RE: Clarification of future development plans (Full Version)

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



Message

tigercub -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (12/3/2004 12:14:07 PM)

Joel Billings

Thankyou for clearing things up for me I was feeling like i was dumped by my girlfriend persay...lol



denisonh -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (12/4/2004 4:05:03 AM)

Thanks Joel.



Sonny -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (12/4/2004 5:09:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Did you know, Mr.Frag, that Paradox is no longer using Strategy First as their distributor?


Yep, I know ... we'll see how their forum reads with HoI2 comes out ...


HoI2 will be much better than the original.

There will be those who think it is the best thing since EU II and there will be those who think it sucks. Those who think it is a great game and those who think it is a horrible simulation. Those who enjoy the what-if aspect of the game and those just can't bring themselves to play it because their favorite tank is not simulated correctly.

But if you look at the screenshots released you can see it is a better game than HoI. Screenshots can't tell the story when it comes to performance but CK is a relatively stable game and Victoria is an extremely stable game - no reason to believe HoI2 won't be at least as stable as those two.

Rush out to buy it soon as it hits the shelves? Well, there are those who will wait until they think it is a playable game and then there are those (like me) who enjoy playing the game during the patching period (like I did with WitP).



denisonh -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (12/4/2004 5:20:02 AM)

You mean like you are DOING with WitP.[:D]

I fiddled with Victoria, but do not have the time any more to devote to more than one WitP PBEM and one ongoing UV PBEM.

Is Victoria any better with the latest patch?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Did you know, Mr.Frag, that Paradox is no longer using Strategy First as their distributor?


Yep, I know ... we'll see how their forum reads with HoI2 comes out ...


HoI2 will be much better than the original.

There will be those who think it is the best thing since EU II and there will be those who think it sucks. Those who think it is a great game and those who think it is a horrible simulation. Those who enjoy the what-if aspect of the game and those just can't bring themselves to play it because their favorite tank is not simulated correctly.

But if you look at the screenshots released you can see it is a better game than HoI. Screenshots can't tell the story when it comes to performance but CK is a relatively stable game and Victoria is an extremely stable game - no reason to believe HoI2 won't be at least as stable as those two.

Rush out to buy it soon as it hits the shelves? Well, there are those who will wait until they think it is a playable game and then there are those (like me) who enjoy playing the game during the patching period (like I did with WitP).



Sonny -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (12/4/2004 5:39:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

You mean like you are DOING with WitP.[:D]

I fiddled with Victoria, but do not have the time any more to devote to more than one WitP PBEM and one ongoing UV PBEM.

Is Victoria any better with the latest patch?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Did you know, Mr.Frag, that Paradox is no longer using Strategy First as their distributor?


Yep, I know ... we'll see how their forum reads with HoI2 comes out ...


HoI2 will be much better than the original.

There will be those who think it is the best thing since EU II and there will be those who think it sucks. Those who think it is a great game and those who think it is a horrible simulation. Those who enjoy the what-if aspect of the game and those just can't bring themselves to play it because their favorite tank is not simulated correctly.

But if you look at the screenshots released you can see it is a better game than HoI. Screenshots can't tell the story when it comes to performance but CK is a relatively stable game and Victoria is an extremely stable game - no reason to believe HoI2 won't be at least as stable as those two.

Rush out to buy it soon as it hits the shelves? Well, there are those who will wait until they think it is a playable game and then there are those (like me) who enjoy playing the game during the patching period (like I did with WitP).



I haven't played it since WitP came out.



509th Bob -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (12/4/2004 6:01:32 AM)

Dear Mr. Billings [&o]

I have waited for YEARS for this game to arrive (I seem recall projections for year 2000 arrivals), and I truly appreciate your (and everyone else's) work in bringing this game to life. Sure, there are bugs, but this gaming community will survive. It is the "grognard" level community. We may have "issues," but let's face it, we are just plain obsessed and "wierd." That is the strength that drives many of us (even the much-reviled "Hirohito") to do what we do in real life. Just keep improving the game until you can't, then turn it over to the community to fix or improve the product. Some of that is already happening (see the mods). The Steel Panthers outgrowth series of games is a perfect illustration of this phenomena (and I -do- understand the legal issues involved) of what can happen when the gamers add life to a game that will live on well beyond the original scope or concept of the creator [the computer world -bows- to Gary Grigsby [&o]]. Of course, THIS game is an outgrowth of PACWAR, so the creator saw that it was GOOD, and on the second day He (and all those involved) created WiTP. We (the community) just want Wednesday, and then Thursday, etc., to show up.

