RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (Full Version)

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

Message

RFalvo69 -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (2/5/2017 2:28:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 [In reply to RFlavo69] Okay. Well that is a strange post isn’t it? I mean not some of the content, but who it is addressed to and the manner in which it put. I will answer in the simplest of terms. In Italy we have a saying: "To talk about rope in the house of someone who hanged himself". Is the guy who talks about rope responsible for the hanging or the events leading to it. No: he simply shows bad timing and unnecessarily reminds people of something very unpleasant. You write: quote: quote: Shouldn't the basic game be sold after it is right? Well that statement has something of the ‘Captain Obvious’ about it doesn’t it? This only underlines that Matrix never heard about ‘Captain Obvious’. quote: You also raise the old chestnut about what people had a right to expect when buying the game and again point that in my direction. Actually no. What I'm tired of is people talking like if a debate about the best way to forge forward with beta-testing is normal in a forum about a four year old game. I'm also tired (I'm not talking about you, here, but bear with me) of surreal statements like "with a bit of creativity you can find work-arounds!" My eldest daughter is now studying fashion design and I'm pretty sure that using creativity is part of her daily life. She is still supposed to present a complete project when she does her mid-term exams. She actually flunked the last one: I guess that work-arounds didn't cut it. quote: As you should be able to read from my post you quoted, I also happen to think the route taken by Matrix – concentrating on Netplay – is totally wrong And here is the exact point where you "talked about rope in the house of someone who hanged himself". We are *still* debating about the best way to forge ahead with beta-testing after four years?! Really?! OK, fine. But, honestly, I would have more respect for a lot of people if every time arguments like "creativity" or "but MWIF implements the rules! you won't make the mistakes you do on the tabletop!" (yes, I'll only make the mistakes forced on me by bugs) were countered by a simple "please, at least let's not be ridiculous. Everyone." I didn't mean at all to blame you for this disa... farce, and I'm honestly sorry if you perceived that I did. I only wanted to point out how your sentence is simbolic of the Stockolm Syndrome-like acceptance that, yes, in 2013 Matrix sold v0.09 of a game like if it was v1.00, but... Yes, we can!! This is what I means with "pretending". It is indefensible. BTW, back in 2013 I didn't pay $150 to know what happened behind the scenes. I paid $150 to have a reasonabily working game (I never expected for MWIF to be without problems out of the gate). As of 2017, ironically, I actually got neither. Anyway, thank you too [:)] Friends again?

warspite1 -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (2/5/2017 3:01:28 PM)
I have no wish to fall out with you about this – particularly given we are actually of similar mind about the state of the game – so will only say this. Where we differ it seems is what happens now. The fact is the game is where it is – and while that does not make what has happened right, it does mean we each need to decide for ourselves what we do about it. This is not the first time I have been in this situation with a computer wargame. But whereas previously I have shrugged my shoulders, lamented the fact I didn’t wait for reviews, and put the loss of cash down to my own stupidity, I cannot do that with MWIF. Why? Well because I have no hope of playing the greatest game ever made (WIF) without (MWIF). So for that reason I stick with it and try and be positive (not always possible when confronting bloody convoys and production I know [:@]). In so doing there is no Stockholm Syndrome, there is no rope/hanging type situation and there is no pretence. Simply put, because the alternative is ‘don’t play WIF’, I have chosen to stick with it and make the best of a bad job instead of walking away. That works for me but I am not telling anyone else what they should do – with the exception that they should be complaining to the right people and not me [;)]. As you acknowledge, I wasn’t the one you were arguing with about creativity – but the fact is, when something is broken, sometimes a bit of creativity can get it working. That does not mean that having to rely on creativity is acceptable (not when one has forked out hard cash [:(]) but IF one wants to play the game then creativity IS sadly required at present. So as I say, I think we are on roughly the same page about the past, but the outlook for the game's future and what we each do about it looks like being different - and that's okay. Yes friends [:)]

juntoalmar -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (2/5/2017 7:43:35 PM)
We just finished a 4 player game with PBEM and Dropbox. No much creativity needed, actually. I have been enjoying this game for the last 3 years. It ain't finished but, as warspite said, is probably one of the best wargames ever (without doubt, the best I've played). The alternative to MWiF for me would be no playing at all. So, is the current situation as good as I wished? No Is it good enough to satisfy my wargaming needs? Hell, yeah. Do I try to convince anybody of this? Why should I? Should anybody try to convince me that this game is a disaster? Why should he?

