Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post bug reports and ask for help with other issues here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

beppi
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:23 am
Location: Austria

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post by beppi »

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

GJ,

No, the new exe your game and mine is using helps tremendously in the fighter vs fighter round but it appears that as we've looked deeper we've uncovered a hard limit on the number of firing passes vs bombers. Basically whether you have 100 fighters on CAP or 2,000 you only get 200 firing passes vs bombers.

What this means for your CV TFs is that if you have 2,000 fighters on CAP and 800 unescorted bombers come in to attack you may well shoot down 200 of them ( assuming each firing pass results in a kill ) but the other 600 will be unintercepted because of the hard limit on firing passes. Those 600 bombers will then proceed to attack your CVs without being intercepted or fired upon by fighters. This explains why a lot of late-war scenarios were seeing devastating attacks on USN CV TFs in which large Japanese raids would continually "get through" no matter how much CAP the Allies had in the air.

Basically it is a simple numbers game. If Japan sends 800 planes to attack without any escort 600 of them are GUARANTEED to break through CAP and attack US shipping. That's simply the way the code works. This is why ( in your game and others ) when rader ( or others ) have attacked in large numbers so many of the planes have gotten through ( I'm sure you can think back to a few attacks where you had huge CAP but the bombers still got through --- that was probably in large part due to this hard limit on firing passes ).


I think the game has improved hugely over time and recently but sometimes this is the way things work.... As time passes and you fix one thing you actually uncover something else. That's not an attack on the game or anything, its just part of the process of iterating it to make it better with each iteration.


The reason Da Babes etc aren't seeing the problem is that most of their games appear to be early to mid-war games where you just don't see these large attacks. Your game and mine are late-war games in which masses kamikaze and massed normal strike group attacks are the norm and so that's why we've uncovered this. A few other late-war games ( based on postings here and elsewhere ) have also noted the problem but until now didn't know the reason why.


At present, for Japan, this changes the way you should play the late-war game. At present it totally makes sense for Japan to save up bombers and strike aircraft in order to launch massive raids over a single day such that they flood the defensive CAP with more than 200 strike craft. By doing that a large portion of bombers will always get through and it only takes 4 or 5 bad days for the USN CV TFs for them to be halved in number. For Japan giving the USN 4 or 5 bad days in 1944 is an eminently achievable goal (IMO of course ).


beppi,
I'm not sure we need a player switch because that would be open to conflict where one player might think switching to the new model was valid at a given time and the other wouldn't. I could foresee lots of disagreement. I think that, perhaps, all we need to do is scale the number of firing passes vs bombers based on the number of fighters intercepting.

What do I mean by that?
1. If you have 200 escorts and 200 bombers and 400 CAP fighters then the game would see a 1:1 ratio and use the current hard CAP of 200 firing passes on the assumption that 200 CAP fighters would tangle with 200 escorts and 200 would go for the bombers.

2. If you have 200 escorts and 200 bombers vs 800 CAP fighters then the game would assign 200 CAP fighters to tangle with the escorts and send 600 vs the bombers - yielding 600 firing passes.

Obviously those figures are just pulled out of the air but it shows how a system which compares CAP fighters to escorts + bombers could easily enough yield some sort of dynamic sliding scale where more CAP yields more firing passes.

I'm sure someone else can come up with a far better model though. I'm just using that to show how a dynamic model could be iterated towards.


Of course if anyone thinks a 200 firing pass hard limit is historically defensible then they should feel free to pipe up. It is important to consider all sides.


Actually if i understood right the posting of michaelm it is not "that" harsh as you describe it.

Currently you have 200 firing passes. For each firing pass a group 1-8 planes fights another group of 1-8 planes. (michaelm described it as a maximum of 8 planes). So theoretical 1600 planes on each side (3200 total) can engage with the 200 firing passes BUT. this is the theoretic maximum. The problem for me is that a pass with 8 vs 8 planes does not kill or damage all 8 planes on each side. Usually 1 or maybe 2 planes get shot down, maybe another gets damaged or runs out of ammo.

And here it gets "problematic". Cause if you have a 700 planes strike against a 1400 defender cap it wil be impossible to completly defend against the strike. If you count 50% of the CAP are not out of position that are 700 planes. If you then say you have a warning time of 60 minutes each CAP plane should do much more than one firing pass. So if you say a pass takes 10 minutes each plane should be able to do 6 passes.

This would lead to a 700 * 6 to 4200 attacks. If you now count the optimum of 8 planes each pass you would need 525 passes to correctly fight the battle.

