Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008)

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Sports] >> Maximum-Football 2.0 >> Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008)

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/15/2008 6:37:06 AM

David Winter

Posts: 5158
Joined: 11/24/2004
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline

Greetings.

I just thought I'd take a few minutes and touch base with everyone and let people know what's happening with the next patch for 2.2.

The Patch.
The next patch for 2.2 (no build number yet) is progressing a long very well. It has a couple of minor new features and fixes for many of the reported issues. I think the largest new feature is the play book tester. Playbooks now allow you to "force feed" a game situation into the playbook and it will tell you what play group was used for that situation and what play it returned. This should allow play book designers to get a better understanding of how their profiles will be used in the game. The Playbook tester calls exactly the same functions the rest of the game does to select a play, so the tester is WYSIWYG in this regard.

A couple of AI changes have been made as well.

I'll post a complete list of fixes and new features as the patch release gets closer. I would like to have this patch out for the end of the month, however it's already the 14th, so it will likely be pushed into June. I'll keep everyone posted on that.

Thank you again for your continued support.

David

< Message edited by Marauders -- 5/29/2008 6:58:52 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/15/2008 7:09:12 AM

dreamtheatervt

Posts: 483
Joined: 4/22/2006
From: Virginia
Status: offline

Thank you David.

< Message edited by dreamtheatervt -- 5/15/2008 7:11:46 AM >

_____________________________

DTVT's Playbooks

Post #: 2

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/15/2008 7:09:45 AM

redwolf1

Posts: 366
Joined: 5/13/2005
From: Maple Ridge, B.C., Canada
Status: offline

Thank you for the update David - looks like some good things in store for the upcoming patch!

The 2.5 paid update sounds very interesting and has many enticing features for me. Would love some simple trades integrated into the game! I know you intend on a basic system, but please don't rush it - if the AI is poor in this regards it could a have a very detrimental impact on the leagues. Take your time, make it basic, but give it good solid AI - it will be worth the wait.

Thanks for your continued dedication.

Redwolf

_____________________________

(in reply to David Winter)

Post #: 3

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/15/2008 1:08:17 PM

hack153

Posts: 525
Joined: 11/11/2006
From: New Englander in Northern, Northern California
Status: offline

sounds good.

_____________________________

UPFL is in the off season...
United Premier Football League

(in reply to redwolf1)

Post #: 4

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/15/2008 2:53:23 PM

simmer

Posts: 572
Joined: 11/20/2004
From: Pittsburgh,Pa
Status: offline

Grrrrrrrrrrrrreat to hear.......I'm gettng ready for the up coming season.........2 months away NCAA

(in reply to hack153)

Post #: 5

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/19/2008 7:50:54 AM

micvik

Posts: 139
Joined: 10/23/2007
Status: offline

will the next version 0f 2.2 include the fix for issue of plays disapearing from groups when they are imported into another playbook?

Post #: 6

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/19/2008 9:30:24 AM

David Winter

Posts: 5158
Joined: 11/24/2004
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: micvik

will the next version 0f 2.2 include the fix for issue of plays disapearing from groups when they are imported into another playbook?

None of my testing has reproduced that problem. If you can, please send me a playbook that shows the problem for you.

thanks

(in reply to micvik)

Post #: 7

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/19/2008 2:21:37 PM

jdhalfrack

Posts: 293
Joined: 10/22/2007
From: Springfield, IL
Status: offline

More of a selfish question:� will the update change the structure of the league database files?� I know I have taken my sweet ass time re-writting my editor (life has a funny way of getting in the way sometimes... sorry), but it is nearly done, and I'd hate to think it won't work for those people who have 2.5.� Just wondering.� Thanks for the reply!

JD

< Message edited by jdhalfrack -- 5/19/2008 3:46:09 PM >

_____________________________

Latest Max FB Databse Editor: Max FB Database Editor (v 1.7.0)

(in reply to David Winter)

Post #: 8

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/19/2008 6:31:36 PM

elmerlee

Posts: 309
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

David:

I have no problem paying for whatever seems best included in 2.5. Without a doubt enough time has passed that you are due this.

Of course there is a "however". I spent a great deal of time in the past two weeks trying to input text files to build a real player data base. It is great that Max allows this. While trying to get this done I felt I better go back and play a few games again to to see if my formulas work.

So here is what happened in the course of two games (AI vs AI) ---------
1.Opening kickoff is a touchback. The ball is awarded to the KICKING team on the RECEIVING team 30 yard line.

