RE: When?

RE: When? (Full Version)

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

Message

WIF_Killzone -> RE: When? (11/20/2009 6:48:59 PM)
Steve, there is a bug. Should there not be a statement such as: If attacking([username])="Shannon V. OKeets" add 6 to die-roll.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: When? (11/20/2009 6:55:54 PM)

By way of comparison, here is the code for the same routine as I received it from CWIF. There were no comments!
===

function LandCombatColumn(const IsAssault: Boolean; A, D: Extended;
	out DieRollMod: Integer; out DRM: Extended; const ColMod: Integer;
  out Column: Byte; const Hex: TSmallPoint;
  AUseSnowUnits, DUseSnowUnits: Boolean;
  const CheckFraction: Boolean; const ForceInvading: Boolean = False): Boolean;
var
	Res: Extended;
  TempRes: Integer;
	AnyInvading: Boolean;
	Index: Longint;
  CR: TLandCombatHex;
	Counter: Integer;
	ColAmt: Integer;
  IsCombatHex: Boolean;
  LCTerrain: TTerrainTypes;
  LCWeather: TWeatherTypes;
  InCity: Boolean;
  AttackingStack: TUnitStack;
  DefendingStack: TUnitStack;
  AHasArmor: Boolean;
  CityDRM: Extended;

  function AttackLocation(const U: TUnit): TSmallPoint;
  begin
    with U do
    begin
      if Column = MovingStackValue then
        Result := MovingStack.OldLocation
      else
        Result := Location;
    end;
  end;

  function AttackModifier(const U: TUnit): Integer;
  begin
    with TLandUnit(U) do
    begin
      if AttackLocation(U).X = SeaAreaValue then
        Result := 1
      else
        Result := HexsideAttackModifier(AttackLocation(U),
          THexArea.ConnectingHexsideRange(AttackLocation(U), Hex), True);
    end;
  end;

  procedure CheckAttacker(var U: TUnit);
  var
    HS: THexsideRange;
    HSAM: Integer;
  begin
  	with TLandUnit(U) do
    begin
	  	if (U is TLandUnit) and not Invading and
          (AttackLocation(U).X <> SeaAreaValue) then
      begin
        THexArea.ConnectingHexsideRange(AttackLocation(U), Hex, HS);
        HSAM := AttackModifier(U);
        if HSAM <> 0 then
        begin
          if (LCTerrain = teJungle) and Elite and
            ((Country = Japan.ID) or (Country = Australia.ID) or
              ((Country = UnitedStates.ID) and (UnitType in MarineSet))) then
            DRM := DRM + (1 / HSAM);
          if not IsAssault and (UnitType in ArmoredSet) and not InCity and
            (LCTerrain in [teClear, teDesert]) and
            (LCWeather = wFine) and
            (Map.HexsideTerrainSet[Column, Row, HS] * FortHexsideSet = []) then
            DRM := DRM + (1 / HSAM);
          if AUseSnowUnits and SnowUnit then
            DRM := DRM + (1 / HSAM);
        end;
      end;
      if (U is TLandUnit) and Paradropping then
        DRM := DRM + 1;
    end;
  end;

  function CheckDefender(var U: TUnit): Boolean;
  begin
  	with Options, TLandUnit(U) do
    begin
	  	if U is TLandUnit then
      begin
        Result := True;
        if Disrupted then
        begin
          if TwoD10LandCRT then
          begin
            if TLandUnit(U).Small then
              DRM := DRM + 1
            else
              DRM := DRM + 2;
          end
          else
            DRM := DRM + 1;
        end;
        if TwoD10LandCRT then
        begin
          if DUseSnowUnits and SnowUnit then
            DRM := DRM - 2;
          if (UnitType in ArmoredSet) and not InCity and
              (LCTerrain in [teClear, teDesert]) and
              (LCWeather = wFine) then
            DRM := DRM - Succ(Ord(not Small));
          if AHasArmor and (UnitType in AntiTankSet) then
            DRM := DRM - 1;
        end;
      end
      else
        Result := False;
    end;
  end;

  procedure IsHQ(var U: TUnit);
  begin
    if U.UnitType in HeadquartersSet then
      CityDRM := MaxExtended([CityDRM, 1 / AttackModifier(U)]);
  end;

  procedure AddAttacker(var U: TUnit);
  begin
    if U.Side = PhasingSide then
      AttackingStack.Add(U);
  end;

  procedure CheckEngineerA(var U: TUnit);
  begin
    with TLandUnit(U) do
    begin
      if UnitType in EngineerSet then
        CityDRM := CityDRM + (Combat / AttackModifier(U));
    end;
  end;

