Chiming in

Chiming in (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames

Message

Astyreal -> Chiming in (5/25/2014 2:09:08 PM)
Hi all, longtime lurker here, felt like contributing my 2c. You can put me in the supporter's column, I admire and respect the dedication and thoroughness that went into this piece of software. Craftsmanship is evident everywhere in the package, the completeness of the documentation, the user interface, the unit history etc. It's a pleasure to immerse yourself in the lavishness of the design. And the game itself has so much meat. [&o] That said, if it is to be more than a toy, it must support multiplayer. In my opinion this is far more important than AI for a game of this complexity. Multiplayer is what provides the critical tension that keeps a community humming. I think NETPLAY is a better option than PBEM due to the interlocking phases. It is a bit more arduous to schedule play sessions but it is quite achievable. I have participated in a VASL league for ASL which operates in that fashion and it is a vibrant league. Ciao! [8D]

bo -> RE: Chiming in (5/26/2014 3:17:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Asty Hi all, longtime lurker here, felt like contributing my 2c. You can put me in the supporter's column, I admire and respect the dedication and thoroughness that went into this piece of software. Craftsmanship is evident everywhere in the package, the completeness of the documentation, the user interface, the unit history etc. It's a pleasure to immerse yourself in the lavishness of the design. And the game itself has so much meat. [&o] That said, if it is to be more than a toy, it must support multiplayer. In my opinion this is far more important than AI for a game of this complexity. Multiplayer is what provides the critical tension that keeps a community humming. I think NETPLAY is a better option than PBEM due to the interlocking phases. It is a bit more arduous to schedule play sessions but it is quite achievable. I have participated in a VASL league for ASL which operates in that fashion and it is a vibrant league. Ciao! [8D] Hi Atsy I agree with some of what you say about the craftmanship the interface etc. it is excellent, but outside of solo play is it not an empty shell. I have worked with Steve for several years as a beta tester and admire his work. Your comment about the AI is the crux of my feelings, my views wrong or right are well known about the AI. This is not hindsight by me at all I have argured for over 5 years for an AI first and other things second. But alas to no avail. I realize that on the beta testing team I stand alone on this issue of the AI first, but I also understand that they are all board game players and I am not. I admit I am not as committed as I once was when I joined the team, back then I was gung-ho about the game. But I have to admit I haved soured on this endeavor by Steve, but I am still willing to help even if it is a minimal offering. There is no question in my mind that the best way to play this game is against a human opponet. But the AI, excellent, good, not so good, or poor is still a great learning tool for players who never saw this game before. A mistake was made and nobody here has the courage to own up to it. Matrix has never before released a game without an AI until now. Does that statement not speak loudly at where we are. I stood alone when I found out there would be no AI in the first release, maybe some of my fellow testers felt that way and did not want to speak up, I just dont know, I do know that most wanted netplay first. I tried to do my share, I did the first AAR since Red Prince stopped his several years ago, and if I remember correctly the Matrix posts lit up like a christmas tree, not because my AAR was that good it was because something was happening. I and many others tried to help other posters as much as my limited knowledge of the game allowed me. I sent out over 130 Annual 98's to bolster the game, I argued and argued about the release date, over and over. I feel this gives me some rights to speak up about the status of this game right now. Cod 2 has an AI but it is much more fun to play on the internet, agreed. World of tanks can only be played on the internet, but you can play day or night against several hundred thousand players, a game can be joined in seconds because of so many players and the tremendous interface of the game, if you like that type of game[shoot em ups]. I admit I do not do much testing right now because it is a little over my head with all the other very good knowledgeable WIF players out there who know the rules much better than I do. If an AI had been put into effect first nobody would be complaining waiting for net play and forget PBEM. This game was not made IMHO just for board gamers, it was also made for the thousands upon thousands of starved war gamers out there just hoping for the game of their lifetime. The posts are all but dead right now back to where we were 2 years ago and that hurts me deeply. I am very emotional about this brillant game so please forgive me for some of my negativity. Some players try to keep up a good front but now and then their feelings leak through. What is the quick solution, there is none, I sometimes wonder can a complex game such as WIF ever be justified on a computer. Some of us have argued that Steve needed a team for something this complex, Steve would overseer the person doing the AI or the person doing net play. I would like to go on but there is no point the die is cast and we all have to live with the decisions of the powers that be. Bo

