RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know.

RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (Full Version)

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

Message

WayneBGood -> RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (9/4/2014 6:01:44 PM)
Hi Cap. I just wanted to say that a turn cycle in PBEM can be anywhere from 16-8 minutes. If requesting DS, then that only comes after the turn cycle which is unrealistic in modern warfare. WW2 times were about 2-4 minutes depending upon who was spotting. Currently the times can be a lot longer. Whereas when a unit makes contact it may be upwards to 16 minutes of game time before artillery can be called in after spotting. Thanks, Wayne

Richie61 -> RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (9/10/2014 3:16:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian We need to stop adding things to the current code or you guys will never see the next generation of the game. We need to stop where we are so we can move on. Good Hunting. MR Probably not going to be liked over these views, but I have bought FPRS. I agree about adding new content to FPRS, but everything should work instead of backwards fixes like don't do this or manually control this or that because the game function is broken. Not sure how patches can break a feature after time spent on beta testing and the general buying public picks up on these broken or not working correctly pieces of a game. I have spoke with a few other gaming buddies and they agreed that having another FP series complete or broke doesn't leave future purchases with the warm & fuzzes. I almost bought the first FP series but was told by others to past on it because of broken items or because the game was incomplete. I won't call out other companies, but I can purchase other PC games in a series and they are complete and working. Be it Eastern Front, WWI, Vietnam or European conflicts. I think Flashpoint should be along the same lines. I think the series has lots of potential and could be a great title years down the line, but it should be fixed/ patched/ updated to perform correctly before looking to do another title. Maybe it's a money thing or upper management looking to future games? I just feel that leaving titles in this state to product another title in the same era & landmass does make future PC purchases knock down your door to buy your product. I for one look at pass games now after getting sucked into the Panzer Command Ostfront game. [&:] I should have really based my purchase on the past titles that were released to sell "improved" features/ content and said "past" on PCO [:(] Now a PLUS side [:)] Talking to people, we feel the graphics are good and adding content like more Nations and weapon systems is key. You have people redoing maps and counters already, so why not expend on content [:D]

cbelva -> RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (9/10/2014 4:18:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Richie61 Probably not going to be liked over these views, but I have bought FPRS. We appreciate all honest comments and criticisms. I agree about adding new content to FPRS, but everything should work instead of backwards fixes like don't do this or manually control this or that because the game function is broken. Not sure how patches can break a feature after time spent on beta testing and the general buying public picks up on these broken or not working correctly pieces of a game. I have learned a lot in working with this game. The programing code is long and with many interconnecting parts. You correct or tweak something in one part and it can have major affects in another part. The problem with beta testing is that there is never enough beta testers and they have a tendency to disappear. Also, it is easy to get focused on one part of the game as a beta tester and miss another part. That is how things get missed. This game is not broken. However, like any program, there are always bugs and the team is working trying to get as many as we can find squashed. However, it will never be perfect--just like any other game. The problem with wargames such as FPCRS is that this is a more of a hobby for us involved. We all have other jobs, family, and responsibilities. It is worked on in our spare time. Most wargames companies today are like this. That is one reason it takes so long to get things done. I have spoke with a few other gaming buddies and they agreed that having another FP series complete or broke doesn't leave future purchases with the warm & fuzzes. I almost bought the first FP series but was told by others to past on it because of broken items or because the game was incomplete. I won't call out other companies, but I can purchase other PC games in a series and they are complete and working. Be it Eastern Front, WWI, Vietnam or European conflicts. I think Flashpoint should be along the same lines. I had nothing to do with the development of the first FPG game. I brought the game, played it and enjoyed it. It is not broken or incomplete. It is just old and it had its limitations. Players did want the original FPG to be more out of the game, but it was not broken or incomplete. FPCRS is based on that game, but it has been rewritten and much improved. I think the series has lots of potential and could be a great title years down the line, but it should be fixed/ patched/ updated to perform correctly before looking to do another title. Maybe it's a money thing or upper management looking to future games? I just feel that leaving titles in this state to product another title in the same era & landmass does make future PC purchases knock down your door to buy your product. I for one look at pass games now after getting sucked into the Panzer Command Ostfront game. [&:] I should have really based my purchase on the past titles that were released to sell "improved" features/ content and said "past" on PCO [:(] I don't know where you are getting that the game is broken or is not performing correctly or that we are leaving the game in it current state. It is a fairly new game and it has had its growing pains. The majority of things in the game that are not exactly working are things that players requested after the game was released that the programmers decided to add to accommodate players wishes. It takes time to implement these requests, to get them working correctly, and then to balance the game. There has been some major changes to the game that the players wanted and the programmers decided to add to the game. They could have said, "Sorry, but the game plays great and we are not going to add anything else." However, that is not Rob or Jim. They want a game that the players enjoy and wants to play.

