IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

Post by paulderynck »

ORIGINAL: 76mm
ORIGINAL: warspite1
This game isn't worth the price to you and that is perfectly fair enough. But personally, if someone had told me at launch exactly what the position would be with this game after 3-years, then I would still have paid top dollar for it, the books and the maps.
Well, the fact is that they didn't tell us at launch exactly what the position would be after three, and many players, including me, that bought the game shortly after release don't think that that is "fair enough". I know better than to ask for a refund, but as a result I'll never buy another Matrix game until several months after release.
Eminently reasonable. Every Matrix release will have it determined precisely where that game will be three years after launch, once it's been available for several months.
Paul
AlbertN
Posts: 4201
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

Post by AlbertN »

I would like to underline you do not need Teamviewer to play on "hot-distance-seat"; Skype suffices with a screen-sharing function (as per the other player CAN SEE your screen on their monitor - but not control / touch a thing).
That allows quick interaction (Via voice allowed by Skype) to impart instructions such as reactions / interceptions / etc. Something which in my eyes makes this game not viable in a PBEM environment (Too many "excursus" requiring non phasing player interaction).

I do perfectly agree that the game in three years has technically made little progress - that mainly because it is not in the interest of Matrix Games to support the game itself, and once launched is pretty much left in the hands of the coder. Given the magnitudo and scope of the game, and the manpower allocated to it - it won't go far in my eyes.

That said - I do not repent to have bought the game, and I am actually quite sorrowful that my gaming companion deemed the game too time consuming for what his life allows and we switched to other games.
Because this is not just a game where you hop in the session - and play. It requires (if you want to excel) some map observing, advance planning and so forth. Things which if a player can do and the other don't because different amount of free time for WiF makes the game not very balanced.

I think it's a shame, because this game has potential; and probably if it was updated to the coming new rules, adding also America / Patton in Flames, there would be more people buying it.
The automations granted by the computer and the rigid sequence of play helps a lot with issues with rules and so forth - and speed up the game. Even the computing of oil (in its current incarnation) or the BPs tracking speeds up compared to a face-to-face game or one had via Vassal. Not to speak of the space "saved" (considering tabletop WiF simply would monopolize one whole room, and that's not for just a weekend if you plan a full campaign!)
Given, wargaming is leaning toward its sunset as market (life is more frantic, quick games are rising in interest, long and monster alike games slowly fading).

As I always said for "big" strategy games, AI is pretty much superfluous though. People demanding an AI will simply get a very underwhelming AI that is unable to keep the pace with a human player, no matter what. (At least in the present AIs - I've always seen in lots of games AIs being sung and praised, but unless they get to cheat in a way or another, be it extra production, experience, or modified rolls - they get beated hands down)
The AI would do fine in small scope, short scenarios (namely, Barbarossa and Guadalcanal) to serve as tutorial / practice opponent. And that's it.
To try to code an AI for this game would be a major sink of resources, for a measly final result which probably will leave no one appeased (People wanting the AI now, will say "But I want a working AI that is a decent challenge" next).

Last consideration is the cost of the game, which not everyone may afford. That always weight when one is to decide if to buy a game or not.
Sure on the paper "No AI, not full scenarios, not full optional rules, not adapting to the living rules of the tabletop game, etc etc" - for the cost weight an amount on a person monthly balance.
Some can easily afford the game, and shrug it if they're to shelve it shortly after. Others not so much. That always fall into consideration - which is individual to any potential buyer.

Edit: Last but not least - indeed a dedicated multiplayer support to find opponents. Not many use forums of who own a game. It is more probable people click on a "multiplayer" button of the in-game menu, and would rather get catapulted in a chat system which allows arranging of games (and even hosting them? Not sure of that though)

User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

Post by warspite1 »

[quote]ORIGINAL: Cohen

I do perfectly agree that the game in three years has technically made little progress - that mainly because it is not in the interest of Matrix Games to support the game itself, and once launched is pretty much left in the hands of the coder.

[quote]warspite1

That is not true. One of the reasons that bugs, optionals and single map scenarios are still to be done is because Matrix insisted on Netplay taking priority. Its their company, their agreement with ADG (and Steve) and so (understandably) their rules.