Astyreal -> RE: Chiming in (5/26/2014 9:23:21 PM)
Thanks for the reply Bo even if it is a bit apocalyptic. [8D] While I agree with you that an AI may be a good training tool for new players, I don't think you can expect it would ever be much beyond that. MWIF is not unique in the wargaming world for having poor/no AI. The HPS tiller games are poor in this dept, as are numerous others. Games of this complexity must be multiplayer to have any kind of competitive sting. Due to the phased nature of MWIF, it isn't easily adaptable to PBEM. Gary Grigsby games have a lack of defined phases, or are simultaneous We-Go, probably for this very reason. If you have chosen MWIF but don't have interest in solo or net-play, I cannot help but think you may want to re-consider your time investment. You may also want to try Bruce Harper's A World At War. It has a nice PBEM tool called Warplanner and it seems to work quite well. - Asty

paulderynck -> RE: Chiming in (5/26/2014 11:30:54 PM)
No matter how you slice it, or categorize it, or bemoan it, the simple fact is that the game engine has to work pretty much flawlessly before an AI can work. So how it could have come about any other way is beyond me, whether I'm a board game player or a bored post reader.

bo -> RE: Chiming in (5/27/2014 12:00:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck No matter how you slice it, or categorize it, or bemoan it, the simple fact is that the game engine has to work pretty much flawlessly before an AI can work. So how it could have come about any other way is beyond me, whether I'm a board game player or a bored post reader. Pretty much flawlessly, hmmm and when will that come to pass Paul? Bo

bo -> RE: Chiming in (5/27/2014 12:12:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Asty Thanks for the reply Bo even if it is a bit apocalyptic. [8D] While I agree with you that an AI may be a good training tool for new players, I don't think you can expect it would ever be much beyond that. MWIF is not unique in the wargaming world for having poor/no AI. The HPS tiller games are poor in this dept, as are numerous others. Games of this complexity must be multiplayer to have any kind of competitive sting. Due to the phased nature of MWIF, it isn't easily adaptable to PBEM. Gary Grigsby games have a lack of defined phases, or are simultaneous We-Go, probably for this very reason. If you have chosen MWIF but don't have interest in solo or net-play, I cannot help but think you may want to re-consider your time investment. You may also want to try Bruce Harper's A World At War. It has a nice PBEM tool called Warplanner and it seems to work quite well. - Asty I did not say I would not play net play Asty, yes my post was a shade long and I know better then to uphold my feelings on the AI around here. My time investment is on me and I would appreciate if some people would consider the whole post instead of what they want to pull out of it but then again that goes on all the time here. My problem is Atsy when will this happen, net play, maybe you think it is just around a corner getting ready to go, if you do then you might join me and many others that have their head stuck in the sand. Please do not hold your breath on that one, net play, you will wind up in the ER. Bo

wworld7 -> RE: Chiming in (5/27/2014 4:28:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck No matter how you slice it, or categorize it, or bemoan it, the simple fact is that the game engine has to work pretty much flawlessly before an AI can work. So how it could have come about any other way is beyond me, whether I'm a board game player or a bored post reader. Pretty much flawlessly is a goal rarely reached, but I understand what you mean and I believe many people do not understand the complexity of programming any game or program. I understand why certain choices were made, but I have the benefit of 25+ years of software development experience in my career. You are correct in stating that in order for the AI to be at all useful the game must be completely functioning (this is a better way of saying what is NEEDED) otherwise if the AI is programed prior to full functionality it will more than likely have HUGE problems interfacing with any additions/corrections/modifications to the code. This is not an opinion, it is a fact of software development. You change one line of code and "things" happen in other areas that were not intended. Often these issues are a ball-buster to track down and fix (note: the fix also runs the risk of unintended consequences (no matter how good the programmers are)). Would I have liked an AI, of course I would. I am also waiting to see how this project progresses as I want a functioning game with Netplay and an AI before I purchase the game. And I agree with Bo, the AI hopefully will be good at teaching the game, expecting more is unrealistic. But I DO assume people will complain no matter what it is capable of.

