RE: Option 47 (Full Version)

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



Message

CrusssDaddy -> RE: Option 47 (5/11/2015 8:03:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bo


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

I don't care what Tom Brokaw says, I think you guys are the Greatest Generation.


I don't care what Brokaw thinks the only thing he cares about is getting that liberal idiot back on as the lead liar at NBC.

Bo


Bo, you strike me as the kinda fella who believes in chem trails and that Jade Helm 15 is a cover for martial law, amirite?



bo -> RE: Option 47 (5/11/2015 8:12:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well yes but......


For many years he was the lead anchor at NBC TV in the US, he was semi retired and handed over the reins to Brian Williams who has since been fired for lying on National TV, he wrote a book called the Greatest Generation referring to Americans in the 1940's, 1950's and the 1960's.

Good men I assume but too far left and liberal for my tastes, I want our news anchors to report the news truthfully and without prejudice and without their opinions trying to lead their viewers to their way of thinking. Some here might argue that but it is the way I feel.

Bo



bo -> RE: Option 47 (5/11/2015 8:18:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: bo


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

I don't care what Tom Brokaw says, I think you guys are the Greatest Generation.


I don't care what Brokaw thinks the only thing he cares about is getting that liberal idiot back on as the lead liar at NBC.

Bo


Bo, you strike me as the kinda fella who believes in chem trails and that Jade Helm 15 is a cover for martial law, amirite?


I am a kinda fellow who believes in fairness, respect for all opinions whether I agree with them or not, I believe in common courtesy, and most important common sense which seems to be lacking in the old USA right now, and sometimes on these posts. [:(]

Bo



CrusssDaddy -> RE: Option 47 (5/12/2015 9:06:52 PM)

If Steve and Matrix indulged the same respect for contrary opinions and common courtesy as you, this would be a happier product.



bo -> RE: Option 47 (5/12/2015 10:18:19 PM)



Deleted

Bo



bo -> RE: Option 47 (5/12/2015 10:25:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

If Steve and Matrix indulged the same respect for contrary opinions and common courtesy as you, this would be a happier product.


Relations between the posters and paying customers with Matrix could be improved here I agree with that cruss, by the way the comment about common sense was not directed at you but at a few snarky posters, actually cruss when you remove that veneer of being a little gruff you are actually a very intelligent game smart player.

And when you are in the mood you bring up very good points about the game and the way it should be played but probably you are just as frustrated as I am about MWIF.

But please do not ever bring up CWIF to me again UGH!

Oh well!

Bo



CrusssDaddy -> RE: Option 47 (5/13/2015 12:59:34 AM)

I've mostly finished plugging in the Brute Force scenario for CWiF. Should I do an AAR?



bo -> RE: Option 47 (5/13/2015 1:12:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

I've mostly finished plugging in the Brute Force scenario for CWiF. Should I do an AAR?



[:D] please do, and thank you for your effort [;)]



Zorachus99 -> RE: Option 47 (5/17/2015 9:24:15 PM)

As this topic has gotten off track.

Only reason I'm here, is WIF is the best game I can't play. Going in for surgery next week, hopefully will be back again, though I doubt that is a prevailing thought amongst the current people posting here. I wouldn't be the first to not get a chance to enjoy this game if something bad happened.

Here are the rules for supply for 3rd Reich. This game is strategic, but at a smaller scale than Fire in the East, and slightly smaller scale than WIF.

27.4 CONSEQUENCES TO UNSUPPLIED UNITS:
27.41 Unsupplied units retain their full combat factor. They may attack during an Offensive Option; they are counted when in contact with the enemy during an Attrition Option.
27.42 Unsupplied units may not move during their Movement or Combat phase. They may not advance to attack the enemy, may not advance after combat, may not exploit a Breakthrough, and may not advance to occupy an Attrition-gained hex. They may be moved by SR, but only if supply has been restored in the interim and a legal SR path exists.
27.43 Unsupplied units are eliminated if still unsupplied at the end of their player turn. This is so even if they were in supply at some intermediate point of their turn. Elimination occurs at the end of the player turn, units are lost after unit construction; therefore units lost from lack of supply cannot be reconstructed during the turn of their loss.
27.44 Supply status is determined during the Movement phase, after .0 ement of naval units but before movement of any other unit. A previously unused fleet could SR to the front and provide supply to a previously unsupplied unit to save it from elimination, but the resupplied unit could not move during that SR phase.