2.Offensive team gets a five yard offside penalty against it on first down. They are quickly rewarded for a fist down in the team stats summary.

3.Offense scores a TD on a 45 yard pass. They DO NOT get credit for a FD (NFL PRO GAME)in the team stats.This item has been well documented for months but not fixed.

4.On the same play Offense gets double pass stat credit in team stats. Alo passer and receiver also get double credt. Yeah I know this has been reported but is it fixed.

5.Runners love to run in place behind blockers and tacklers rather than slide to an opening beside them where there is a whole. Do ball carriers look for an open spot or do they just blindly chug away?

6.When a ball carrier or receiver is tackled the ball is ALWAYS spoted at the point of his feet. This destroys the value of falling forward when tackled. It should be about at his feet when falling back but at the point of the ball (when knee hits) when falling forward. This creates a 1-2 yard difference each time. Certainly an increase in programming difficulty but very necessary to fix.

7.There are also a couple lesser things which slip my mid.

My point is this. These bugs(yes bugs) need fixed NOW and then I will be more than willing to pay for an update. Even up to full price.

Max football has come a long way in two years. But lets be honest it had a long way to come.

Post #: 9

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/19/2008 7:45:35 PM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

1.Opening kickoff is a touchback. The ball is awarded to the KICKING team on the RECEIVING team 30 yard line.

I believe this is known.

quote:

3.Offense scores a TD on a 45 yard pass. They DO NOT get credit for a FD (NFL PRO GAME) in the team stats. This item has been well documented for months but not fixed.

A team should get credit for a first down on any score made from the ten yard line and out in both American pro and American college rules.

quote:

4.On the same play Offense gets double pass stat credit in team stats. Alo passer and receiver also get double credt. Yeah I know this has been reported but is it fixed.

This is known.

quote:

5.Runners love to run in place behind blockers and tacklers rather than slide to an opening beside them where there is a whole. Do ball carriers look for an open spot or do they just blindly chug away?

Ball carrier looks for an open hole. The problem here is that there is not a slow up and pick a hole animation.

quote:

6.When a ball carrier or receiver is tackled the ball is ALWAYS spoted at the point of his feet. This destroys the value of falling forward when tackled. It should be about at his feet when falling back but at the point of the ball (when knee hits) when falling forward. This creates a 1-2 yard difference each time. Certainly an increase in programming difficulty but very necessary to fix.

I have always thought the game tracked the ball. As I recall, there was a question about this long ago, but I don't have the definitive answer.

quote:

My point is this. These bugs(yes bugs) need fixed NOW and then I will be more than willing to pay for an update. Even up to full price.

I agree that a few items need to be cleaned up for 2.2, and there will be a patch. Most of these items have been looked at, and I know some have already been addressed. There are always beta team reports as well, so work is being done.

quote:

Max football has come a long way in two years. But lets be honest it had a long way to come.

From 1.2 to 2.2, I would agree. A lot has been done, and a lot has been upgraded.

As I have stated before, there are opportunity costs to anything done with a game program. We all want bugs fixed, and that is a priority. Many of us wanted better depth charts, better defenses, better stats, and other features that were added to the game with time and effort, and there is a point where we have to say that these added items deserve some added payment for the added value.

The early purchasers of Maximum Football were rewarded by not having to pay for any upgrades up to 2.2. Those who waited for 2.0 received a better game out of the box (or download). David and the Matrix Games staff want the 2.5 expansion pack to have value as well, so the thought was to update some features, add some features, and make it as easy as one can for the community to make the upgrade.

The one thing to keep in mind here is that the game will never be perfect. It will never be 100% to the rules of the NFC, NCAA, CFL, or any number of indoor rulesets. One cannot expect that and have all of the options that Maximum Football has. One should expect the programmer and beta team to do their best to make it so, and that, with some help from this community, is what David and the beta team are trying to do.

- Marauders

< Message edited by Marauders -- 5/19/2008 7:51:18 PM >

(in reply to elmerlee)

Post #: 10

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/19/2008 9:03:30 PM

elmerlee

Posts: 309
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

What exactly did you say here.

Most of your comments only repeat what I stated. "it is know" does not mean "it is fixed" for next release.

As far as the ball is concerned just LOOK AT A FEW PLAYS".

As far as your "first down comment" I stated the play was 45 yards. And your comment did what?

And so on.

