RE: Clarification of future development plans

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: Clarification of future development plans

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.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Clarification of future development plans

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 12/20/2005 6:36:41 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

How many boardgame companies do you see rewriting their rules after release?

No disrespect intended, but how many boardgame companies release games with fundamental flaws in the game mechanics?

SPI for one. Their original HIGHWAY TO THE REICH was so screwed up they actually released a complete replacement set of rules and charts. The biggest difference with board and computer games is that to "fix" a board game, all you need is an intelligent player or two. To fix a computer game, you need code access and programming skill, or a cooperative company that follows through.

_____________________________

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 91

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 12/25/2005 3:07:53 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

How many boardgame companies do you see rewriting their rules after release?

No disrespect intended, but how many boardgame companies release games with fundamental flaws in the game mechanics?

SPI for one. Their original HIGHWAY TO THE REICH was so screwed up they actually released a complete replacement set of rules and charts. The biggest difference with board and computer games is that to "fix" a board game, all you need is an intelligent player or two. To fix a computer game, you need code access and programming skill, or a cooperative company that follows through.

I talked to one programmer familiar with board games and his reply was "all of them." He feels that issuing new rules was the normal case, even though players could always rewrite them without help. But in the case of a computer game, few players can rewrite - and NONE if the code is not released. It is a fundamental thing - you are taking people's money for a product that does not work in fundamental ways - and saying this does not create any obligation to fix them. Wall Street Journal had a favorable review of a US Supreme Court decision that suggested this was not functional in US law - software companies MUST support their products in order to claim ownership of the code. A decision NOT to support means those stuck with the code have rights to do whatever they can. It is horribly inefficient - and it is in my view unethical as well. I think the only thing that makes sense is a mutual respect and support attitude. A decision to abandon is hardly going to gain market support for other future products.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 92

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 12/28/2005 3:51:06 AM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

How many boardgame companies do you see rewriting their rules after release?

No disrespect intended, but how many boardgame companies release games with fundamental flaws in the game mechanics?

SPI for one. Their original HIGHWAY TO THE REICH was so screwed up they actually released a complete replacement set of rules and charts. The biggest difference with board and computer games is that to "fix" a board game, all you need is an intelligent player or two. To fix a computer game, you need code access and programming skill, or a cooperative company that follows through.

I talked to one programmer familiar with board games and his reply was "all of them." He feels that issuing new rules was the normal case, even though players could always rewrite them without help. But in the case of a computer game, few players can rewrite - and NONE if the code is not released. It is a fundamental thing - you are taking people's money for a product that does not work in fundamental ways - and saying this does not create any obligation to fix them. Wall Street Journal had a favorable review of a US Supreme Court decision that suggested this was not functional in US law - software companies MUST support their products in order to claim ownership of the code. A decision NOT to support means those stuck with the code have rights to do whatever they can. It is horribly inefficient - and it is in my view unethical as well. I think the only thing that makes sense is a mutual respect and support attitude. A decision to abandon is hardly going to gain market support for other future products.

Matrix might lose a few supporters because of bad product, but mostly the people around here seem to be happy with what they're shoveled. At least that's what I read in the main.

_____________________________

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 93

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/6/2006 12:19:12 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Matrix might lose a few supporters because of bad product, but mostly the people around here seem to be happy with what they're shoveled. At least that's what I read in the main.

The people who stay are self selected. They must like or tolerate the product, or they would not be here. But many people have left. Actually, I left. I considered my $150 cost a rip off and refused to play even one time - based on map and OB alone. ONLY Andrew Brown's map and a series of upgrades made me take another look. I STILL refuse to play - until gross errors are addressed - but most of them can be addressed. I ALSO remember the support Matrix gave to UV - and I expect the SAME support. IF this is not forthcoming, I expect Matrix to release the code. IF neither is forthcoming, I will go away too. I think WITP is a great teaching tool - IF it becomes close to correct. I always wanted something like it. Bottom line - Matrix will lose some fraction of its market share - how much is not easy to know - but I bet it is the majority - IF it refused to make the game work well.

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 94

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/6/2006 3:11:33 PM

BossGnome

Posts: 658
Joined: 5/29/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

in what way is the game unplayable? The ASW has been fixed, the air ASW has been fixed. The leader bug has been (mostly) fixed, the plane dissapearance bug has been fixed, the "its friggin easy to take china out in the early game" problem has been fixed, Russia can still be taken out, but it takes time and effort on the part of the japs, and it gives the allies an easier time in the early war, no really i don't see what makes you refuse to play??

_____________________________

"Hard pressed on my right; my left is in retreat. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking."
-Gen. Joffre, before the battle of the Marne

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 95

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/6/2006 5:03:38 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

in what way is the game unplayable? The ASW has been fixed, the air ASW has been fixed. The leader bug has been (mostly) fixed, the plane dissapearance bug has been fixed, the "its friggin easy to take china out in the early game" problem has been fixed, Russia can still be taken out, but it takes time and effort on the part of the japs, and it gives the allies an easier time in the early war, no really i don't see what makes you refuse to play??

