RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger

RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series

Message

CapnDarwin -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/14/2013 11:42:46 AM)
We are discussing this again in our Dev meeting tonight and we will address the issue in a way that suits everyone's taste in this matter. We will keep you all posted.

nukkxx5058 -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/14/2013 11:49:52 AM)
That's great news ! Thanks !

cbelva -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/14/2013 2:06:18 PM)
Please be patient, this is an evolving component in the game. We want to get it right, fair and what will satisfy people. We have made many changes to it during development based on feedback from others and we knew we would be making changes once a larger audience had a chance to look at it. Scoring and ending a game is not as easy as it looks. Especially when you want to reflect reality and make everyone happy in the process. As a player there have been times I felt the final outcome/score reflected the game fairly realistically and then there have been times I have felt robbed.

TheWombat_matrixforum -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/16/2013 1:00:06 AM)
Yeah, I have to say, while I agree that variability can be fun, and that battles shouldn't be fought always to the last man, as that's unrealistic, I feel that a player who successfully forces the enemy to withdraw with huge losses should never be penalized for doing so. Categorically, never. It makes no sense in either game terms or real life terms. If you want to have a sudden death rule, make it so that it is one way; that is, if you lose 70% of your force, you simply lose the game, and the other guy wins. To have it so that there is ever, ever, a chance that you will do everything right and "lose" the battle because you were too good--that's silly. Unless you really want to simulate bureaucratic idiocy, which we get enough of in our daily lives. I mean, what does sudden death really mean? It means one side has become combat ineffective and is withdrawing. Well, the OTHER side is hardly likely to sit back and let them! Instead, they'd probably pour it on and wreak as much havoc as the could on the retreating (soon to be routing) enemy. Instead, a force here that gets whacked severely gets a free pass to recuperate. Not kosher, really. I love the game, but this is one of the least successful aspects as implemented. The idea of variable conditions for victory perhaps, or variability in the scenario, is fine, but not the way it's done now. It's not working.

Mad Russian -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/16/2013 1:05:32 AM)
You need percentage results for tournament play. I would say that there is very little chance that the game would go to a simply win or lose format. Good Hunting. MR

TheWombat_matrixforum -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/16/2013 1:32:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian You need percentage results for tournament play. I would say that there is very little chance that the game would go to a simply win or lose format. Good Hunting. MR So, what you're saying then is that the "win/loss" result isn't really the win/loss result. That we should be looking, instead, at the percentage of victory points we're getting? Or the percentage of the enemy we destroyed? Or the percentage of our own forces remaining? It's all clear as mud. To me, it's a very simple issue. The player should never be penalized for success. Never. So, if I rout the enemy and he runs away before I have a chance to kill him, I should still get all of the points, because dollars to donuts if he DID rout, I'd take those places anyhow--either as he left them, or over his smoking corpses (shot in the back as they ran, no doubt). Either way, I win. What we have now is a chance--not a guarantee, and most games it works out "ok"--that you can hit the enemy so hard, so skillfully, that they'll break before you can occupy enough hexes to win. That is simply not good game design. I'd go as far as to say it's frankly bad game design--at least, the way it's working. If you really think the benefit that you get from having this sort of variability outweighs in effect screwing over players who are actually playing the game well, then we have a real difference of philosophy I guess. Because I have yet to hear a single, coherent argument for the system as it stands now. I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I really, really respect the work that went into this game, and the people who made it, but this discussion right now has become utterly non-nonsensical. You guys don't have a leg to stand on logically--at least, as it's been explained here. Maybe I'm missing something totally, it's possible, but really, the whole sudden death implementation is as misbegotten as they come, conceptually.

Mad Russian -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/16/2013 1:46:18 AM)
What I'm saying is that you will always see a result that has a percentage result. They also tell you the level of victory or loss. That won't probably change. The percentage is a requirement for tournament results. In days of old there were A LOT of tournaments. I may have even made scenarios for some tournaments in the past. I would like to see this game series regenerate some of those. We'll see. As to the Sudden Death, again, we are still working on it. Good Hunting. MR

TheWombat_matrixforum -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/16/2013 1:50:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian What I'm saying is that you will always see a result that has a percentage result. They also tell you the level of victory or loss. That won't probably change. The percentage is a requirement for tournament results. In days of old there were A LOT of tournaments. I may have even made scenarios for some tournaments in the past. I would like to see this game series regenerate some of those. We'll see. As to the Sudden Death, again, we are still working on it. Good Hunting. MR Gotcha. Again, sorry if I seem mean, not trying to be :). It's your baby, you guys do what you want with it, and I'm pretty sure it'll still be good.

