playable yet? Part II

Empires in Arms is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. Empires in Arms is a seven player game of grand strategy set during the Napoleonic period of 1805-1815. The unit scale is corps level with full diplomatic options

Moderator: MOD_EIA

pzgndr
Posts: 3483
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by 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.
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
NeverMan
Posts: 1712
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 1:52 am

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by NeverMan »

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 [:D]"....

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.
Dancing Bear
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:16 pm

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by Dancing Bear »

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]
User avatar
borner
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:15 pm
Location: Houston TX

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by borner »

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
User avatar
borner
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:15 pm
Location: Houston TX

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by borner »

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.
 
 
User avatar
borner
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:15 pm
Location: Houston TX

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by borner »

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
 
User avatar
borner
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:15 pm
Location: Houston TX

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by borner »

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.
pzgndr
Posts: 3483
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by pzgndr »



Image
Attachments
tissues.jpg
tissues.jpg (2.13 KiB) Viewed 21 times
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
User avatar
borner
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:15 pm
Location: Houston TX

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by borner »

now that was somewhat cute and creative
StCyr
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 2:27 pm

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by 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!

User avatar
Marshall Ellis
Posts: 5630
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 3:00 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by Marshall Ellis »

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


StCyr
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 2:27 pm

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by StCyr »

Hi Marshall- you´r here ? Bug-hunting finished ?  AI works ?  Oh, well... bye.
User avatar
borner
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:15 pm
Location: Houston TX

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by borner »

I did not build it, I could not add the one that came with the free state. yet another bug
User avatar
borner
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:15 pm
Location: Houston TX

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by borner »

yet another game comes to a craching halt due to bugs... gotta love it!
 
 
User avatar
Grapeshot Bob
Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:35 pm
Location: Canada

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by Grapeshot Bob »

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
User avatar
borner
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:15 pm
Location: Houston TX

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by borner »

[&o]
Grognot
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:37 pm

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by Grognot »

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.
--
Not a grognard.
Not an optimizer. It's a game to me, not a job.
NeverMan
Posts: 1712
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 1:52 am

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by NeverMan »

ORIGINAL: Grognot
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.
User avatar
borner
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:15 pm
Location: Houston TX

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by borner »

[&o][&o]
mr.godo
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:19 am

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by mr.godo »

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.
Mr. Godó
Post Reply

Return to “Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815”