  procedure CheckEngineerD(var U: TUnit);
  begin
    with TLandUnit(U) do
    begin
      if UnitType in EngineerSet then
        CityDRM := CityDRM - Combat;
    end;
  end;

  procedure GetHQBonus;
  begin
    if Options.TwoD10LandCRT and IsCombatHex then
    begin
      with CR do
      begin
        if HQA <> nil then
          DRM := DRM + (HQA.Reorg / 2);
        if HQD <> nil then
          DRM := DRM - (HQD.Reorg / 2);
      end;
    end;
  end;

begin
  AttackingStack := TUnitStack.Create;
  DefendingStack := TUnitStack.Create;
  try
    with Map, Hex do
    begin
      LCTerrain := Terrain[X, Y];
      LCWeather := HexWeather[X, Y];
      InCity := City[X, Y] <> cyNone;
    end;
    if AUseSnowUnits then
      AUseSnowUnits := LCWeather in SnowWeather;
    if DUseSnowUnits then
      DUseSnowUnits := LCWeather in SnowWeather;
    if not Options.FractionalOdds then
    begin
      A := Util.Round(A);
      D := Util.Round(D);
    end;
    DRM := 0;
    IsCombatHex := LandCombatHexes.Search(Hex, Index, CR);
    if (A = 0) and (not (Phase in [pHQSupportD, pAdvanceAfterCombat]) or
      (D > 0)) then
    begin
      Column := 0;
      GetHQBonus;
      Result := False;
      Exit;
    end;
    if IsCombatHex then
      CR.Units.ForEach(@AddAttacker);
    if not (Phase in HQSupportPhases + [pShoreBombardmentD]) and
      ((Phase <> pGroundSupport) or
        ((SubPhase = spFlyA) and MovingStack.HasLandUnit)) then
      AttackingStack.AddStack(MovingStack);
    AHasArmor := AttackingStack.HasUnit(UFilterArmoredUnit);
    with Hex do
      DefendingStack.AddStack(UnitStacks[X, Y], UFilterLandUnitNotInvading);
    AnyInvading := ForceInvading or AttackingStack.HasUnit(UFilterInvading);
    if (Phase = pGroundSupport) and (SubPhase = spFlyD) and
      MovingStack.HasLandUnit then
      DefendingStack.AddStack(MovingStack);
    if Options.AlliedCombatFriction then
      DRM := DRM - Pred(MajorCountryCount(AttackingStack.MajorCountrySet));
    if AnyInvading then
    begin
      if not IsCombatHex or not CR.IgnoreNotional then
        DRM := DRM + 1;
    end;
    with Options do
    begin
      if AttackingStack.HasAllUnit(UFilterTerritorialUnit) then
        DRM := DRM - Succ(Ord(TwoD10LandCRT));
      if DefendingStack.HasLandUnit and
        not DefendingStack.HasUnit(UFilterNotTerritorialUnitDefending) then
        DRM := DRM + Succ(Ord(TwoD10LandCRT));
    end;
    if Options.TwoD10LandCRT then
    begin
      if D = 0 then
        DRM := AutoVictoryModifier
      else begin
        with CR do
        begin
          AttackingStack.ForEach(@CheckAttacker);
          DefendingStack.ForEach(@CheckDefender);
          GetHQBonus;
          if InCity then
          begin
            CityDRM := 0;
            AttackingStack.ForEach(@IsHQ);
            AttackingStack.ForEach(@CheckEngineerA);
            DefendingStack.ForEach(@CheckEngineerD);
          end;
        end;
        if LCTerrain = teJungle then
          DRM := DRM - 4;
        if InCity then
        begin
          CityDRM := CityDRM - 1;
          with Map, Hex do
            CityDRM := CityDRM - FactoryCount[X, Y];
          DRM := DRM + MinExtended([0, CityDRM]);
        end;
        with Hex do
          DRM := DRM - (Map.HexWeatherCombatMod[X, Y] * 2);
        Res := A / D;
        for Counter := 16 downto 0 do
        begin
          if Res >= OddsColumnFraction[Counter] then
          begin
            Column := Counter;
            Break;
          end;
        end;
        if Options.FractionalOdds then
        begin
          if Res >= 1 then
            DRM := DRM + Trunc((Res * 2) + ColMod)
          else
            DRM := DRM + Trunc(4 - (1/Res * 2) + ColMod);
        end
        else begin
          Column := Range(Column + ColMod, 0, 16);
          DRM := DRM + OddsModifier[Column];
        end;
      end;
    end
    else begin
      DefendingStack.ForEach(@CheckDefender);
      if D = 0 then
        Column := AutoVictoryColumn
      else begin
        Res := A / D;
        with Hex, Map do
        begin
          ColAmt := ColMod - HexWeatherCombatMod[X, Y] +
            (Ord(AUseSnowUnits) * 2) + Ord(CheckFraction);
          for Counter := 1 to Abs(ColAmt) do
          begin
            if Res >= 2 then
            begin
              if ColAmt > 0 then
                A := A + D
              else if Res < 3 then
                A := A - (D / 2)
              else
                A := A - D;
            end
            else if (Res >= 1) and (Res < 2) then
            begin
              if ColAmt > 0 then
                A := A + (D / 2)
              else
                A := A - (D / 2);
            end
            else begin
              if A < D then
                DRM := DRM - 1
              else
                A := D;
            end;
            Res := A / D;
          end;
        end;
        if IsAssault and (Res >= 5) then
        begin
          if Res >= 10 then
            TempRes := Trunc(Res) - 2
          else if Res >= 7 then
            TempRes := 7
          else
            TempRes := 6;
        end
        else if Res >= 2 then
          TempRes := Succ(Trunc(Res))
        else if Res >= 1.5 then
          TempRes := 2
        else if Res >= 1 then
          TempRes := 1
        else if Res >= 0.5 then
          TempRes := 0
        else begin
          Column := 0;
          DRM := DRM - Trunc(D / A) + Ord(Frac(D /A) > 0) - 2;
          Result := True;
          Exit;
        end;
        Column := Min([8, TempRes]);
      end;
    end;
    Result := True;
  finally
    AttackingStack.Free;
    DefendingStack.Free;
    if Options.TwoD10LandCRT then
      DieRollMod := Range(Util.Round(DRM), -21, 21)
    else
      DieRollMod := Util.Round(DRM);
  end;
end;