zakblood -> RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (9/10/2014 5:06:49 AM)
well just speed read through some of it, and if it's long term beta testers thats needed, just pm, i'll sign a NDA and give my time if needed, at home all day every day apart from a few holidays i have over the year, so retired and free :) love the game, can't say i have given the time it needs playing it atm, but just done 3 beta and 1 alpha testing. the thing i have found with testing (beta) that is, is that sometimes and some might not know this so i'll share it, you play a game or battle or part of a campaign for that many times you kind of get used to it, and sometimes bored of it, if one you don't find anything new to report or play it like you normally would, testing isn't like playing, you're not there to have fun or sometimes even enjoy yourself, as it can be repetitively boring, you're there to bug find and notice small AI errors and post them. time taken or needed to test can vary, i run a 3 system setup and can spend 8 to 10 hours a day most days 5 days a week testing, so if 10 members are testing, times weeks or months in beta, some have been years tbh, then the hours spent testing a battle / campaign can be lengthy with even then some things going passed everyone eyes, as you can't find everything, no matter how many look for it, as there's too many pc setups, some playstyles can't be replicated / tested for either... for the 30/40+ hours i've played the game for, i've really enjoyed it, not seen anything ground breaking bug wise, if anything the level of detail is way more than needed for most like myself so can see the passion thats gone into the game, and the frustrations that some are still not 100% happy with it also (and thats just the programmers) the one thing that most love these games for are the support, you know it will be tweaked and patched for ever and a day. reason is for most who do it if not all, is they love to play them, if they wanted to make money as programmers, they would move jobs and work for fps makers, and maybe make a lot more money in the process, as our games are on the fringes, cost v's development costs might not make a lot of business sense to most as lets be honest they aren't mass sellers in the millions... so i'll end this with thanks for the game, thanks for the updates / support and keep your chin up and enjoy it, as most do love to play them, even though a few still moan, i for one don't care if a anti tank missile drops short on it's 3200 mtr range by 2 inch, and will let that go[;)][8\|]

Phoenix100 -> RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (9/10/2014 7:49:03 AM)
The game is great, I think, and works well. I am enjoying learning it. Nuff said (by me) already on the graphics. I understand Richie61's viewpoint too, of course - because with most things you shell out money for there is some form of consumer legislation which is meant to guarantee that the item is fit for the purpose etc and if a shoe has a hole in it you take it back, no questions asked. Getting it clear that games are not like shoes and that the way it is- especially with those games (interestingly, and sadly, the most challenging to code, in terms of AI, and the most rewarding to play) that are effectively niche games, produced by enthusiasts in their spare time - the way it is is that very definitely what comes out of the box is always wip, which works, or doesn't work to varying degrees. The model you have in your head has to be different to shoes and toasters. I'm not being patronising. I have to remind myself of this all the time. Mostly, I think it helps to recall that nobody makes any money worth speaking of out of this type of excellent game, so the usual 'I give you money, you give me a perfect product' rules just don't apply. We're lucky people are interested enough to work on these things. Support for this game is outstanding. And, given that this type of game, as I said, is always wip, there's always going to have to be decisions made as to when to move on. I have played a lot of Command Ops over the years and the position is exactly the same with that game. We're all involved in the project, basically, because we're all - to some degree - beta testers, permanently - not with the rigour zakblood describes, but certainly in the sense that you never just get to play the game with the confidence of knowing that if something looks strange or funny then it's got to be down to you, because often it's down to the code.... And that never changes. Just my view. [:)] Peter

