RE: playable yet? Part II

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: playable yet? Part II

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: playable yet? Part II

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: playable yet? Part II - 3/31/2009 7:41:31 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

That's odd. Here I thought some of you were pining for TCP/IP implementation so you could do just that....

This is Tuesday. TCP/IP usually comes up on Thursdays...

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you do work for the gov't and that you didn't read my post since it was probably too long and "wordy" for you.

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 331

RE: playable yet? Part II - 3/31/2009 8:18:00 PM

Thresh

Posts: 393
Joined: 12/25/2006
From: KCMO
Status: offline

Not at all.

I do wonder why you think his definition of playable is not correct though.

Todd

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 332

RE: playable yet? Part II - 3/31/2009 10:25:06 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

I'm going to go ahead and assume ... that you didn't read my post since it was probably too long and "wordy" for you.

This is yet another incorrect assumption on your part. See post #328 above. Not that it matters.

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 333

RE: playable yet? Part II - 3/31/2009 10:38:17 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Not at all.

I do wonder why you think his definition of playable is not� correct though.

Todd

I don't agree with it. I don't think most do, that's why. I already stated, if you had bothered to read my posts, that if we are going under his definition of playable then I agree with him the game is playable.

I can code a playable game in under 5 minutes given his definition. Would you like to play that game?

(in reply to Thresh)

Post #: 334

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/1/2009 3:00:44 AM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

I'm with neverman on this one.

Playable=fun>>pain

The purpose of speeding up the game is to increase the fun, by a) reducing the time commitment (good for players), and b) opening the game up to a wider audience (good for Matrix).

But the speed should not scarifice the core EIA aspects of the game as stated elsewhere, so there are limits to how fast it can go. However, sim dip/eco fits this criteria.

A 7 player game in less than a year that reasonable people with outside lives living in multiple timezones can play would be a great target. Pzgrndr, make sure you understand the part about having an outside life, i.e. not a year of spending every free moment logged on waiting for a turn.

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 335

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/1/2009 3:15:15 AM

borner

Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

Pz seems to think the game is fine. That's one vote.

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 336

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/1/2009 7:30:53 AM

Thresh

Posts: 393
Joined: 12/25/2006
From: KCMO
Status: offline

To bad the process isn't as democratic as we want it to be, eh Borner?

Todd

(in reply to borner)

Post #: 337

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/1/2009 7:34:59 AM

Thresh

Posts: 393
Joined: 12/25/2006
From: KCMO
Status: offline

Then by your definition my copy of Empire Total War isn't playable.

And that's a game given a lot more support and bigger development budget from a much bigger company.

Are we demanding perfection out of the box (or straight from the download as it were these days) where any sort of patch should be unnecessary because the game as released is perfect?

Do we have faith in the process that's bringing the game to a standard we all like (and very probably expected)?

And if we don't have any faith in that process, why participate any further? As you once said, you aren't being paid for it, so whats the point and purpose? Catharsis of some sort?

Todd

< Message edited by Thresh -- 4/1/2009 7:41:08 AM >

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 338

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/1/2009 12:27:53 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

Your definition => playable = being able to be completed

quote:

Pz seems to think the game is fine. That's one vote.

It is entertaining to a point to discover what I seem to be saying and thinking, despite not actually saying or thinking these things. If you knuckleheads could provide some actual quotes and proper context about things, then perhaps others might take you more seriously. As it is, these rantings are pretty much meaningless. I leave it for the peanut gallery to determine who has credibility and who does not. In the meantime, I'll sit back with my bag of popcorn and see what I might say or think next.