Air ASW is not fixed...they actually made it worse by getting it to work as designed because the subs are treated as surface ships during air search phases. They are going to fix it I'm sure. There are a ton of issues that El Cid has but he is even more hardcore than the hard rock miners around here.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to BossGnome)

Post #: 96

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/6/2006 9:45:36 PM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

It seems to me there are two kinds of people. Those who want WitP to be perfect, and fail to realize that it is a game, and those who realize it is a game, and while not necessarily a perfect one, a damn good one. There are errors, and some wierd design decisions. But it is the best thing on the market now. And frankly, I also have a hard time seeing all these people who say "I don't like it, I left. Give me the code, or I'll go away again." Ok, why are you telling us this? Does the fact you are leaving change the gameplay for the rest of us? No. Does your leaving at anyway affect those of us who are enjoying the game? No. The fact is it is a game people. And a damn good one. No one made you buy it. No one makes you like it. If you are in constant search of perfection, then just keep waiting. No game, or anything in life for that matter, will be perfect. But frankly, the way I see it, if you are going to "leave", just leave, and make room for the next guy who will probably enjoy the game. I have yet to find a perfect game (Tetris maybe?). And if small console games, first person shooters, and entry level wargames are impefect, it is naive and unreasonable to believe a massive game such as WitP would be perfect.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 97

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/6/2006 9:56:48 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

in what way is the game unplayable? The ASW has been fixed, the air ASW has been fixed. The leader bug has been (mostly) fixed, the plane dissapearance bug has been fixed, the "its friggin easy to take china out in the early game" problem has been fixed, Russia can still be taken out, but it takes time and effort on the part of the japs, and it gives the allies an easier time in the early war, no really i don't see what makes you refuse to play??

It is playable. LCU's still disappear sometimes when transported by air. They've stated this is thier top priority for fixing in the next patch. Air ASW works pretty well. You can spot subs far more often than you can hit them, which I think is realistic.

(in reply to BossGnome)

Post #: 98

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/7/2006 8:47:04 AM

bwheatley

Posts: 3650
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline

Ok i've been following this thread...
Enough is enough. Please quit your damn belly aching and leave us in piece. If you are really so hell bent that you wasted your money ask for it back i'm sure they will give it to you. If they don't your CC company probably will. It is not worth matrixs time to keep the money of someone who is unhappy when there are many of us who are happy.

The dev's bust their ass on this game and it is a game. Your complaints are petty and have no purpose. Get your money back and please just quit trying to be a troll.

I've bought almost every single game matrix has put out becuase they put out great games. I will be happy to buy another copy of Operational Art of Warfare when matrix re-releases it... So they will not miss your money. They want customers who are supportive and enjoy their products. They don't want people who are just going to gripe and be a pain in their asses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Matrix might lose a few supporters because of bad product, but mostly the people around here seem to be happy with what they're shoveled. At least that's what I read in the main.

The people who stay are self selected. They must like or tolerate the product, or they would not be here. But many people have left. Actually, I left. I considered my $150 cost a rip off and refused to play even one time - based on map and OB alone. ONLY Andrew Brown's map and a series of upgrades made me take another look. I STILL refuse to play - until gross errors are addressed - but most of them can be addressed. I ALSO remember the support Matrix gave to UV - and I expect the SAME support. IF this is not forthcoming, I expect Matrix to release the code. IF neither is forthcoming, I will go away too. I think WITP is a great teaching tool - IF it becomes close to correct. I always wanted something like it. Bottom line - Matrix will lose some fraction of its market share - how much is not easy to know - but I bet it is the majority - IF it refused to make the game work well.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 99

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/7/2006 10:22:51 AM

BossGnome

Posts: 658
Joined: 5/29/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

i actually rather like the air ASW. It was always my impression that the german subs in the atlantic were **** scared of being spotted by allied airplanes, so they really only operated in the "dark zone" in the middle of the atlantic, where the airplanes couldn't reach. I think the spot vs hit ratio on the subs is pretty good.

_____________________________

"Hard pressed on my right; my left is in retreat. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking."
-Gen. Joffre, before the battle of the Marne

(in reply to bwheatley)

Post #: 100

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/7/2006 12:13:33 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

i actually rather like the air ASW. It was always my impression that the german subs in the atlantic were **** scared of being spotted by allied airplanes, so they really only operated in the "dark zone" in the middle of the atlantic, where the airplanes couldn't reach. I think the spot vs hit ratio on the subs is pretty good.

Yeah, but the Japanese are spotting the subs in 41, not 43/44 and don't have any tech. This is just wrong and it should be fixed. Subs should be hard to spot...simple.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to BossGnome)

Post #: 101

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/7/2006 5:09:53 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

in what way is the game unplayable? The ASW has been fixed, the air ASW has been fixed. The leader bug has been (mostly) fixed, the plane dissapearance bug has been fixed, the "its friggin easy to take china out in the early game" problem has been fixed, Russia can still be taken out, but it takes time and effort on the part of the japs, and it gives the allies an easier time in the early war, no really i don't see what makes you refuse to play??