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: When? (11/20/2009 6:59:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WIF_Killzone Steve, there is a bug. Should there not be a statement such as: If attacking([username])="Shannon V. OKeets" add 6 to die-roll. Too crude.[:-] There is a weighted probability of how much to add.[;)]

bo -> RE: When? (11/20/2009 7:43:45 PM)
I knew I should not have come back, Steve I am not upset with you how could I be you are the most open programmer I have ever seen on the forums anywhere, but why should you get a free pass you took on this job not me, my complaint is that you should have got more help and if this coding for this game is so difficult then you should have gone to Matrix and got the best programmers around to assist you, I dont care about contracts with you and Matrix thats your problem not mine, not being mean Steve but these people on this forum [not me] are the most patient, kind and considerate group you will find anywhere in cyber land and they dont deserve this 5 or 6 year wait, I stopped posting when I asked you not to give completion dates but you went ahead anyway with dates that could not be met and you knew it, and if the people here can find anything I am saying is incorrect fine go to it, I truly hope for the sake of everyone here you will be able to complete this game bugs and all sometime next year but I have my doubts and I refuse to stick my head in the sand waiting for this to happen. Bo

WIF_Killzone -> RE: When? (11/20/2009 8:09:42 PM)
Easy does it Bo, you may have an ammunition explosion. Seriously, it maybe a matter of scope (i.e., additional forms, and other added functionality (e.g., training videos) that were not in the original estimates, not to mention a superlative development approach) that is adding to the time. The contract you mention is giving increased flexibity (for lack of a better word) to the end product, and perhaps this is welcomed by some if not most. A different approach would certainly speed up the development albeit at the expensive of scope and quality, and most-likely budget although that is being managed with contract approach (which AGAIN, is why there is so much scope-quality). However, with that said, perhaps as you mention, it is time to put a lid on "extras", and wrap up the product with the use of additional resources although at this point it may not be feasible vis-a-vis the learning curve? I am sure this will be the product of the decade, if not the century, and most certainly for its genre. It may be worth your wait but I too feel your frustration of not yet getting to play :(

wworld7 -> RE: When? (11/20/2009 8:32:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bo I knew I should not have come back, Steve I am not upset with you how could I be you are the most open programmer I have ever seen on the forums anywhere, but why should you get a free pass you took on this job not me, my complaint is that you should have got more help and if this coding for this game is so difficult then you should have gone to Matrix and got the best programmers around to assist you, I dont care about contracts with you and Matrix thats your problem not mine, not being mean Steve but these people on this forum [not me] are the most patient, kind and considerate group you will find anywhere in cyber land and they dont deserve this 5 or 6 year wait, I stopped posting when I asked you not to give completion dates but you went ahead anyway with dates that could not be met and you knew it, and if the people here can find anything I am saying is incorrect fine go to it, I truly hope for the sake of everyone here you will be able to complete this game bugs and all sometime next year but I have my doubts and I refuse to stick my head in the sand waiting for this to happen. Bo There are no other viable options other then to wait until it is completed. Not to be mean, but your posts which are from someone who admits a lack of understanding of programming actually are humerous to people who understand the difficulties. I know you want it completed faster than it is being done, but that opinion/desire is not the reality the project is in. Yes, you have a right to WHINE, but please don't mistake that for being a positive benefit to the project when you do.