Mad Russian -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/16/2013 2:41:12 AM)
We take all comments. We never consider you guys to be mean. EVERY SINGLE COMMENT IS READ AND CONSIDERED!!! That's how we make the game better. I would rather you continue to contribute to the dialogue about the game than have us tell you guys we know you it all. Because we are gamers, just like you, we want to have the best wargame to play as we can get. We appreciate your trying to help improve it. [&o] Good Hunting. MR

MikeAP -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/16/2013 2:44:58 AM)
Is there any way to mod this for the meantime?

Mad Russian -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/16/2013 2:56:27 AM)
Sudden Death is hard coded. Good Hunting. MR

Mad Russian -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/17/2013 2:54:28 AM)
Apparently nobody has figured out that I used Sudden Death to end the scenarios. I saw a comment that "the AI always takes 30% casualties". Not always. I could always make the game short enough that the scenario ends on an exact time. The next thing we would be hearing from you guys is how my scenarios are too short and how I needed to give you more time. [:@] I personally prefer the Sudden Death end to a set time frame. Good Hunting. MR

MikeAP -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/17/2013 4:28:35 AM)
I haven't tried it yet, but with the sudden death rule one could capture and hold VPs then purposely lose 70% of his forces and still win because he retains VPs. Obviously this would be foolish in the campaign, but it could work in single scenarios, or even worse - in multiplayer.

MikeAP -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/17/2013 4:32:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian I personally prefer the Sudden Death end to a set time frame. Good Hunting. MR I disagree. I think that using the time standard would allow players to at least have a fair chance at capturing objectives. Also, doctrine dictates TERRAIN for offensive operations and DESTRUCTION for defensive.

Mad Russian -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/17/2013 4:33:08 AM)
That's not a good plan. More times than not the value of the forces outweighs the values of the VP's so taking the VP's then giving up your force should result in you getting soundly beaten. The reason for that is simple. I am of the school that believes that you destroy the enemies forces to beat him. Only rarely can you defeat his forces by taking and holding a geographic location with his army let intact. Good Hunting. MR

nukkxx5058 -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/17/2013 5:21:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian Apparently nobody has figured out that I used Sudden Death to end the scenarios. I saw a comment that "the AI always takes 30% casualties". Not always. I could always make the game short enough that the scenario ends on an exact time. The next thing we would be hearing from you guys is how my scenarios are too short and how I needed to give you more time. [:@] I personally prefer the Sudden Death end to a set time frame. Good Hunting. MR The problem with the 30% sudden death rule is that there is no comparison with the opponent. 29% vs. 68% : player 2 wins and this is OK 29% vs 31% : player 2 wins but this is NOT OK. There should be at least a minimum difference between the 2 scores. For example: < 30% AND difference between 2 scores > 25% (or so, to be calibrate) But for solo unrated games at least I really think that one should be able to continue the game after the SD trigger been reach if he wished so. I understand that for multiplayer games it's more difficult.

MikeAP -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/17/2013 5:21:36 AM)
Either way, I hope it becomes a toggle. Very much dislike this rule, as stated above. Also, I am surprised on the Dev decision to make the rules un-moddable. Edit - Close Combat has an 'end on low force morale' rule also but will award the winning team the map/victory points.

fvianello -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/17/2013 10:21:02 AM)
IMHO, the result is quite realistic. You have lost 1/3 of your tanks, 2/3 of your APC, almost all your infantry and HQ, and NATO still holds the bridges and a city on your main axis of advance. I don't see how this could be considered a victory.

Mad Russian -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/17/2013 12:08:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MikeAP Also, I am surprised on the Dev decision to make the rules un-moddable. You're surprised that the rules can't be modded? I don't understand. quote: Edit - Close Combat has an 'end on low force morale' rule also but will award the winning team the map/victory points. That's also an option. Good Hunting. MR

Mad Russian -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/17/2013 12:11:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nukkxx The problem with the 30% sudden death rule is that there is no comparison with the opponent. 29% vs. 68% : player 2 wins and this is OK 29% vs 31% : player 2 wins but this is NOT OK. There should be at least a minimum difference between the 2 scores. Every scenario is not the same. Size of opposing forces and value of Victory Location objectives are the key. Good Hunting. MR

hondo1375 -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/18/2013 9:27:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian This isn't your Grandfathers Panzer Blitz LOL.

hondo1375 -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/18/2013 9:44:01 PM)
Arguments about Pyrrhic victories and realism don't hold in the situation where the game stops because the enemy falls below 30% (IIRC)while you still have 87% of your original force and 3 hours left on the clock. It's not realistic to allow the enemy in such a situation to score points for holding onto victory hexes when (1) they are on the verge of routing or surrendering, and (2) you have time and forces to take those objectives. This happened in my first game of Time to Dance, and it was very frustrating as I was just beginning to mount a counter attack as NATO. Either the enemy is still able to continue the fight, and therefore the game should continue, or they are not and they should either rout or surrender. The enemy calling "time out" to reorganize, and being awarded victory points for objective while there is still time on the clock, doesn't seem realistic at all.