AlbertN -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (2/5/2017 8:38:41 PM)
It seems I've been recently mentioned! Yes I still follow the forum (albeit not playing MWiF anymore for the time being - moved on with my pal to other games!). I fully agree the game should be polished and finished in its optional rules and what needs to be coded before to move to Netplay or the AI (and about the AI I feel it's pointless except for Guadalcanal / Barbarossa scenarios for singleplayer practice and learning the ropes. The game is too massive for the AI to even remotely handle it at any acceptable level otherwise). Presently AIs are simply executions of instructions written down. Not a real artificial intelligence (or at least if so - in the gaming industry. I do not know what AIs Pentagon's softwares may use). I still am not repented of having bought MWiF for it gave me many enjoyable hours of gameplay with a friend (and who knows maybe somewhen I'll play with another folk who is around here in the forums!), has a strong historical vibe and development curve, but mostly you see players cursing when that almost certain fight that you'd have bagged ends up in tragedy rolling the fateful 14 on Assault Table, or when that pesky naval bomber you have a +6 with in air to air combat rolls a dreaded 20 and obliterates your best fighter in the region.

davidachamberlain -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (2/5/2017 10:09:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 [In reply to RFlavo69] Okay. Well that is a strange post isn’t it? I mean not some of the content, but who it is addressed to and the manner in which it put. You say comms from Matrix last appeared in 2015. But you choose to direct your comments at me.... Might I suggest, that when venting your frustrations, you would be better placed directing them to the right people. Thanks for that. I as one of the more recent purchasers of MWIF (and the instigator for 3 others) do understand that Matrix is still responsible for making this into a successful game. I (also) am a little disappointed at where the game is at today, but am also realistic into just how complicated that game is, having played the cardboard and paper version. As someone who has a greater appreciation for the technology under the covers, I have an even greater sense regarding the complexities that will be involved in producing the AI for this game. Certainly, I would just love for a computer opponent that could play as well as I could play (not meaning to over-exaggerate my own abilities), but rather to consider the extensive gap into what a computer would require to follow as many variables as a human can follow. I think those who have a major complaint about the lack of AI forget about the fact that computers look at decisions through a tiny hole where humans can look at things holistically. Most of these games with AI have a handful of character or units in play at a time. In a WIF game, that increases quickly to hundreds and can become thousands. I have trouble imagining without developing a serious limitation or a simplistic pattern how it could make the kind of strategic decisions required to be an effective (and useful) opponent. I also greatly appreciate the fact that Matrix has not given up on this after 4 years. If it was my business, I am not sure if I would been able to give it the same chance. There are costs (that are not insignificant) to keeping Steve on this. I am also quite sure that this project has probably also held back Steve from many interesting or career enhancing opportunities. I do see some light at the end of the tunnel. Though there are defects being identified (and mostly getting resolved), the game appears now to be closer to a genuine production release than it has been for quite some time. I am really looking forward to seeing that 3.0 version and then seeing the backlog of enhancements for scenario and optional rules start to see some progress. Unlike some, I have some real enthusiasm for seeing progress on Netplay. I would like to be able to do more than a work around on the multiplayer version of this game. Hopefully by dragging in a total of 4 (including myself) players into buying the game and playing it while working around the bugs, it helps give the game the financial boost it needs to keep (or possibly increase) the attention required to get it done. Dave

RFalvo69 -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (2/6/2017 2:36:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: davidachamberlain Unlike some, I have some real enthusiasm for seeing progress on Netplay. I would like to be able to do more than a work around on the multiplayer version of this game. Hopefully by dragging in a total of 4 (including myself) players into buying the game and playing it while working around the bugs, it helps give the game the financial boost it needs to keep (or possibly increase) the attention required to get it done. IMHO, not now but down the road (when Netplay will work reasonably well, and a good number of missing scenarios/optional rules are finally implemented] Matrix should find a way to "relaunch the game" and give it the visibility it had in 2013. I'm not a marketing expert, and I don't think that "MWIF finally works!" would be a good relaunch. But... dunno... maybe some sort of tournament via Netplay? With mandatory optional rules which, as of now, are still not implemented? That could be a way to show that, yes, this very, very good wargame finally works. What I fear, and sorry if my cinism rears his ugly head again, is that Matrix, by now, got back all the money she could coinceavibily get - and what we are left with is Steve's integrity.