joshuamnave -> RE: Chiming in (5/27/2014 6:08:19 AM)
I've never jumped into the AI/PBEM debate, because I have very mixed feelings. On a personal (selfish) level, I'd like a functioning AI to be the priority because it's unlikely that I will ever use NetPlay. A game of this length and this complexity will take far too long and require far too much synchronization of schedules with mostly unknown opponents for me to ever seriously consider doing it. On the other hand, a functional AI, although I realize it will never be much more than a learning/teaching tool, will get used. However, I recognize that the community as a whole is passionate about playing against other players and is less interested in an AI that can only respond effectively to the most basic of strategies. NetPlay will be a better selling point, draw in more customers, and ensure a longer development horizon for the game. If people stop buying the game, Matrix will have little incentive to keep working on the many problems or missing features. Obviously, in a perfect world both an AI and a functional NetPlay would have been included out of the box. For that matter, in a perfect world, 6 months after release the only bugs would be in rare corner cases and Steve could be focusing on add ons and scenarios. But that's not the world we live in. Bottom line... I now favor getting NetPlay up and running first, for the simple reasons that I believe it will bring in more new customers, which is the only way we'll ever get close to that perfect world.

Neilster -> RE: Chiming in (5/27/2014 6:44:00 AM)
I wouldn't bet the farm on the AI being quite poor for the following reasons... 1. Doing the AI is one of the main reasons Steve took on the project and he is apparently very experienced in this field, as well as being an advanced WiF player. 2. MWiF isn't a normal computer wargame. There is collectively a vast pool of knowledge about successful strategies and tactics to help build the AI. 3. A lot of work has been done on the AI already, utilising the input from many very experienced WiF gamers. I remember being blown away by the amount of knowledge that was distilled in the AI threads at the time. 4. The AI won't make silly mistakes and won't miss anything. In a game of MWiF's complexity, this is incredibly hard for a human to do. Cheers, Neilster

Rasputitsa -> RE: Chiming in (5/27/2014 7:58:21 AM)
Don't underestimate the value of a reasonable AI, one issue that keeps coming up, is play balance and historical accuracy in PBEM games, not surprisingly, human players will not act like historical opponents when they have 20/20 hindsight and a full set of rules to go by. Pages of forum discussion cover appeals for fixes to stop exploits and make players act more historically, whereas a good AI will do just that. How good does an AI have to be to replicate Allied performance in the early war years, or the Axis struggling through the late war period. I have had many challenging and enjoyable games, with a good historical 'feel', out of various AI games, there are always preference options to adjust the AI to get the balance you want, try adjusting a human opponent. Polls indicate that at least 50% of players will never use PBEM and how many non-voting 'lurkers' fall into the same category. A reasonable AI has to be a high priority for any title that hopes to become a successful game and much as the hard core Wifers feel ownership of the game, the hard cash to push this onward will have to come from the widest customer base possible.

Neilster -> RE: Chiming in (5/27/2014 12:18:04 PM)
quote: How good does an AI have to be to replicate Allied performance in the early war years, or the Axis struggling through the late war period. This is a very good point. In the first two years of the war Allied generalship was generally woeful. The AI would have to be pretty awful to do as badly, although early war Axis superiority seems to be built into to game mechanics. On the other hand, reasonably early on the Italians basically outsourced their strategy to Germany, which was a bad idea, but they were generally light relief after the stern business of fighting the Germans anyway. The Japanese were on a hiding to nothing after the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway but you couldn't say they displayed brilliant strategy, but rather tactical expertise and suicidal courage and dedication. German army commanders retained their tactical and operational brilliance but Hitler's strategic direction was dire and as the war went on he began meddling more and more; even down to the tactical level. This was almost universally catastrophic, and surely almost any kind of AI would do better than his atrocious "stand fast" orders that condemned so many soldiers to death or captivity, and that clearly shortened the war. Cheers, Neilster