(in reply to elmerlee)

Post #: 11

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/19/2008 9:32:22 PM

David Winter

Posts: 5158
Joined: 11/24/2004
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline

quote:

5.Runners love to run in place behind blockers and tacklers rather than slide to an opening beside them where there is a whole. Do ball carriers look for an open spot or do they just blindly chug away?

I can't say I've ever seen runners run in place, but ball carriers, while behind the LOS, run along the path provided to them when the play was designed. While behind LOS, players do not stray off the designated route.

If you are creating plays and the running path goes directly up the backside of a blocker, that's where the runner will go. Once the runner is across the LOS then he's on his own and can run around obstacles (blockers). So without having actually seen what it is you're describing, I can only suggest ensuring the running path of the player is going between blockers.

Thanks for the point list. Many look like they were previously reported and have been addressed.

(in reply to elmerlee)

Post #: 12

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/19/2008 9:59:59 PM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

elmerlee asked: What exactly did you say here.

I stated that most of the issues have been reported, and some have already been addressed. I did not go back into the beta release notes to check.

quote:

Most of your comments only repeat what I stated. "it is know" does not mean "it is fixed" for next release.

It is known means it is on the list of items to look at or it has already been fixed.

quote:

As far as the ball is concerned just LOOK AT A FEW PLAYS".

Please do not shout in this forum, and please don't get short with me. As I stated, there was a question about this some time ago, but I don't recall the outcome of the conversation. It may have been a comment in passing or a side note.

I don't program the code, so this is an subject I must defer to David.

quote:

As far as your "first down comment" I stated the play was 45 yards. And your comment did what?

It was an agreement with your comment. I also added that it applied to the NCAA rules as well. It likely applies to the CFL too, but I didn't look it up.

As always, I appreciate any constructive feedback.

(in reply to elmerlee)

Post #: 13

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/19/2008 10:07:35 PM

David Winter

Posts: 5158
Joined: 11/24/2004
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline

quote:

So here is what happened in the course of two games (AI vs AI) ---------
1.Opening kickoff is a touchback. The ball is awarded to the KICKING team on the RECEIVING team 30 yard line.

How exactly is the touchback occurring? I'm getting the results as seen below...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrFwgccX3TI (not the greatest quality video in the world)

(in reply to David Winter)

Post #: 14

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/19/2008 10:33:44 PM

David Winter

Posts: 5158
Joined: 11/24/2004
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jdhalfrack

More of a selfish question:� will the update change the structure of the league database files?� I know I have taken my sweet ass time re-writting my editor (life has a funny way of getting in the way sometimes... sorry), but it is nearly done, and I'd hate to think it won't work for those people who have 2.5.� Just wondering.� Thanks for the reply!

JD

There will be a couple of new tables added and a couple of new fields added to existing tables. These are required for the trade feature. The databases will be migrated forwards automatically.

Off the top of my head, I can not think of any changes I would make that would effect league play. As of today (May 19) there's nothing planned that would require a league reset.

If someone comes along with a feature request that's in high demand, and that change requires a league reset, well.. we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.. but right now, any changes should be invisible to the customer base.

(in reply to jdhalfrack)

Post #: 15

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/19/2008 11:07:28 PM

hack153

Posts: 525
Joined: 11/11/2006
From: New Englander in Northern, Northern California
Status: offline

david, do you think it will ever be possible to select multiple plays and put them into a group? that would make playbook / profile creation a lot easier.

thank!!

_____________________________

UPFL is in the off season...
United Premier Football League

Post #: 16

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/20/2008 2:23:47 AM

garysorrell

Posts: 2176
Joined: 1/29/2005
Status: offline

I was always under the impression that a team did NOT get a 1st down if scoring a TD took them beyond the 1st down marker. Maybe I was mistaken.

quote:

4.On the same play Offense gets double pass stat credit in team stats. Alo passer and receiver also get double credt. Yeah I know this has been reported but is it fixed.

Im positive this has been fixed. Im not seeing it now.

quote:

6.When a ball carrier or receiver is tackled the ball is ALWAYS spoted at the point of his feet. This destroys the value of falling forward when tackled. It should be about at his feet when falling back but at the point of the ball (when knee hits) when falling forward. This creates a 1-2 yard difference each time. Certainly an increase in programming difficulty but very necessary to fix.

I see this quite a bit, but it doesnt bother me, because I know that the game doesnt necessarily work that way.
This I think is a matter of preference. I understand how it works in real life, but MaxFB is fairly straight forward. The ball was carried to X yard line by a player(RB, WR, whatever). The animation is, to some extent, window dressing. Regardless of what I see on screen, I understand the mark of the ball is what it is.