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (2/6/2017 3:04:00 PM)
quote: maybe some sort of tournament via Netplay? This would be great!

Dabrion -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (9/12/2017 10:54:55 AM)
Matrix should drop the license ..

Numdydar -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (9/19/2017 2:03:47 PM)
And then what? Abandon the game entirely? Do you actually think ADG would continue development in house? Do you know of anyone else that would pick this up and finish development? Personally, I'd much rather have someone working on a computer version (regardless of how slow) than not of WiF. As that is the only way I will ever play the game. I am not a fan of Vassel or other ways to play. So for me it is MWiF or nothing. So I really do not understand your comment above. But that is ok as I tend to not understand a lot these days lol.

Dabrion -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (9/19/2017 3:34:55 PM)
I don't think ADG could develop the computer game. They don't have that kind of expertise, that is why they gave it to Matrix. Turns out Matrix doesn't have that expertise either. Matrix poop resting on the license only ensures that the only thing happening is the damage control and tinkering we saw over the last decade. My personal opinion is that is should be in the public domain; business interest don't help a project of this magnitude, that only has a small, enthusiast customer base.

Numdydar -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (9/19/2017 11:35:16 PM)
Interesting. There is a big discussion over on the War in the Pacific AE forum about trying to make an AE 2.0 that way. So far there are no one with the necessary programming skills willing to step up and commit for the time needed to do that. So I do not see putting Wif in the public domain faring much better. At least with MWiF we do have someone that has the programming skills to at least get us this far. To me it seems non-productive (and take a lot longer) to switch this effort over to a public effort. Maybe there is a bunch of programmers willing to work for free (which is what public domain means to me) to complete this task. But I have not seen any willing to step up on this (or other forums). I mean that the original code was pretty much abandoned (CWiF). So between then and when Steve picked up the effort, any number of people could have asked ADG to allow them to take up the banner. As far as I know no one did that. What did I miss in your desire to put this in the public domain? I just can't see how that would be any better than what we have now. Are you offering to take over the programming effort? Or are you just interested in seeing the code yourself and modding the game as you desire? I do hope at some point we can mod the game to our own tastes. But putting in the pubic domain is not the way (imho) to get that done. As any further game development will come to a complete halt. Or to be so slow as to make current progress fast as lighting [:)]

paulderynck -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (9/20/2017 2:23:38 AM)
Go here: http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Module:World_in_Flames ...and scan about halfway down the page and stop when you see the box outlined in red. There you will experience an attempt to do something better in the public domain (which is what Vassal is) and you can see how well that turned out.

Dabrion -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (9/20/2017 9:01:29 AM)
If a public domain project was to come into existence, it cannot be base on an 15+ years obsolet technology. Therefor the capital of MWiF is not the code base but the conceptual legwork. The code base has to be completely recreated in a contemporary, future-proof and accessible framework; Unity being a strong candidate. I believe the same applies to AE. Paul is trying to say that abandoned his involvement in the Vassal gamebox for World in Flames. Apparently he thinks that is on par with game development.

davidachamberlain -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (9/20/2017 2:44:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dabrion If a public domain project was to come into existence, it cannot be base on an 15+ years obsolet technology. Therefor the capital of MWiF is not the code base but the conceptual legwork. The code base has to be completely recreated in a contemporary, future-proof and accessible framework; Unity being a strong candidate. I believe the same applies to AE. Paul is trying to say that abandoned his involvement in the Vassal gamebox for World in Flames. Apparently he thinks that is on par with game development. I think that the point trying to be made is that this type of product is much too big for an open source offering. Those who would be most interested in participating would be those who play the game and have the skills and experience to do the work. The time that people would have (who already have full time jobs) would be less than 20 hours per week. I would expect that the number of people who fit both of those criteria you could count on one hand, which is definitely not enough. A project like that would involve many thousand hours of effort. Doing the math, I can not imagine enough effort being available and coordinated to complete that project within many years. A serious open source project will usually be undertaken by a company with considerable resources available for profit, which they will get from consulting, customization, integration, and support, even when there are no license fees involved. It would be very naïve to expect that a project with this scope would ever attract enough manpower to be able to be completed in any reasonable amount of time. Dave

pzgndr -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (9/20/2017 3:46:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: davidachamberlain It would be very naïve to expect that a project with this scope would ever attract enough manpower to be able to be completed in any reasonable amount of time. I am reminded of a Dilbert cartoon where the boss is told the project will need 500 man-hours. So the boss assembles 500 engineers in the auditorium and tells them they have an hour to finish the project. As if that's going to happen. [8\|]