If you have 200 passes there can be 200 to 1600 engagements. If you say each plane can engage 6 times (just lets assume it) the CAP can handle 25 (worst, each group only has one plane) to 200 planes (optimum, each group has 8 planes always) on each side.

If you have 300 passes there can be 300 to 2400 engagements. So again the theoretic minum are only 37,5 planes for each side. The maxmimum here again are 300 planes for each side if you assume there should be 6 attacks. If you say that you just want 1 attack you can have from 300 to 2400 planes for each side. But 1 attack is not enough to bring down good numbers of attacker planes.

So i belive to understand the problem the devs tried to avoid. I do no think the "aspect" time is really possible during the calculations. So to limit each group from firing too often they used a hard cap which allows an maybe accurate simulation for small fights and scales to a limit. I understand that if you would just remove the cap each plan would fight each other until all planes are either damaged/destroyed/out of fuel/ammo.

So even small scale combat would lead to each sides pounding each in a quite ahistoric way. And i think that is the problem of the BigBabes players and that was the reason to ask for a switch. Basically you would need a "dynamic" rule depending on the size of the defender and even (for sweep) depending on the attacker size. I do not think that the problem is as easy to solve as someone might think. If you extend the firing passes to much you trash the early war small scale fights, if you keep it to low you screw the late war big attack hits big CAP scenarios.

Just to describe the effect:

Lest assume you have 160 attacker planes and 160 defender planes. We group the planes together in groups of 4 planes (the average between 1 and 8). And we have 200 firing passes. We assume each pass kills 0,1 planes, damages 0,2 planes and 0,1 plane drops out of combat. So we lose 0,5 planes each firing pass.

So we have 40(40 on each side, but always a group battles a group) groups, each group has 5 passes. So with a drop out rate of 0,5 planes each pass after the 5 passes we have 2,5 planes disabled and 1,5 planes each group are still ok. They fly home. Now if you unlimit the passes they fight until all 4 planes in each group are gone on both sides.

No limit basically (from my understanding) means that a fight goes on until all planes on one side are either destroyed or returned home for a reason. Even if that would take a very big amount of combat rounds. Again if you assume a round takes 10 minutes then you could have a fight which goes on for massive amounts of time.

Actually right now it is exactly the way for small scale combat. They fight until no fighting is possible as they will never run out of firing passes.
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5828
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post by Nemo121 »

beppi,
Hmm, that isn't the way I read it. I read a firing pass to mean a single plane vs single plane but drawn from 8 plane elements. Perhaps michael could clarify. Your reading does put a different spin on it.

I've been looking at my previous attacks vs CV TFs and I've never seen CAP ( no matter how large ) shoot down more than 200 strike planes. Has anyone?
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
beppi
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:23 am
Location: Austria

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post by beppi »

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

beppi,
Hmm, that isn't the way I read it. I read a firing pass to mean a single plane vs single plane but drawn from 8 plane elements. Perhaps michael could clarify. Your reading does put a different spin on it.

I've been looking at my previous attacks vs CV TFs and I've never seen CAP ( no matter how large ) shoot down more than 200 strike planes. Has anyone?

My estimations are just "how i understood it" an it is pure speculations.

But there have to be technical more than 200 firing passes. A firing pass does not lead to a killed plane. First you have to hit something. So if we assume that we have a 10% hit rate -> 200 planes just attacking would lead to a maximum of 20 killed planes. And then you have to take into account all other things which can happen (just damaged, engine cuts out, out of fuel, out of ammo and so on) which maybe reduces the hit rate even further.

Again i would be perfect if michaelm could clearify that point. But in the end i think there needs to be some sort of dynamic rule for firing passes. Cause either you screw up small scale combat or you screw up large scale combat.
User avatar
zuluhour
Posts: 5244
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:16 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post by zuluhour »

Turn 359

message: failed to load
I did upload mod art but thought I already played a turn or two with it.
save attached

*the replay worked
Attachments
wpae010.zip
(2.62 MiB) Downloaded 2 times
User avatar
rader
Posts: 1240
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post by rader »

ORIGINAL: beppi

Again i would be perfect if michaelm could clearify that point. But in the end i think there needs to be some sort of dynamic rule for firing passes. Cause either you screw up small scale combat or you screw up large scale combat.

Or you make all combats small combats, using only a portion of the CAP and offensive planes in each...
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12455
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post by michaelm75au »

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

beppi,
Hmm, that isn't the way I read it. I read a firing pass to mean a single plane vs single plane but drawn from 8 plane elements. Perhaps michael could clarify. Your reading does put a different spin on it.