CapnDarwin -> RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (9/10/2014 11:22:15 AM)
I need to be quick and get to my day job, but a couple points: 1). We have been in pretty much 24/7 support of the game from launch. 2). The game for most players (some odd localization issues) for day one. 3). The game in its current state is not broken or unplayable. It does have a number of noted behaviors that cause frustration, but those are the main things being worked in these updates including 2.06. 4). No amount of human beta testing will uncover all the bugs. Maybe you catch 15-20% tops. We had 50 or so beta testers, got feedback from maybe a dozen and only had three to four that where hammerering away. Hence, computer games will never be "done". 5). We need to break off of the 2.0x chain and focus on 2.1 for next year. That does not mean we are dropping support of Red Storm since the 2.1 engine is an expansion and improvement of the existing game engine. 6). We are also working the map art issues. Had to be said. [:D] 7). Red Storm was launched "complete". Not sure what is missing in your opinion. Plus we have added scenarios, campaigns, and requested features all along the way. I could hit on more items but really need to go. I will look back in on this thread tonight.

Phoenix100 -> RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (9/10/2014 12:06:45 PM)
I was actually praising the game and the [&o]support in my post. Maybe that wasn't clear.....[&o]

zakblood -> RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (9/10/2014 12:37:39 PM)
+1 to above for me also, was all praise or meant to be[&o][&o][&o]

CapnDarwin -> RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (9/10/2014 12:50:37 PM)
Guys, no problem. Just covering the beta, incomplete, broken side of things. Plus I should not post in the early morning when my brain filters are coming up to speed. [:D]

zakblood -> RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (9/10/2014 1:00:35 PM)
the best developers who care the most are always touchy when it comes to letting their babies go, reading through the lines here, i don't think it's the users who want so much change as much as the development team maybe, your passion for perfection may never be realized but thats your call to keep trying.... the incomplete, broken side of things as you put it are not really mentioned here tbh as most here can't find them in the first place, wish lists are one thing, minor annoyances are another that some have, for me it all works so you all need to worry less, enjoy more, drink more coffee, or tea if you're from the UK like me and sit back and pat yourselves on the back for a job very well done, when your ready to move on, do it, never seen really one post asking for you to either do more or rush.... 99% love it, 1 % will always moan anyway as thats life[X(]