Once again. Why would accomplished military historians have units destroyed in games such as 3rd Reich, and Fire in the East? There are many, many games still out there with the same function.

If only the beta-testers of the game (the people who paid for the game) could have a tool to fix the organizational status of units.

The Alpha testers (known as beta testers on this forum) certainly do the necessary tools to play the game. One of them is enjoying a 4-5 player game with such a tool, and has stated his having no trouble doing so. It certainly is nice of the powers that be to share that tool, isn't it?



bo -> RE: Option 47 (5/18/2015 1:13:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

As this topic has gotten off track.

Only reason I'm here, is WIF is the best game I can't play. Going in for surgery next week, hopefully will be back again, though I doubt that is a prevailing thought amongst the current people posting here. I wouldn't be the first to not get a chance to enjoy this game if something bad happened.

Here are the rules for supply for 3rd Reich. This game is strategic, but at a smaller scale than Fire in the East, and slightly smaller scale than WIF.

27.4 CONSEQUENCES TO UNSUPPLIED UNITS:
27.41 Unsupplied units retain their full combat factor. They may attack during an Offensive Option; they are counted when in contact with the enemy during an Attrition Option.
27.42 Unsupplied units may not move during their Movement or Combat phase. They may not advance to attack the enemy, may not advance after combat, may not exploit a Breakthrough, and may not advance to occupy an Attrition-gained hex. They may be moved by SR, but only if supply has been restored in the interim and a legal SR path exists.
27.43 Unsupplied units are eliminated if still unsupplied at the end of their player turn. This is so even if they were in supply at some intermediate point of their turn. Elimination occurs at the end of the player turn, units are lost after unit construction; therefore units lost from lack of supply cannot be reconstructed during the turn of their loss.
27.44 Supply status is determined during the Movement phase, after .0 ement of naval units but before movement of any other unit. A previously unused fleet could SR to the front and provide supply to a previously unsupplied unit to save it from elimination, but the resupplied unit could not move during that SR phase.

Once again. Why would accomplished military historians have units destroyed in games such as 3rd Reich, and Fire in the East? There are many, many games still out there with the same function.

If only the beta-testers of the game (the people who paid for the game) could have a tool to fix the organizational status of units.

The Alpha testers (known as beta testers on this forum) certainly do the necessary tools to play the game. One of them is enjoying a 4-5 player game with such a tool, and has stated his having no trouble doing so. It certainly is nice of the powers that be to share that tool, isn't it?


[&:] [&:] [&:]

Bo



warspite1 -> RE: Option 47 (5/18/2015 8:35:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

As this topic has gotten off track.

Only reason I'm here, is WIF is the best game I can't play. Going in for surgery next week, hopefully will be back again, though I doubt that is a prevailing thought amongst the current people posting here. I wouldn't be the first to not get a chance to enjoy this game if something bad happened.

Here are the rules for supply for 3rd Reich. This game is strategic, but at a smaller scale than Fire in the East, and slightly smaller scale than WIF.

27.4 CONSEQUENCES TO UNSUPPLIED UNITS:
27.41 Unsupplied units retain their full combat factor. They may attack during an Offensive Option; they are counted when in contact with the enemy during an Attrition Option.
27.42 Unsupplied units may not move during their Movement or Combat phase. They may not advance to attack the enemy, may not advance after combat, may not exploit a Breakthrough, and may not advance to occupy an Attrition-gained hex. They may be moved by SR, but only if supply has been restored in the interim and a legal SR path exists.
27.43 Unsupplied units are eliminated if still unsupplied at the end of their player turn. This is so even if they were in supply at some intermediate point of their turn. Elimination occurs at the end of the player turn, units are lost after unit construction; therefore units lost from lack of supply cannot be reconstructed during the turn of their loss.
27.44 Supply status is determined during the Movement phase, after .0 ement of naval units but before movement of any other unit. A previously unused fleet could SR to the front and provide supply to a previously unsupplied unit to save it from elimination, but the resupplied unit could not move during that SR phase.

Once again. Why would accomplished military historians have units destroyed in games such as 3rd Reich, and Fire in the East? There are many, many games still out there with the same function.

If only the beta-testers of the game (the people who paid for the game) could have a tool to fix the organizational status of units.

