Chiming in

[AxelNL]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I've never jumped into the AI/PBEM debate, because I have very mixed feelings.

On a personal (selfish) level, I'd like a functioning AI to be the priority because it's unlikely that I will ever use NetPlay. A game of this length and this complexity will take far too long and require far too much synchronization of schedules with mostly unknown opponents for me to ever seriously consider doing it. On the other hand, a functional AI, although I realize it will never be much more than a learning/teaching tool, will get used.

However, I recognize that the community as a whole is passionate about playing against other players and is less interested in an AI that can only respond effectively to the most basic of strategies. NetPlay will be a better selling point, draw in more customers, and ensure a longer development horizon for the game. If people stop buying the game, Matrix will have little incentive to keep working on the many problems or missing features.

Obviously, in a perfect world both an AI and a functional NetPlay would have been included out of the box. For that matter, in a perfect world, 6 months after release the only bugs would be in rare corner cases and Steve could be focusing on add ons and scenarios. But that's not the world we live in.

Bottom line... I now favor getting NetPlay up and running first, for the simple reasons that I believe it will bring in more new customers, which is the only way we'll ever get close to that perfect world.

+1

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: bo
I want this as badly if not more than anyone else here but being a true pessimist [ask my wife and children] I have stopped holding my breath waiting for any form of play other than solo. Solo is good though I have never lost at it.
Bo

Hi Bo

I don't want this to be an either/or issue, I hope that we all get what we want and only those at the coal face will know where the priority should go. What will be, will be, and yes, the passing of time is with us all, but I am an optimist and compared with the early days of tweaking primitive computers to get games running, today is bliss.

Good luck with your solo games, may the best man win.[;)]

[smitht2ls]

I think it is one of the most interesting business decisions I have seen from a game company.

I am firmly in the camp that the AI should have been first priority over netplay. Just don't think netplay will draw new players. Think it would have been quicker for Steve to program the AI then netplay. And there are dozens of remote access programs to allow players to play over the internet that are available right now.

I own the game and much like Bo hope I see an AI some day.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: bo
I want this as badly if not more than anyone else here but being a true pessimist [ask my wife and children] I have stopped holding my breath waiting for any form of play other than solo. Solo is good though I have never lost at it.
Bo

Hi Bo

I don't want this to be an either/or issue, I hope that we all get what we want and only those at the coal face will know where the priority should go. What will be, will be, and yes, the passing of time is with us all, but I am an optimist and compared with the early days of tweaking primitive computers to get games running, today is bliss.

Good luck with your solo games, may the best man win.[;)]

Hi Ras

Remember the good old days of the dial up internet 15 hours to download 20 mgs. If it even downloaded it, maybe yes maybe no.[:(]

Yes today is bliss I agree, I almost lied to you I was about to lose to myself but I turned off my computer just in time and the next day I destroyed my alter ego with a different tactic [;)]

at the coal face [&:] I thought I heard everything to now [:D]

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: smitht2ls

I think it is one of the most interesting business decisions I have seen from a game company.

I am firmly in the camp that the AI should have been first priority over netplay. Just don't think netplay will draw new players. Think it would have been quicker for Steve to program the AI then netplay. And there are dozens of remote access programs to allow players to play over the internet that are available right now.

I own the game and much like Bo hope I see an AI some day.

Oooooooo be careful here you are taking big chances with that one, the AI first [:D] Ouch. Wear your best armor saying that. I will say this again the best way to play any game is against a human opponet. But a lot of things have to fall in place first, both players are in similar time zones, that would be a help. The wife allows you to play while she is changing the diapers or washing the dishes or god forbid in the middle of the game she wants to see her mother and you have to take her. [:(] Being a little silly but many things have to be in place.

And last but not least I am not real sure that Steve or Matix can solve the net play problem with a game as complicated as this one is. Not being negative Smitty I just dont see any progress on this one, I wish cad 98 would chip in on this one he understands net play as good as anyone here. Neilsters comment of his confidence in Steves ability to do a good AI makes me feel better.

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: AxelNL

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I've never jumped into the AI/PBEM debate, because I have very mixed feelings.

On a personal (selfish) level, I'd like a functioning AI to be the priority because it's unlikely that I will ever use NetPlay. A game of this length and this complexity will take far too long and require far too much synchronization of schedules with mostly unknown opponents for me to ever seriously consider doing it. On the other hand, a functional AI, although I realize it will never be much more than a learning/teaching tool, will get used.

However, I recognize that the community as a whole is passionate about playing against other players and is less interested in an AI that can only respond effectively to the most basic of strategies. NetPlay will be a better selling point, draw in more customers, and ensure a longer development horizon for the game. If people stop buying the game, Matrix will have little incentive to keep working on the many problems or missing features.