Mad Russian -> RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (9/11/2014 5:50:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Richie61 Probably not going to be liked over these views, but I have bought FPRS. You and I have been friends a long time, you know I have never shied away from anyone ever saying how they feel about any project I've ever done. Now is not the time for me to start. quote: I agree about adding new content to FPRS, but everything should work instead of backwards fixes like don't do this or manually control this or that because the game function is broken. Not sure how patches can break a feature after time spent on beta testing and the general buying public picks up on these broken or not working correctly pieces of a game. I can't tell you exactly how when you fix one thing you break another. If you've ever done any beta testing for a computer code you will know that's exactly what happens. Not just every so often but almost every single time. A period in one spot of 500 pages of code makes a difference. That's pretty close to my entire knowledge of coding these days. quote: I have spoke with a few other gaming buddies and they agreed that having another FP series complete or broke doesn't leave future purchases with the warm & fuzzes. I almost bought the first FP series but was told by others to past on it because of broken items or because the game was incomplete. I won't call out other companies, but I can purchase other PC games in a series and they are complete and working. Be it Eastern Front, WWI, Vietnam or European conflicts. I think Flashpoint should be along the same lines. First and foremost, FPC isn't broken. It plays better now than the day we released it. Second, there will be bugs in any computer code the day the last of that codes developers pass away. You never get them working 100% the way you want. Third, what I'm saying we need to do is stop adding features to this game at this level or there will never be anything but what you have on your computer now. There will be no Vietnam, WWII, Eastern Front or any other theater or time because we will still be working on this part of the code. Nobody is saying we are walking away from supporting what we've put out and we will fix any bug that causes a crashing issue or stops game play but to think that we can get this to a point where it make everybody happy isn't going to happen. Every single one of us has a different idea of what perfection is. quote: I think the series has lots of potential and could be a great title years down the line, but it should be fixed/ patched/ updated to perform correctly before looking to do another title. Maybe it's a money thing or upper management looking to future games? I just feel that leaving titles in this state to product another title in the same era & landmass does make future PC purchases knock down your door to buy your product. What do you think is broken? Even when we released this game it was very stable. No crashing bugs. We didn't release a Beta version on the community but one we had tested for months to make sure it was in a state that we would have wanted to buy it if we were on the other side of the counter. quote: I for one look at pass games now after getting sucked into the Panzer Command Ostfront game. [&:] I should have really based my purchase on the past titles that were released to sell "improved" features/ content and said "past" on PCO [:(] Sucked into Panzer Command Ostfront....hmmmm.... I have no idea how you think that game sucked you in. We gave the game away free for weeks after we released what was supposed to have been a patch. Did so much work on it and added so much content to it that it became a game of it's own. Far better than either of the original games in that series. If we hadn't lost the coder it would still be going and may well raise it's head again. quote: Now a PLUS side [:)] Talking to people, we feel the graphics are good and adding content like more Nations and weapon systems is key. You have people redoing maps and counters already, so why not expend on content [:D] More content? I have given you 2 campaigns and extra scenarios. All at no cost to you. There is to be another free scenario included in the next patch. We have supported this game as much as I've ever seen one supported. We will continue to support the game, however, I don't intend on stopping with this game in the series. To make more games at some point we need to say this one is good. Catch whatever little things that need caught and add those fixes to the next game in the series. Unless you want us to stop right here, right now we have to move on at some point. The game plays well has enough free features added to it that it is almost a completely new game at this moment from the one we released last October. I think you're right I think your view that we don't move forward isn't going to be popular. To support your view though we do intend on continuing to create content for FPC. It just won't continue to be our single commitment to the series. We've already stayed with FPC so long that it's pushed the next game in the series out by about 6 months. Time to let this game play and work on the next one. Good Hunting. MR

Phoenix100 -> RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (9/11/2014 6:08:12 PM)
quote: Time to let this game play and work on the next one. +1

zakblood -> RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (9/11/2014 7:52:37 PM)
+1, yep got my vote[;)]

Ajack58 -> RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (9/12/2014 3:14:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zakblood +1, yep got my vote[;)] "Go team, go! That's what we need more of around here; fighting spirit."