Dabrion -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (9/20/2017 4:03:05 PM)
Dave, you lack the imagination of what can be done and how, that is entirely your fault ofc.

davidachamberlain -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (9/20/2017 6:35:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dabrion Dave, you lack the imagination of what can be done and how, that is entirely your fault ofc. No, I understand VERY realistically. I have led more complicated projects with teams of well paid professionals. I have also led teams of volunteers. I have a very good idea of what and how and this does not fit into something that can be done quickly enough with a team of volunteers using any open source technology. One can certainly hope and dream, but it would not come any closer to reality. I suggest that if you seriously believe it can happen that you take the lead and recruit what I would suggest as a team of 20 or so people to make it happen, but you would still be surprised at how long it would take. Dave

davidachamberlain -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (9/20/2017 6:36:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pzgndr I am reminded of a Dilbert cartoon where the boss is told the project will need 500 man-hours. So the boss assembles 500 engineers in the auditorium and tells them they have an hour to finish the project. As if that's going to happen. [8\|] Unfortunately, it is more of the reverse. It would more likely involve 2 people working for about 25 years. Dave

Dabrion -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (9/20/2017 7:57:53 PM)
I have been part of open-source projects since the 90's. I guess we can just agree to disagree. p.s.: Meanwhile, why don't direct your demands for more developer positions at Matrix? That would balance out your brown-noser image a bit ;)

davidachamberlain -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (9/20/2017 8:16:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dabrion I have been part of open-source projects since the 90's. I guess we can just agree to disagree. p.s.: Meanwhile, why don't direct your demands for more developer positions at Matrix? That would balance out your brown-noser image a bit ;) Again, I am realistic. At this point, Steve is all that is going to get assigned to this and unfortunately, that is as good as it is going to get. That could also end. Coming back to my suggestion, if you can do it, why don't you rally some resources to do it. MWIF is a pretty large and complex product. Based on what I see, I don't expect that enough people will be interested to be able to do the work in time that anyone would accept. What is there today is as good as it gets. Dave

brian brian -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (9/21/2017 1:50:25 AM)
It all just is what it is, in my opinion. If you want to play World in Flames electronically and can keep track of the rules yourself, this is easy to do. If you want to play World in Flames electronically and have some software assist with rules enforcement, this is mostly easy to do via the MWiF product. It's not "all the way" there yet but it continues to get closer, all the time. Steve is advancing the World in Flames hobby quite a bit through this labor of love type project, because MWiF introduces new players to the game, and we all need that. In a world of video gaming, our small hobby of hexagonal maps and turns is just that - small. Unless one of us WiF players wins the Lottery and can't figure out what to do with the prize money, there will only be Steve, moving the ball down the field, slowly but surely, the best that he can. Is there another way? I don't know. Although I love World in Flames and can't wait to play the newest iteration in another 3-4 months, I also don't see the point of continuing to shoe-horn the playability compromises necessary to play wargames on paper into a computer where most of those playability compromises could be designed away through the power of computing technology. It's not quite as silly of an idea as programming Advanced Squad Leader when gamers are already experiencing being a squad leader in real-time multi-player shooter games. But I think this is what the idea of liberating MWiF out into an Open Source community project would run into: Why? Why invest in re-creating the gaming design techniques of 30 years ago? Harry's design is a brilliant simulation of the constraints and decision making process of a Commander-in-Chief of a war machine made up of millions of human beings. I hope someone can talk him into writing a new, computer based version of his design with total Fog of War, operational planning, attritional losses, computer adjudicated logistics, simultaneous movement (so the IJN can invade Pearl while the Pacific Fleet is trying to invade Truk), and in general, the classic "limits" you experience when playing World in Flames - so you can't just order your aircraft designers to design only Spitfires and never fail with the Defiant, nor can you keep your regime in place by denying your oldest pal Goering's demands to create Luftwaffe field divisions while Manstein is screaming for trained infantry replacements. I have never wanted to play WiTP when it wants to show me how many artillery tubes a division of infantry is toting around. And this is Harry's brilliance - editing gamers eventual desire for more detail, detail, detail until the game is so much simulation no one can play it any more. I really hope publication of Collector's Edition frees him to move the game forward electronically by truly harnessing what software could do for it.

paulderynck -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (9/21/2017 2:32:19 AM)
An excellent Requirements Document for Dabrion to take to his stable of open source developers who are chomping at the bit to take this on.