I've been looking at my previous attacks vs CV TFs and I've never seen CAP ( no matter how large ) shoot down more than 200 strike planes. Has anyone?

The passes are by flights, and flights can contain a number of planes (usually 8 but can be fewer if losses taken). Each plane in a flight that engages gets a chance to 'fire'.

From Earlier post:
In basic terms, air battles are firstly between flights of 8 or less planes. These are the prime blocks for determining initial detection, combat rounds, etc.
Once 'flights' are deemed to be participating in combat, the combat is then between the individual planes within those flight.
Michael
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12455
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post by michaelm75au »

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

Turn 359

message: failed to load
I did upload mod art but thought I already played a turn or two with it.
save attached

*the replay worked

Looks like an encryption error. I suspect that something happen to the save either when saving (but should have got an error) or while being sent/emailed. Sometimes files can be mangled in transit.
Michael
User avatar
zuluhour
Posts: 5244
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:16 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post by zuluhour »

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

Turn 359

message: failed to load
I did upload mod art but thought I already played a turn or two with it.
save attached

*the replay worked

Looks like an encryption error. I suspect that something happen to the save either when saving (but should have got an error) or while being sent/emailed. Sometimes files can be mangled in transit.
Looks like an encryption error. I suspect that something happen to the save either when saving (but should have got an error) or while being sent/emailed. Sometimes files can be mangled in transit.

Thanks michaelm, Terry resent file this morning and it loaded fine. I thought I may have mangled the files uploading art; I'm no whiz with the "machines". As always a very sincere thanks and sorry for panic.

Zulu HQ
Chief TWIT CnC
Chris21wen
Posts: 6948
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Cottesmore, Rutland

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post by Chris21wen »

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Latest Beta

I've just spotted a ripe and apparently undefended level 4 port, 5 A/F for my SSTs and the Aus 2/9 Cav Cdo Bn (commanded by Col Blackburn VC). When I load a SST it will only do so in' strategic' mode. Surely the SST should load in 'combat' mode ala fast transports. This got me thinking about all those dot bases that the computer refuses to occupy. How can an SST land a unit on them?

Sub transport need troops to be in Strat Mode, unless marked as Parachute in which they can load in Combat mode.
I traced some threads that spelled that out.

Missed that one but think it's wrong. These small commando units were used in small raids and should be capable of landing at an enemy base in combat mode.
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12455
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post by michaelm75au »

ORIGINAL: Chris H

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Latest Beta

I've just spotted a ripe and apparently undefended level 4 port, 5 A/F for my SSTs and the Aus 2/9 Cav Cdo Bn (commanded by Col Blackburn VC). When I load a SST it will only do so in' strategic' mode. Surely the SST should load in 'combat' mode ala fast transports. This got me thinking about all those dot bases that the computer refuses to occupy. How can an SST land a unit on them?

Sub transport need troops to be in Strat Mode, unless marked as Parachute in which they can load in Combat mode.
I traced some threads that spelled that out.

Missed that one but think it's wrong. These small commando units were used in small raids and should be capable of landing at an enemy base in combat mode.
True, but there currently isn't a 'commando' type unit defined. To make it load in combat mode, the unit would need to be designated as 'parachute' ie symbol = 13.
Michael
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5828
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post by Nemo121 »

michaelm,
Thanks for the clarification. I'll run some tests this weekend as I really don't recall ( and can't find ) cases in my previous games where more than 200 strike aircraft were ever shot down irrespective of CAP. It may be my memory failing but it is worth setting up a late-war testbed and checking anyways.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12455
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post by michaelm75au »

The same applies to fighter vs bombers.
Each fighter flight (left alive from the earlier CAP vs Escort fight) attempts to engage a bomber flight.
If successful, then each fighter plane in that flight attacks one or more bombers in the bomber flight.
Michael
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5828
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post by Nemo121 »

Question: ( just to help me get my head around it ).

If there are 50 flights of fighters ( say 400 planes with 8 planes a flight ) and 400 bombers in 100 flights do 50 flights of fighters (400 fighters) engage 50 flights of bombers (200 bombers)?

If so, once all of the bombers are shot down ( let's assume each firing pass results in a kill to keep things simple ) do the 50 flights look for more bomber flights to attack or is each flight "exhausted" by combat with an enemy flight?