In order:
1) ASW: ASW has NOT been fixed. More broadly, submarine operations has not even been addressed. You do not have any way to control - nor will the AI use any intelligent criteria to select - operating modes. Thus a submarine may be fight a surface battle in circumstances that you would not - and which are even suicidal. There appears to be no modeling of sonar at all - a Japanese trawler is as likely to detect your submarine as a true subchaser or destroyer is - but a Japanese cruiser (like many Axis cruisers ) fitted to detect submarines won't detect them by sonar at all.
I know a tiny bit about this subject and I have no clue why you think it has been "fixed" - but it has barely been addressed. Japanese submarines have no schnorkels - neither to Dutch submarines. Japanese submarines with radar don't have any. Japanese submarine aircraft carriers don't even have their M6A1 bomber (well - they didn't - I fixed that).

2) Air ASW. It has not been fixed. Most Air ASW operations are not permitted. When the Japanese main body sorteed from Kure for Midway, the way was led by E13A1s flying a close ASW patrol. When USS Yahoo was detected up in the Sea of Japan, effective, coordinated Air ASW integrated with surface ASW in a way that most writers say Japan didn't do killed her. There is no way to do this in the game. The chances an ASW attack works are not influenced by the presence of tactical ASW aircraft in the task group. Once again, I have no clue why you think this matter is addressed, or approaches simulation, but it has not been and isn't.

3) I don't understand - or care about - the leader bug. If it has been fixed - fine. I have never had any problem with a leader - and I do select them. Maybe that is because it is fixed? But I never had any trouble in UV either. So I am skeptical - but if there was a problem - and if it has been fixed - fine by me.

4) China. The war is about China. It is fought over China. And it appears Japan COULD take China out early - so if that is "fixed" it is wrong! But it appears it is not fixed - I have no problem taking out China early - and I think that is correct - as do most Japanese students of the period. Taking out China should be a sound strategic move - with economic, military and defensive advantages for Japan.

5) Russia. Russia was the biggest threat to Japan, and it appears not well modeled. I just added a Pacific Fleet because it had NO vessels! You think that was right? And I hear awful things about how much Russian stuff is missing - when I look I bet those things are mostly going to turn out to be true. Almost every section I examine in detail has horrible, gross, inexcusable data errors.

(in reply to BossGnome)

Post #: 102

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/7/2006 5:12:07 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

the plane dissapearance bug has been fixed,

I am air oriented. I think air power dominates on land and sea. I have never seen this. WHAT plane disappearance bug? Why would it exist in WITP and not in UV? If there was such a thing, maybe it is fixed - as I don't see it now. But tell me about it - I will test to be sure.

(in reply to BossGnome)

Post #: 103

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/7/2006 5:18:25 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

no really i don't see what makes you refuse to play??

The heart of military operations is logistics. The logistics is broken - and so no ops make any sense at all - logistically. I put a larger army than Yamashita had in Malaya- no problem with supplies! [He reduced 5 divisions to 3 so he could supply them]. I took the place in 10 days - not the fantastic 100 days of history. I took Hong Kong in 1 day - and never more than 5 days - never does it hold out to the Christmas day of history.
I put a BRIGADE on Bataan - and killed Corregedor in 1 day! Whatever this is, it is not historical simulation. Oh - yes - did you know that the invasions of Luzon are backwards? That a brigade lands where a division did - but no matter - it rolls up the entire US force anyway? Did you know that the good sense of Yamashita - on Luzon - to defend Baguio - is not even an option? Luzon is in the center of the chessboard - and it is fundamentally wrong. Where is the largest copper mine in Asia? [Mountain Province, north of Baguio]. New Caledonia is a critical resource center - the only significant source of Antimony in the world for the Allies - and lots of other vital minerals. It was given NO resource points in stock. Andrew won't give it what it should have because resource centers generate supply points. What's up with that? I can feed an army, an air force and a fleet off raw rubber, I guess.

(in reply to BossGnome)

Post #: 104

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/7/2006 5:18:31 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Matrix might lose a few supporters because of bad product, but mostly the people around here seem to be happy with what they're shoveled. At least that's what I read in the main.

The people who stay are self selected. They must like or tolerate the product, or they would not be here. But many people have left. Actually, I left. I considered my $150 cost a rip off and refused to play even one time - based on map and OB alone. ONLY Andrew Brown's map and a series of upgrades made me take another look. I STILL refuse to play - until gross errors are addressed - but most of them can be addressed. I ALSO remember the support Matrix gave to UV - and I expect the SAME support. IF this is not forthcoming, I expect Matrix to release the code. IF neither is forthcoming, I will go away too. I think WITP is a great teaching tool - IF it becomes close to correct. I always wanted something like it. Bottom line - Matrix will lose some fraction of its market share - how much is not easy to know - but I bet it is the majority - IF it refused to make the game work well.

