RE: 1.3 update? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

tanker4145 -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 7:15:14 PM)

All I can say is thanks for the support, I wish other companies practiced it. That's why I'm not worried about buying a Matrix game on the first day, even one as complex as WITP. Even if a game isn't fully playable at first (which I haven't experienced yet from Matrix, and I have bought 3 games, not counting SPWAW), I know they will continue to support it. Yes, I hate having to restart, but it's worth it for all the good stuff they put in the patches. Plus I see myself playing this games for a few years at least via PBEM so if I have to restart a campaign now in order to have all my future games be even better, fine with me.



MadmanRick -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 7:17:26 PM)

quote:

Many games of much less complexity have ended up released in an unplayable, bug-ridden state, which was not the case with WitP.


Can anyone say Patriot by Three Sixty Pacific??? (still have THAT unplayable dog around here someplace)

I personally do not expect a game to be issued totally bug-free, I understand that a company (in this case Matrix) must balance development time versus bottom line. However, I do EXPECT a company to address at least the major bugs and to support the product for a reasonable period of time. In this respect I am quite happy with Matrix/2x3. I held off purchasing UV due to the issues that were present upon its' release, however once I purchased the game I was actually pleasantly surprised. This positive experience convinced me to purchase WitP upon release and so far I am happy with the product overall. Sure I have issues with bugs, design decisions etc., however I have not run into anything that was a "dealbreaker" for me. I am a tad disappointed that I'll have to restart my PBEM game, but again this is a momentary annoyance to me. I still believe that my $70 was well spent and I look forward to UV-Med or whatever it is they are calling it now!

Rick



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 7:21:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Calm down and let the betas and devs do their work in (relative) peace.

Oleg


Jeez....where from "I confess my dissapointment" does everyone seem to get "I hate WiTP and I am really freaking mad and blah blah blah blah". I was slightly disappointed in having to restart after 1.2, but no worries. But I was under the impression (and really really hoping) that that would be the only patch required restart. Is it annoying? Yes. But is it a game killer for me? No, not really.

When I used the word "buggy", it is because I at the time (I have a terrible head cold) couldn't think of a more suiting word. I do think WiTP is a great game. My only (small) beef is that I wanted to be able to blay the whole enchilada (and get my ass kicked) from day 1. Hence, I was saying that knowing what I know now, I might (but doubtfuly) have bought the game after 1.3, not 2 hours after it was posted on Digital River. Still,Witp is the best wargame I have ever played, bar none. Except Panzer General, there is a special place in my heart for Panzer General.


Its the George W. Bush syndrome...."if you are not 100% with me, you are against me" thing. I have been significantly critical of many aspects of this game, and I still am, and will still have some problems even after the 1.3 patch is out. That DOES NOT mean, however, I dislike the game or do not find it thoroughly entertaining. Some people allow their emotional attachment to a game to dominate their common sense....



DrewMatrix -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 7:33:57 PM)

quote:

That DOES NOT mean, however, I dislike the game or do not find it thoroughly entertaining.


You could have foolled me. It may be a problem in the "articulate/inarticulate" area of discourse.



strawbuk -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 7:36:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

You could have foolled me. It may be a problem in the "articulate/inarticulate" area of discourse.


[sm=00000734.gif]

That smiley is working hard for me today..



Erik Rutins -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 7:37:06 PM)

Chaplain,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaplain
First of all, thanks for the wonderful support for your product. As a 30-yr wargamer, I say without reservation that WitP is the finest wargame ever produced. Just outstanding.


Thank you, the pats on the back are always good for a few more games. [;)]

quote:

I am a little troubled by the apparent decision int he 1.3 patch to go with a less realistic, more 'fun' approach to gunnery. I agree with and prefer your prior design decision - letting gunfire focus on a few targets as a means to enhance realism. In the future, let me plead with you to prefer realism to pragmatism in future patches. WitP - as you know - is a grognard product, and we love complexity/realism.


Give 1.3 a try once it's out and let us know what you think. If there is a consensus that we went too far, it can always be fine tuned a bit down the line. Our goal was not to end up with an unrealistic model, but rather to improve the realism of the daylight surface combat model.

Regards,

- Erik



siRkid -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 7:57:40 PM)

Sometimes I feel like I'm writing the United States Foreign Policy speech for the President and every word has to be scrutinized before putting down on paper. You guys kill me. [;)]

"HEY! Can't you see its broke! Fix it! FIX IT NOW!"