But as far as I am aware, none of the beta testers - or at least not this one - wanted netplay to take priority over getting the basic game right. After all, and as has been repeated a billion times, if the basic game is wrong, then any work on netplay or AI will still need to be done again to correct these issues. Makes more sense to me to get the solitaire game right so that at least solitaire, hot seat and PBEM players can play a proper game.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
adarbrauner
Posts: 1510
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:40 am
Location: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

Post by adarbrauner »

ORIGINAL: Cohen


As I always said for "big" strategy games, AI is pretty much superfluous though. People demanding an AI will simply get a very underwhelming AI that is unable to keep the pace with a human player, no matter what. (At least in the present AIs - I've always seen in lots of games AIs being sung and praised, but unless they get to cheat in a way or another, be it extra production, experience, or modified rolls - they get beated hands down)
The AI would do fine in small scope, short scenarios (namely, Barbarossa and Guadalcanal) to serve as tutorial / practice opponent. And that's it.
To try to code an AI for this game would be a major sink of resources, for a measly final result which probably will leave no one appeased (People wanting the AI now, will say "But I want a working AI that is a decent challenge" next).

Agreed.


I'm enjoying, meanwhile, the solitaire.

Playing against myself is pretty challenging. I suffer and show participatin for each side , alternatively. Clear and obvious that against another mind that would be something totally different.

Waiting, yes, for Fascist Tide and additional optional rules.

I'd be very happy to see all the CAP functionalities working.

I'm very satisfied with the game so far, and much impressed by the job of Steve Hokansen.

I think that once the basic game is fine (and I find it very good in my experience so far), PBEMs shall be a relatively easy step to implement.

After the experience with Hearts of Iron, I have not the slightest expectation for even a modestly challenging AI ina game of this complexity, relistically.
User avatar
RFalvo69
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: Lamezia Terme (Italy)

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

Post by RFalvo69 »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Sure, playing solo.

That's what any game developer does...

Can't imagine anything more boring. A game where you can't play an AI or a human opponent is not a true game.
Ahh, but with a little creativity you can quite successfully use the Solo mode to play with one or even several others.

I can't find the instructions for that in the manuals...
"Yes darling, I served in the Navy for eight years. I was a cook..."
"Oh dad... so you were a God-damned cook?"

(My 10 years old daughter after watching "The Hunt for Red October")
User avatar
RFalvo69
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: Lamezia Terme (Italy)

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

Post by RFalvo69 »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
But as far as I am aware, none of the beta testers - or at least not this one - wanted netplay to take priority over getting the basic game right. After all, and as has been repeated a billion times, if the basic game is wrong, then any work on netplay or AI will still need to be done again to correct these issues.

Shouldn't the basic game be sold after it is right?

I could accept this line of reasoning three or even six months after the game is published. MWIF is such a complex game that bugs and problems were to be expected after the release, when a lot of people started playing it. It is what happened with the original War in the Pacific, War in the East/West, Command (discoluse: I was a beta-tester for Command), and many other succesful games and games from other compsnies like WWII by schwerpunkt or Steam & Iron by NWS.

These games, however, could still be played both vs. the AI and human opponents - when MP was part of the game - out of the box, without the need for "creativity" or work-arounds.

We are now entering the FOURTH YEAR since MWIF was released, and we are still talking abut the best way to finish it. The best way to implement things that are in the manuals, the advertising etc. like if you can actually find them in the game.

In short, what remains of the community it a bunch of beta-testers who paid to be beta-testers without being asked or having a clue that the original $150 actually bought you this.

After four years!

And "with a bunch" I mean that hot patch which was published before the current beta-parch - a crucial one - was downloaded, as of this writing, by about 115 players. For comparison, the latest beta-patch for War in the Pacific AE, by MichaelM, was downloaeded by almost 1000 gamers one week after it was released (when I DLed it). And WitP AE work just fine with the latest official patch: MichaelM is actually a player who just has fun in improving the game more and more.

So, at least let's just stop pretending that beta-testing a program after four years from when it was published is normal, and that "creative work-arounds" are part of every game out there. Four years ago Matrix published a game whose true situation they knew very well - saying that only the "version with the printed manuals" was available and dazzling people with a big roll-out at Essen and such. Then, lo-and-behold, they discovered that the game could be sold digitally - and for a much lower price - just fine. And now we are left on a raft with Steve, hoping for the best (the last post by Matrix about "Future plans" is from 2015 - then the comms went dark).

I'm sorry, Warspite1, but posts like the one I quoted only throw salt on the wound. They are posts from a closed beta-testing forum (the kind I read and aswered to when beta-testing Command before it was released), not from a forum for a game from 2013. Let's stop pretending, shall we?

Edited for typos.
"Yes darling, I served in the Navy for eight years. I was a cook..."
"Oh dad... so you were a God-damned cook?"