winky51 -> RE: When? (11/21/2009 2:20:47 AM)
There are a lot of processes that go on in our brain we take for granted when interpreted to programming. There is only 1 being who can write perfect code the 1st time around and he is an android on Star Trek, fictional. You can only write code as best you can, then comes debugging. My small programs from 20 years ago probably took me at least 100 times for me to go back in the program and debug it. I am still testing my AI for SC2 and I have fixed close to 200 errors alone. A game of this magnitude? Im surprised the programmer has had his head explode. Frankly Im surprised there is only 1 programmer for this complex game.

Skanvak -> RE: When? (11/21/2009 11:27:09 AM)
Though Bo should learn how to write (no point and lack other things I don't know how to say in english made his text unreadable), I think he has a point, as winky51 told it : Matrix should have put a team on this game. I know, being a team manager in an other field, that when you want to speed up a process, putting more people always work in the long run. Telling me that for budget reason they cannot put more people on this project is just a rationalization to accept things we have no control on. This is their choice, we can challenge it. Chris have been on the project for several years alone and didn't complete it, it was easy to forseen that someone alone won't complete it faster especially when it has to be bring up to Matrix standard. Btw I did programm a game from scratch when I was at high school, so I agree with the difficulty encounter which are two different things in my opinion. As we knows there will be a lot of bugs, it is wise to put more people on the projet (unless we are happy to have it completed in 10 years, again their choice, we can disagree with it).

WIF_Killzone -> RE: When? (11/21/2009 1:42:29 PM)
I took a moment to fictionalize how the project could have been managed, and usually is, at least in the business world of computing, as opposed to the game development world--which I admit I don't know much of. Lets say the game was developed with a more traditional approach, with a team of consultants (or Matrix employees) hired, the project structure may look something like this: Project Manager (reporting to Matrix) Project Leads (reporting to the PM) Business Analysts Technical Analysts Architecture (security, application, database, network) Programmers and Programmer Analysts (5-10) Graphic Artists Research Test Lead, Testers Marketing and Communications Controller Coffee Girl (I wish) So now you have a staff of say 20 people being paid everyday (although some are contracted-in when the time is appropriate (i.e. testers). Regardless, there is a certain monthly burn rate in cash for the project. The first thing the PM would do is determine from Matrix where their priorities lay. Matrix would have most likely already set a budget after performing a feasibility study and determined the ROI (return on investment) which said we can afford XYZ dollars to make this viable. Perhaps the PM first needs to perform that with the business analysts in order to determine if they should even start the undertaking. Either way, they come out with a fixed dollar amount with some contingency that the PM can play with to deliver the project. Now, the PM's first conversation with Matrix is focused on the project priorities in Scope(Quality and Breadth of product), Budget, and Schedule in order for him/her to manage the project and make the ongoing decisions without having to run to Matrix for approval on every decision. How do you think the conversation would go? Most likely is would be; budget (high priority), you need to deliver the project on budget or we don't make any money. Schedule, you need to deliver this in a reasonable timeframe and you can sacrifice some scope-quality in order to meet the schedule. Let me be clear Mr. PM, sacrifice scope in order to deliver on schedule and on budget--we don't need bells and whistles (as they cost) but we do need a quality product. So off he goes, he has his marching orders and he tackles the project. He starts a forum so he can get input from the knowledgeable user community. And he starts to notice that maybe he has underestimated this project. It looks like a bigger project than he first realized. The user community is passionate and a little demanding (not that he cares really), but they have tons of good advice for him. I will utilize them he thinks, like free resources-money for the project. Cool. In fact, I am going to appoint my star business analyst-programmer to moderate the forum as he is very passionate as well--he wants to deliver the best product he can. Time goes on, and he starts directing the projects activities, reporting monthly to Matrix, and everything goes along fine but he start to notice that his star is running everything by the user community and its starting to impact the project negatively. He sits his star down and has the following conversation: I need you to stop asking for so much input, its holding up the project and your adding modules and functionality we just can't afford. His star argues back, we need this, we need that, their are colour blind people and they need to be able to read the maps and counters(like me). Are you saying we have to re-do all the counters and maps for the colour blind? Yes. Do you know how much that will cost, NO, it's already programmed, sorry. His star storms away and notifies the user community. They rebel (as this is just one example in many design decisions that were denied in order to deliver on-time and on-budget). The PM determines this a project risk and decides to limit communications with the user community and just build it to the best of their ability within the current budget and time constraints. The user community from then on is shown only marketing hype, some glitz and glamour and a whole bunch of good news stories and they are happy again, waiting for their new game--how exciting. The project gets delivered, the PM is payed, gets a nice bonus for delivering on time and within budget and goes to Jamaica with the Coffee Girl. Wonder how the game would turn out?[X(] I'm not going to get on my soap-box and discuss how Matrix's and Steves approach is better, suffice to say in my humble opinion I like what I see. As a PM myself you seldom, if ever, get a chance to do what they are doing. Matrix I would theorize (oh-oh the soap box) doesn't care how long it takes (they will still be in business), the money isnt coming out of their pocket. Moreover, you can seldom hire people to perform peace work (i.e. not get paid) to speed up the project--most people are risk adverse or need money to support themselves on an ongoing basis. If they did hire ($$) extra people design decisions would be made that would result in a lessor product being delivered--guaranteed, full stop! Keep up the fantastic work Steve. Btw, maybe you can get someone else to moderate the forum so you can concentrate on the programming (could'nt resist--I'm evil) Seriously--keep up the good work. Craig