Neilster -> RE: Chiming in (5/27/2014 1:58:28 PM)
Of course the flip-side of this is that competent defensive generalship will test the AI. France is unlikely to fall over in less than 2 months, The Red Army should put up a better performance in the first year in the East and sane use of the German army will make life hard for the Allies. As mentioned above, the game mechanics may help in this respect. Cheers, Neilster

bo -> RE: Chiming in (5/27/2014 2:40:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck No matter how you slice it, or categorize it, or bemoan it, the simple fact is that the game engine has to work pretty much flawlessly before an AI can work. So how it could have come about any other way is beyond me, whether I'm a board game player or a bored post reader. Pretty much flawlessly is a goal rarely reached, but I understand what you mean and I believe many people do not understand the complexity of programming any game or program. I understand why certain choices were made, but I have the benefit of 25+ years of software development experience in my career. You are correct in stating that in order for the AI to be at all useful the game must be completely functioning (this is a better way of saying what is NEEDED) otherwise if the AI is programed prior to full functionality it will more than likely have HUGE problems interfacing with any additions/corrections/modifications to the code. This is not an opinion, it is a fact of software development. You change one line of code and "things" happen in other areas that were not intended. Often these issues are a ball-buster to track down and fix (note: the fix also runs the risk of unintended consequences (no matter how good the programmers are)). Would I have liked an AI, of course I would. I am also waiting to see how this project progresses as I want a functioning game with Netplay and an AI before I purchase the game. And I agree with Bo, the AI hopefully will be good at teaching the game, expecting more is unrealistic. But I DO assume people will complain no matter what it is capable of. Hi flipper Your 25 years of experience is well noted and to heed what you say is very beneficial to many of us, I did not realize the complexity of this game before I joined the beta team, Steve has a monumental task ahead of him, net play and the AI. He has already accomplished a great deal up to now, part of my argument is, it should not have been a one man show. I will not concede ever, he should have had help from somewhere, maybe another programmer, who knows, I dont, its above my pay grade. Eight years please! Someone here blew it, and I dont care who it was, Steve or Matrix or even Harry Rowland. I read Pauls message, what does he think that I dont know that the game should been done almost flawlessly to do the AI, give me a break please. Just maybe the word flawless should have been resolved prior to Nov 7th 2013. If that is being mean then so be it. The words "you have not bought the game" tells me all I need to know about the game and where it stands" not a dig on you at all Flipper. Your using common sense. Bo

bo -> RE: Chiming in (5/27/2014 2:54:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zartacla I've never jumped into the AI/PBEM debate, because I have very mixed feelings. On a personal (selfish) level, I'd like a functioning AI to be the priority because it's unlikely that I will ever use NetPlay. A game of this length and this complexity will take far too long and require far too much synchronization of schedules with mostly unknown opponents for me to ever seriously consider doing it. On the other hand, a functional AI, although I realize it will never be much more than a learning/teaching tool, will get used. However, I recognize that the community as a whole is passionate about playing against other players and is less interested in an AI that can only respond effectively to the most basic of strategies. NetPlay will be a better selling point, draw in more customers, and ensure a longer development horizon for the game. If people stop buying the game, Matrix will have little incentive to keep working on the many problems or missing features. Obviously, in a perfect world both an AI and a functional NetPlay would have been included out of the box. For that matter, in a perfect world, 6 months after release the only bugs would be in rare corner cases and Steve could be focusing on add ons and scenarios. But that's not the world we live in. Bottom line... I now favor getting NetPlay up and running first, for the simple reasons that I believe it will bring in more new customers, which is the only way we'll ever get close to that perfect world. Hi Zartacla Well at least you did not tell me I was being apocalyptic [&:] You are in deep trouble here on these posts saying you prefer an AI. of course you have been in trouble on these posts in the past [:D] I agree sort of with your comment that the net play should be done first, my problem is can net play be done in a reasonable time frame whatever that means. To my knowledge not one turn has been finished without a lot of trouble, if I am wrong here I will apologize to whoever. I am begining to think that just possibly people here do not know how to program net play as it might be too difficult for a complex game as MWIF. Again thats above me. I prefer AI because it allows me to play when I want to play and not at someones elses whim of when they will be around to play, other than the AI I would welcome PBEM but IMHO you will not see that for years if ever. Bo