The Alpha testers (known as beta testers on this forum) certainly do the necessary tools to play the game. One of them is enjoying a 4-5 player game with such a tool, and has stated his having no trouble doing so. It certainly is nice of the powers that be to share that tool, isn't it?
warspite1

Well it would be helpful if you stated how long each player turn was and what each turn involved, but then based on previous posts, its clear you aren't really interested in constructive dialogue or lobbying Matrix or Steve directly for the changes you want - but are only interested in slagging off the "idiot" beta-testers.

But regardless:

quote:

Unsupplied units are eliminated if still unsupplied at the end of their player turn.


So in the game you are referring to the historical "Demyansk Pocket" would not be possible?? Why not?

Also what are you now saying? You don't even like Option 47? You want units automatically destroyed? So an attacker does not need to bother making any effort against the pocket (UNHISTORICAL AND FRANKLY RIDICULOUS) because he knows the unit surrounded will be eliminated at the end of the turn?

quote:

Once again. Why would accomplished military historians have units destroyed in games such as 3rd Reich, and Fire in the East? There are many, many games still out there with the same function.


You realise this is a game right? Why would ADG have monitors that cannot reach the 3 or 4 box to effectively bombard? Why would ADG have German, Italian and Japanese aircraft counters well in excess of their "historic" factors? Why does ADG have the historically inaccurate peace-keeper rule?

Its a game and there are design decisions made that are part compromise, part game balance etc. You don't like the reorganisation rule WE GET IT. You want Option 47 coded WE GET IT (I want Convoys coded but life's a bitch). You want the de-bug tool WE GET IT. Steve has said repeatedly he is not going to provide it.


Regardless of all that nonsense about the game, I hope the surgery goes okay.



pzgndr -> RE: Option 47 (5/18/2015 12:48:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

27.43 Unsupplied units are eliminated if still unsupplied at the end of their player turn.
warspite1

Well it would be helpful if you stated how long each player turn was and what each turn involved


3R had three month quarterly turns vs WIF with two month turns. Close enough. 3R also had options for air resupply. The premise for unit elimination at the end of the player turn, with opportunities during the impulses to resupply units that started the player turn unsupplied, is a valid enough concept for grand strategy games like this. Keep it simple.



warspite1 -> RE: Option 47 (5/18/2015 2:55:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

27.43 Unsupplied units are eliminated if still unsupplied at the end of their player turn.
warspite1

Well it would be helpful if you stated how long each player turn was and what each turn involved


3R had three month quarterly turns vs WIF with two month turns. Close enough. 3R also had options for air resupply. The premise for unit elimination at the end of the player turn, with opportunities during the impulses to resupply units that started the player turn unsupplied, is a valid enough concept for grand strategy games like this. Keep it simple.
warspite1

With air supply possible that at least makes some sense from an historical perspective.

As to validity, if you believe the concept valid then fine, and so is Option 47 BUT SO TOO is ADG's stock rule. The point is we all have rules we do not like or do not agree with. We put up with them or - if not acceptable - we move on.

Zorachus beef I thought was Option 47 not being coded - but he now seems to want unit removal if out of supply judging by his last post. Make your mind up......



bo -> RE: Option 47 (5/18/2015 3:42:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

27.43 Unsupplied units are eliminated if still unsupplied at the end of their player turn.
warspite1

Well it would be helpful if you stated how long each player turn was and what each turn involved


3R had three month quarterly turns vs WIF with two month turns. Close enough. 3R also had options for air resupply. The premise for unit elimination at the end of the player turn, with opportunities during the impulses to resupply units that started the player turn unsupplied, is a valid enough concept for grand strategy games like this. Keep it simple.



And 3R kept it simple, but it was and is a beer and pretzel game, fast and exciting if you do not mind the not so great AI. It is a shame that someone did not buy it and reconstruct the AI but that is life. MWIF is about 400% more complicated or something like that [:(] I played 3R for years and it was fun until the later years 1944 on that the AI became a little brittle and fell apart.

I believe that MWIF could have been done in a more simple 3R fashion but it was not and that is it, end of story.

P.S. Pzgndr: Thank you for reminding about 3RD Reich, I just re-downloaded it at 1:30 pm est. Monday from Old Games company I will probably be a little rusty but it will come back to me.

