RE: Refund (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

Shemar -> RE: Refund (6/13/2014 3:18:10 AM)

Yeah it does hit a nerve for two reasons.

One it ruins my immersion and enjoyment of a victory when I have to search the forums (or even worse, fiddle with the editor) just to see what the magic handhsake to win the scenario was, when I have totally trounced the computer AI in every possible level of success determination. Most people may not get it because they re-play things but I am not like that. I will never play a scenario twice (unless I lost) just like I will never see a movie or read a book twice or play a linear or semi-linear game twice. It is all about the new experience and finding out what comes next. Once I know, I am done.

Second, when all the hours in making the game and all the hours in making the scenario and all my hours in playing it, get trashed because a better explanation of scenario mechanisms that takes 10 minutes to write is missing... [&:]



Pergite! -> RE: Refund (6/13/2014 5:05:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shemar


I am not sure what constitutes a 'community scenario'. I have only played scenarios that came with the game so far. In any case I specifically avoided mentioning specific scenarios so hopefully nobody it taking my comments personally.



How on earth do you expect some kind of improvements if you don't actually point out where the improvement needs to happen? Scenarios gets revised all the time, but they are all depended on proper feedback to do so.



thewood1 -> RE: Refund (6/13/2014 11:20:32 AM)

That is my question...where has the detailed feedback on the issue been? I look through the mod/scenario thread and have not seen anyone give that particular feedback to an author. These guys beg for feedback and then see a thread like this where they are thrown under the bus as a whole.



Dobey455 -> RE: Refund (6/13/2014 2:30:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shemar

I am not sure what constitutes a 'community scenario'. I have only played scenarios that came with the game so far.



The community scenarios DO come with the game. Basically any scenario you find under the "Community Scenario" field when choosing a new game (attached pic).

These aren't made by the game developers they are put together by players like you and me and the Dev's add them to each new release. Some of the guys are a real pro's that have been making scenarios in this game and others for years.
Others are pretty new and, sure, may have made a few errors or be a little un-polished.

If you don't like the community scenario's you can stick to the official ones, or better yet, create some of your own that play out the way you like.

We're all just trying to have fun here, and if you only like to play a scenario once then move on, then I am sure you realize what a valuable resource it is to have:

a) A sandbox style game with limitless possible scenarios
b) A large number of players willing to use their imagination to create all sorts of scenarios for us to try out.

When we give positive, constructive feedback it helps make the scenarios better and encourages people to keep contributing.

[image]local://upfiles/27677/CEA86A8D4D9F458CACA8A31998065117.jpg[/image]



Shemar -> RE: Refund (6/13/2014 8:05:06 PM)

First of all I have only played scenarios under the "Standalone Scenarios" folder. Are these official game scenarios or not?

Second, I would expect anyone who is smart enough to write a scenario for CMANO, good enough to be distributed with the game, to not require feedback on something obvious and common sense like "if I need to do something unrealistically specific to fire your event trigger, be specific about it in your briefing".

Third, when a scenario has page long forum threads about what you have to do to get the events to fire properly and nothing has been done about it, why would I assume that my feedback, on a scenario I will never play again, have any effect?

Fourth, nobody is telling me I am actually wrong, but everybody is so upset. What gives? Is there some secret agreement that publicly criticizing scenarios instead of privately contacting the author is taboo? What is all this fuss about?



Sardaukar -> RE: Refund (6/13/2014 8:21:39 PM)

Can we not use topic Refund to discuss these things...it'll scare new prospective buyers. [:D]

Oooops..I did it too...[8D]



thewood1 -> RE: Refund (6/13/2014 8:34:29 PM)

I don't think anyone is upset. We are asking questions. I didn't know the two were synonymous.



Shemar -> RE: Refund (6/13/2014 9:02:03 PM)

Well I didn't know that saying that some scenario briefings are incomplete was synonymous to attacking the scenario designer community or asking/expecting something to be done about it [&:]

It is just a shame to play a scenario for upwards of 20-30 hours (I am a micromanaging freak), wipe out everything the enemy has thrown at you and then... lose [:(] because I was supposed to move some unit within some area so that a specific event could be fired. That is not to say I did not enjoy playing but it is like the tiny scratch or dent in your car that is not worth doing anything about but still bugs you. Nothing to be done other than moving on to the next scenario and hoping it will not be like that.



Pergite! -> RE: Refund (6/13/2014 9:19:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shemar

Well I didn't know that saying that some scenario briefings are incomplete was synonymous to attacking the scenario designer community or asking/expecting something to be done about it [&:]



Nobody except yourself are saying that you are attacking anything or anyone. I can't see anyone that is particular upset either for that matter.
It would however help the community if you please could give up the information of which scenario it was that you had problems with? (Instead of for example writing about car paint)



Shemar -> RE: Refund (6/13/2014 9:47:36 PM)

There are several instances but the one I remember most vividly because there were 2-3 instances just in this one scenario was Canary Cage (bad with names and memory, the one you play as Spain against North African states). I think there was a case of landing a recon unit that the instructions were either completely missing or may have been on a popup message that goes away never to be seen again and also landing troops required keeping the landing craft within an area for a specific (but not specified in the briefing) amount of time.

This is not new information, for example here is my own thread discussing the issues: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3536173

I had even forgotten I made a thread, I actually found it by googling "Canary Cage Command" [8D]



mikmykWS -> RE: Refund (6/13/2014 9:59:11 PM)

Okay just took a look.

quote:

ORDERS FOR CMDR SPANISH OPERATIONS

Humint from agents in Rabat indicate that a second NAIL amphibious force has been dispatched to the Canary Islands; it is composed of 3 to 4 troop transports and their escorts.