To review the bidding for whoever else follows this silly thread, there are spurious assertions offered here and some of these deserve a rational rebuttal.
1) Matrix has no remedial action plan to fix bugs and provide improvements/enhancements. Well, yes they do and Erik Rutins and Marshall have repeatedly announced their commitment to fix the bugs and provide improvements and enhancements. The critics refuse to acknowledge these announcements.
2) PBEM is incrediably slow and players have to sit around waiting for their turn. Duh, this has been the case for decades, and is still the case for benchmark PBEM games using VASSAL or other software. Well, EiANW provides comparable capability with its recent bug fixes and phase skipping. Simultaneous dip/eco phases will provide additional speed improvements, plus with EiANW's standing orders and other automated features it should prove to be faster than traditional PBEM using VASSAL. How fast is fast enough? The critics will not say so we don't know what they really want.
3) We have no way of knowing what the future development plans are. Hmm, does any game developer or software developer provide detailed plans about future patches?? We have the Mantis bug tracker that lists all issues under consideration for resolution, for those willing and able to check it. If something should be added, then add it. Issues are being worked off, too slowly for most all of us but still being worked off, and there appears to be a reasonable balance between bug fixes, PBEM improvements, AI improvements, and other enhancements. Eventually, if/when all issues on Mantis are resolved, would even that be enough to satisfy the critics? Who knows.

Enough for now. The v1.06 patch should be out shortly and hopefully we can move beyond this thread and all of the meaningless arguments it contains.

(in reply to Thresh)

Post #: 339

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/1/2009 1:14:09 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I just have to repost this from Trax's AAR above:

quote:

Our four player group has compleated EiANW with a French victory in December of 1812.
Finish order with percentage; France 101, Spain 89, G.B. 88, Turkey 83, Russia 60, Austria 51, Prussia 38.
Ai Spain and Turkey did nothing to deserve their fininshing positions!

In our game France won two unconditional peace treaties from both Austria and Prussia. GB won a
conditional peace from the Turks. Russia was invaded twice by France but was never defeated.
Our game had human players for France, GB, Austria and Russia. After about 1806 we found it preferable to let
the Austrian player also control Prussia.
We started our game about the first of February 2008 and finished mid January 2009. There was
about 5 game months of do-overs with the early problems in the game. Progress has been steady for quite
a while now. This adds up to about 1700 turns in 350 days an average of 5 player turns
per day. We did have several weeks of no play so the average of 5 turns is misleading. On a good
evening we often could get through two phases of a game month.
Our group is going to shuffle countries and start again.

Playable yet? ROTFLMAO

So, what about Trax's game makes you say it is playable?

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 340

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/1/2009 4:20:22 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

What do you mean, what makes "me" say it's playable? Trax reported his group played and completed a game. If you want to argue the semantics of the word "playable" with regard to Trax's game then argue with Trax. You go ahead and tell HIM the game he and his group actually played really wasn't playable, and the game they actually finished really cannot be completed. Go ahead. We'll all just sit back and watch how it turns out.

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 341

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/1/2009 4:40:14 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

What do you mean, what makes "me" say it's playable?� Trax reported his group played and completed a game.� If you want to argue the semantics of the word "playable" with regard to Trax's game then argue with Trax.� You go ahead and tell�HIM the game he and his group actually played really wasn't playable, and the game they actually finished really cannot be completed.� Go ahead.� We'll all just sit back and watch how it turns out.

No, you quote his post and then write "Playable yet? ROTFLMAO

"....

It was an obvious attempt at being condescending, implying that he finished a game so the game must be playable. If you meant something other than this please let us know.

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 342

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/2/2009 12:37:30 AM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

Pzgndr, for the benefit of us knuckleheads, can you reference the exact post where Matrix last posted the remedial plan?

Also, while there has been one speed improvement, what's your estimate on the amount of time commited by Matrix so far to developing additional speed developments vs improving the AI. Would you say it has been about equal?

Below is quoted from Pzgndr:
To review the bidding for whoever else follows this silly thread, there are spurious assertions offered here and some of these deserve a rational rebuttal.
1) Matrix has no remedial action plan to fix bugs and provide improvements/enhancements. Well, yes they do and Erik Rutins and Marshall have repeatedly announced their commitment to fix the bugs and provide improvements and enhancements. The critics refuse to acknowledge these announcements.
2) PBEM is incrediably slow and players have to sit around waiting for their turn. Duh, this has been the case for decades, and is still the case for benchmark PBEM games using VASSAL or other software. Well, EiANW provides comparable capability with its recent bug fixes and phase skipping. Simultaneous dip/eco phases will provide additional speed improvements, plus with EiANW's standing orders and other automated features it should prove to be faster than traditional PBEM using VASSAL. How fast is fast enough? The critics will not say so we don't know what they really want.
3) We have no way of knowing what the future development plans are. Hmm, does any game developer or software developer provide detailed plans about future patches?? We have the Mantis bug tracker that lists all issues under consideration for resolution, for those willing and able to check it. If something should be added, then add it. Issues are being worked off, too slowly for most all of us but still being worked off, and there appears to be a reasonable balance between bug fixes, PBEM improvements, AI improvements, and other enhancements. Eventually, if/when all issues on Mantis are resolved, would even that be enough to satisfy the critics? Who knows.