Just remember, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!! Your name might be forgotten in the future annals of history, but your work will not be.



fbastos -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (12/4/2004 7:53:44 AM)

quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos

I gotta give, all programs have bugs.

Even Pacman had an infamous bug.

Do you guys know what was that bug? You had to work really hard to see it... :)

F.


You mean this one?

Pac Man Cheats


Aye, the infamous lockup screen on Pac Man.

That is in fact a humbling lesson; the only thing the player can do is to move the joystick in one of 4 directions.

Still, the players find some way to break the game by doing something unexpected... :)

F.



MadmanRick -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (12/4/2004 8:04:08 AM)

Joel,
I apologize in advance if this has been asked and answered elsewhere, but I am curious is the UVMed (or whatever it was to be called) officially dead? I for one, would be HIGHLY interested in this title, especially if it were to incorporate all of the lessons learned from UV/WitP. Thanks,

Rick



dtravel -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (12/4/2004 8:23:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

You mean like you are DOING with WitP.[:D]

I fiddled with Victoria, but do not have the time any more to devote to more than one WitP PBEM and one ongoing UV PBEM.

Is Victoria any better with the latest patch?



Define "better". [:D] I'm a big fan of EU2 and VIC. Was a fan of HOI until that latest patches started screwing around with some of the basics, trying to add new features that the engine wasn't really balanced to handle (IMHO). VIC has been pretty stable, I've never had any crashes or serious problems. The one big issue that I recall (haven't played it for a while) was a bug in a calculation. There was a long discussion about it and it was actually a player who pinpointed exactly what the problem was. In my experience, Paradox has been one of the better companies in regards to QC, both in terms of number of problems existing upon release and how quickly they deal with the ones that do.



bradfordkay -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (12/5/2004 8:23:08 AM)

Joel, thanks for the info. You have always been above board with us on the forum, and it is greatly appreciated.

I think that your decision is sound, but I worry that you might give up on income from this masterpiece too early. I'm not begging for more work on the game, I'm very happy with it as is (but will happily accept any updates). I'm talking about giving away the code of a game that I believe will have a fairly long shelf life.

Have you thought about allowing the code to be used, as long as those using the further developements have a legitimate 2by3/MAtrix purchased copy of WITP? I don't know if the legalities would be too difficult, or the coding, but I'd like to see you guys get all the income you possibly can from your work.



fbastos -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (12/5/2004 11:03:27 PM)

Within the "future plans" idea, it ocurred to me... Mike Wood is also the main programmer for Squad Leader - Cross of Iron, and it seems that World at War took precedence over that game too.

I'm beginning to dislike World at War, as it is taking an invaluable resource out of WiTP and Cross of Iron, which are the two games I liked the most through my lifetime.

F.

PS: Hmm.. I lie; there was a very very old game called "Starflight", which I absolutely loved. It was a marvel with about 1,000 planets, beautiful graphics (for its time) and a strong, complex story that used only two 360K floppies.



tsimmonds -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (12/29/2004 5:18:52 PM)

I wish we still had a Wish List. Is the fact that we don't significant in some way?

If we did have a wish list, I would wish that I could put ships on hold regardless of the fact that they had not yet started started burning shipbuilding points. I know from Day One which ships I want to build and which ones I do not; it's irksome to have to remember to go into the Ship Availability List on the proper day to halt the losers one by one....



fbastos -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (12/30/2004 6:59:15 AM)

quote:

I wish we still had a Wish List.


Be happy: you have a wish list with one item on it - that there should be a Wish List.

F.



SpitfireIX -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/5/2005 6:33:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos


PS: Hmm.. I lie; there was a very very old game called "Starflight", which I absolutely loved. It was a marvel with about 1,000 planets, beautiful graphics (for its time) and a strong, complex story that used only two 360K floppies.


Wow--I would have bet money that I was the only one who remembered Starflight. I have to say I liked the sequel, Starflight II, even better.



fbastos -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/6/2005 2:38:14 AM)

quote:


Wow--I would have bet money that I was the only one who remembered Starflight. I have to say I liked the sequel, Starflight II, even better.