I'm asking because clarifying this is going to really help make any testing more valid and, obviously, it wasn't working quite the way I initially read it.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
kfsgo
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:06 pm

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post by kfsgo »

ORIGINAL: Chris H


Missed that one but think it's wrong. These small commando units were used in small raids and should be capable of landing at an enemy base in combat mode.

They can't land in combat mode, but units can load onto transport submarines (and land at enemy bases) in 'move' mode. If I remember right they'll automatically shock attack if there's an enemy unit there; not 100% sure. They definitely can land, though.
beppi
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:23 am
Location: Austria

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post by beppi »

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Question: ( just to help me get my head around it ).

If there are 50 flights of fighters ( say 400 planes with 8 planes a flight ) and 400 bombers in 100 flights do 50 flights of fighters (400 fighters) engage 50 flights of bombers (200 bombers)?

If so, once all of the bombers are shot down ( let's assume each firing pass results in a kill to keep things simple ) do the 50 flights look for more bomber flights to attack or is each flight "exhausted" by combat with an enemy flight?

I'm asking because clarifying this is going to really help make any testing more valid and, obviously, it wasn't working quite the way I initially read it.

I just again want to "comment" you post. I am quite sure that Michaelm will respond to your post and i hope you do not have a "problem" with me commenting it. But usually it is easier to if you use extremes to show how it works.

Assume you have 8 fighter on CAP. The fighters are superhuman, indestructible, always hit, always kill, cannot be damaged and so on. Just superhuman. They are in range, they always engage and so on. And they always kill.

Assume we have 800 bombers coming in. They are put into 100 groups.

So out CAP group engages the first group of bombers. Shots down all 8. Then our cap group engages the next group. Shots down all 8. Continue that for 100 "passes" until all incoming bombers are shot down.

From my understanding a firing pass is not actual a "firing pass". Instead it is a round of combat with 8 planes against 8 planes. As soon as two groups engage the actual combat kicks in. So they climb, drop, evade, accelerate, are in position, are out of position, shoot, hit, miss, suffer lack of fuel, suffer lack of ammo.

If you have time try a test with a lot of groups of fighters with enough forward firing guns, 99 accuracy, 99 effect, enough speed, 99 exp pilots, 99 AA skill, 99 durability against a group of bombers with no defensive guns, 1 durability, nor MVR (1), 1ex pilots, 1 AA skill. Just test the best against the worst. Then in theory it should be possible to shoot down > 200 planes. I will test it, but i cannot do it today.



In general a quite good model of combat. Problem i see is the factor "time" which is not really taken into account and this results in the "200 firing passes."

Actually i am no sure if it is even possible to implement but some sort of combat slots would be better.

As example:

We have 400 bombers coming in. We put them into 50 groups of 8 planes.

We have 400 fighers in cap. We put them again into 50 groups of 8 planes.
Detection range is 60 minutes. A combat slot is assumed as 10 minutes. And we have

I only take into account the combat until the target is hit. I do not take into account the 60 minutes it takes for the attacking planes to actual leave again. (Then you would have 13 slots -> 60 minutes to the target, 60 minutes to leave.)

So we have 7 time groups. The first time group are plane groups which are in range at the begin (T0). Second group is planes which are in range at T10. Third group are in range at T20. 6th group are in range at T60 (end of combat). 7th group are planes which do not participate.

So lets assume:

We have 10 groups (80 fighers) which are in range at T0(0 minutes -> detection until 9 minutes)
We have 10 groups in T10. 10 groups in T20, 10 groups in T30. 10 groups in T40, 10 groups in T50, 10 groups in T60 and 20 groups in T70 (which will never reach the incoming planes only on the approach).

So combat starts.

The 10 groups in T0 have 10 passes on the incoming planes. All other planes are out of range.
Lets assume, 2 groups get completely disabled (all planes out of fuel, out of ammo, destroyed, damaged). 8 groups still have combat ready planes. After all 10 groups have done their pass (or combat slot) the remaining 8 groups which are still combat worthy are added into the group T10.

Then T10 starts. We now have 18 groups in T10. So we have 18 firing passes (8 from T0, 10 from T10). After the combat 5 groups which started the combat at T10 are no longer combat worthy and 2 groups which started at T0 leave combat. So at the end of T10 we have 11 groups lefts (6 which entered combat at T0, 5 which entered at T10). So at the end of combat -> we put the 11 groups into T20.

Then T20 starts. Now we have 21 groups in T20 -> so 21 firing passes.
And so on and so on.