bo -> RE: Chiming in (5/27/2014 2:58:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster I wouldn't bet the farm on the AI being quite poor for the following reasons... 1. Doing the AI is one of the main reasons Steve took on the project and he is apparently very experienced in this field, as well as being an advanced WiF player. 2. MWiF isn't a normal computer wargame. There is collectively a vast pool of knowledge about successful strategies and tactics to help build the AI. 3. A lot of work has been done on the AI already, utilising the input from many very experienced WiF gamers. I remember being blown away by the amount of knowledge that was distilled in the AI threads at the time. 4. The AI won't make silly mistakes and won't miss anything. In a game of MWiF's complexity, this is incredibly hard for a human to do. Cheers, Neilster Hi Neilster You just gave me a breath of fresh air with that statement Neilster thank you, thank you, thank you. I need more people like you here posting as I seem to be the ogre about the game right now. Great post. I have been playing 3rd Reich these last two weeks and IMO plays pretty well, When the AI has the power it can do some nasty tricks on the human player, my only problem with the game is the AI uses attrition too much, attrition is similar to the pass option in MWIF but with more options. Cheers Bo

bo -> RE: Chiming in (5/27/2014 3:18:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa Don't underestimate the value of a reasonable AI, one issue that keeps coming up, is play balance and historical accuracy in PBEM games, not surprisingly, human players will not act like historical opponents when they have 20/20 hindsight and a full set of rules to go by. Pages of forum discussion cover appeals for fixes to stop exploits and make players act more historically, whereas a good AI will do just that. How good does an AI have to be to replicate Allied performance in the early war years, or the Axis struggling through the late war period. I have had many challenging and enjoyable games, with a good historical 'feel', out of various AI games, there are always preference options to adjust the AI to get the balance you want, try adjusting a human opponent. Polls indicate that at least 50% of players will never use PBEM and how many non-voting 'lurkers' fall into the same category. A reasonable AI has to be a high priority for any title that hopes to become a successful game and much as the hard core Wifers feel ownership of the game, the hard cash to push this onward will have to come from the widest customer base possible. Ahhh Rasputitsa how are you. Good to hear your comments on the AI, everything you just posted makes common sense to me. Some people around here take an honest opinion as trying to start trouble or god forbid acting like a troll [:(] Lets see, a new player who never heard of MWIF reads the write up several years from now when the netplay is excellent the AI is devasting [&:] pbem is very fuctional and bugs cease to exsist [&o] He or she reads the books that came with the game and plays some solo to get the feel of the game. Then what! Does that person jump into the game playing Neilster, Zartacla, Paul, centuur, Bjorn, AxeINL, Steve, etc and get his arse handed to him and gets dejected and goes plays Panzer Corp from then on, common sense here please, he turns to the AI to learn the game, now according to Neilster that may not be a good idea either [;)] but just maybe he wont get beat up too badly and he can learn the game at his or her pace. I want this as badly if not more than anyone else here but being a true pessimist [ask my wife and children] I have stopped holding my breath waiting for any form of play other than solo. Solo is good though I have never lost at it. Bo

Astyreal -> RE: Chiming in (5/27/2014 3:42:11 PM)
I don't think you can get too down about it Bo. A $99 lotto ticket for the 'game of a lifetime' does not seem like a bad play to me.