_____________________________

(in reply to hack153)

Post #: 17

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/20/2008 3:25:57 AM

Mykal

Posts: 1777
Joined: 4/3/2008
Status: offline

quote:

quote:

4.On the same play Offense gets double pass stat credit in team stats. Alo passer and receiver also get double credt. Yeah I know this has been reported but is it fixed.

Im positive this has been fixed. Im not seeing it now.

Nope, not fixed yet, I still see it a good bit, although I have found switching of replays seems to eliminate the problem.

Mykal

(in reply to garysorrell)

Post #: 18

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/20/2008 3:59:36 AM

garysorrell

Posts: 2176
Joined: 1/29/2005
Status: offline

I mean fixed in beta testing. Im not seeing it in the current build we have.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mykal)

Post #: 19

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/20/2008 1:22:07 PM

Mykal

Posts: 1777
Joined: 4/3/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: garysorrell

I mean fixed in beta testing. Im not seeing it in the current build we have.

Kewl, sorry bro, thought you meant fixed for all of us.

Mykal

(in reply to garysorrell)

Post #: 20

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/20/2008 1:49:04 PM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

quote:

quote:

4.On the same play Offense gets double pass stat credit in team stats. Alo passer and receiver also get double credt. Yeah I know this has been reported but is it fixed.

Im positive this has been fixed. Im not seeing it now.

Nope, not fixed yet, I still see it a good bit, although I have found switching of replays seems to eliminate the problem.

As Gary stated, this was fixed in a beta build. David addressed this soon after it was reported.

(in reply to Mykal)

Post #: 21

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/20/2008 6:01:34 PM

elmerlee

Posts: 309
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

David Winter:
As far as the running in place is concerned your answer was very encouraging.
I hoped I was seeing right when the runner got past the line of scrimmage. Not that
big of a deal if that is the case as good play design should help behind LOS event.

Concerning the KO touchback, it usually works fine and I noticed only twice when what I mentioned occured.
This was on kicks that went out of the endzone (not everytime I don't think). As far as I could tell
   the kick may have stopped right on the endline (cack of the endzone).

   As I said the ball spotting is not a big deal. If I right programing the spot according to a real
   game would surely be difficult. My thought was just that seeing a ball carrier knocked back or
   falling forward is very neat and would be nice if the game could account for that.

   While I have your ear David are you aware of the "first down on an offensive penalty." I think
    this only occurs when offense has called a play on first down.

Marauders:
    Once again you did not answer 80% of what I ask.

    Your reply to the "running in place" was not correct,and made little sense,as if differs with
    what David posted.

     As for the "double stats" I didn't ask if it was known. I asked if it was fixed.
     The same goes for the kickoff error.

     And your reply to the FD on a TD is just incorrect. I believe this was decided earlier.

Post #: 22

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/20/2008 8:01:24 PM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

elmerlee stated: Once again you did not answer 80% of what I ask.

I answer what I may and defer the other questions to David. In this case, I posted a quick answer to your questions, and I didn't dig through the build notes to see which issues were already corrected - partially because we are testing them still. When I post that issues are being addressed, they have usually been posted to a thread in the private forum and have been discussed or have been acted on. Please accept that I am not at liberty to post everything that is going on in the private forum, and it it is up to David if he wants to post in more detail.

quote:

Your reply to the "running in place" was not correct,and made little sense,as if differs with what David posted.

My "running in place" reply was correct, and it did differ from what David posted. They are different issues and are not mutually exclusive.

Your specific question was whether ball carriers look for an open hole, and my answer was that they do. If the blockers are all bunched, or there is no hole, the ball carrier will take an angle to an open area if he can. If he is trapped with defenders around him, he cannot always do that and will look like he is running in place.

The issue that David brought up is that the running back, or an player for that matter, will try to execute any command given to him. If the [MOVETO:] command runs a halfback up the back of the quarterback or linemen, he will run in place until the status is resolved.

This means that play design is important. One must test new plays in the PDS to make sure that the hole that the back is supposed to run through is actually a hole by the time he gets there. It also means that backs should be given movement commands that do not run through the quarterback dropping back for a pass.

Some community members may have noticed that the running back will nonger be given a free pass through the quarterback dropping back. Collision detection has been turned on when the quarterback is dropping back and some plays are affected because the running back, especially in a single back or I formation, has poorly designed commands. That is one reason that I am cleaning up some of the old playbooks.