Ok I'll fix it.

"Hey what the HeII are you doing changing that? It was never broke in the first place! Change it back. CHANGE IT BACK NOW!"

Don't worry we would never change the model so much as to make it unrealistic. However, as you can see from this thread, not everyone can agree on what the perfect model is so we tinker with the ones that draw the most fire.



Central Blue -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 8:04:35 PM)

Kid...

keep up the good work.

I always look forward to patches on the games I'm playing. It was a sad day when Talonsoft stopped work on TOAW.

Seems like there were tons for PacWar. That came out so long ago I must have got the updates from BBS's or Compuserve.



Mr.Frag -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 8:09:45 PM)

quote:

Compuserve


Oh god, don't go there ... #6.50 US an hour at 300 baud! [:(]

Sometimes I wonder how we survived back then.



Tankerace -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 8:37:17 PM)

Personally, I can't wait for the 1.3 patch. The new surface combat model will greatly improve the realism of daylight combat. Not to mention that it suits the War Plan Orange project very well. We may yet see a Jutland in the Pacific, no?



Tristanjohn -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 8:39:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Compuserve


Oh god, don't go there ... #6.50 US an hour at 300 baud! [:(]

Sometimes I wonder how we survived back then.


Everything was that much smaller . . . including our expectations. Except for the quality of our wargames, of course. [:)]



strawbuk -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 8:53:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Compuserve


Oh god, don't go there ... #6.50 US an hour at 300 baud! [:(]

Sometimes I wonder how we survived back then.


Better cause you would only get 300 baud of (delete as you wish;) Mog/Frag/Zoomie/TJ/mdiehl



Black Cat -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 8:57:42 PM)

The Matrix team will not like this but combining a major Bug Fix patch with a major Enhancement patch is a HUGE mistake you and they will regret.

While the Grand Strategic Model is damm good, Matrix does not have a good record in modeling the Tactical Model in UV or this Game, that is the Bombardment, Invasions, Surface Combat, Sub/ASW, Carrier strikes, LBA Strikes, Ground Combat, etc. where the enhancement fixs are going.

It is a real act of Faith over Experience to think this time they will get it either right, or even reasonably acceptable to most experienced players.

The net result can and probably will be that to play the Game without major bugs, you need a Patch that alters the non bugged part of the Game, perhaps not well, or even better then the past non-enhanced version.

Game publisher that have gone down this road in the past, thinking it`s a time/work saver, from SSI to 360 Pacific to Atomic Games to Firaxis to Breakaway and all have regreted it, ( because it created more problems then it solved ) and their end users, the Gamers more so.

This whole approach makes me so Sad.[:(]



dr. smith -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 9:14:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

"HEY! Can't you see its broke! Fix it! FIX IT NOW!"

Ok I'll fix it.

"Hey what the HeII are you doing changing that? It was never broke in the first place! Change it back. CHANGE IT BACK NOW!"



It'sa tough, but every once in awhile, you should just say "NOT a Bug, working as Intended". I know y'all like listening and heeding advice from your fans, but sometimes we're just plain wrong and need to be told it.

Remember:
Kid still rocks.



Theng -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 9:23:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

Sometimes I feel like I'm writing the United States Foreign Policy speech for the President and every word has to be scrutinized before putting down on paper. You guys kill me. [;)]



Kid,

it ain't that bad, once you get quoted by the real press/radio/TV it gets really funny. This is nothing. Some people and companies are getting really touchy when they don't like what you said. I can send you some stuff if you care for it where I got some people really pissed off.



dday -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 9:53:25 PM)

mmmm keep up the good works, can't wait till 1.30 .................. mmmm 20 years pasted, ok here's your newest patch 1.0 <sign>
quote:

"HEY! Can't you see its broke! Fix it! FIX IT NOW!"

Ok I'll fix it.

"Hey what the HeII are you doing changing that? It was never broke in the first place! Change it back. CHANGE IT BACK NOW!"
[:D]



esteban -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 10:12:11 PM)

Well, as far as I can see, the devs are addressing most of the obvious bugs. It would be really nice if they could fix the convoy loading system and algorithms. I bet that would lower the time it takes to run off the average turn by 10% or so.

