RE: Early September Update

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Early September Update

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> RE: Early September Update

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Early September Update - 9/13/2007 9:22:45 AM

gazfun

Posts: 1046
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I generally make it my policy not to post in other developers' subforums, limiting anything I have to say to the FOF or COG subforums, the General Discussion area, or the pillow I occasionally scream into. However, after reading the posts here from the past two weeks or so, I thought that I would share a developer's insights briefly. My main insight, based on being involved in developing two games and several significant patches -- including one patch that appeared months and months after I had originally made optimistic promises about its near-completion -- is that those of you on the outside often have no idea of what is going on on the inside and why release dates are being pushed back. Giving advice to this team on how to finish the game, therefore, is a waste of time, since you really don't know the exact nature of the hold-ups the team has encountered. Although I have had zero interactions with anyone involved in this project (other than David Heath, of course), I have little doubt that the delays are caused by the desire of the development team and testers to release a product worthy of the game on which it is based. Trust me, unless you've been on the inside of such a project, you really can't appreciate the sorts of things that can push back release times -- things that may or may not be in the developers' control. (And being one of this subforum's ubiquitous computer programmers only partly qualifies one to have a sense for this range of potential issues that can crop up.)

So, you might just want to consider these points before your next angry post.

Thanks for that bit of sanity in the asylum, and of course Dons words in other posts here I fully back

< Message edited by gazfun -- 9/13/2007 9:24:35 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 61

RE: Early September Update - 9/15/2007 1:18:35 AM

Murat

Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: denshiblocks
i have worked in the videogame industry at Electronic Arts and Activision, so my opinions while they are justopinions are still tempered with experience.

heres a question for david: how many testers are currently working on this game? how many programmers are working on the bug fixes?

Hey, maybe I know you from EA! You do make some good points though - EA would have had this out already by applying their resources in a focused matter to get a quick release and their profits. But Marshall lacks those vast resources.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76
Matrix should sack the bloke and give it to someone capable like Frank Hunter to finish.

Another good point (I would have added Gil too. I actually aided in delaying one of his projects by missing my deadline.) since certain programmers here seem to be far more speedy in releasing their projects. But again, Marshall is part time and may lack even the resources possessed by the others. I would point out that I suggested allowing pre-orders if $$$ is an issue (I know Frank took some and seemed to have regretted it but most of the people who paid seemed content to wait for the final product secure in the knowledge that they had gotten their copies locked in).

As for the lack of play testers issues, this stuns me. Many people have indicated thier willingness to help get this cult project out by play testing or doing whatever it takes (except in some cases sitting back and waiting) to help.

Finally, to the issue at hand: 1805 scenario alone would be fine for release. My biggest AI concern would be if the loss/gain of dominance is working properly in the engine since the other likely scenarios would face this as the main rule change (France not dominant, other nation is, very possible for nations that lack it to gain dominance in some scenarios).

(in reply to ASHBERY76)

Post #: 62

RE: Early September Update - 9/15/2007 4:04:53 AM

StCyr

Posts: 148
Joined: 7/2/2003
Status: offline

quote:

My biggest AI concern would be if the loss/gain of dominance is working properly in the engine since the other likely scenarios would face this as the main rule change (France not dominant, other nation is, very possible for nations that lack it to gain dominance in some scenarios).

I doubt that this essential rule got included...

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 63

RE: Early September Update - 9/15/2007 6:52:44 AM

Titi

Posts: 153
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Montr�al
Status: offline

Like many other optional rules.
But as each of those rules will need a rewrite of the AI and another round of playtest needed, i doubt we may hope of seeing those in the current version.
Maybe in a CEiA2, if Matrix like the Paradox