Twisted1 -> RE: Chiming in (5/27/2014 4:10:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zartacla I've never jumped into the AI/PBEM debate, because I have very mixed feelings. On a personal (selfish) level, I'd like a functioning AI to be the priority because it's unlikely that I will ever use NetPlay. A game of this length and this complexity will take far too long and require far too much synchronization of schedules with mostly unknown opponents for me to ever seriously consider doing it. On the other hand, a functional AI, although I realize it will never be much more than a learning/teaching tool, will get used. However, I recognize that the community as a whole is passionate about playing against other players and is less interested in an AI that can only respond effectively to the most basic of strategies. NetPlay will be a better selling point, draw in more customers, and ensure a longer development horizon for the game. If people stop buying the game, Matrix will have little incentive to keep working on the many problems or missing features. Obviously, in a perfect world both an AI and a functional NetPlay would have been included out of the box. For that matter, in a perfect world, 6 months after release the only bugs would be in rare corner cases and Steve could be focusing on add ons and scenarios. But that's not the world we live in. Bottom line... I now favor getting NetPlay up and running first, for the simple reasons that I believe it will bring in more new customers, which is the only way we'll ever get close to that perfect world. I could not agree more! Thank you Zartacla for a great post. While I have my preferences, I think we need to really focus on what is the best avenue for the company. I want this game to succeed. If it does well, it will be supported well into the future. A company will not support a losing proposition. While I prefer to have netplay before AI, the company needs to do what is best for the long term stability of the company.

Courtenay -> RE: Chiming in (5/27/2014 4:58:20 PM)
I favor getting netplay running first, because I think that it will take much less time to get netplay running then it will to get a worthwhile AI.

bo -> RE: Chiming in (5/27/2014 6:23:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Asty I don't think you can get too down about it Bo. A $99 lotto ticket for the 'game of a lifetime' does not seem like a bad play to me. That does not seem bad to me either Asty, a very good bargin, but thats my problem the word lifetime [:(] its my age Asty, lifetime is a meaningless word to me now. One day the game will shine that I have no doubt, whether I will see that day is really up in the air. There are other older players who might feel the same way. Bo

AxelNL -> RE: Chiming in (5/27/2014 6:57:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zartacla I've never jumped into the AI/PBEM debate, because I have very mixed feelings. On a personal (selfish) level, I'd like a functioning AI to be the priority because it's unlikely that I will ever use NetPlay. A game of this length and this complexity will take far too long and require far too much synchronization of schedules with mostly unknown opponents for me to ever seriously consider doing it. On the other hand, a functional AI, although I realize it will never be much more than a learning/teaching tool, will get used. However, I recognize that the community as a whole is passionate about playing against other players and is less interested in an AI that can only respond effectively to the most basic of strategies. NetPlay will be a better selling point, draw in more customers, and ensure a longer development horizon for the game. If people stop buying the game, Matrix will have little incentive to keep working on the many problems or missing features. Obviously, in a perfect world both an AI and a functional NetPlay would have been included out of the box. For that matter, in a perfect world, 6 months after release the only bugs would be in rare corner cases and Steve could be focusing on add ons and scenarios. But that's not the world we live in. Bottom line... I now favor getting NetPlay up and running first, for the simple reasons that I believe it will bring in more new customers, which is the only way we'll ever get close to that perfect world. +1

Rasputitsa -> RE: Chiming in (5/27/2014 7:11:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bo I want this as badly if not more than anyone else here but being a true pessimist [ask my wife and children] I have stopped holding my breath waiting for any form of play other than solo. Solo is good though I have never lost at it. Bo Hi Bo I don't want this to be an either/or issue, I hope that we all get what we want and only those at the coal face will know where the priority should go. What will be, will be, and yes, the passing of time is with us all, but I am an optimist and compared with the early days of tweaking primitive computers to get games running, today is bliss. Good luck with your solo games, may the best man win.[;)]

smitht2ls -> RE: Chiming in (5/27/2014 11:50:20 PM)
I think it is one of the most interesting business decisions I have seen from a game company. I am firmly in the camp that the AI should have been first priority over netplay. Just don't think netplay will draw new players. Think it would have been quicker for Steve to program the AI then netplay. And there are dozens of remote access programs to allow players to play over the internet that are available right now. I own the game and much like Bo hope I see an AI some day.