I'm happy to see you're prepared to enter the second phase of your Matrix experience with a positive outlook. That can only serve to buttress your work, serves you all around with a "good attitude." But the plain truth is that for all its potential WitP is fatally flawed in all major areas for anyone who understands the history and bothers to dig in on a case-by-case basis and research the subject.

By the way, I noticed earlier this morning a rather long thread over in the CHS section where you've bothered to defend your principles of design not only at length but repeatedly. Good for you. From what I've read I have to say I mainly agree with your remarks, and I approve wholeheartedly of your disdain to do your work "by committee" as it were. If you know you're right you're right, and putting something in that isn't right just to appease someone's ego or play lust doesn't cut it. I was also glad to see that you, too, have tumbled to the endurance ratings for ships all over the map. I just mentioned that problem again yesterday or the day before somewhere, to someone in passing--that's a very old issue of mine, going back to UV, which was roundly ignored by almost everyone, of course. But it's fundamentally important to the game's play, and of course has direct ties the most worrying problem overall of the greater system: the dysfunctional logistics model.

Anyway, hat's off, keep your left up, and all that.

If you ever get around to the Allied air OOB, please examine the range ratings for the Hudson and Ventura bombers, both of which are discounted by plenty, and also the anemic Hurricane (a kind of composite Hurricane, the IIb if I recall, which is quite useless in play and not representative of what flew in-theater--at one time I was told they ran out slots for Allied planes, but why they came up with the IIb as the "most representative" Hurricane is the question). Those bomber ranges for the Hudson and Ventura especially can be critical to Allied play, and are required to be beefed up. For all I know this stuff has already been addressed by someone in the CHS project, and if so fine, but it should be double-checked.

Here's a link to an article I started many months ago before I, too, left the boards in frustration. You'll find links to support my various conclusions (a kind of running start for your own research): Stock versus scenario mods

You're correct about people leaving. Many old names and personalities no longer grace these boards, for whatever reasons. A kind of pity, but inevitable.

_____________________________

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 105

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/7/2006 5:25:54 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Those who want WitP to be perfect, and fail to realize that it is a game, and those who realize it is a game, and while not necessarily a perfect one, a damn good one.

I guess Aristotle was right! He said there are NEVER only two possibilities.
I am neither.

WITP is a game, but not a good one. It has POTENTIAL to BECOME a good one - but not if its development is not continued. It was never properly tested (GOOD software spends MOST of its development money on testing - clearly that didn't happen).

There are two classes of problems with WITP - and one of them is indefensible. That is errors to fact. Why was the stock map fictional?
There is no debate about where things are. From Alaska to Australia the only things close to correct were the names of places. [Even Anchorage is not where Anchorage is - if you can imagine that - the heart of Alaska in terms of economy and communications and bases is in the wrong place.] The other error class is code. The model appears to be based on an earlier product, not designed to purpose. Since the earlier model was fundamentally flawed, the foundation is not sound. Since development did not proceed even to the point reasonable for a beta, it is still not sound. I would be ashamed to release code so full of mission critical flaws.

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 106

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/7/2006 5:35:05 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

And frankly, I also have a hard time seeing all these people who say "I don't like it, I left. Give me the code, or I'll go away again." Ok, why are you telling us this? Does the fact you are leaving change the gameplay for the rest of us? No. Does your leaving at anyway affect those of us who are enjoying the game? No. The fact is it is a game people. And a damn good one. No one made you buy it. No one makes you like it. If you are in constant search of perfection, then just keep waiting. No game, or anything in life for that matter, will be perfect.

You are not reading well. I write precisely - like a lawyer - mostly. You misunderstand what I have said. For example, I never said "give us the code" - I said "support the code OR give us the code (to let us support it)." Not at all the same thing. I PREFER Matrix to support its product - and I think they have an obligation to do so. It is not a radical opinion - the US Supreme Court says unsupported software becomes OWNED by its former licencees. It ought to be the standard of the industry - and morality - that code is supported. Nor did I criticize anyone who likes playing the game. It is not wrong to like playing any game. But why not play risk, if the map is not related to the world? If the units are not modeled on the world? The game was ADVERTISED as historical simulation - and in fundamental ways it is not that. Most of all I never demanded perfection. If I wanted perfection I would not work on such an imperfect foundation.
I only demand resonable performance. I am tolerant of different design decisions, of different interpretations of data, and of different opinions of what are the principles of warfare in a technical sense. I am not tolerant of gross failure to attempt to get it right. I like the idea of a computer WITP so much I would (and in a sense am) work for Matrix without pay. But I want something that is reasonable simulation. By definition, simulation is a simplification of reality, and not perfect (which would require we all get in our P-40s or whatever). Not interested in perfection - just a reasonable product.

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 107

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/7/2006 5:36:40 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

no really i don't see what makes you refuse to play??