(My 10 years old daughter after watching "The Hunt for Red October")
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

Post by warspite1 »

.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
adarbrauner
Posts: 1510
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:40 am
Location: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

Post by adarbrauner »

Compaesano da Lamezia Terme,

I really don't know what to say.

I've started with World in Flames less than two weeks ago, and meanwhile, I'm enjoying A LOT. The main difference with WITP:AE is that the latter is more detailed (but also more "obscure" due the fact that did not originate from a board game, and t is not anchored to fix and very clear and printed rules). On the other side, less playable, due probably to an unsufficient user interface.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

Post by warspite1 »

[In reply to RFlavo69]

Okay. Well that is a strange post isn’t it? I mean not some of the content, but who it is addressed to and the manner in which it put.

With comments like “Let’s stop pretending shall we?” and reference to the game situation being “normal” and then addressing me personally I can only assume you have not only got the wrong end of the stick, but that you appear to have got hold of the wrong stick altogether.

You say my quote “rubs salt into the wounds”? Why? Well I can only assume you think that I am arguing that everything is normal? Where on earth did you get that from? I mean seriously?
Shouldn't the basic game be sold after it is right?

Well that statement has something of the ‘Captain Obvious’ about it doesn’t it? The answer is of course yes. The question though is why you feel you have to direct that at me? I have to be careful what I say as a former beta tester, but if you think I am happy that the game is in the state it’s in, then that is ridiculous. But moreover, I would like to tell you something about the time of launch but I don’t feel it’s correct to do so – even though if I did tell you, you would see I would be one of the last people you addressed this sort of post too.

You also raise the old chestnut about what people had a right to expect when buying the game and again point that in my direction. You, naturally, have no idea what conversations went on with the beta testers and Matrix/Steve. But again, even without that information – which again I do not feel it my place to say – the fact is, I am not the person you should be directing this at. You think I have some say at Matrix and their policy decisions?

I paid for this game (with a small discount for testing), so don’t go telling me it’s in its fourth year like I didn’t know that. I, no doubt like most playing this game, get frustrated at the bugs, the convoy system and the fact that optionals haven’t been coded too - why wouldn’t I?

As you should be able to read from my post you quoted, I also happen to think the route taken by Matrix – concentrating on Netplay – is totally wrong and has meant that getting other stuff that needs sorting – and that would have meant a better playing experience for those actually playing the game (or wanting to) - has not happened. But that is my opinion and, as I don’t have a financial stake in Matrix or ADG or Steve’s mortgage account I, quite rightly, don’t have a voice when it comes to decisions made about the direction of travel.

The fact is the game is where it is and, as a paying customer I could whine and bitch and moan (and have good reason to) or I could try and stay positive, play the game and make AAR's and hope that encourages people to try and get into it. I chose the latter - that does not make me a representative of Matrix or ADG or Steve. That doesn't mean I make any pretence at the state of the game and that doesn't mean I am anything less than honest with people about the pitfalls that buying this game comes with.

As for mentioning WITP-AE – what was that for? We all know what a good, well supported game, with a large fanbase looks like. I – along with all lovers of this game – hoped (and still hope) that MWIF will one day be that game. But in the meantime it remains far short of that – and considering this is such a beautifully constructed, wonderful game, that is a crying shame.

As for my specific post to Cohen, I was simply a) pointing out a factual inaccuracy in one of his comments and b) highlighting my personal opinion that I think there was a better way of moving this forward. NOT – and god alone knows where you got this from – that I think everything is ‘normal’ and that I am ‘pretending’ to others that is the case. I am happy to recommend this game to people because WIF is, imo, simply the best wargame ever, but that recommendation for MWIF always comes heavily caveated.

You say comms from Matrix last appeared in 2015. But you choose to direct your comments at me.... Might I suggest, that when venting your frustrations, you would be better placed directing them to the right people.

Thank-you.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

Post by Centuur »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

[In reply to RFlavo69]

Okay. Well that is a strange post isn’t it? I mean not some of the content, but who it is addressed to and the manner in which it put.

With comments like “Let’s stop pretending shall we?” and reference to the game situation being “normal” and then addressing me personally I can only assume you have not only got the wrong end of the stick, but that you appear to have got hold of the wrong stick altogether.

You say my quote “rubs salt into the wounds”? Why? Well I can only assume you think that I am arguing that everything is normal? Where on earth did you get that from? I mean seriously?
Shouldn't the basic game be sold after it is right?