Bo





CrusssDaddy -> RE: Option 47 (5/18/2015 6:44:09 PM)

What Zorachus wants is the same debug tools that the betas have, so he can flip 47'd units on his own. Seems churlish at this point to deny that to paying customers.



bo -> RE: Option 47 (5/18/2015 7:25:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

What Zorachus wants is the same debug tools that the betas have, so he can flip 47'd units on his own. Seems churlish at this point to deny that to paying customers.



We know what he wants cruss, and I personally am not against giving it to him or any other player, but Steve is the programmer and I think he feels it would be used for other purposes besides option 47 and could lead to lot more problems that he may have to unravel in the future, and at this point in time he is trying to straighten out current problems as you well know cruss.

Bo



CrusssDaddy -> RE: Option 47 (5/18/2015 8:56:32 PM)

Steve is a demonstrable failure. The least he could do is say, "Hey guys, I'm terrible at what I do and this was a boondoggle that got way out of hand with the premium price tag for this hobbyist project, but here's debug -- now you guys can at least control the game, instead of having the game control you. Sorry."



Numdydar -> RE: Option 47 (5/19/2015 1:15:40 AM)

Wow. Tell us how you really feel [X(]

I happen to disagree with your comment as we have a product that people are using and some number are actually having fun with. Without a beta tool.

I have to ask, have you actually done any complex software coding or developing software tools for commercial use? As you seem to be saying that you know better than anyone at Matrix et el of how this game should have been developed and what should have been provide to us.

As I have told you before, you have made suggestions and comments that I have found very helpful and useful. I really wish you could post more often in that vein versus crap like the above. But I will support your right to post whatever you want as I will continue to post when I disagree [:)]



CrusssDaddy -> RE: Option 47 (5/19/2015 1:34:35 AM)

I don't really know how to engage with you if you think MWiF is a commercial product. It's been sold as such, cynically so, but it's plainly a hobbyist effort.



Numdydar -> RE: Option 47 (5/19/2015 2:57:30 AM)

Unfortunately that is the way a lot of these games need to be made in order to make money. But even if I agree with your point it is a hobbyist effort, what we currently have is far better than not having anything at least in my opinion. I do not like the Vassel/CWIF versions at all. I am glad you think they are superior. But I would not even be playing WiF at all if it was not for this hobbyist effort. So I would much rather have MWiF with all its warts/issues than having the alternative which is nothing. And I know I am not the only one that feels that way.

No one was approaching ADG/Matrix with millions of dollars and a team of programmer like an A class game to do WiF. I just do not understand why people expect perfection for $100. People can spend $1,000s of dollars and not get that so why expect that for WiF. Personally I think that is a very unrealistic expectation.

So you and others are VERY unhappy because you expected far more than what has been delivered so far. While I and others are very happy with what we have so far. But without 1000 of thousands of people buying the game, this will remain the best option we have. Unless you want to privately fund a competing effort [:)]

I understand you are unhappy with the product. So what would your solution be so that the people involved could make money and provide the product you wanted? Remembering the limited number of buyers for a game like this. Would you scrap everything and start over? Would you hire additional staff knowing if you did you would lose money? Which is why Steve is only getting paid on sales of WiF as any other way is a loss in profitability.

Complaining is easy especially on the internet. But to me bringing up issues is pretty much useless UNLESS you have a realistic plan for addressing the issue. So what would your plan be. I'd really like to know. [:)]



CrusssDaddy -> RE: Option 47 (5/19/2015 3:57:53 AM)

There's nothing I can say to you that you haven't already heard, from me and many others, not sure why you're asking for a recap. To the immediate issue at hand, the only thing stopping Steve from doing paying customers a solid and releasing debug to them is his own stubbornness, his own lack of insight into their frustrations and his own insistence to not ever deviate from his own deeply flawed plan. It is absolutely, absolutely, absolutely absurd to pretend that letting paying customers have debug would impede further development or repairs. Absolutely absurd, and if he actually honestly believes that's the case, then he is aggressively incompetent and should be shamed by everyone here.



CrusssDaddy -> RE: Option 47 (5/19/2015 3:59:00 AM)

Also, there's no need to invoke Matrix's name any longer with regard to this game. Their involvement, other than to process sporadic payments, has ended.