The heart of military operations is logistics. The logistics is broken - and so no ops make any sense at all - logistically. I put a larger army than Yamashita had in Malaya- no problem with supplies! [He reduced 5 divisions to 3 so he could supply them]. I took the place in 10 days - not the fantastic 100 days of history. I took Hong Kong in 1 day - and never more than 5 days - never does it hold out to the Christmas day of history.
I put a BRIGADE on Bataan - and killed Corregedor in 1 day! Whatever this is, it is not historical simulation. Oh - yes - did you know that the invasions of Luzon are backwards? That a brigade lands where a division did - but no matter - it rolls up the entire US force anyway? Did you know that the good sense of Yamashita - on Luzon - to defend Baguio - is not even an option? Luzon is in the center of the chessboard - and it is fundamentally wrong. Where is the largest copper mine in Asia? [Mountain Province, north of Baguio]. New Caledonia is a critical resource center - the only significant source of Antimony in the world for the Allies - and lots of other vital minerals. It was given NO resource points in stock. Andrew won't give it what it should have because resource centers generate supply points. What's up with that? I can feed an army, an air force and a fleet off raw rubber, I guess.

Exactly so. Logistics is where it's at. If there were to be one system issue addressed by Matrix in terms of changing the code most effectively to the betterment of the game all around, to get the best bang for the buck as it were, logistics would be where to put one's programming effort. But whenever this subject is broached the same old cadre of denialists (I believe such a term needs to be coined especially for these boards) appear in round numbers and try to shout down, ridicule, or whatever it takes any and all discussion on the subject. The dysfunctional nature of the logistics model is so blatantly obvious, and so critical to all aspects of play, that I find myself reduced to cliche: a blind mind ought to see that it allows everything to run too fast. And yet, as I say, the same old cadre appears to quash any discussion of same. A kind of taboo.

At least CHS is in agreement here, and has tried to make helpful changes. Unfortunately, this problem cannot be adequately addressed with the editor, and so unless it is addressed by Matrix the game system will remain crippled to that extent.

_____________________________

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 108

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/7/2006 5:39:42 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

No one made you buy it. No one makes you like it.

On the other hand, representations were made in advertising - and in my case in person - about the product before I bought it. These representations were not honored in the product as released. I expected at least a MINIMAL effort to do what was stated - and I didn't get it.
I have some HOPE that a TEAM of Matrix and users might reform it up to the level of a minimally acceptable product (if you want more than Risk with chrome in the form of fine art). And IF we get there, I think the MARKET will respond so strongly that we will get a WITP II - done on a better foundation - tested - all sorts of radical (professional) stuff.

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 109

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/7/2006 5:45:23 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Air ASW works pretty well. You can spot subs far more often than you can hit them, which I think is realistic.

Actually, you can spot subs far more often than you should. A submarine has fundamentally different ways of moving. IF you don't want to be spotted you don't go cruising around on the surface in broad daylight. After you have a schnorkel, you don't go on the surface at all - unless you have a specific reason. The penalty is slow movement.

In this system, subs are treated as surface ships. Even if they are just sitting - they have to do so on the surface!! And they cannot observe. You cannot send a sub to spot - one of its most valuable missions - but not attack. ASW also is more related to weapons than to detection.
Perhaps no problem is more difficult than ASW detection. Even when you THINK you got a sub you cannot be sure. You may have got a whale or a rock! [In 1982, the NATO ASW specialists - the Royal Navy - expended almost every ASW weapon in inventory - about 200 - hunting a single submarine. They got it wrong 199 times - and right one time - and failed to damage the sub that one time! ASW is hard - even with post WWII sensors.]

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 110

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/7/2006 5:46:33 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

no really i don't see what makes you refuse to play??

The heart of military operations is logistics. The logistics is broken - and so no ops make any sense at all - logistically. I put a larger army than Yamashita had in Malaya- no problem with supplies! [He reduced 5 divisions to 3 so he could supply them]. I took the place in 10 days - not the fantastic 100 days of history. I took Hong Kong in 1 day - and never more than 5 days - never does it hold out to the Christmas day of history.
I put a BRIGADE on Bataan - and killed Corregedor in 1 day! Whatever this is, it is not historical simulation. Oh - yes - did you know that the invasions of Luzon are backwards? That a brigade lands where a division did - but no matter - it rolls up the entire US force anyway? Did you know that the good sense of Yamashita - on Luzon - to defend Baguio - is not even an option? Luzon is in the center of the chessboard - and it is fundamentally wrong. Where is the largest copper mine in Asia? [Mountain Province, north of Baguio]. New Caledonia is a critical resource center - the only significant source of Antimony in the world for the Allies - and lots of other vital minerals. It was given NO resource points in stock. Andrew won't give it what it should have because resource centers generate supply points. What's up with that? I can feed an army, an air force and a fleet off raw rubber, I guess.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I've been arguing this point and am getting the "you don't play as Japan so can't express an opinion that has merit".

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 111

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/7/2006 5:55:53 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

The dev's bust their ass on this game and it is a game. Your complaints are petty and have no purpose. Get your money back and please just quit trying to be a troll.