wworld7 -> Very Good (11/21/2009 4:05:29 PM)
WIF_Killzone...well done. I believe this was an excellent explaination of the realities/difficulties of a software design company. Your example in the beginning fits large well funded companies, but more common in the game world is the little shop that does it all with a smaller fraction of resources and people. As often, that is all many projects can support with resources that are available. Most people understand the financial payoff for a popular game does not have the possible payoff at the end that say a popular business application may have. Perhaps moving Steve to a hut in the Artic would speed completion? More likely his quartet would freeze-to-death singing to a group of local polar bears...[:)][:)][:)]

WIF_Killzone -> RE: Very Good (11/21/2009 6:27:01 PM)
Steve can join me in Jamaica if he likes--good coffee [;)] Craig

bo -> RE: When? (11/21/2009 7:07:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WIF_Killzone Easy does it Bo, you may have an ammunition�explosion.� Seriously, it maybe a matter of scope (i.e., additional forms, and other added functionality (e.g., training videos) that were not in the original estimates, not to mention�a superlative�development approach) that is adding to the time.��The contract you mention is giving increased flexibity (for lack of a better word)�to the end product, and perhaps this is welcomed by some if not most. A different approach would certainly speed up the development albeit at the expensive of scope and quality, and�most-likely budget although that is being managed with contract approach (which AGAIN, is why there is so much scope-quality). However, with that said, perhaps as you mention, it is time to put a lid on "extras", and wrap up the product with the use of additional resources although at this point it may not be feasible vis-a-vis the learning curve? I am sure this will be the product of the decade, if not the century, and most certainly for its genre.�It may be worth your wait but I too feel your frustration of not yet getting to play :( Good Lord Killzone I hope so, I dont remember saying put a lid on the extas but then I am getting senile waiting for this game. BO

bo -> RE: When? (11/21/2009 7:10:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish quote: ORIGINAL: bo I knew I should not have come back, Steve I am not upset with you how could I be you are the most open programmer I have ever seen on the forums anywhere, but why should you get a free pass you took on this job not me, my complaint is that you should have got more help and if this coding for this game is so difficult then you should have gone to Matrix and got the best programmers around to assist you, I dont care about contracts with you and Matrix thats your problem not mine, not being mean Steve but these people on this forum [not me] are the most patient, kind and considerate group you will find anywhere in cyber land and they dont deserve this 5 or 6 year wait, I stopped posting when I asked you not to give completion dates but you went ahead anyway with dates that could not be met and you knew it, and if the people here can find anything I am saying is incorrect fine go to it, I truly hope for the sake of everyone here you will be able to complete this game bugs and all sometime next year but I have my doubts and I refuse to stick my head in the sand waiting for this to happen. Bo There are no other viable options other then to wait until it is completed. Not to be mean, but your posts which are from someone who admits a lack of understanding of programming actually are humerous to people who understand the difficulties. I know you want it completed faster than it is being done, but that opinion/desire is not the reality the project is in. Yes, you have a right to WHINE, but please don't mistake that for being a positive benefit to the project when you do. Whining is for children Flipper I am an adult even though I might act like a child sometimes and I have had 5 years of trying to be positive. Bo

bo -> RE: When? (11/21/2009 7:29:42 PM)
I am not going to cave in to you people protecting matrix, I know that saying do the programing right the first time was off the wall and I got bashed for it deserved or not, you people seem to forget like some people in this country have forgotten 9/11, that this contract was signed I believe in 2004 thats 5 years ago at least and all this time to do this game is a lot of bull, oh people will come to the aid of poor old Matrix and tell us how hard it is to get this game right, I believe you take the stance you take is because there is nothing else you can do about it and you are stuck with it until its completed whenever that will be, normally I would join that kind of thinking but my patience ran out when the Nov. finish date was postoned to whenever, sorry for my impertinace but I am who I am and common sense says this time delay is going on forever. Show me some light at the end of this dark tunnel and I will apoligize to everyone for my ornery nature. Bo