Joseignacio -> RE: Option 47 (5/19/2015 8:38:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99


27.43 Unsupplied units are eliminated if still unsupplied at the end of their player turn. This is so even if they were in supply at some intermediate point of their turn. Elimination occurs at the end of the player turn, units are lost after unit construction; therefore units lost from lack of supply cannot be reconstructed during the turn of their loss.



Pathetic. I would NEVER buy a game like this. In fact, I have unfortunately played some boardgames like this and I regret having done it. Of course, never bought a copy of them.



Joseignacio -> RE: Option 47 (5/19/2015 8:40:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

27.43 Unsupplied units are eliminated if still unsupplied at the end of their player turn.
warspite1

Well it would be helpful if you stated how long each player turn was and what each turn involved


3R had three month quarterly turns vs WIF with two month turns. Close enough. 3R also had options for air resupply. The premise for unit elimination at the end of the player turn, with opportunities during the impulses to resupply units that started the player turn unsupplied, is a valid enough concept for grand strategy games like this. Keep it simple.
warspite1

With air supply possible that at least makes some sense from an historical perspective.

As to validity, if you believe the concept valid then fine, and so is Option 47 BUT SO TOO is ADG's stock rule. The point is we all have rules we do not like or do not agree with. We put up with them or - if not acceptable - we move on.

Zorachus beef I thought was Option 47 not being coded - but he now seems to want unit removal if out of supply judging by his last post. Make your mind up......



Yep, that would help... a tiny little.



rkr1958 -> RE: Option 47 (5/19/2015 11:59:13 AM)

I think elimination in Avalon Hill's 3rd Reich means something different than destruction in MWiF. I think elimination in AH's 3rd Reich is a mixture of being shattered, retreated and destroyed in MWiF. For example, the Soviets in 1941-1942 got (if I remember correctly) approximately 150 BRPs per year. They could spend 1/2 of those in any one 3-month turn. 3-3 infantry corps cost 3 BRPs each and 4-5 armor corps 8 BRPs. So, for example, if the Soviets lost 9 infantry and 4 armor corps in a given turn then they could immediately replace those losses for 59 BRPs and have 16 BRPs left over (e.g., for an offensive option costing 15 BRPs).

Now if the Germans had cut off and put out of supply this same force and the Soviets couldn't get them back in supply by the end of the turn, then the Soviets still lose them but can't replace them until next turn. That is, builds are made before out of supply units are eliminate (e.g., removed from the board and placed back into the force pool). For me this is akin to out of supply units not being able to move without becoming disorganized or even able to attack.

In MWiF in 1941 and 1942, how many turns would it take the Soviets to replace the destruction of 9 infantry and 4 armor corps? So, loss of units represents different things in those two games so I think one is comparing apples to oranges when talking about the similarities (or dissimilarities) between the two games with respect to out of supply units.



bo -> RE: Option 47 (5/19/2015 2:14:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I think elimination in Avalon Hill's 3rd Reich means something different than destruction in MWiF. I think elimination in AH's 3rd Reich is a mixture of being shattered, retreated and destroyed in MWiF. For example, the Soviets in 1941-1942 got (if I remember correctly) approximately 150 BRPs per year. They could spend 1/2 of those in any one 3-month turn. 3-3 infantry corps cost 3 BRPs each and 4-5 armor corps 8 BRPs. So, for example, if the Soviets lost 9 infantry and 4 armor corps in a given turn then they could immediately replace those losses for 59 BRPs and have 16 BRPs left over (e.g., for an offensive option costing 15 BRPs).

Now if the Germans had cut off and put out of supply this same force and the Soviets couldn't get them back in supply by the end of the turn, then the Soviets still lose them but can't replace them until next turn. That is, builds are made before out of supply units are eliminate (e.g., removed from the board and placed back into the force pool). For me this is akin to out of supply units not being able to move without becoming disorganized or even able to attack.

In MWiF in 1941 and 1942, how many turns would it take the Soviets to replace the destruction of 9 infantry and 4 armor corps? So, loss of units represents different things in those two games so I think one is comparing apples to oranges when talking about the similarities (or dissimilarities) between the two games with respect to out of supply units.


Hi rkr, I just downloaded 3RD Reich and have started playing it, it has been quite awhile since I played it last and I am very rusty at it as I bemoan the fact that the allies are kicking my butt early on [:(] I do agree with your assessment above though.