Didn't like Starflight II; it would run too fast on my engineering marvel, a 386SX with 4 MB of RAM. 16 MHz, I think, but might be wrong.

Oh, and did I say VGA graphics? Wow, that was really incredible!

F.



SpitfireIX -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/6/2005 4:24:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos

quote:


Wow--I would have bet money that I was the only one who remembered Starflight. I have to say I liked the sequel, Starflight II, even better.


Didn't like Starflight II; it would run too fast on my engineering marvel, a 386SX with 4 MB of RAM. 16 MHz, I think, but might be wrong.

Oh, and did I say VGA graphics? Wow, that was really incredible!

F.


I played SFII on a 386SX--I can't remember the processor speed. That was the 3rd computer I ever owned.



Rossj -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/11/2005 12:02:52 AM)

I understand the situation, but it might be possible to do both (1-improve the game and 2-make money to pay salaries).

1) Identify and fix the top three bugs and stop the patch process. There are a few annoying bugs (top on my list is the base changing ownership...Changsa, et. al.) that should be fixed. A BIGGER ISSUE to me is the A.I. (it's too easy to surround units during ground campaigns and piecemeal convoys/units invading strongholds with no chance of success.

2) Start work on WITP-2 and sell it to WITP owners at a discount and to new players at an appropriate price. All the lessons learned, new features and bug removal can be accomplished.



ancient doctor -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (2/4/2005 5:06:28 PM)

Maybe more realistic combat casualties especially in bombardment attacks(in some AARs the numbers of dead are very very low for the number of guns involved) or whatever you can think that will make ground combat more "logical" and generally better?



ilovestrategy -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (7/3/2005 6:01:33 AM)

I've played a lot of games in my time and I have to say Matrix is waaaaay up there in taking care of it's products and customers. So this is what I have to say"Good Job Matrix!" [sm=00000436.gif]



ilovestrategy -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (7/3/2005 6:02:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos


PS: Hmm.. I lie; there was a very very old game called "Starflight", which I absolutely loved. It was a marvel with about 1,000 planets, beautiful graphics (for its time) and a strong, complex story that used only two 360K floppies.


Wow--I would have bet money that I was the only one who remembered Starflight. I have to say I liked the sequel, Starflight II, even better.

I loved starflight, that game was sooooo deep.



pauk -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (7/3/2005 2:01:48 PM)

greetings...

Thanks from me also.

But, i'm interested about 2by3 games future plans. Just visited 2y3 homepage and noticed status of the War in Russia - the game is currently on hold.
[:(]

I thought that after the WoW, WiR is going to be next product. Please, can we get informations about WiR schedule-relase?

Thanks in advance



dtx175 -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (7/15/2005 8:18:15 PM)

If you'd like add'l insight on the challenges of improving the AI for WIP (or really any computer wargame), consider getting a copy of "How Computers play chess." Despite the book's focus on chess, reading it will give you much insight into the challenge of getting a computer to "see the map" and make good strategic decisions (particularly, since a chess "map" (i.e., board) is far simpler than the WIP map).

It's a very easy book to read, no programming knowledge is needed. (however, it will take thought to see its relevance to computer wargames). The book will give you much insight into critically evaluating games.

I remember reading that one individual did his entire PhD thesis on calculating the value of a knight in the center 4 squares of the board. (These values help the computer "see" the chess board.) WIP does "see" the map better than older programs like WIR. E.g., in WIR, the AI didn't expend extra effort to attack or defend Moscow, despite its importance. WIP does seem to do a better job at attacking & holding key locations.



BPRE -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (7/16/2005 12:51:53 AM)

I'm afraid that a lot of the "seeing" of the WitP map is pre-programmed for the AI. At least that's the impression I get from some comments you can see now and then on the forums. It's still doing quite a good job and even just pre-programming it is an enormous job probably.
Comparing with chess is interesting. Especially if you imagine an 8 hex by 8 hex square somewhere on the WitP map. That's the complete chess board but it's really a minor part of the WitP map.

/BPRE



dtx175 -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (7/29/2005 5:40:23 PM)

In a totally ahistorical mod, I added oil to an island near Japan to help the Japanese AI.
I was pleasantly surprised that the AI could "see" oil & the AI sent convoys to get it.