There was debate as to whether the collision detection for the quarterback dropping back should be turned on for other players in the backfield. There is always a balance between realism and keeping things simple for game players. In this case realism was the greater value, because having running backs move through quarterbacks didn't look good. Play designers should know how to place their backs without using the [BLOCK: PASS] shortcut and no other movement. I have faith that this will not be an issue.

quote:

As for the "double stats" I didn't ask if it was known. I asked if it was fixed.

I have not been testing stats, so this isn't an area I wanted to go into depth with. As I stated above, if I tell you something is known or being addressed, it is being looked into and may already have been resolved. I generally answer questions with as much information as I either want to give or believe I am allowed to give considering I am under a NDA as part of the beta team.

quote:

The same goes for the kickoff error.

Again, I was making a quick post, and I answered as best I could recall. I do not always have the time to go into more detail.

quote:

And your reply to the FD on a TD is just incorrect. I believe this was decided earlier.

How was it just incorrect?

Section 1, (First Downs) of the NCAA rulebook states:

"Article 1. A first down shall be recorded whenever the yardsticks are ordered forward and/or when a touchdown is scored from scrimmage (rushing or passing) within a series of downs starting from 10 years or more from the goal line, or when a dead-ball foul results in an automatic first down."

I stated:

"A team should get credit for a first down on any score made from the ten yard line and out in both American pro and American college rules."

I don't see anything in my reply that is incorrect.

I'm not really sure what the purpose is trying to call out a moderator on this board. That is especially valid in my case, as I have defended your comments many times in the private forum, and your brusque writing style tends to leave you without many defenders.

I appreciate your continued feedback, and I will try to answer any questions you may have, but I am not your personal assistant. Please keep that in mind.

< Message edited by Marauders -- 5/20/2008 8:16:48 PM >

(in reply to elmerlee)

Post #: 23

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/20/2008 9:26:30 PM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

As far as the running in place is concerned your answer was very encouraging. I hoped I was seeing right when the runner got past the line of scrimmage. Not that big of a deal if that is the case as good play design should help behind LOS event.

Do you know which playbook or play you were running? I could look into this more closely if I know which play it was.

quote:

Concerning the KO touchback, it usually works fine and I noticed only twice when what I mentioned occured. This was on kicks that went out of the endzone (not everytime I don't think). As far as I could tell the kick may have stopped right on the endline (cack of the endzone).

Thank you for the follow up information. This could be helpful.

quote:

As I said the ball spotting is not a big deal. If I right programing the spot according to a real game would surely be difficult. My thought was just that seeing a ball carrier knocked back or falling forward is very neat and would be nice if the game could account for that.

I agree, it would be nice to have the ball spotted forward if the player falls forward. From past similar discussions, I recall that the location of the ball in the 3D world is where the ball is spotted, but I am not sure if this is prior to the tackle animation being played or not.

(in reply to elmerlee)

Post #: 24

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/21/2008 2:15:14 AM

elmerlee

Posts: 309
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

I will drop this after posting one more thing. It is rather well established that a wrong answer is much worse than none at all.Even in basic testing procedures this is quite often applied.

I contend that your wrong answers are misleading. In the FD case you continue to argue your point and state a rule in the NCAA rulebook.Below is my illustration.

"Offense scores a TD on a 45 yard pass. They DO NOT get credit for a FD (NFL PRO GAME)in the team stats.This item has been well documented for months but not fixed."

First I mention the game was an NFL game not NCAA. Second I stated the score came on a 45 yard pass. I believe that is outside the 10 yard line. Two items you failed to notice. So this makes me wonder if you really absorb the posts on this board or are simply are in a hurry to provide some type answer.

Your efforts on the board are appreciated but I think correct and pertinent answers would be best. Nobody wants to be misled.

(in reply to elmerlee)

Post #: 25

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/21/2008 2:40:14 AM

Mykal

Posts: 1777
Joined: 4/3/2008
Status: offline

Jeepers man

Were all in the same boat, we have the same issues, cos were all playing the same game
but Cut Marauders some slack brother

There's a line between constructive critism and jumping on someone
I think were getting real close to that line here

We all get your point by now (and even agree with most of it)

Lets be kewl elmerlee and all stay buddies..............