Well that statement has something of the ‘Captain Obvious’ about it doesn’t it? The answer is of course yes. The question though is why you feel you have to direct that at me? I have to be careful what I say as a former beta tester, but if you think I am happy that the game is in the state it’s in, then that is ridiculous. But moreover, I would like to tell you something about the time of launch but I don’t feel it’s correct to do so – even though if I did tell you, you would see I would be one of the last people you addressed this sort of post too.

You also raise the old chestnut about what people had a right to expect when buying the game and again point that in my direction. You, naturally, have no idea what conversations went on with the beta testers and Matrix/Steve. But again, even without that information – which again I do not feel it my place to say – the fact is, I am not the person you should be directing this at. You think I have some say at Matrix and their policy decisions?

I paid for this game (with a small discount for testing), so don’t go telling me it’s in its fourth year like I didn’t know that. I, no doubt like most playing this game, get frustrated at the bugs, the convoy system and the fact that optionals haven’t been coded too - why wouldn’t I?

As you should be able to read from my post you quoted, I also happen to think the route taken by Matrix – concentrating on Netplay – is totally wrong and has meant that getting other stuff that needs sorting – and that would have meant a better playing experience for those actually playing the game (or wanting to) - has not happened. But that is my opinion and, as I don’t have a financial stake in Matrix or ADG or Steve’s mortgage account I, quite rightly, don’t have a voice when it comes to decisions made about the direction of travel.

The fact is the game is where it is and, as a paying customer I could whine and bitch and moan (and have good reason to) or I could try and stay positive, play the game and make AAR's and hope that encourages people to try and get into it. I chose the latter - that does not make me a representative of Matrix or ADG or Steve. That doesn't mean I make any pretence at the state of the game and that doesn't mean I am anything less than honest with people about the pitfalls that buying this game comes with.

As for mentioning WITP-AE – what was that for? We all know what a good, well supported game, with a large fanbase looks like. I – along with all lovers of this game – hoped (and still hope) that MWIF will one day be that game. But in the meantime it remains far short of that – and considering this is such a beautifully constructed, wonderful game, that is a crying shame.

As for my specific post to Cohen, I was simply a) pointing out a factual inaccuracy in one of his comments and b) highlighting my personal opinion that I think there was a better way of moving this forward. NOT – and god alone knows where you got this from – that I think everything is ‘normal’ and that I am ‘pretending’ to others that is the case. I am happy to recommend this game to people because WIF is, imo, simply the best wargame ever, but that recommendation for MWIF always comes heavily caveated.

You say comms from Matrix last appeared in 2015. But you choose to direct your comments at me.... Might I suggest, that when venting your frustration, you would be better placed directing them to the right people.

Thank-you.

Hear hear.... +1
Peter
User avatar
RFalvo69
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: Lamezia Terme (Italy)

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

Post by RFalvo69 »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

[In reply to RFlavo69]

Okay. Well that is a strange post isn’t it? I mean not some of the content, but who it is addressed to and the manner in which it put.

I will answer in the simplest of terms.

In Italy we have a saying: "To talk about rope in the house of someone who hanged himself".

Is the guy who talks about rope responsible for the hanging or the events leading to it. No: he simply shows bad timing and unnecessarily reminds people of something very unpleasant.

You write:
Shouldn't the basic game be sold after it is right?

Well that statement has something of the ‘Captain Obvious’ about it doesn’t it?

This only underlines that Matrix never heard about ‘Captain Obvious’.
You also raise the old chestnut about what people had a right to expect when buying the game and again point that in my direction.

Actually no. What I'm tired of is people talking like if a debate about the best way to forge forward with beta-testing is normal in a forum about a four year old game. I'm also tired (I'm not talking about you, here, but bear with me) of surreal statements like "with a bit of creativity you can find work-arounds!" My eldest daughter is now studying fashion design and I'm pretty sure that using creativity is part of her daily life. She is still supposed to present a complete project when she does her mid-term exams. She actually flunked the last one: I guess that work-arounds didn't cut it.
As you should be able to read from my post you quoted, I also happen to think the route taken by Matrix – concentrating on Netplay – is totally wrong

And here is the exact point where you "talked about rope in the house of someone who hanged himself". We are still debating about the best way to forge ahead with beta-testing after four years?! Really?!

OK, fine. But, honestly, I would have more respect for a lot of people if every time arguments like "creativity" or "but MWIF implements the rules! you won't make the mistakes you do on the tabletop!" (yes, I'll only make the mistakes forced on me by bugs) were countered by a simple "please, at least let's not be ridiculous. Everyone."