Richie61 -> RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (9/12/2014 5:56:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian quote: ORIGINAL: Richie61 Probably not going to be liked over these views, but I have bought FPRS. You and I have been friends a long time, you know I have never shied away from anyone ever saying how they feel about any project I've ever done. Now is not the time for me to start. Agree! quote: I agree about adding new content to FPRS, but everything should work instead of backwards fixes like don't do this or manually control this or that because the game function is broken. Not sure how patches can break a feature after time spent on beta testing and the general buying public picks up on these broken or not working correctly pieces of a game. I can't tell you exactly how when you fix one thing you break another. If you've ever done any beta testing for a computer code you will know that's exactly what happens. Not just every so often but almost every single time. A period in one spot of 500 pages of code makes a difference. That's pretty close to my entire knowledge of coding these days. Maybe "broken" isn't really the correct word or meaning here. I meant that something that worked in one release doesn't work after a patch. Say maybe the "counter battery" issue after the patch. I am an Engineer and if something doesn't work right, it's broken. I have beta tested and done mod for PC games and I CAN understand what happens. quote: I have spoke with a few other gaming buddies and they agreed that having another FP series complete or broke doesn't leave future purchases with the warm & fuzzes. I almost bought the first FP series but was told by others to past on it because of broken items or because the game was incomplete. I won't call out other companies, but I can purchase other PC games in a series and they are complete and working. Be it Eastern Front, WWI, Vietnam or European conflicts. I think Flashpoint should be along the same lines. First and foremost, FPC isn't broken. It plays better now than the day we released it. Second, there will be bugs in any computer code the day the last of that codes developers pass away. You never get them working 100% the way you want. Third, what I'm saying we need to do is stop adding features to this game at this level or there will never be anything but what you have on your computer now. There will be no Vietnam, WWII, Eastern Front or any other theater or time because we will still be working on this part of the code. Nobody is saying we are walking away from supporting what we've put out and we will fix any bug that causes a crashing issue or stops game play but to think that we can get this to a point where it make everybody happy isn't going to happen. Every single one of us has a different idea of what perfection is. I agree that FPC isn't broken too. See above [:)] I 200% agree with the support given has been top notch and you guys are in the trenches with us! quote: I think the series has lots of potential and could be a great title years down the line, but it should be fixed/ patched/ updated to perform correctly before looking to do another title. Maybe it's a money thing or upper management looking to future games? I just feel that leaving titles in this state to product another title in the same era & landmass does make future PC purchases knock down your door to buy your product. What do you think is broken? Even when we released this game it was very stable. No crashing bugs. We didn't release a Beta version on the community but one we had tested for months to make sure it was in a state that we would have wanted to buy it if we were on the other side of the counter. quote: I for one look at pass games now after getting sucked into the Panzer Command Ostfront game. [&:] I should have really based my purchase on the past titles that were released to sell "improved" features/ content and said "past" on PCO [:(] Sucked into Panzer Command Ostfront....hmmmm.... I have no idea how you think that game sucked you in. We gave the game away free for weeks after we released what was supposed to have been a patch. Did so much work on it and added so much content to it that it became a game of it's own. Far better than either of the original games in that series. If we hadn't lost the coder it would still be going and may well raise it's head again. LOL! I loved PCO and thought it was a huge step forward over the older PC titles. You and the rest of the team did a great job on it. I just excepted to see more people playing it or trying it. I thought the game was a winner to! I think that that other eye candy title that was released right before it, CMBB visions and the coder leaving really hurt the title. I would love to see it updated or the game engine moved to a new title too. quote: Now a PLUS side [:)] Talking to people, we feel the graphics are good and adding content like more Nations and weapon systems is key. You have people redoing maps and counters already, so why not expend on content [:D] More content? I have given you 2 campaigns and extra scenarios. All at no cost to you. There is to be another free scenario included in the next patch. We have supported this game as much as I've ever seen one supported. We will continue to support the game, however, I don't intend on stopping with this game in the series. To make more games at some point we need to say this one is good. Catch whatever little things that need caught and add those fixes to the next game in the series. Unless you want us to stop right here, right now we have to move on at some point. The game plays well has enough free features added to it that it is almost a completely new game at this moment from the one we released last October. I think you're right I think your view that we don't move forward isn't going to be popular. To support your view though we do intend on continuing to create content for FPC. It just won't continue to be our single commitment to the series. We've already stayed with FPC so long that it's pushed the next game in the series out by about 6 months. Time to let this game play and work on the next one. Good Hunting. MR Steve. I would gladly pay for FPC expansions like I do for Battle Academy, Conflict of Heroes, CMx2 and Panzer Corps. You guys should be making money for the added content. Nothing in life is free [;)] Hell no you should keep adding features or content for free to please the folks out there. Like I said, additional features and content should be purchased expansions. I WANT to see you guys move on to another title too. Maybe it got lost in my typing, but I just hope to see you guys fix/ tweak was doesn't work or perform correctly and mark the title "done". Then you guys can support tech. issues on FPRS while the new title is in the works. That being said. I am 99.99% happy with my purchase of FPRS and 100% happy with the support and team [:D] Please don't take it that I was slamming or putting down FPRS. It's a great game and great game engine!

