best that I have ever worked with.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.734375