Mad Russian -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/18/2013 10:37:13 PM)
And what if there is an enemy tank column on the hex row just off map? How does that figure into this? Because the entire war is not being fought in the limit of your binoculars. Good Hunting. MR

Emx77 -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/18/2013 10:43:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hondo1375 Arguments about Pyrrhic victories and realism don't hold in the situation where the game stops because the enemy falls below 30% (IIRC)while you still have 87% of your original force and 3 hours left on the clock. It's not realistic to allow the enemy in such a situation to score points for holding onto victory hexes when (1) they are on the verge of routing or surrendering, and (2) you have time and forces to take those objectives. This happened in my first game of Time to Dance, and it was very frustrating as I was just beginning to mount a counter attack as NATO. Either the enemy is still able to continue the fight, and therefore the game should continue, or they are not and they should either rout or surrender. The enemy calling "time out" to reorganize, and being awarded victory points for objective while there is still time on the clock, doesn't seem realistic at all. Exactly. The current rule is unrealistic, frustrating and provides some kind of divine rescue belt for losing side. It needs to be changed or disabled. Period.

hondo1375 -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/18/2013 10:50:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian And what if there is an enemy tank column on the hex row just off map? How does that figure into this? Because the entire war is not being fought in the limit of your binoculars. MR, I don't really understand how that counters my points, can you explain what you mean more?

Mad Russian -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/18/2013 11:00:51 PM)
What I mean is that everybody is all excited because you didn't get 'x' number more points BECAUSE I was winning and I was going to go on winning. [&o] The point is, maybe you were, and maybe you weren't, going to keep on winning. You have no idea what is about to happen. Whether that is to continue to rout the forces you are engaged with or whether they start to rout your forces with the reinforcements that have come on the run since you started to pound the stuffing out of them. Wargames have always been very much endowed with tunnel vision. The entire war is not what you see here in front of you. [X(] Okay, we got it. You guys don't like the way Sudden Death is scored. We've worked on it for about 2 years and are still working on it. In the long run, just because you can't hammer every living enemy pixel, or take every single Victory Location, it doesn't mean the ending of the game, or the scoring system is bad. It just means you don't like it, and believe me, we got that part in spades. Before that comes off sounding too harsh, consider this, we have blended a lot of game vs sim in this game. The Sudden Death is one of those places. All the other places we blended reality with game play went over very well. Sudden Death didn't. We are working to fix that now. That doesn't mean that it didn't work as intended it simply means you gamers, not anyone specifically, don't like it the way it is currently in the game. So, we are still working on it. You do need to give us a chance to make changes to it after you bring it to our attention when you don't care for a feature. I get it. You like the game EXCEPT for Sudden Death, so if we will hurry up and fix that then the world comes back into focus for you. We are fixing it but we'd like to make sure it's what we want and what you want. So far that's been a moving target. Good Hunting. MR

CapnDarwin -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/19/2013 12:19:03 AM)
Gent's, Before this goes to far afield, let me tell you all where we currently stand and what ideas we have on the table to encompass the majority of the inputs both players and development team. What we have talked about to remedy the SD issue is the following. This in no way is a set in stone decision since we have only talked a couple of time on this. Our focus right now is bugs preventing people from playing and small improvements/enhancements requested by you guys. The SD issue is in no way less important, but it isn't breaking the game either right now and there is no 30 second quick code fix either. Here we go: 1. For multiplayer games, an external (before the game starts) option to have SD on or off just like FOW or limited orders. A player will still be able to resign after 2/3s of the game is played. 2. For single player, when SD is triggered, an option on the popup dialog to run the game to time limit. End game scoring with be done at the time limit or when the player decides to call it. The "Extended" game score will then be displayed. 3. The existing SD end game routine to be enhanced with a surrender/withdraw mechanic and enhanced evaluation of remaining objects. We feel this will cover the bases the best and hopefully give everyone the game experience they are looking for. To answer the next question of "When?", as soon as the other high priority items are dealt with. We will continue to discuss and refine this plan and keep you all in the loop. Thanks.

jack54 -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/19/2013 12:23:31 AM)
+1 Capn Darwin that looks perfect, IMHO[:)]

JiminyJickers -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/19/2013 12:24:39 AM)
Thanks Capn Darwin, for single player that is all I want. I want to be able to continue playing if I feel like it. Looking forward to this being implemented in the future.

TheWombat_matrixforum -> RE: Problems with Sudden Death trigger (10/19/2013 12:47:27 AM)
I really do appreciate the attempt to counter the tunnel vision of most wargames; that's a good thing indeed. I'm also pleased that there are some tweaks being considered, which seem reasonable. That's also a good thing. You know what else is a good thing? This game, (small) warts and all. Hell, I think half the reason people are so vehement about certain things is that the game is good enough to make them really feel invested in making it even better! Someone did something right it seems :).

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.671875