I didn't mean at all to blame you for this disa... farce, and I'm honestly sorry if you perceived that I did. I only wanted to point out how your sentence is simbolic of the Stockolm Syndrome-like acceptance that, yes, in 2013 Matrix sold v0.09 of a game like if it was v1.00, but... Yes, we can!! This is what I means with "pretending".

It is indefensible.

BTW, back in 2013 I didn't pay $150 to know what happened behind the scenes. I paid $150 to have a reasonabily working game (I never expected for MWIF to be without problems out of the gate). As of 2017, ironically, I actually got neither.

Anyway, thank you too [:)] Friends again?
"Yes darling, I served in the Navy for eight years. I was a cook..."
"Oh dad... so you were a God-damned cook?"

(My 10 years old daughter after watching "The Hunt for Red October")
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

Post by warspite1 »

I have no wish to fall out with you about this – particularly given we are actually of similar mind about the state of the game – so will only say this.

Where we differ it seems is what happens now. The fact is the game is where it is – and while that does not make what has happened right, it does mean we each need to decide for ourselves what we do about it.

This is not the first time I have been in this situation with a computer wargame. But whereas previously I have shrugged my shoulders, lamented the fact I didn’t wait for reviews, and put the loss of cash down to my own stupidity, I cannot do that with MWIF.

Why? Well because I have no hope of playing the greatest game ever made (WIF) without (MWIF). So for that reason I stick with it and try and be positive (not always possible when confronting bloody convoys and production I know [:@]).

In so doing there is no Stockholm Syndrome, there is no rope/hanging type situation and there is no pretence. Simply put, because the alternative is ‘don’t play WIF’, I have chosen to stick with it and make the best of a bad job instead of walking away.

That works for me but I am not telling anyone else what they should do – with the exception that they should be complaining to the right people and not me [;)]. As you acknowledge, I wasn’t the one you were arguing with about creativity – but the fact is, when something is broken, sometimes a bit of creativity can get it working. That does not mean that having to rely on creativity is acceptable (not when one has forked out hard cash [:(]) but IF one wants to play the game then creativity IS sadly required at present.

So as I say, I think we are on roughly the same page about the past, but the outlook for the game's future and what we each do about it looks like being different - and that's okay.

Yes friends [:)]
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
juntoalmar
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:08 pm
Location: Valencia
Contact:

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

Post by juntoalmar »

We just finished a 4 player game with PBEM and Dropbox. No much creativity needed, actually.

I have been enjoying this game for the last 3 years. It ain't finished but, as warspite said, is probably one of the best wargames ever (without doubt, the best I've played). The alternative to MWiF for me would be no playing at all.

So, is the current situation as good as I wished? No
Is it good enough to satisfy my wargaming needs? Hell, yeah.
Do I try to convince anybody of this? Why should I?
Should anybody try to convince me that this game is a disaster? Why should he?



(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/
AlbertN
Posts: 4201
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

Post by AlbertN »

It seems I've been recently mentioned!
Yes I still follow the forum (albeit not playing MWiF anymore for the time being - moved on with my pal to other games!).

I fully agree the game should be polished and finished in its optional rules and what needs to be coded before to move to Netplay or the AI (and about the AI I feel it's pointless except for Guadalcanal / Barbarossa scenarios for singleplayer practice and learning the ropes. The game is too massive for the AI to even remotely handle it at any acceptable level otherwise).
Presently AIs are simply executions of instructions written down. Not a real artificial intelligence (or at least if so - in the gaming industry. I do not know what AIs Pentagon's softwares may use).

I still am not repented of having bought MWiF for it gave me many enjoyable hours of gameplay with a friend (and who knows maybe somewhen I'll play with another folk who is around here in the forums!), has a strong historical vibe and development curve, but mostly you see players cursing when that almost certain fight that you'd have bagged ends up in tragedy rolling the fateful 14 on Assault Table, or when that pesky naval bomber you have a +6 with in air to air combat rolls a dreaded 20 and obliterates your best fighter in the region.
davidachamberlain
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 12:12 am

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

Post by davidachamberlain »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

[In reply to RFlavo69]

Okay. Well that is a strange post isn’t it? I mean not some of the content, but who it is addressed to and the manner in which it put.

You say comms from Matrix last appeared in 2015. But you choose to direct your comments at me.... Might I suggest, that when venting your frustrations, you would be better placed directing them to the right people.