Obviously, in a perfect world both an AI and a functional NetPlay would have been included out of the box. For that matter, in a perfect world, 6 months after release the only bugs would be in rare corner cases and Steve could be focusing on add ons and scenarios. But that's not the world we live in.

Bottom line... I now favor getting NetPlay up and running first, for the simple reasons that I believe it will bring in more new customers, which is the only way we'll ever get close to that perfect world.

+1

- 1 [:D]

Bo

[wworld7]

Wishing the AI is (or was) done first is not a right or wrong question, as very good cases can be made for each side.

It's moot, certain choices were made that resulted in being able to release the game sooner rather than later.

This is when I knew I wouldn't buy day 1 (or day 1 + 6 months). This is okay with me (even if I die before Bo), I will wait and when MWIF gets into a state
I desire I will buy. I'd like Net Play and an AI, but will likely settle for one or the other and then buy.

That said, my gut tells me I'm looking at least another year of development for the AI and maybe less for Net Play. We'll see.

Steve is doing the best he can and I believe he will continue this effort.

I also know for fact is that everyone who keeps saying their should have been a team of programmers working on this project has no clue
about the finances involved in the software business. I would like to be wrong, but I would bet $100.00 that Steve could have made more money PER HOUR
working at any minimum wage job than he will off of MWIF. And if there isn't a huge financial payoff for Steve at the end, certainly no funds
exist to pay the "team" that people think should have been part of this project. I don't believe he did this project for the $$, he did it for the challenge.

Of course I would like things I want in the game NOW, but the reality to me, this means my best guess, is that MWIF was released 18 months earlier
than it should have been. If I was PM (project manager) I would have given six months for functionally and twelve months for the AI (and this may
be too optimistic). But I am not PM, I'm just a customer who still has faith in this project.

[joshuamnave]

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

I also know for fact is that everyone who keeps saying their should have been a team of programmers working on this project has no clue
about the finances involved in the software business. I would like to be wrong, but I would bet $100.00 that Steve could have made more money PER HOUR
working at any minimum wage job than he will off of MWIF. And if there isn't a huge financial payoff for Steve at the end, certainly no funds
exist to pay the "team" that people think should have been part of this project. I don't believe he did this project for the $$, he did it for the challenge.

You are wrong. I'm very well aware that the financial payoff for both Steve and Matrix is minimal at best. However I am a customer, not a donor. To a customer, it doesn't matter a whit what the motivation of the seller is in making the product. They made a decision to make a product that would not be profitable - that's fine. But that does not justify selling a faulty product or failing to fix it in a reasonable time frame. Just ask GM what happens when you cut corners for financial purposes.

There is a place for supporting hobby projects - it's kickstarter, and I probably would have made a 100 dollar pledge (or more) to a kickstarted version of the game. But MWIF was not kickstarted, it was sold as a finished product. That is what I paid for, and have not yet received. That Matrix will probably lose money on MWIF and that Steve's payout does not reflect the work that he put into the game is unfortunate, but has no place in this particular discussion.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish
I also know for fact is that everyone who keeps saying their should have been a team of programmers working on this project has no clue
about the finances involved in the software business. I would like to be wrong, but I would bet $100.00 that Steve could have made more money PER HOUR
working at any minimum wage job than he will off of MWIF. And if there isn't a huge financial payoff for Steve at the end, certainly no funds
exist to pay the "team" that people think should have been part of this project. I don't believe he did this project for the $$, he did it for the challenge.

You are wrong. I'm very well aware that the financial payoff for both Steve and Matrix is minimal at best. However I am a customer, not a donor. To a customer, it doesn't matter a whit what the motivation of the seller is in making the product. They made a decision to make a product that would not be profitable - that's fine. But that does not justify selling a faulty product or failing to fix it in a reasonable time frame. Just ask GM what happens when you cut corners for financial purposes.

There is a place for supporting hobby projects - it's kickstarter, and I probably would have made a 100 dollar pledge (or more) to a kickstarted version of the game. But MWIF was not kickstarted, it was sold as a finished product. That is what I paid for, and have not yet received. That Matrix will probably lose money on MWIF and that Steve's payout does not reflect the work that he put into the game is unfortunate, but has no place in this particular discussion.

Whilst you spent two minutes writing the above, Steve has spent hours, days, years, trying to bring us a game, for minimal reward. GM is in trouble because there are competitive products, you are welcome to go and find a competitive product, at a better price, but it won't be on this planet. [8D]

[joshuamnave]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa


Whilst you spent two minutes writing the above, Steve has spent hours, days, years, trying to bring us a game, for minimal reward. GM is in trouble because there are competitive products, you are welcome to go and find a competitive product, at a better price, but it won't be on this planet. [8D]

Irrelevant.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa


Whilst you spent two minutes writing the above, Steve has spent hours, days, years, trying to bring us a game, for minimal reward. GM is in trouble because there are competitive products, you are welcome to go and find a competitive product, at a better price, but it won't be on this planet. [8D]

Irrelevant.