Hence, as BPRE noted, there must be some hard coded (pre-programed) value assigned to oil sites so that Japanese AI "knows" to get oil from them.

The difficulty in getting the WIP AI to be sufficiently aggressive, but not overly so, must have been quite a challenge. Years ago I read that complexity tends to make AI less aggressive. It would be interesting to hear what has been done to overcome this.




freeboy -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (7/30/2005 12:56:36 AM)

one way to "code " is to set smaller scripted paths into the game, but the hrder they are set in any game the less fluid the future results may become, this can be modified with a randomizer, but with thae amount of budget and hardware anything really attempting difficult settings for an AI must "cheat" imo



BPRE -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (8/8/2005 7:26:37 PM)

Seeing available oil is probably not too difficult since the amount of oil available in each base is stored somewhere in the save file and all you require is a bit of code looping through all of your bases and if there's more than a certain amount of oil stored send a tanker.
I was really thinking about problems like routing ships from point A to B when there are enemy bases in the vicinity of the shortest route, finding the best base to head towards with a damaged ship to both avoid enemy bases and units but still find the closest base with a reasonable chance to repair the ship.
It's very easy for us to just glance at the map and see that there are no enemy bases between Rabaul and Truk for instance and also to make a decent guess if there's any enemies in the area, but the AI has to figure it out somehow.

/BPRE



Gray_Lensman -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (8/8/2005 11:17:08 PM)

What about pure database errors that lead to bugs, when they are encountered? Where do we send them too?

Example:

Scenario 16: When No. 30 RAAF Sqdn (#1244) comes into play. Delay=420309. It is supposed to be a Beaufighter Mk 21 (#152), but instead Beaufort V-IXs are brought in instead, I assume because the Beaufighters aren't available until 430101. This gives you a hybrid Beaufort V-IX that has the characteristics of the Beaufort V-IX, but the default bombload of the Beaufighter Mk21. Obviously, this could be corrected in the Database, but the underlying bug that mixed the characteristics needs to be addressed.

I would expect the database errors to be corrected before calling the game complete.

As far as new features, if they are considered good enough to improve the game in a much better way, then I for one, would gladly pay a slight additional fee for such continued work. This is the best game I have seen on the strategic/operational level of World War II in the Pacific.



Stwa -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (8/12/2005 10:39:58 AM)

So I guess this means there won't be a War in the Atlantic... hehe just kidding. [&:]

I want to thank Joel, Gary, everyone at 2x3 and Matrix for a most wonderful game/simulation. I was fortunate enough to have one of the original games way back when and I was totally astonished when this game (an UV) was re-juventated.



saj42 -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (8/21/2005 7:25:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gray_Lensman

I would expect the database errors to be corrected before calling the game complete.

As far as new features, if they are considered good enough to improve the game in a much better way, then I for one, would gladly pay a slight additional fee for such continued work. This is the best game I have seen on the strategic/operational level of World War II in the Pacific.


I support this. Fix the well known database anomalies and bugs, and then i would happily pay for product enhancement (such as the 'user defined upgrade'). But how much do you put in such an 'EXPANSION PACK' and what do you charge for it?

Over to the experts..... and grognards[:D]




el cid again -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (12/16/2005 9:53:44 PM)

quote:

How many boardgame companies do you see rewriting their rules after release?


No disrespect intended, but how many boardgame companies release games with fundamental flaws in the game mechanics?

While boardgames and computer games based on boardgames are both software, computer code is significantly different than boardgame rules. Players do not have the same function in a computer game - they do not handle the mechanics of resolution in at all the same sense. Any complex software system needs to spend MOST of its development time in testing - and it is impossible to believe Matrix did that. I thought Matrix might be brilliant in a business sense - start generating money soon and let players help with the testing process (sort of free labor)? But IF you drop these games patch process - I was wrong. And IF you ALSO do not release the code to players to continue its patching - both ethical and legal issues arise. US Supreme Court says unsupported software is OWNED by those who bought what previously were licences. And there is way too much player time invested in these games to think there is no moral obligation not to keep development going at least until the major bugs are addressed. It might kill the goose that laid the golden eggs to convince players Matrix will NEVER develop ANY game through to the point the average board game is on its INITIAL release.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375