Bo



Centuur -> RE: Option 47 (5/19/2015 4:52:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I think elimination in Avalon Hill's 3rd Reich means something different than destruction in MWiF. I think elimination in AH's 3rd Reich is a mixture of being shattered, retreated and destroyed in MWiF. For example, the Soviets in 1941-1942 got (if I remember correctly) approximately 150 BRPs per year. They could spend 1/2 of those in any one 3-month turn. 3-3 infantry corps cost 3 BRPs each and 4-5 armor corps 8 BRPs. So, for example, if the Soviets lost 9 infantry and 4 armor corps in a given turn then they could immediately replace those losses for 59 BRPs and have 16 BRPs left over (e.g., for an offensive option costing 15 BRPs).

Now if the Germans had cut off and put out of supply this same force and the Soviets couldn't get them back in supply by the end of the turn, then the Soviets still lose them but can't replace them until next turn. That is, builds are made before out of supply units are eliminate (e.g., removed from the board and placed back into the force pool). For me this is akin to out of supply units not being able to move without becoming disorganized or even able to attack.

In MWiF in 1941 and 1942, how many turns would it take the Soviets to replace the destruction of 9 infantry and 4 armor corps? So, loss of units represents different things in those two games so I think one is comparing apples to oranges when talking about the similarities (or dissimilarities) between the two games with respect to out of supply units.


+1



76mm -> RE: Option 47 (5/19/2015 5:07:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
I just do not understand why people expect perfection for $100...Personally I think that is a very unrealistic expectation.
***
I understand you are unhappy with the product. So what would your solution be so that the people involved could make money and provide the product you wanted? Remembering the limited number of buyers for a game like this.


You're seriously accusing people of complaining about "perfection" for a game with no AI, no NetPlay, no half-map scenarios, and still bugs being squashed?!? Given that all of these things were announced as being part of the game after release, why on earth would that expectation be unrealistic?

My solution is very simple--if a program is released in beta form, it is advertised as such, so that people who want to spend their money supporting their favorite game can do so, and everyone expecting a finished game can take a pass. That was most emphatically not done with this game. Or Kickstarter has been suggested many times.

I don't know how many other games ADG makes, but I'll certainly never buy a computer version again--I wanted to buy EiA, but that was an even bigger debacle than WiF--no mas!



bo -> RE: Option 47 (5/19/2015 7:49:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
I just do not understand why people expect perfection for $100...Personally I think that is a very unrealistic expectation.
***
I understand you are unhappy with the product. So what would your solution be so that the people involved could make money and provide the product you wanted? Remembering the limited number of buyers for a game like this.


You're seriously accusing people of complaining about "perfection" for a game with no AI, no NetPlay, no half-map scenarios, and still bugs being squashed?!? Given that all of these things were announced as being part of the game after release, why on earth would that expectation be unrealistic?

My solution is very simple--would be that if a program is released in beta form, it is advertised as such, so that people who want to spend their money supporting their favorite game can do so, and everyone expecting a finished game can take a pass. Or Kickstarter has been suggested many times.

I don't know how many other games ADG makes, but I'll certainly never buy a computer version again--I wanted to buy EiA, but that was an even bigger debacle than WiF--no mas!


Hi 76mm:

I'm a clam [:(] well not really I would love to speak my mind but I do not want to lose my "Matrix Legion of Merit" rank[;)]

Bo



Centuur -> RE: Option 47 (5/20/2015 4:19:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
I just do not understand why people expect perfection for $100...Personally I think that is a very unrealistic expectation.
***
I understand you are unhappy with the product. So what would your solution be so that the people involved could make money and provide the product you wanted? Remembering the limited number of buyers for a game like this.


You're seriously accusing people of complaining about "perfection" for a game with no AI, no NetPlay, no half-map scenarios, and still bugs being squashed?!? Given that all of these things were announced as being part of the game after release, why on earth would that expectation be unrealistic?

My solution is very simple--if a program is released in beta form, it is advertised as such, so that people who want to spend their money supporting their favorite game can do so, and everyone expecting a finished game can take a pass. That was most emphatically not done with this game. Or Kickstarter has been suggested many times.

I don't know how many other games ADG makes, but I'll certainly never buy a computer version again--I wanted to buy EiA, but that was an even bigger debacle than WiF--no mas!


I agree totally with you, except from the part of Netplay and AI. That was announced as not being in the release, together with a number of optional rules not being available.



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.882813