Maybe irrelevant to you, but not to me, however if you fail to understand the basic principles of economics and competition, i.e. you cannot get the same product somewhere else (at any price), further discussion is irrelevant[:)].

[Astyreal]

Wargaming is a niche. Complex ones like WIF are a niche within that niche

I do think that a more modern flexible funding vehicle like kickstarter should have been considered

But supporting these kinds of efforts financially is incumbent upon any hobbyist that doesn't want to see a future devoid of these projects

[alexvand]

Kickstarter probably would have been a bad idea. This project would be overdue and over budget and probably fail like a fair number of Kickstarter projects. And would have even more upset people.

Also keep in mind that this project started more than a decade ago. Before Kickstarter existed.

[76mm]

Interesting discussion...

Generally I only play vs the AI, although this is one game where I thought multiplayer would be fun. Unfortunately, several months after release, we have neither, and don't look to have either one very soon.

I have to say that this is rather disappointing, but I've tried to remain philosophical about it rather than getting all bitter.

One question about AI development: I understand that the various optional rules can significantly impact game play/balance--is it feasible to contemplate an AI that allows players to choose whatever optional rules they want, or should we expect that when/if the AI is released, we will only be able to play with some fixed set of optional rules? If so, which ones?

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa


Whilst you spent two minutes writing the above, Steve has spent hours, days, years, trying to bring us a game, for minimal reward. GM is in trouble because there are competitive products, you are welcome to go and find a competitive product, at a better price, but it won't be on this planet. [8D]

Irrelevant.

If I look at this from a customers view, I have to say that Mr. Zartacla is right when he states this. It is the duty for any company to fix a malfunctioning product...
Problem however is, that being right often isn't enough to get things in order.

MWIF has been put unto the market and there isn't any way a lot of money of resources can be put into it to speed things up. Matrix has made that pretty clear. Disappointing? Perhaps. But that is the decision of Matrix...

Now, you can do two things: work with the team to try to get things right (and Mr. Zartacla is one of those who does so. Sure, he states his frustrations and disappointments but in my opinion he is entitled to do so).
The other possibility is to throw it into a corner and wait and see what happens for the future.

Now, personally, I like the first group of people a lot more than the latter ones, even if they are a little grumpy (I believe that's the word, isn't it...) sometimes...

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

One question about AI development: I understand that the various optional rules can significantly impact game play/balance--is it feasible to contemplate an AI that allows players to choose whatever optional rules they want, or should we expect that when/if the AI is released, we will only be able to play with some fixed set of optional rules? If so, which ones?

One can certainly hope not. I say this because leaving the optional rule selection wide open would certainly mean an extreme lengthening of the development time for an AI due to the Optional rule's factorial function's effect on the number of permutations and combinations that would need to be considered.

What this forum can do - when the time comes - is try and arrive at a consensus as to what should be the list of optional rules that the AI plays with.

[joshuamnave]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: 76mm

One question about AI development: I understand that the various optional rules can significantly impact game play/balance--is it feasible to contemplate an AI that allows players to choose whatever optional rules they want, or should we expect that when/if the AI is released, we will only be able to play with some fixed set of optional rules? If so, which ones?

One can certainly hope not. I say this because leaving the optional rule selection wide open would certainly mean an extreme lengthening of the development time for an AI due to the Optional rule's factorial function's effect on the number of permutations and combinations that would need to be considered.

What this forum can do - when the time comes - is try and arrive at a consensus as to what should be the list of optional rules that the AI plays with.

Unfortunately, I suspect Paul is right. Looking at just 2 optional rules, oil and limited overseas supply, gives us an idea of the complexity of multiple rule sets on the AI. Turning the oil rule on or off will require a massive change to the AI, both at the strategic and tactical level. So will limited overseas supply. If just those two rules are selectable, you need 4 different AI's.

[smitht2ls]

Haven't read the AI forum discussion in a bit but I believe Steve had a 3 level AI planned. Top level Strategic AI, Theater AI and Army Commander AI for each major power.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
What this forum can do - when the time comes - is try and arrive at a consensus as to what should be the list of optional rules that the AI plays with.

But isn't that time right now? I thought that at least some work has gone into the AI already, and you would certainly think that before getting very far at all Steve would want to know which optional rules will be implemented?

My main concern is that they might simply leave out all of the optional rules and develop the AI only to use only the base rules, which would to a large degree defeat the purpose of using the AI as a "training aid".

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

But isn't that time right now?

From what I have read over the years I have no doubt that Steve isn't working in a vacuum, he has a plan which requires time to complete.

What his plan is for optional rules I do not know, when he is ready he will let us know.