Mad Russian -> RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (9/12/2014 12:17:38 PM)
Richie, I didn't mean for my reply to be defensive. As I said, you and I have been friends for years. I was responding to your comments, which I took as another discussion between us. I hate the fact that the internet is so hard to convey the emotional content of a message. I do understand the not wanting to have anything that is not 'finished' before moving on. I don't know how many wargames I have that I don't play because there are bugs in them I don't like. To a degree, because many of us started playing wargames with boardgames, we got spoiled. If there is a problem with a boardgame you House Rule it. If there is a problem with a computer game you report it to the Devs and you live with it. Sometimes you stop playing the game. The last thing I would want for the interaction we have with any and all of you, not just long time friends, is your ability to tell us, me, what you think needs fixed. I have spent decades working with playtesters for my projects. The one thing that I prize most is the time and effort that people give me with their feedback. As my tagline says, "The most expensive thing in the world is free time." Very specifically for me, your free time. We appreciate each and every comment made. We not only respond on this forum but many others around the community as well. Besides trying to get the code reworked and tested one more time. On top of which, I try to create at least a miniscule scenario to include with each release. New map graphics, new features, revamping older features, etc. it all takes time. We all have day jobs and the highest priority at this time is to stop adding features at this point and move toward some of the major changes for the next game. Then we will start the process all over again...[:D] Good Hunting. MR

CapnDarwin -> RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (9/12/2014 12:57:16 PM)
It's the never ending design cycle. [:D]

wodin -> RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (9/12/2014 3:28:04 PM)
Ritchie surprised you don't like the game..it's one of my fav titles under Slitherine. I'm also surprised that all the people you know who played the game don't feel "warm and fuzzy" after playing it..I don't actually know anyone else who has played it..however your the only dissenting voice I've seen on this forum if not the only then one of the few.

pzgndr -> RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (9/12/2014 3:43:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cbelva I don't know where you are getting that the game is broken or is not performing correctly or that we are leaving the game in it current state. It is a fairly new game and it has had its growing pains. The majority of things in the game that are not exactly working are things that players requested after the game was released that the programmers decided to add to accommodate players wishes. It takes time to implement these requests, to get them working correctly, and then to balance the game. There has been some major changes to the game that the players wanted and the programmers decided to add to the game. They could have said, "Sorry, but the game plays great and we are not going to add anything else." However, that is not Rob or Jim. They want a game that the players enjoy and wants to play. I agree with this. FWIW, the game engine will need to evolve to accomodate new features. If anything, if subsequent titles with an updated game engine can also be made to be backwards compatible so that the previous scenarios are playable with the new features then that would be great. At least for this current series with northern Germany first and then southern Germany next.

Richie61 -> RE: 2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know. (9/13/2014 1:23:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wodin Ritchie surprised you don't like the game..it's one of my fav titles under Slitherine. I'm also surprised that all the people you know who played the game don't feel "warm and fuzzy" after playing it..I don't actually know anyone else who has played it..however your the only dissenting voice I've seen on this forum if not the only then one of the few. Jason. Do I not talk the Queen's English? Never said I didn't like the game. [;)] quote: your the only dissenting voice I've seen on this forum if not the only then one of the few. Really? LOL! Just scanned the threads and can't seem to find the "not liking the game" or "dissenting" comments? [:)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.875