That would allow a dynamic system which does not kill small style combat and works in large style combat. Have doubt that i ever will get implemented and again i know that i am "oversimplifying" the problem cause there is much more which needs to be taken into account. I think such things would need a "WITP Grand Admiral Edition".

For me the basic problem is that you cannot squeeze a dynamic outcome of individual events into one fixed value.



User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5828
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post by Nemo121 »

beppi,
No problem at all with you commenting. You've been right so far and have helped move the discussion forward so that's all good ( particularly the bit about you being right in your grasp of the combat model ).

What you've outlined in this post is how I ASSUME the combat model is working - each flight engages enemy flights in series until it runs out of "time" ( however that's calculated ) but given that I was wrong in my grasp of what a firing pass meant I'd rather check to avoid any additional misunderstandings since my goal isn't just to harp on and critique the game. I'm honestly trying to figure out if this model is working as designed and is giving reasonable results.

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post by JWE »

Don’t have an issue with what Brother Mathias is saying. He’s being very tactical and quite forthright. Just think about it.

My take is that the title is pretty much over. It’s worthwhile to fix bugs and such, but anything else is an attempt to stave off entropy. Entropy happens. People get bored. Things get tweaked.

The opposite of entropy is creativity. Making creative modifications, and explaining how and why, seems to work for many hundreds of people. Making piecewise tweaks to hold off entropy, for a few, just seems to make entropy everyone else so much harder.

Seems this thread topic has become the latest home for the loudest whiners. Strange they should decide to play here instead of the main forum, but perhaps not so strange if one thinks about it. Nevertheless, this thread is supposed to be about technical bugs. It has been hijacked long ago by #$%^^&**($ wannabes. So sad, but that’s what you get.

Babes people are negotiating with Matrix about letting us have our own code. A very bad thing for the game in general, I admit, but we just can’t continue with the present code being jerked around by someone who doesn’t understand the nominal algorithm.

Sorry, but there it is. Whine, scream, bitch, moan, hate, all you want. I think Mathias is right and Michael should sit back and take stock. Meanwhile, entropy progresses and there ain’t nothing that nobody can do about it.

Ciao. [:)]
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post by Alfred »

JWE,

Are you hinting that down the line, there is a possibility of DaBabes going commercial, a sort of AE II?

By commercial I mean a sort of add on which can be bought and supported by the DaBabes developers. If so that is quite an appealing possibility. It would only be proper for some recompense be made for all the gratis work provided to date.

Alfred
User avatar
SuluSea
Posts: 2378
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:13 pm

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post by SuluSea »

ORIGINAL: JWE

Don’t have an issue with what Brother Mathias is saying. He’s being very tactical and quite forthright. Just think about it.

My take is that the title is pretty much over. It’s worthwhile to fix bugs and such, but anything else is an attempt to stave off entropy. Entropy happens. People get bored. Things get tweaked.

The opposite of entropy is creativity. Making creative modifications, and explaining how and why, seems to work for many hundreds of people. Making piecewise tweaks to hold off entropy, for a few, just seems to make entropy everyone else so much harder.

Seems this thread topic has become the latest home for the loudest whiners. Strange they should decide to play here instead of the main forum, but perhaps not so strange if one thinks about it. Nevertheless, this thread is supposed to be about technical bugs. It has been hijacked long ago by #$%^^&**($ wannabes. So sad, but that’s what you get.

Babes people are negotiating with Matrix about letting us have our own code. A very bad thing for the game in general, I admit, but we just can’t continue with the present code being jerked around by someone who doesn’t understand the nominal algorithm.

Sorry, but there it is. Whine, scream, bitch, moan, hate, all you want. I think Mathias is right and Michael should sit back and take stock. Meanwhile, entropy progresses and there ain’t nothing that nobody can do about it.

Ciao. [:)]

I'm onboard with Matt as well. No matter what is done someone will always be able to exploit it for their own gaming benefit.

MichealM has done an outstanding job but I'm afraid being he's a nice accommodating person he's being tugged along an avenue by some in which the finished patch may not be as good as the prior beta's.

Hopefully your negotiations pay dividends, always a fan of the modders and people that sacrifice for the community as a whole.

"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer
User avatar
BigDuke66
Posts: 2035
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Terra

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part)

Post by BigDuke66 »

[:-] It's over when it's over.

ORIGINAL: SuluSea
...he's being tugged along an avenue by some in which the finished patch may not be as good as the prior beta's.
??? So fixing late air war makes the game worse not better, yea sure [8|]
Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”