PzB74 -> RE: When? (11/22/2009 12:45:50 AM)
After following this forum for some time I admire the work and effort being put into this game! I also notice that the challenge to produce such a giant game with so few resources is taking it's toll. Because of this and the continued delays and sometimes mounting frustrations I think it is important to openly discuss the challenges and expectations. As an outsider my impression is that criticism is usually met with little tollerance and even condemnation. - The bigger the challenge the bigger the need for constructive criticims. Some it may not be relevant or "fair", but there is also a lot of valuable input that should be considered and evaluated. Keep up the good work - and have an open mindset to all forms of criticism, negative and positive alike!

Skanvak -> RE: When? (11/22/2009 11:57:37 AM)
I don't critized Steve's work but Matrix approach. I see that some are dellusion by programming industry, that is their problem. But I get that getting in touch with the so-called community without completing the game is as wrong as the other option. Right now we have paople who just love to discuss this project and other waiting for it to be completed since about ten years. So not to get bored we just drop following this thread to come back and see that the addicted to never ending project have convince the one man that does everything (hopefully he had help on simple task and testing) to make change that displease us. So yes, I prefer a team (which does not need to be the size given by WIF_Killzone). Hiring an help on a short time and specific devellopment contract could have been solution. Matrix chose to play safe, that is their choice, not the best, but the one they are more confortable with. I recknon that is not my money to risk but it not the choice that fit my goals so I don't agree with it. Every attempt to rationalize Matrix decision will not change this fact. At one time you should see that some of us are professionnal too and patronizing is surely not the best way to convince us. Even if I do agree that a lot of things are to be added to the games, and that lots of things (color blind for ex...) are good (but may be not needed on release...), and that Steve is surely the best suited for the task, I still believe that adding a couple of people to the project (especially for developping the AI) would have save developpement time.

WIF_Killzone -> RE: When? (11/22/2009 2:15:14 PM)
I am sure there is certainly some low-hanging fruit that could be farmed out to others to complete. I'm not sure the AI is feasible for others to develop, but it could be. What I struggle with in regards to all the recent (and good) comments on the subject; is it really our place to suggest how development should now proceed and Matrix and Steve's contract be amended to speed up delivery? Assuming advice is welcomed on this touchy subject, then taking into account where the project is now (the past is the past) what feasible steps and agreements could Matrix and Steve agree upon to speed up development? That will be difficult to answer ourselves as many of the remaining tasks, if giving to other people to deliver, will require Steve's time (perhaps in the area of 40-60%) to manage, perform knowledge transfer, etc. Some tasks may not be feasible to part-out as the knowledge transfer is too large with more of Steve's time consumed and the resultant benefit lost (or even adding time). One approach to ascertain this would be to request of Steve that an "action plan gets prepared (by sitting down with Matrix) to use additional resources to address the remaining tasks". I am not sure it's our place to request however. [:-]

SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: When? (11/23/2009 3:58:27 AM)
To those of you who are criticizing the business aspects of this project, I would say this. How much do you have invested in Matrix Games? Until you are an investor, it is really none of your business. If you don't like how this is being done, I suggest you form your own game company. Show us you can do better. We will buy your games if they are good. Otherwise...

Skanvak -> RE: When? (11/23/2009 6:53:42 AM)
quote: Until you are an investor, it is really none of your business. Then neither yours to defend their choice. Thanks. You know that this discution is not a debate as, like WIF_Killzone said the past is the past and like I said this is a matter on which we have no control (not being an investor, right). But as a costumer an a follower of the project since its very beginning I can express a my feeling on choice done, like you do by the way. Matrix and Steve will decide what they consider good for them on the matter in the end. We are just expressing our opinion, their can be no winner on argument.

Joseignacio -> RE: When? (11/23/2009 9:05:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bo I knew I should not have come back, Steve I am not upset with you how could I be you are the most open programmer I have ever seen on the forums anywhere, but why should you get a free pass you took on this job not me, my complaint is that you should have got more help and if this coding for this game is so difficult then you should have gone to Matrix and got the best programmers around to assist you, I dont care about contracts with you and Matrix thats your problem not mine, not being mean Steve but these people on this forum [not me] are the most patient, kind and considerate group you will find anywhere in cyber land and they dont deserve this 5 or 6 year wait, I stopped posting when I asked you not to give completion dates but you went ahead anyway with dates that could not be met and you knew it, and if the people here can find anything I am saying is incorrect fine go to it, I truly hope for the sake of everyone here you will be able to complete this game bugs and all sometime next year but I have my doubts and I refuse to stick my head in the sand waiting for this to happen. Bo While we have to acknowledge that you are right that Steve didn't meet the dates, I think nobody expected exact accomplishing, after a work of almost 10 years (form the start of CWIF) or anyway, several years (4?) in MWIF itself. However, if I read your text from the (possible, I am trying to empathize) point of view of the programmer, I might feel some general unjustified guilt. I hope it doesn't affect Steve trhis way, since the general feeling of the board is that we prefer a product bug-free (to a reasonable extent) that meeting exactly the dates.