I've bought almost every single game matrix has put out becuase they put out great games. I will be happy to buy another copy of Operational Art of Warfare when matrix re-releases it... So they will not miss your money. They want customers who are supportive and enjoy their products. They don't want people who are just going to gripe and be a pain in their asses.

This is fundamentally disrespectful - and based on several falsehoods. The most fundamental of these is that I am complaining to no purpose. In fact my ONLY complaint is that Joel said Matrix would not keep supporting this product - when clearly it is not mature or even fairly developed. Almost as fundamental is to state - quite falsely - that structural and factual issues are "petty." This is so wrong as to make responding to you a waste of time - since you have an attitude that is unable to deal with constructive criticism. And that is the final point - I am not here to gripe - I am here to work - and in fact I have long been supportive of Matrix. Some of the things in UV and WITP are things I came up with. I am working as hard today as anyone (and in terms of hours probably more than anyone else) to improve this product. Without promise of compensation. Without expectation of compensation. It is completely unjustified to accuse a diligent worker of griping - particulary when criticism is clearly intended to be constructive - and based on reasonable professional standards. The final illusion you suffer under is that Matrix is willing to give back money. Once software has been installed - it is more or less lost - and such a policy would bankrupt any software house - so they don't do that sort of thing. I don't want money - I want what I was promised - a simulation of the Pacific campaign. And I spend time worth more than the cost of the game every day - at least a the rate I am paid - to make it better.

(in reply to bwheatley)

Post #: 112

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/7/2006 6:02:01 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

actually rather like the air ASW. It was always my impression that the german subs in the atlantic were **** scared of being spotted by allied airplanes, so they really only operated in the "dark zone" in the middle of the atlantic, where the airplanes couldn't reach. I think the spot vs hit ratio on the subs is pretty good.

We long suffered under a great fear of a large Soviet submarine fleet. We feared it might take the offensive - probably they never really intended to do this in the way we f eared - but we didn't know that.
[The USSR had the largest sub fleet when WWII began - but it went almost nowhere and did almost nothing. Submarines need not be offensively employed.] BECAUSE we feared the Soviet sub fleet, we tried to keep secret what got the Nazis and Japanese in trouble. To no avial - the RUSSIANS knew - and made communications a priority. But the PUBLIC does not know: we got the subs because of peculiar combinations of things related to communications:

1) German subs reported everything - and nothing. The weather. Position. Contact. You name it.
2) We set up both strategic and tactical detection of signals.
3) We got lucky - with Polish help - we could read the codes too.

This means we got to know where subs were - and sometimes what they were told or said. We then could send our forces to the right place - and multiply their effectiveness.

Just a change in comm practice would wholly have changed the situation.

(in reply to BossGnome)

Post #: 113

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/7/2006 9:51:03 PM

bwheatley

Posts: 3650
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline

Listen no disrespect intended. I think we got off on the wrong foot and i perhaps shouldn't have sounded so annoyed but in truth i was.
Your whole argument is based off your opinion of what a game should be like. I for one disagree. If you can't have fun with a game because its not a completely accurate simulation then get off your high horse and build a better engine. Talking down to everyone with the elite attitude you are using is no way to get things done. If you keep complaining (yes they are complaints) that you did not get your moneys worth ask for your money back. That will solve the complaint i am hearing over and over from you.

I'm a programmer too. But i realize its a game. On the site they say everything has "Exacting Detail" and the definition of exacty is: "requiring precise accuracy".
Now perhaps that can be construed as misrepresentation. Perfect grounds to get your money back.Then you wouldn't have wasted your money on this game that is NOT even good.

quote:

Almost as fundamental is to state - quite falsely - that structural and factual issues are "petty."

Petty definition: contemptibly narrow in outlook

If you think that what you are complaining about takes 100% of the fun out of the game in my opinion (just as your complaints are only your opinions) those are petty complaints. Feel free to disagree. I think you left the realm of constructive criticism when you started to talk about supreme court rulings. That left the realm of constructive because you're throwing around veiled threats that someone is going to sue matrix and try to get their source code. You seem to be a smart guy you must know that saying something like that would only put the copyright owners on the defensive. It sounds like fix your code to make some people happy or we'll sue you. That doesn't promote working together for the common good of the game.

You are free to dislike the game and get a refund. Hell if you can make a better game and need funding ask me i'll help bankroll an attempt to make the perfect game i've been wargaming all my life. Let's not constantly say how ashamed you would be and such if you wrote the game. If the games not perfect and is not your cup of tea fine. That should be motivation for you to start your own project. If its a "FUN" game i'll buy it. If you can build the best wargame ever where you have complete and accurate control over everything awesome i'll pay you top dollar to own a copy.

I get the sense from listening to you talk that you seem to be a little more elite then the rest of us commoners around here.

show me a lay man who quotes Aristotle

So i think its put up or shut up time for you. Setup a site to start your own game engine of which i will gladly help my email is bill(a t)williamwheatley(d.t)com. Because you know there is a very tiny chance that matrix would release its source to the public.