Several NAIL submarines have been detected while taking up position off the coast of Morocco; satellite recon shows both main airports in Gran Canaria and Tenerife are being used by NAIL air units.

Proceed with Grupo Delta close to Santa Cruz de Tenerife and land the TEAR (TErcio de la ARmada, Spanish marines). Expect attacks from sub, air and surface units.

Use Grupo Alfa to provide air and ASW cover for the amphibious group.

The enemy amphibious group must be destroyed before it reaches the landing area, to accomplish this task you will need the help from air force units based at Rota, Moron and Torrejon. Use these air units to attack also Moroccan airbases and try to reduce their operability.

A couple of submarines are in the archipielag already to gather information about NAIL defenses, they will also help as early detection of raids coming from Los Rodeos and Gando.

Protect our troop transports at all cost; we will need every single man to recover our islands.

The landing area is marked by Ref Points Landing Zone. Scenario duration is 2 days and 6 hours.


The briefing tells you to approach the specific island but no mention of the specific reference points you need to get between although they are all named landing zone which would help users. Definitely not concise but not exactly a huge error either.

I've added a note to update it in the future. Sorry for the trouble this seemed to have caused you.

Mike



Shemar -> RE: Refund (6/13/2014 11:31:07 PM)

I feel my comments have been taken as way more severe than meant to. This problem afflicts a few scenarios, this was just the one most vivid in my memory. Unfortunately I see a tendency in briefings to avoid being 'technical' (maybe fear of losing immersion?) but it is better to break character and talk about in-game mechanisms in the briefing than have the user try to guess what the specifics are. The alternative breaks realism in a much harsher way.

In the specific scenario there are multiple issues, one with the recon unit (I don't remember if the specifics are given in a popup message but since there is no way to go back to that popup message it doesn't matter even if they are) and one with the fact that even when one makes the easy logical leap of taking the landing craft within the area designated as landing zone, the zone itself is defined with the waypoints in the wrong order, creating the hourgralss/infinity type area where half the area one thinks and sees as clearly within the zone is considered out of the zone by the game engine and that problem is compounded by the fact that it is not enough to get within the zone but you must stay there a specified amount of time (if I remember correctly) which may extend to after the end of the scenario and cause a loss, even though nowhere in the briefing is that indicated.

The way I would do it is, first of all, fix the area so it works properly, then add to the briefing something like "make sure you begin your landing early enough so all the troops can make it to shore" if you don't want to get technical about time, then when the ships are actually in the area have an additional event that says something like "landing has started, you will be notified when it is complete".

But beyond these specifics I don't think that expecting to be able to play a scenario for the first time and win (or lose because of enemy action, not because of some event that didn't fire properly) without looking through forum posts or opening it in the editor is unreasonable. I am actually a lot more tolerant than it may appear and I have played many games with a lot of user/custom content, so things like that don't make me not like or appreciate the game, but I can definitely see how someone with different expectations would react more severely (as in not liking the game overall).



erichswafford -> RE: Refund (6/13/2014 11:39:00 PM)

Sorry but I'm willing to bet big money that the game may have been deleted off the guy's drive, but I bet he kept his serial # and install files.

I'm very impressed that Matrix would even do a refund, given that the serial number will always work. It's not as if the installer "phones home" to check anything.

To the guy who was annoyed about not knowing how to "win" a scenario, I would say you're missing the point of Command. Just like all my other wargames, I have my own internal definition of what constitutes a victory, irrespective of some arbitrary scoring system. And like any good, serious wargame, Command is not going to spoon-feed you and explain every detail of every conflict it simulates. You get back from this sim exactly as much as you're willing to put in, especially in terms of researching the conflict in question.

This having been said, there are many low-complexity fun scenarios in which you just need to blow $hit up. I like those too :)



mikmykWS -> RE: Refund (6/14/2014 12:07:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shemar

I feel my comments have been taken as way more severe than meant to. This problem afflicts a few scenarios, this was just the one most vivid in my memory. Unfortunately I see a tendency in briefings to avoid being 'technical' (maybe fear of losing immersion?) but it is better to break character and talk about in-game mechanisms in the briefing than have the user try to guess what the specifics are. The alternative breaks realism in a much harsher way.

In the specific scenario there are multiple issues, one with the recon unit (I don't remember if the specifics are given in a popup message but since there is no way to go back to that popup message it doesn't matter even if they are) and one with the fact that even when one makes the easy logical leap of taking the landing craft within the area designated as landing zone, the zone itself is defined with the waypoints in the wrong order, creating the hourgralss/infinity type area where half the area one thinks and sees as clearly within the zone is considered out of the zone by the game engine and that problem is compounded by the fact that it is not enough to get within the zone but you must stay there a specified amount of time (if I remember correctly) which may extend to after the end of the scenario and cause a loss, even though nowhere in the briefing is that indicated.

The way I would do it is, first of all, fix the area so it works properly, then add to the briefing something like "make sure you begin your landing early enough so all the troops can make it to shore" if you don't want to get technical about time, then when the ships are actually in the area have an additional event that says something like "landing has started, you will be notified when it is complete".

But beyond these specifics I don't think that expecting to be able to play a scenario for the first time and win (or lose because of enemy action, not because of some event that didn't fire properly) without looking through forum posts or opening it in the editor is unreasonable. I am actually a lot more tolerant than it may appear and I have played many games with a lot of user/custom content, so things like that don't make me not like or appreciate the game, but I can definitely see how someone with different expectations would react more severely (as in not liking the game overall).


Ok added more items to be updated.

Thanks!

Mike



mikmykWS -> RE: Refund (6/14/2014 12:14:00 AM)

Guys if its okay I'm locking this string. This really isn't about a refund [:)]

If you need a new string, by all means[:)]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.515625