RFalvo69 -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (9/21/2017 1:28:20 PM)
I can only repeat what I already said on these fora: WitP (and the AE successor) enjoyed the feedback coming from thousands of hours of people playing FtF. Go on the AE fora and you will find words like "Opening" or "Midgame": AE was (and is) played so intensively and extensively that people are using terms usually seen in chess. From all these thousand of hours of gaming, with people straining the AE engine to the maximum, came both the discovery of bugs and project like the revered "improve and fix" managed by michaelm. This is why I always stressed the importance to fix Netplay and let the people challenge each other before anything else: bugs and problems are discovered when an engine is strained to the maximum by two people trying to outdo each other by, often, thinking out of the loop - not when a stray gamer stumbles into a bug because he tried something new "just to see" while playing solitaire. When I bought this game I had two daughters in high school, and my hair was black. Now I have a daughter studying Fashion and another studying Languages (English and French) - both living in Milan; and there is the first hint of gray in my hair. But, who cares? Matrix's World in Flames is a "beloved" game (Matrix's front page said so) and, I read here, "a labor of love". So, in November 2013 I paid $150, but after four years I'm seeing the dividends: surrounded by love. And this is what matters. Isn't it?

Courtenay -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (9/21/2017 4:14:38 PM)
My understanding is that MWiF is written in some variant of Pascal. If it were C++ I would volunteer to help code, but the last Pascal programming I did was over thirty years ago.

juntoalmar -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (9/21/2017 8:04:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Courtenay My understanding is that MWiF is written in some variant of Pascal. If it were C++ I would volunteer to help code, but the last Pascal programming I did was over thirty years ago. I believe is written in Delphi (and object oriented version of Pascal). I don't think getting to know the language itself is the difficult part (you get used to syntax quick) but knowing the data structures used in the game and algorithms.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (9/22/2017 7:56:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dabrion I have been part of open-source projects since the 90's. I guess we can just agree to disagree. p.s.: Meanwhile, why don't direct your demands for more developer positions at Matrix? That would balance out your brown-noser image a bit ;) Hmmm. How many lines of code in the largest of those open-source projects? MWIF just recently passed 703,000 lines of Delphi/Pascal source code in 423 modules.

juntoalmar -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (9/23/2017 6:00:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: davidachamberlain quote: ORIGINAL: pzgndr I am reminded of a Dilbert cartoon where the boss is told the project will need 500 man-hours. So the boss assembles 500 engineers in the auditorium and tells them they have an hour to finish the project. As if that's going to happen. [8\|] Unfortunately, it is more of the reverse. It would more likely involve 2 people working for about 25 years. Dave In software development we have a saying: "to finish the project, it will take one programmer working 1 month, or two programmers working 2 months." Or as Napoleon said once: "please give me one bad general instead of two good generals".

Arglebargle -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (10/11/2017 8:28:47 AM)
Sorry I can add links to my post but this is from openhub net Linux Kernel: 17M sloc Git: 400k sloc Mozilla Firefox: 18M sloc KDE: 58M sloc Debian: 81M sloc

Arglebargle -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (10/11/2017 8:42:29 AM)
quote: In software development we have a saying: "to finish the project, it will take one programmer working 1 month, or two programmers working 2 months." I have never heard that saying and I don't agree with it either. If you would have said 1 hour would take 2 hours for 2 programmers sure but on the other hand then programmers aren't that good. The smart option in that case would be for 1 programmers to solve the problem and for the other one to take a 1 hour coffee break ...

BrianJH -> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 (10/11/2017 11:39:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets MWIF just recently passed 703,000 lines of Delphi/Pascal source code in 423 modules. Good grief! - How long does it take to compile all of that code?

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.108398