Since you are a programmer then what is your thought on it from a business point of view? What about the realities of business that you can't forever keep your whole team on a project that was released except to fix bugs and even then not full time. You know all that takes time and money. If a business is to be successful then you have to balance. I suppose the thing that upsets me most about this is your lack of respect for the people at matrix. I've talked to a few of them and some from 2by3. I like them they have been helpful to me. They have put some of my suggestions on the future dev list. I also offered to pay to get some of my ideas into the game. And received a phone call about it from the lead developer. He's a good guy. So maybe that is why i'm a little pissed. Sure i shouldn't HAVE to send a check for my own money to get something in the game done. But i will if it gets something accomplished. You speak of love for the game and wanting it to be better. You made CHS? I use it it seems ok thanks for all the work on it. But if you love the game then you get a check together too and send it to them so they can get someone to work on the code. Sure you shouldn't have to so don't even go there. Though if you LOVE the game you will.

Another game i love...World War II online i gave them 1000 dollars to join their gold level and becuase i wanted to support good work. Listen i'm not a bad guy maybe more down to earth and low brow then you but I don't like seeing people i like thrown under the bus. If i have made you upset i apologize i'm not trying to personally attack you or anything. If WITP spurs you to create your own game awesome talk to me i'll help bankroll it or anything in pursuit of the perfect game. I know the perfect game will never happen but i'll never stop looking. Until then WITP/WPO are awesome and well worth their moneys worth.

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 114

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/8/2006 12:56:46 AM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

Listen no disrespect intended. I think we got off on the wrong foot and i perhaps shouldn't have sounded so annoyed but in truth i was.
Your whole argument is based off your opinion of what a game should be like. I for one disagree. If you can't have fun with a game because its not a completely accurate simulation then get off your high horse and build a better engine. Talking down to everyone with the elite attitude you are using is no way to get things done. If you keep complaining (yes they are complaints) that you did not get your moneys worth ask for your money back. That will solve the complaint i am hearing over and over from you.

I'm a programmer too. But i realize its a game. On the site they say everything has "Exacting Detail" and the definition of exacty is: "requiring precise accuracy".
Now perhaps that can be construed as misrepresentation. Perfect grounds to get your money back.Then you wouldn't have wasted your money on this game that is NOT even good.

quote:

Almost as fundamental is to state - quite falsely - that structural and factual issues are "petty."

Petty definition: contemptibly narrow in outlook

If you think that what you are complaining about takes 100% of the fun out of the game in my opinion (just as your complaints are only your opinions) those are petty complaints. Feel free to disagree. I think you left the realm of constructive criticism when you started to talk about supreme court rulings. That left the realm of constructive because you're throwing around veiled threats that someone is going to sue matrix and try to get their source code. You seem to be a smart guy you must know that saying something like that would only put the copyright owners on the defensive. It sounds like fix your code to make some people happy or we'll sue you. That doesn't promote working together for the common good of the game.

You are free to dislike the game and get a refund. Hell if you can make a better game and need funding ask me i'll help bankroll an attempt to make the perfect game i've been wargaming all my life. Let's not constantly say how ashamed you would be and such if you wrote the game. If the games not perfect and is not your cup of tea fine. That should be motivation for you to start your own project. If its a "FUN" game i'll buy it. If you can build the best wargame ever where you have complete and accurate control over everything awesome i'll pay you top dollar to own a copy.

I get the sense from listening to you talk that you seem to be a little more elite then the rest of us commoners around here. show me a lay man who quotes Aristotle

So i think its put up or shut up time for you. Setup a site to start your own game engine of which i will gladly help my email is bill(a t)williamwheatley(d.t)com. Because you know there is a very tiny chance that matrix would release its source to the public.

Since you are a programmer then what is your thought on it from a business point of view? What about the realities of business that you can't forever keep your whole team on a project that was released except to fix bugs and even then not full time. You know all that takes time and money. If a business is to be successful then you have to balance. I suppose the thing that upsets me most about this is your lack of respect for the people at matrix. I've talked to a few of them and some from 2by3. I like them they have been helpful to me. They have put some of my suggestions on the future dev list. I also offered to pay to get some of my ideas into the game. And received a phone call about it from the lead developer. He's a good guy. So maybe that is why i'm a little pissed. Sure i shouldn't HAVE to send a check for my own money to get something in the game done. But i will if it gets something accomplished. You speak of love for the game and wanting it to be better. You made CHS? I use it it seems ok thanks for all the work on it. But if you love the game then you get a check together too and send it to them so they can get someone to work on the code. Sure you shouldn't have to so don't even go there. Though if you LOVE the game you will.

Another game i love...World War II online i gave them 1000 dollars to join their gold level and becuase i wanted to support good work. Listen i'm not a bad guy maybe more down to earth and low brow then you but I don't like seeing people i like thrown under the bus. If i have made you upset i apologize i'm not trying to personally attack you or anything. If WITP spurs you to create your own game awesome talk to me i'll help bankroll it or anything in pursuit of the perfect game. I know the perfect game will never happen but i'll never stop looking. Until then WITP/WPO are awesome and well worth their moneys worth.