Later brother, Mykal

(in reply to elmerlee)

Post #: 26

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/21/2008 3:09:19 AM

garysorrell

Posts: 2176
Joined: 1/29/2005
Status: offline

quote:

So this makes me wonder if you really absorb the posts on this board or are simply are in a hurry to provide some type answer.

This comment is garbage and uncalled for. Marauders has done a great job, not only on the public board but also on the testers board, of helping better this game and the experience of its users. He's an unpaid moderator and test team leader. He runs block for David so David can work on the game. God forgive him if he misread, misunderstood, or as the genius Roger Clemens said, "Misremembered" something. I can vouch for the fact Marauders is online at all hours. Because I am also, and I see him there a lot. I think this sudden demand for perfection is a bit unrealistic.
However, on the subject of perfection, the following is bad grammar:

quote:

or are simply are in a hurry

_____________________________

(in reply to Mykal)

Post #: 27

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/21/2008 7:41:26 AM

therhino

Posts: 844
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline

Emerlee that is enough. You called David out a couple of months ago and it didn't help you then and it won't now. Marauders is trying to help, but give him a chance. You can't expect David to answer your questions and work on Maximum Football at the same time. As for 2.5 David I think you should charge full price. You have given so much of your time to us and I have no problem paying $40. Since I have been here I have gotten 2 updates for free and a HUGE thanks for that David.
Thanks,
TheRhino

Post #: 28

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/21/2008 8:31:30 AM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

elmerlee stated: It is rather well established that a wrong answer is much worse than none at all. Even in basic testing procedures this is quite often applied.

Then simply stop giving wrong answers.

quote:

I contend that your wrong answers are misleading.

Please tell me which answers you believe to be wrong or misleading in the replies to your post?

The only item I was unaware of was that any proposed trade feature will need a few changes to the database, but that information wasn't given to the beta team, so it was unknown to anyone but David. That is why I prefaced my reply to JD with not that I know of.

quote:

In the FD case you continue to argue your point and state a rule in the NCAA rulebook.I contend that your wrong answers are misleading. In the FD case you continue to argue your point and state a rule in the NCAA rulebook. Below is my illustration.

Actually, I was supporting your point, but you want to take issue with that for some reason.

quote:

"Offense scores a TD on a 45 yard pass. They DO NOT get credit for a FD (NFL PRO GAME)in the team stats.This item has been well documented for months but not fixed."

Got it, the team didn't get credit for the first down.

quote:

First I mention the game was an NFL game not NCAA.

Got it, the NFL game.

Side Note: there is no NFL in Maximum Football, that is under an exclusive contract with EA Sports, but I got the point.

The rule is the same in the NCAA (an EA Sports licence as well) and NFL - unless I have been misled by the rulebooks.

quote:

Second I stated the score came on a 45 yard pass. I believe that is outside the 10 yard line.

Yes, the 45 yard line is outside the 10 yard line. Got it, 35 yards outside the 10 yard line.

quote:

Two items you failed to notice.

I noticed them, and I responded in support of your premise.

Perhaps you did not notice that I posted in agreement with your post on that point. You didn't even notice that after I told you in no uncertain terms a few posts later, and then I posted the NCAA rule as a follow up. Would you rather I hadn't agreed with you?

quote:

So this makes me wonder if you really absorb the posts on this board or are simply are in a hurry to provide some type answer.

The irony.

Do I need to explain that reply further?

quote:

Your efforts on the board are appreciated but I think correct and pertinent answers would be best. Nobody wants to be misled.

I am certain no one wants to be misled, but tell me how you were misled in any way. Perhaps if you actually had taken the time to read the replies you would have understood their meaning. It isn't that you were misled; it is that you misread.

Again, I will say that I appreciate your feedback. I have stated so in public and in PM's, but your replies here are combative and brusque for no good reason that I can see other than the answers were not exactly what you wanted. Excuse me for that, as I don't always have time to look up all of the information in one go, and I'd rather not post incorrect or misleading information in haste. I am not immune from doing so, but I have not in this topic.

< Message edited by Marauders -- 5/21/2008 9:53:00 AM >

(in reply to elmerlee)

Post #: 29

RE: Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008) - 5/21/2008 9:04:54 AM

therhino

Posts: 844
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline

Thanks Marauders that clears a couple of more points up. I don't see you misleading anyone at all, but thats just me. This post proves Gary Sorrells point Marauders is up at any time of the night. Thanks Marauders you and David have helped me with problems early and late and it so cool not having to wait days of weeks for a reply.
TheRhino

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 30