Enough for now. The v1.06 patch should be out shortly and hopefully we can move beyond this thread and all of the meaningless arguments it contains.
[/quote]

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 343

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/2/2009 2:41:10 AM

borner

Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

the point is some people are happy with the game, some are not. I happen to think the break is at least 30/70 not playable, but that is open to debate. I think the more you played the origional the less the chance you are going to be pleased at this point. As I have said, I hope Martix stays focused on getting things working, then to enhancements

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 344

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/4/2009 8:57:17 PM

borner

Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

Forgot to ask this in my previous post. PZ, you keep calling this thread silly, but you will not go away, I do not understand why. As for bing silly - if it keep you entertained, that is enough for me.

(in reply to borner)

Post #: 345

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/5/2009 1:54:05 AM

borner

Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

from another thread..... but a year in you STILL cannot add provences to Poland or OE after creation? Oh yes, lets divert time and resources into a new naval systme before the basics are worked out! Sorry for the negative tone, but this is inexcuseable from a design standpoint

(in reply to borner)

Post #: 346

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/6/2009 2:09:42 AM

borner

Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

bored this weekend, tried to play against the AI.... still stupid, but discovered the OE is still broken, and Portugal will not allow it's own cav to be added to it's corps..... Oh well.

(in reply to borner)

Post #: 347

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/6/2009 10:27:23 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Attachment (1)

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 348

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/7/2009 3:55:56 AM

borner

Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

now that was somewhat cute and creative

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 349

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/9/2009 11:55:37 AM

StCyr

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

well, if only Marshall would be half that creative, there might be hope...

The game is still a mess, and I bet we will have the same discussion about "playable" in 2 years, if some guys go on and refuse to ignore the reality.
Borner, if you expect the AI to be ai, it is obviously your own mistake.
And if you want to build Cav with Portugal... well, thats just noobis, don�t you think so ?
Please stop complaining - no more "meaningless arguments" wanted!

(in reply to borner)

Post #: 350

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/9/2009 12:49:03 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: StCyr

well, if only Marshall would be half that creative, there might be hope...

The game is still a mess, and I bet we will have the same discussion about "playable" in 2 years, if some guys go on and refuse to ignore the reality.
Borner, if you expect the AI to be ai, it is obviously your own mistake.
And if you want to build Cav with Portugal... well, thats just noobis, don�t you think so ?
Please stop complaining - no more "meaningless arguments" wanted!

OUCH! LOL!
Would you settle for 1/4 that creative? 1/8?

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to StCyr)

Post #: 351

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/10/2009 12:09:58 AM

StCyr

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

Hi Marshall- you�r here ? Bug-hunting finished ? AI works ? Oh, well... bye.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 352

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/10/2009 3:30:48 AM

borner

Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

I did not build it, I could not add the one that came with the free state. yet another bug

< Message edited by borner -- 4/10/2009 3:42:16 AM >

(in reply to StCyr)

Post #: 353

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/16/2009 4:03:58 AM

borner

Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

yet another game comes to a craching halt due to bugs... gotta love it!

(in reply to borner)

Post #: 354

RE: playable yet? Part II - 4/28/2009 5:30:42 PM

Grapeshot Bob

Posts: 642
Joined: 12/16/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

Still not going anywhere fast?

Sounds like it is still not up to normal playability standards since I bought version 1.00. That was over a year ago.

I'm glad the bugs are being worked out, but seriously, these should have been nailed down well before this game was released.

I still feel like a beta tester, which is unacceptable.

I'll check back periodically but at this rate a genuinely playable game might be available within the next 12 months.