I presume you're addressing el cid with this post, but I wanted to be sure. You are addressing el cid, yes?

_____________________________

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant

(in reply to bwheatley)

Post #: 115

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/8/2006 3:19:19 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Your whole argument is based off your opinion of what a game should be like. I for one disagree.

I defend your right to disagree. But I must assume you are not a student of geography if gross map errors do not offend you. I do not see what the point of calling it "War in the Pacific" is if you cannot have a map that is reasonably close to the real world. Andrew Brown, in an unfunded lone effort, made a map that is an order of magnitude more accurate in terms of distances (I did a 100 point to point analysis of both maps - which I will send to anyone interested), and which corrects literally hundreds of errors in names and features. I think it is completely reasonable to expect a team of paid professionals to have done better than they did.
I also expect research to at least notice things like uniform turret armor of 25mm - and not make up fictional armor for them in IJN - and more than 100 similar gross errors. This is elementary, and there is no good reason to get it wrong. Not only the research, but the editing, if done to any reasonable standard, would not allow such things in numbers to pass.
If this is incorrect, than I am indeed more "hard core than the hard rock types around here" as Ron said.

(in reply to bwheatley)

Post #: 116

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/8/2006 3:25:30 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

If you can't have fun with a game because its not a completely accurate simulation then get off your high horse and build a better engine. Talking down to everyone with the elite attitude you are using is no way to get things done. If you keep complaining (yes they are complaints) that you did not get your moneys worth ask for your money back. That will solve the complaint i am hearing over and over from you.

Not completely accurate? One of us is confused about what I am saying. It is not reasonably accurate. It is not close to reasonably accurate. I would LOVE any reasonable standard of accuracy. I do not demand comlete accuracy - and I don't think it is possible. There are too many uncertainties in the data and what it means for that. As for money, go read the licence agreement - it is SOP to say "we don't even guarantee this stuff will run, or is suitable for any purpose." Less than 1 software house in 100 will say more than that - and those that do are mainly shareware - because then you don't pay UNLESS you like it. Anyway, I don't want money. I want a better product. I am working on getting there. But SOME things need support - or failing that - code - if we are to fix them. THAT is my point - give us support. This has potential - lets realize it - or most of it. You are really missing the point of constructive criticism - it is specific about issues - and solutions. It aims to get improvement. Only a refusal to make things reasonable justifies giving up on a product of this sort. And the history of UV shows Matrix CAN make significant improvements in product.

(in reply to bwheatley)

Post #: 117

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/8/2006 4:00:50 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Feel free to disagree. I think you left the realm of constructive criticism when you started to talk about supreme court rulings. That left the realm of constructive because you're throwing around veiled threats that someone is going to sue matrix and try to get their source code. You seem to be a smart guy you must know that saying something like that would only put the copyright owners on the defensive. It sounds like fix your code to make some people happy or we'll sue you. That doesn't promote working together for the common good of the game.

I suggest you read an article (or talk to an academic) about the philosophy of law. Law works well only when it is a frame of reference. I expect people to honor the principles of morality and law - and I don't expect to have to enforce them. And the law is what the Supreme Court says it is - so there is NO need to sue. IF a company failed to support its software, the former licencees OWN it, and need no one's approval to do whatever it takes to get it supported. Clearly Matrix is not in such a situation - it IS working on a fix. But this thread began with Joel Billings serving formal notice this process will end. I object. I object because it is wrong - and because it is illegal. That is not out of bounds nor a threat. It is just a fact. Reasonable people should not end up in court. I was taught by a lawyer as a child that good lawyers don't start by going to court either - they go and talk to the company they have a problem with and say why they think this or than is necessary. And they are reasonable. Only the unreasonable lose in civil matters. I am never unreasonable. I want Matrix to succeed in this effort - really I do. I just don't want to be abandoned. I think support is the path to more sales.

(in reply to bwheatley)

Post #: 118

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/8/2006 5:08:54 AM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
New Caledonia is a critical resource center - the only significant source of Antimony in the world for the Allies - and lots of other vital minerals. It was given NO resource points in stock. Andrew won't give it what it should have because resource centers generate supply points. What's up with that? I can feed an army, an air force and a fleet off raw rubber, I guess.

Precisely! That is what irks me about the supply/resource model the most. The tying of supply generation to resource centres makes no sense, and prevents the accurate depiction of things such as this - the value of New Caledonia and its mineral resources. Same for Nauru, and yes, even Toboali.

Andrew

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 119

RE: Clarification of future development plans - 1/8/2006 5:38:53 AM

michaelm75au

Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

IMO:
When I read "Resource" in this game, I tend to think more the in terms of "Processing centre" rather than "Raw resource".

In those terms, I would not expect every raw resource to be on the map. Locations with important strategic resources, I would expect their VP value to reflect that.

My 2 cents. Blast away at it.
Michael

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 120

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Clarification of future development plans