Thanks for that. I as one of the more recent purchasers of MWIF (and the instigator for 3 others) do understand that Matrix is still responsible for making this into a successful game.

I (also) am a little disappointed at where the game is at today, but am also realistic into just how complicated that game is, having played the cardboard and paper version.

As someone who has a greater appreciation for the technology under the covers, I have an even greater sense regarding the complexities that will be involved in producing the AI for this game.

Certainly, I would just love for a computer opponent that could play as well as I could play (not meaning to over-exaggerate my own abilities), but rather to consider the extensive gap into what a computer would require to follow as many variables as a human can follow.

I think those who have a major complaint about the lack of AI forget about the fact that computers look at decisions through a tiny hole where humans can look at things holistically. Most of these games with AI have a handful of character or units in play at a time. In a WIF game, that increases quickly to hundreds and can become thousands. I have trouble imagining without developing a serious limitation or a simplistic pattern how it could make the kind of strategic decisions required to be an effective (and useful) opponent.

I also greatly appreciate the fact that Matrix has not given up on this after 4 years. If it was my business, I am not sure if I would been able to give it the same chance. There are costs (that are not insignificant) to keeping Steve on this. I am also quite sure that this project has probably also held back Steve from many interesting or career enhancing opportunities.

I do see some light at the end of the tunnel. Though there are defects being identified (and mostly getting resolved), the game appears now to be closer to a genuine production release than it has been for quite some time.

I am really looking forward to seeing that 3.0 version and then seeing the backlog of enhancements for scenario and optional rules start to see some progress.

Unlike some, I have some real enthusiasm for seeing progress on Netplay. I would like to be able to do more than a work around on the multiplayer version of this game. Hopefully by dragging in a total of 4 (including myself) players into buying the game and playing it while working around the bugs, it helps give the game the financial boost it needs to keep (or possibly increase) the attention required to get it done.

Dave
User avatar
RFalvo69
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: Lamezia Terme (Italy)

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

Post by RFalvo69 »

ORIGINAL: davidachamberlain
Unlike some, I have some real enthusiasm for seeing progress on Netplay. I would like to be able to do more than a work around on the multiplayer version of this game. Hopefully by dragging in a total of 4 (including myself) players into buying the game and playing it while working around the bugs, it helps give the game the financial boost it needs to keep (or possibly increase) the attention required to get it done.

IMHO, not now but down the road (when Netplay will work reasonably well, and a good number of missing scenarios/optional rules are finally implemented] Matrix should find a way to "relaunch the game" and give it the visibility it had in 2013.

I'm not a marketing expert, and I don't think that "MWIF finally works!" would be a good relaunch. But... dunno... maybe some sort of tournament via Netplay? With mandatory optional rules which, as of now, are still not implemented? That could be a way to show that, yes, this very, very good wargame finally works.

What I fear, and sorry if my cinism rears his ugly head again, is that Matrix, by now, got back all the money she could coinceavibily get - and what we are left with is Steve's integrity.
"Yes darling, I served in the Navy for eight years. I was a cook..."
"Oh dad... so you were a God-damned cook?"

(My 10 years old daughter after watching "The Hunt for Red October")
User avatar
Jagdtiger14
Posts: 1685
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:58 pm
Location: Miami Beach

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

Post by Jagdtiger14 »

maybe some sort of tournament via Netplay?

This would be great!
Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC
User avatar
Dabrion
Posts: 740
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:26 am
Location: Northpole

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

Post by Dabrion »

Matrix should drop the license ..
"If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." ~ Georgy Zhukov
Numdydar
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 pm

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

Post by Numdydar »

And then what? Abandon the game entirely? Do you actually think ADG would continue development in house? Do you know of anyone else that would pick this up and finish development?

Personally, I'd much rather have someone working on a computer version (regardless of how slow) than not of WiF. As that is the only way I will ever play the game. I am not a fan of Vassel or other ways to play. So for me it is MWiF or nothing.

So I really do not understand your comment above. But that is ok as I tend to not understand a lot these days lol.
User avatar
Dabrion
Posts: 740
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:26 am
Location: Northpole

RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015

Post by Dabrion »

I don't think ADG could develop the computer game. They don't have that kind of expertise, that is why they gave it to Matrix. Turns out Matrix doesn't have that expertise either.
Matrix poop resting on the license only ensures that the only thing happening is the damage control and tinkering we saw over the last decade. My personal opinion is that is should be in the public domain; business interest don't help a project of this magnitude, that only has a small, enthusiast customer base.
"If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." ~ Georgy Zhukov
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”