|
Tristanjohn -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/7/2006 5:18:31 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: el cid again
quote:
Matrix might lose a few supporters because of bad product, but mostly the people around here seem to be happy with what they're shoveled. At least that's what I read in the main.
The people who stay are self selected. They must like or tolerate the product, or they would not be here. But many people have left. Actually, I left. I considered my $150 cost a rip off and refused to play even one time - based on map and OB alone. ONLY Andrew Brown's map and a series of upgrades made me take another look. I STILL refuse to play - until gross errors are addressed - but most of them can be addressed. I ALSO remember the support Matrix gave to UV - and I expect the SAME support. IF this is not forthcoming, I expect Matrix to release the code. IF neither is forthcoming, I will go away too. I think WITP is a great teaching tool - IF it becomes close to correct. I always wanted something like it. Bottom line - Matrix will lose some fraction of its market share - how much is not easy to know - but I bet it is the majority - IF it refused to make the game work well.
I'm happy to see you're prepared to enter the second phase of your Matrix experience with a positive outlook. That can only serve to buttress your work, serves you all around with a "good attitude." But the plain truth is that for all its potential WitP is fatally flawed in all major areas for anyone who understands the history and bothers to dig in on a case-by-case basis and research the subject.
By the way, I noticed earlier this morning a rather long thread over in the CHS section where you've bothered to defend your principles of design not only at length but repeatedly. Good for you. From what I've read I have to say I mainly agree with your remarks, and I approve wholeheartedly of your disdain to do your work "by committee" as it were. If you know you're right you're right, and putting something in that isn't right just to appease someone's ego or play lust doesn't cut it. I was also glad to see that you, too, have tumbled to the endurance ratings for ships all over the map. I just mentioned that problem again yesterday or the day before somewhere, to someone in passing--that's a very old issue of mine, going back to UV, which was roundly ignored by almost everyone, of course. But it's fundamentally important to the game's play, and of course has direct ties the most worrying problem overall of the greater system: the dysfunctional logistics model.
Anyway, hat's off, keep your left up, and all that.
If you ever get around to the Allied air OOB, please examine the range ratings for the Hudson and Ventura bombers, both of which are discounted by plenty, and also the anemic Hurricane (a kind of composite Hurricane, the IIb if I recall, which is quite useless in play and not representative of what flew in-theater--at one time I was told they ran out slots for Allied planes, but why they came up with the IIb as the "most representative" Hurricane is the question). Those bomber ranges for the Hudson and Ventura especially can be critical to Allied play, and are required to be beefed up. For all I know this stuff has already been addressed by someone in the CHS project, and if so fine, but it should be double-checked.
Here's a link to an article I started many months ago before I, too, left the boards in frustration. You'll find links to support my various conclusions (a kind of running start for your own research): Stock versus scenario mods
You're correct about people leaving. Many old names and personalities no longer grace these boards, for whatever reasons. A kind of pity, but inevitable.
|
|
|
|