GSB

< Message edited by Grapeshot Bob -- 4/28/2009 5:31:30 PM >

(in reply to borner)

Post #: 355

RE: playable yet? Part II - 5/1/2009 4:04:45 AM

borner

Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

(in reply to Grapeshot Bob)

Post #: 356

RE: playable yet? Part II - 5/1/2009 9:11:44 AM

Grognot

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

OUCH! LOL!
Would you settle for 1/4 that creative? 1/8?

Can't speak for anybody else, but it's not your creativity that worries me, but a suspicion that the actual design of the code base is sufficiently confused as to make it extremely difficult to not only make things work, but to recall what you meant to work and on locating problems when something is possibly not working.

*Small* things like a economic manipulation modifier getting applied to the Spanish Gold die roll are somewhat understandable; that can easily happen if you have a chain of instructions that use the same variable as a modifier for different purposes, and you neglect to reset it properly between the two usages. That can be explained with extremely local and not especially bizarre mistakes. Things like a suddenly reduced (and seemingly unintentionally so) limit on total units plus garrisons are more disturbing. Units teleporting, fleets counters cloning themselves, Portugal getting victory points, PBEM human players turning AI, and hostile stacks cheerfully coexisting in regions without cities -- all of which I have observed in previous versions -- suggest more problematic things like data corruption, which in turn makes me worry about the routines you're using to store and process the data. As any old hand knows, if you mangle the wrong locations in memory you can get extremely bizarre behavior like printf() going SIGSEGV because you wrote garbage over the call stack. There's a reason why I tend to be fanatical about data abstraction, logging, unit testing, exception handling and the like in my own code -- it's enough work tracking down issues when I have to worry about broken libraries, JVM errors, code written years ago by people who are no longer co-workers, and the like.

*That* is what bothers me, more than whether the game is fast, whether it has a scenario editor, or when additional features like adding more territory to the Ottoman Empire get implemented. If the design itself is inherently badly flawed, then seemingly random broken behavior may only be a natural consequence and fixing such bugs may take far more time than it should.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 357

RE: playable yet? Part II - 5/1/2009 4:06:52 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognot

quote:

OUCH! LOL!
Would you settle for 1/4 that creative? 1/8?

Can't speak for anybody else, but it's not your creativity that worries me, but a suspicion that the actual design of the code base is sufficiently confused as to make it extremely difficult to not only make things work, but to recall what you meant to work and on locating problems when something is possibly not working.

*Small* things like a economic manipulation modifier getting applied to the Spanish Gold die roll are somewhat understandable; that can easily happen if you have a chain of instructions that use the same variable as a modifier for different purposes, and you neglect to reset it properly between the two usages. That can be explained with extremely local and not especially bizarre mistakes. Things like a suddenly reduced (and seemingly unintentionally so) limit on total units plus garrisons are more disturbing. Units teleporting, fleets counters cloning themselves, Portugal getting victory points, PBEM human players turning AI, and hostile stacks cheerfully coexisting in regions without cities -- all of which I have observed in previous versions -- suggest more problematic things like data corruption, which in turn makes me worry about the routines you're using to store and process the data. As any old hand knows, if you mangle the wrong locations in memory you can get extremely bizarre behavior like printf() going SIGSEGV because you wrote garbage over the call stack. There's a reason why I tend to be fanatical about data abstraction, logging, unit testing, exception handling and the like in my own code -- it's enough work tracking down issues when I have to worry about broken libraries, JVM errors, code written years ago by people who are no longer co-workers, and the like.

*That* is what bothers me, more than whether the game is fast, whether it has a scenario editor, or when additional features like adding more territory to the Ottoman Empire get implemented. If the design itself is inherently badly flawed, then seemingly random broken behavior may only be a natural consequence and fixing such bugs may take far more time than it should.

What he said.... and what I've said before.

(in reply to Grognot)

Post #: 358

RE: playable yet? Part II - 5/2/2009 2:38:22 PM

borner

Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 359

RE: playable yet? Part II - 5/4/2009 6:57:27 AM

mr.godo

Posts: 61
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

here here grognot.

the new 6 allows for bypassing corps. I have the dutch defending amsterdam at the start of the game and the brits land, bypass the dutch corps, siege the town and take out my fleet (i have it in amsterdam). but actually, the fleet just moves to the next port over. gitchy.

(in reply to borner)

Post #: 360