Joseignacio -> RE: When? (11/23/2009 9:13:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Skanvak Though Bo should learn how to write (no point and lack other things I don't know how to say in english made his text unreadable), I think he has a point, as winky51 told it : Matrix should have put a team on this game. I know, being a team manager in an other field, that when you want to speed up a process, putting more people always work in the long run. Telling me that for budget reason they cannot put more people on this project is just a rationalization to accept things we have no control on. You are right that the reasons why there is no more peole in the project are external to us, the fact is that when we come to the project we know about the Pharaonic work and that there is only a man after the code, so we knew from the beginning on its limits to face dalays that may happen.

bo -> RE: When? (11/23/2009 3:28:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PzB After following this forum for some time I admire the work and effort being put into this game! I also notice that the challenge to produce such a giant game with so few resources is taking it's toll. Because of this and the continued delays and sometimes mounting frustrations I think it is important to openly discuss the challenges and expectations. As an outsider my impression is that criticism is usually met with little tollerance and even condemnation. - The bigger the challenge the bigger the need for constructive criticims. Some it may not be relevant or "fair", but there is also a lot of valuable input that should be considered and evaluated. Keep up the good work - and have an open mindset to all forms of criticism, negative and positive alike! Agreed PzB I knew if I took a different stance I would be berated by a few here, all I was trying to do is get some of the more staunch admirers of the way Matrix handled this from the begining to wake up and smell the coffee and get their heads out of the sand, I know the past is the past and it should be let go, thats if we learn from the past. Bo

SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: When? (11/23/2009 3:35:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Skanvak quote: Until you are an investor, it is really none of your business. Then neither yours to defend their choice. Thanks. You know that this discution is not a debate as, like WIF_Killzone said the past is the past and like I said this is a matter on which we have no control (not being an investor, right). But as a costumer an a follower of the project since its very beginning I can express a my feeling on choice done, like you do by the way. Matrix and Steve will decide what they consider good for them on the matter in the end. We are just expressing our opinion, their can be no winner on argument. Guess what? If you can have an opinion and state it, so can I. My opinions (as far as are germaine to this discussion) are as follows: 1) Second guessing those who are putting their time and money behind this project is inappropriate because those who have nothing invested have not likely done their due diligence and may not understand all of the ramifications of their advice. 2) While adding more programmers will shorten the duration of the project, it will also raise the total cost. That is to say, the reduction of the time frame will NOT be enough to offset the additional cost per month. Furthermore, it would not have been so EVEN IF the project would have been structured that way from the beginning. Adding programmers reduces time, but increases cost. 3) Because of the economic realities of #2 combined with the market share for these types of game being on the low side, NO MAINSTREAM GAME COMPANY WILL EVER TOUCH A GAME LIKE THIS. I, personally, am happy that Matrix is willing to adopt a non-standard business model to accomodate us. 4) The openness of the progress of the project to the public has resulted in two things: 4A) Great amounts of input making the product better in the long run. 4B) Great amounts of whining about WHEN WILL WE GET IT and I WANT IT NOW 4 continued) I applaud Steve for being so open about this project because I have seen the disasters that have come by not letting the end users have ANY input at all. (Ostensibly to avoid the pressure of 4B above.) A Notable example would be Sid Meier's Railroads! (not Railroad Tycoon 1, 2, or 3) - A GREAT game with just too many bugs... No doubt rushed out because the budget demanded it. Now a miserable failure never to be fixed or sequelled. How different might the sucess of that game been if, in fact, it had been given the time during final development to be polished and if the user community had a forum to discuss what needed to be tweaked. Remember, the points above are my opinon. There is much more detail in some previous posts in this thread. Now to answer your remark. quote: ORIGINAL: Skanvak quote: Until you are an investor, it is really none of your business. Then neither yours to defend their choice. Thanks. Actually, I feel that I have an OBLIGATION to defend them on the grounds that I believe in their methods. Think about the number of complainers.... * I want it now - no AI * If it doesn't have AI, I wont buy it * If it doesn't have PBEM, I won't buy it * If it doesn't have TCP/IP, I won't buy it * and so on My position is that Matrix has the rights to the game, they can develop it any way they wish. I like the way Steve is going about being open with the community. I want to encourage Steve, Matrix, and other companies to develop with this openness in the future. Therefore, I will defend them to balance the complaints.