bo -> RE: Chiming in (5/28/2014 1:27:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa quote: ORIGINAL: bo I want this as badly if not more than anyone else here but being a true pessimist [ask my wife and children] I have stopped holding my breath waiting for any form of play other than solo. Solo is good though I have never lost at it. Bo Hi Bo I don't want this to be an either/or issue, I hope that we all get what we want and only those at the coal face will know where the priority should go. What will be, will be, and yes, the passing of time is with us all, but I am an optimist and compared with the early days of tweaking primitive computers to get games running, today is bliss. Good luck with your solo games, may the best man win.[;)] Hi Ras Remember the good old days of the dial up internet 15 hours to download 20 mgs. If it even downloaded it, maybe yes maybe no.[:(] Yes today is bliss I agree, I almost lied to you I was about to lose to myself but I turned off my computer just in time and the next day I destroyed my alter ego with a different tactic [;)] at the coal face [&:] I thought I heard everything to now [:D] Bo

bo -> RE: Chiming in (5/28/2014 1:37:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: smitht2ls I think it is one of the most interesting business decisions I have seen from a game company. I am firmly in the camp that the AI should have been first priority over netplay. Just don't think netplay will draw new players. Think it would have been quicker for Steve to program the AI then netplay. And there are dozens of remote access programs to allow players to play over the internet that are available right now. I own the game and much like Bo hope I see an AI some day. Oooooooo be careful here you are taking big chances with that one, the AI first [:D] Ouch. Wear your best armor saying that. I will say this again the best way to play any game is against a human opponet. But a lot of things have to fall in place first, both players are in similar time zones, that would be a help. The wife allows you to play while she is changing the diapers or washing the dishes or god forbid in the middle of the game she wants to see her mother and you have to take her. [:(] Being a little silly but many things have to be in place. And last but not least I am not real sure that Steve or Matix can solve the net play problem with a game as complicated as this one is. Not being negative Smitty I just dont see any progress on this one, I wish cad 98 would chip in on this one he understands net play as good as anyone here. Neilsters comment of his confidence in Steves ability to do a good AI makes me feel better. Bo

bo -> RE: Chiming in (5/28/2014 1:40:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AxelNL quote: ORIGINAL: Zartacla I've never jumped into the AI/PBEM debate, because I have very mixed feelings. On a personal (selfish) level, I'd like a functioning AI to be the priority because it's unlikely that I will ever use NetPlay. A game of this length and this complexity will take far too long and require far too much synchronization of schedules with mostly unknown opponents for me to ever seriously consider doing it. On the other hand, a functional AI, although I realize it will never be much more than a learning/teaching tool, will get used. However, I recognize that the community as a whole is passionate about playing against other players and is less interested in an AI that can only respond effectively to the most basic of strategies. NetPlay will be a better selling point, draw in more customers, and ensure a longer development horizon for the game. If people stop buying the game, Matrix will have little incentive to keep working on the many problems or missing features. Obviously, in a perfect world both an AI and a functional NetPlay would have been included out of the box. For that matter, in a perfect world, 6 months after release the only bugs would be in rare corner cases and Steve could be focusing on add ons and scenarios. But that's not the world we live in. Bottom line... I now favor getting NetPlay up and running first, for the simple reasons that I believe it will bring in more new customers, which is the only way we'll ever get close to that perfect world. +1 - 1 [:D] Bo