The big deal for me will be figuring out what is causing pilot replacements to continue to drain, (not really a bug issue, I think it has other causes), the OOB issues and the 32K + altitude bombing bug and the Aussie map. We'll see what happens with those.



Oliver Heindorf -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 10:22:29 PM)

thnx for the updates erik.



PeteG662 -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 10:25:10 PM)

Looks like the most popular thread today.....anxious people out there awaiting their next download? LOL



Ron Saueracker -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 11:21:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Personally, I can't wait for the 1.3 patch. The new surface combat model will greatly improve the realism of daylight combat. Not to mention that it suits the War Plan Orange project very well. We may yet see a Jutland in the Pacific, no?


I'm still concerned about the sighted/unsighted feature primarily. Should be more ship type specific and if large numbers of same class vessels are involved, the sighted/unsighted should apply to divisions of them. Right now itis entirely random and each ship is regarded as individual formations, when in fact they most likely would be operating closely. At least that's how it comes across.



Tankerace -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 11:33:15 PM)

True. But from what I hear its a step in the right direction.



Nikademus -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 11:35:08 PM)

Tests run have shown a marked improvement in daylight surface combat between a balanced surface TF and an undefended/under-defended transport TF.

Night-time combat is still being discussed. Two scenerios have essentially been identified to clarify the various opinions. A transport TF caught at night in open waters, a situation which best matches the current model right now, but there is also a situation where either an anchored (and unloading/loading) transport TF in restricted waters (or Port) gets caught by a surface force. Such a force would be by definition much more vulnerable to attack.



RevRick -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/29/2004 11:52:21 PM)

quote:

Oh god, don't go there ... #6.50 US an hour at 300 baud!

Sometimes I wonder how we survived back then.


My heart bleeds. [:D] Try communicating by teletype at 100 baud, and back then, that was positively up town. What we have now - well, it's like comparing the Santa Maria to NCC-1701E[sm=00000116.gif]



UncleBuck -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/30/2004 12:09:31 AM)

*********THE SWIFT BROWN FOX JUMPED OVER THE LAZY DOG.*******1234567890

*********THE SWIFT BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG.********1234567890

TEST COMPLETE*******

11111111112222222222333333333344444444445555555555666666666677777777778888888888999999999990000000000000


UB



DrewMatrix -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/30/2004 12:10:12 AM)

quote:

Try communicating by teletype at 100 baud


Why you young whippersnapper. In my day we would have LOVED to have teletype. You had to box up your program, and give them to one of the slaves that the Emperor used as couriers. Then that slave would jog down the road from waystation to waystaion to the far ends of the Roman Empire delivering our programs.

The real problem was that the programs were written with a stylus on wax tablets. So any tablets we sent by runner to the eastern Provinces (Palestine or Syria) generally had the wax run before the scribes over there could transfer the date to their abacuses.

HA Teletype! If only!



tsimmonds -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/30/2004 12:27:30 AM)

Ha! You're lucky. We had to use sea shells to carve runes into sandstone tablets (those things could really eat up a key-punch machine, don't even think about what they did to a card reader). A good sized program would weigh around ten thousand, er, stone.[8|]



Mr.Frag -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/30/2004 12:30:19 AM)

What next? using blood from animals to mark the message on the cave walls? [:D]



DrewMatrix -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/30/2004 12:38:26 AM)

quote:

using blood from animals to mark the message on the cave walls


See, I new it. Mr, Frag is older than any of us!



drw61 -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/30/2004 1:28:58 AM)

Just think, 20 years from now we will be complaining about how slow our old systems from the “Turn of the Century” were![:D] (Remember the TRS80s????)



mogami -> RE: 1.3 update? (9/30/2004 1:45:07 AM)

Hi, (Sigh) The Old Maastrichtian Mk-I had 1 grain of sand for CPU. Everyone was quite excited when the Campanian 3 Laptop was invented. (you placed the sand in your lap)
When the Sentonian 86 came out we could finally calculate beyond 1. (but it took a while)
My first Coniacian ZX-5 blew up before I could use it. A strong wind blew the sand away.
The fist tower was the Turonian BH9 It used a hollow piece of wood to protect the sand. You could link several together by laying on top of one another but it didn't make it any faster or able to count calculate any higher but it was handy for starting camp fires.

Did I ever tell you about my Cenomanian 3000. It was locked up for 3 years before I realized it. It was swallowed by a dinosaur after that and the first floppy was invented soon after. ................................................



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.03125