NeverMan -> RE: When? (11/23/2009 3:35:43 PM)
I have just two questions (maybe one): 1. Is the coding of the game working off the CWiF code? a. If so, WHY???? Time and time again it has been shown that it's much easier to start from stratch and do it right then it is to go off some crappy code some other guy has written. EiANW had this exact same problem and that game is a total disaster!!

bo -> RE: When? (11/23/2009 3:38:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer To those of you who are criticizing the business aspects of this project, I would say this. How much do you have invested in Matrix Games? Until you are an investor, it is really none of your business. If you don't like how this is being done, I suggest you form your own game company.� Show us you can do better.� We will buy your games if they are good.� Otherwise... Samuari I dont ever remember putting you down, always respected your opinion until now, are you referring to investing in Matrix's stock or are you referring to buying their games? If its their games I have paid enough for bad games here including TOW which I just bought, I am actually looking forward to this game even though I have never played the board game, I said once no AI no sale, but for the first time in my gaming life I have started to play PBEM in TOW and I like it, and I am willing to buy the game without a good AI or any AI if thats whats holding up this project. Of course this will hurt Matrix because I believe that most computer wargamers are of the solo nature and have to have an AI. The problem with the AI is no one and I mean no one has ever figured out how to do a good one, I just guess the technology is still far down the computer road. Bo

bo -> RE: When? (11/23/2009 3:48:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joseignacio quote: ORIGINAL: bo I knew I should not have come back, Steve I am not upset with you how could I be you are the most open programmer I have ever seen on the forums anywhere, but why should you get a free pass you took on this job not me, my complaint is that you should have got more help and if this coding for this game is so difficult then you should have gone to Matrix and got the best programmers around to assist you, I dont care about contracts with you and Matrix thats your problem not mine, not being mean Steve but these people on this forum [not me] are the most patient, kind and considerate group you will find anywhere in cyber land and they dont deserve this 5 or 6 year wait, I stopped posting when I asked you not to give completion dates but you went ahead anyway with dates that could not be met and you knew it, and if the people here can find anything I am saying is incorrect fine go to it, I truly hope for the sake of everyone here you will be able to complete this game bugs and all sometime next year but I have my doubts and I refuse to stick my head in the sand waiting for this to happen. Bo While we have to acknowledge that you are right that Steve didn't meet the dates, I think nobody expected exact accomplishing, after a work of almost 10 years (form the start of CWIF) or anyway, several years (4?) in MWIF itself. However, if I read your text from the (possible, I am trying to empathize) point of view of the programmer, I might feel some general unjustified guilt. I hope it doesn't affect Steve trhis way, since the general feeling of the board is that we prefer a product bug-free (to a reasonable extent) that meeting exactly the dates. Again as always I cant argue with your thinking Jose because it is always one of tolerance and understanding, never harsh, my argument has always been and will be, do not announce dates of completion EVER! Thats what set me off the deep end, when its done its done period. What the hell is so terrible and stupid about that. [Not referring to you Jose.] That has been from the begining my most verbal argument and still is. Bo

WIF_Killzone -> RE: When? (11/23/2009 3:51:32 PM)
I think SamuraiProgrammer most recent post on this subject sums it up for me to. Good post. Bo, we'll have you convinced soon enough [;)]

WIF_Killzone -> RE: When? (11/23/2009 3:56:50 PM)
True and good comment about not specifying a completion date Bo. Probably good practice. Although some broad dates would have to be given in a forum like this for the inquisitive and stubborn amongst us (me)--it would be hard to never tell the folks a date or timeframe, even if its like 2007-2012. :)

bo -> RE: When? (11/23/2009 3:58:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WIF_Killzone I think SamuraiProgrammer�most recent post on this subject sums it up for me to. Good post. Bo, we'll have you convinced�soon enough [;)] Thanks for not jumping up and down my back for my opinions Killzone much appreciated and on your statement I do hope so[&o] Bo

SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: When? (11/23/2009 4:35:22 PM)
Bo, I didn't mean to 'jump down your throat'. I realize now that the tone of my remark was likely to be interpreted that way. I aplogize. I was trying to reiterate things I have posted before without quoting them verbatim. I am not making excuses... It was still wrong to be that abrupt. I was referring to stock in the company but admittedly, the idea of frequent customers carrying some weight as pseudo-investors is truly something to be considered. I will ponder that.

Page: << < prev 50 51 [52] 53 54 next > >>

1.046875