wworld7 -> RE: Chiming in (5/28/2014 7:12:52 AM)
Wishing the AI is (or was) done first is not a right or wrong question, as very good cases can be made for each side. It's moot, certain choices were made that resulted in being able to release the game sooner rather than later. This is when I knew I wouldn't buy day 1 (or day 1 + 6 months). This is okay with me (even if I die before Bo), I will wait and when MWIF gets into a state I desire I will buy. I'd like Net Play and an AI, but will likely settle for one or the other and then buy. That said, my gut tells me I'm looking at least another year of development for the AI and maybe less for Net Play. We'll see. Steve is doing the best he can and I believe he will continue this effort. I also know for fact is that everyone who keeps saying their should have been a team of programmers working on this project has no clue about the finances involved in the software business. I would like to be wrong, but I would bet $100.00 that Steve could have made more money PER HOUR working at any minimum wage job than he will off of MWIF. And if there isn't a huge financial payoff for Steve at the end, certainly no funds exist to pay the "team" that people think should have been part of this project. I don't believe he did this project for the $$, he did it for the challenge. Of course I would like things I want in the game NOW, but the reality to me, this means my best guess, is that MWIF was released 18 months earlier than it should have been. If I was PM (project manager) I would have given six months for functionally and twelve months for the AI (and this may be too optimistic). But I am not PM, I'm just a customer who still has faith in this project.

joshuamnave -> RE: Chiming in (5/28/2014 8:19:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish I also know for fact is that everyone who keeps saying their should have been a team of programmers working on this project has no clue about the finances involved in the software business. I would like to be wrong, but I would bet $100.00 that Steve could have made more money PER HOUR working at any minimum wage job than he will off of MWIF. And if there isn't a huge financial payoff for Steve at the end, certainly no funds exist to pay the "team" that people think should have been part of this project. I don't believe he did this project for the $$, he did it for the challenge. You are wrong. I'm very well aware that the financial payoff for both Steve and Matrix is minimal at best. However I am a customer, not a donor. To a customer, it doesn't matter a whit what the motivation of the seller is in making the product. They made a decision to make a product that would not be profitable - that's fine. But that does not justify selling a faulty product or failing to fix it in a reasonable time frame. Just ask GM what happens when you cut corners for financial purposes. There is a place for supporting hobby projects - it's kickstarter, and I probably would have made a 100 dollar pledge (or more) to a kickstarted version of the game. But MWIF was not kickstarted, it was sold as a finished product. That is what I paid for, and have not yet received. That Matrix will probably lose money on MWIF and that Steve's payout does not reflect the work that he put into the game is unfortunate, but has no place in this particular discussion.

Rasputitsa -> RE: Chiming in (5/28/2014 8:53:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zartacla quote: ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish I also know for fact is that everyone who keeps saying their should have been a team of programmers working on this project has no clue about the finances involved in the software business. I would like to be wrong, but I would bet $100.00 that Steve could have made more money PER HOUR working at any minimum wage job than he will off of MWIF. And if there isn't a huge financial payoff for Steve at the end, certainly no funds exist to pay the "team" that people think should have been part of this project. I don't believe he did this project for the $$, he did it for the challenge. You are wrong. I'm very well aware that the financial payoff for both Steve and Matrix is minimal at best. However I am a customer, not a donor. To a customer, it doesn't matter a whit what the motivation of the seller is in making the product. They made a decision to make a product that would not be profitable - that's fine. But that does not justify selling a faulty product or failing to fix it in a reasonable time frame. Just ask GM what happens when you cut corners for financial purposes. There is a place for supporting hobby projects - it's kickstarter, and I probably would have made a 100 dollar pledge (or more) to a kickstarted version of the game. But MWIF was not kickstarted, it was sold as a finished product. That is what I paid for, and have not yet received. That Matrix will probably lose money on MWIF and that Steve's payout does not reflect the work that he put into the game is unfortunate, but has no place in this particular discussion. Whilst you spent two minutes writing the above, Steve has spent hours, days, years, trying to bring us a game, for minimal reward. GM is in trouble because there are competitive products, you are welcome to go and find a competitive product, at a better price, but it won't be on this planet. [8D]

joshuamnave -> RE: Chiming in (5/28/2014 9:06:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa Whilst you spent two minutes writing the above, Steve has spent hours, days, years, trying to bring us a game, for minimal reward. GM is in trouble because there are competitive products, you are welcome to go and find a competitive product, at a better price, but it won't be on this planet. [8D] Irrelevant.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.796875