Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

1.04 Update

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empire in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> 1.04 Update Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
1.04 Update - 9/16/2008 4:58:21 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline
Gents:

I can see on the Mantis Bug Tracker you are hard away at improvements to this game. Is there any word on when a 1.04 Public Beta or final version might be out?

Thank you,
Mardonius
Post #: 1
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/16/2008 5:19:34 PM   
obsidiandragon


Posts: 180
Joined: 3/22/2008
From: Massachusetts, USA
Status: offline
I believe Marshall was close to releasing 1.04 and starting on 1.05 but then we found a few major snags (that surfaced from other corrections) that he had to go back and look at. So as of right now I have not heard as to when 1.04 will be released.

(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 2
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/16/2008 5:33:55 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Gents:

I can see on the Mantis Bug Tracker you are hard away at improvements to this game. Is there any word on when a 1.04 Public Beta or final version might be out?

Thank you,
Mardonius


I try not to look at Mantis, it only reminds me of how much needs to be done to get this game "truly" playable.

(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 3
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/17/2008 12:57:36 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Gents:

I can see on the Mantis Bug Tracker you are hard away at improvements to this game. Is there any word on when a 1.04 Public Beta or final version might be out?

Thank you,
Mardonius


I try not to look at Mantis, it only reminds me of how much needs to be done to get this game "truly" playable.



Ouch! That's it Neverman! You're off my Christmas card list! LOL!

Actually, I am working on 1.05 as we speak. 1.04 is pretty much closed with the exception of a few follow ups that I am having to make then it will be ready for BETA soon! I am trying to see if I can squeeze the first version of our editor into 1.05 but no promises here yet since I must live off of Mantis and deal with what comes up.




< Message edited by Marshall Ellis -- 9/17/2008 12:59:19 PM >


_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 4
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/20/2008 12:32:26 PM   
JavaJoe


Posts: 546
Joined: 9/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Gents:

I can see on the Mantis Bug Tracker you are hard away at improvements to this game. Is there any word on when a 1.04 Public Beta or final version might be out?

Thank you,
Mardonius


I try not to look at Mantis, it only reminds me of how much needs to be done to get this game "truly" playable.



Ouch! That's it Neverman! You're off my Christmas card list! LOL!

Actually, I am working on 1.05 as we speak. 1.04 is pretty much closed with the exception of a few follow ups that I am having to make then it will be ready for BETA soon! I am trying to see if I can squeeze the first version of our editor into 1.05 but no promises here yet since I must live off of Mantis and deal with what comes up.





Marshall,

I'm always impressed at your ability to keep a positive persona while others continue to snipe.

Keep on keeping on.

Joe

(this is like getting a hug from a retarded uncle that has the stench of cigarettes and whiskey.)

_____________________________

Vice President Jersey Association Of Gamers
JerseyGamers.com

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 5
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/20/2008 11:17:01 PM   
gazfun


Posts: 986
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Australia
Status: offline
Thats right Javajoe that was exquistiely phased about the getting a hug from an uncle that smells of wiskey and cigarettes.
But Im not sure if that describes Marshal thought.
He certainly is able to keep a positive attitude, all the time Ive known him, and yet you get people like Neverman who constanlty complains, and is never happy, if he is you would never know it.
I suppose these people have there place as well.

< Message edited by gazfun -- 9/20/2008 11:56:17 PM >


_____________________________

Create your own history at www.thegeneralshq.org

(in reply to JavaJoe)
Post #: 6
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/20/2008 11:53:23 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
Oh, I guess I will change for everyone:

Oh thank you great Marshall, oh ye bringer of Empires in Arms to the PC, you are a God and I am but a humble EiAer. Oh great Marshall, how can I ever thank you?

LOL.

Facts are facts and the facts are that this game is not truly suitable for play, I'm sorry if that offends some of you.



< Message edited by NeverMan -- 9/21/2008 12:59:03 AM >

(in reply to gazfun)
Post #: 7
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/20/2008 11:55:31 PM   
gazfun


Posts: 986
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Australia
Status: offline
Yes there are other facts, which is true, looks like you dont like that either

_____________________________

Create your own history at www.thegeneralshq.org

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 8
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/21/2008 12:59:13 AM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
IF Marshall was doing this out of pure love for EiA and this was some kind of open source freeware I WOULD HAVE NOTHING BUT MAD LOVE FOR THE GAME; however, since this is a capital venture for both he and MatrixGames, that really changes things.

The game will be coming up on a year soon and there are still bugs in the game that cause CRASHES to games, meaning some games can't continue due to these bugs that have been around almost a year now. Gazfun, how many software companies do you know of that would get a pass with this? How many projects would have been put down by now because of this?

< Message edited by NeverMan -- 9/21/2008 1:01:12 AM >

(in reply to gazfun)
Post #: 9
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/21/2008 1:22:26 AM   
gazfun


Posts: 986
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Australia
Status: offline
Ok
How many developers, and we are talking about the ones that have a team of paid testers, and a team of programmers that work on projects like this one any many others, that have the detail of this and other games that are worth to be called a wargame!
There are many glitzie games out there that only go halfway in giving us something, that has more value in referance to the detail that wargamers want and need.
The answer is there is non of them, and by the way, even after having teams of programmers, and Testers these games still come out with heaps of bugs, and game stopping ones at that.
So there isnt much differance, except that it may take a little longer, in this case which is unfortunate.
Oh yes we would all like to have things better, but there no point in continually bitching about it.
The world knows what some people in this community are doing, to help or not to help, I would prefer to make a positive contribution, of which I am on record as doing.
Tell me please has your contribution been helpful in the long term? I think not, except of perhaps something may be deemed as ordinary, or common.
Wake up to yourself. 
But we have been down this path before havent we mate.

< Message edited by gazfun -- 9/21/2008 1:23:25 AM >


_____________________________

Create your own history at www.thegeneralshq.org

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 10
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/21/2008 6:18:20 AM   
timewalker03

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 6/9/2003
From: Omaha, NE
Status: offline
Hey Gazfun one thing I really want to point out to you is that without opposition the developers of any game, company, product reach a point of complacency which in the end is disastrous to the consumer. Since this is a continuing consumer relationship it will be important for people to have objections and to have a need to put pressure on the game developer and the company that distributes the game. Some people here will give the benefit of the doubt to Marshall and others will be critical. This is a true sign of consumerism as some pay $60 and want a polished product and others pay it and will accept what they get even if it is below board. Here is what I see are the positives of the game. It is continually upgraded and supported for the time being. The game play being EiHarm is the largest drawback to me but to some it is the major positive. The major negative to me is that the game was forced to release by Matrix so they could gain a return on their investment. The second Negative and the biggest to me is the game has only one Programmer and uses the EiA community to test the game without any form of payment. Oh yeah and to test it for them people paid money.

It is never a bad thing to criticise, especially since you paid money for a product. This is what is called consumer relations. Wargame or not there should still be a degree of expectation from the consumer to the provider of the service. Calling someone into question for making a criticism or for continually criticising may make you feel good, but will not better the final result of this topic. Neverman is right that after almost one year the product is not much better than it was at release. We have seen 3 complete updates in 10 months that have been mostly to correct bugs so those playing PBEM games would stop complaining. Since this game has more than just a PBEM factor, and since the AI is just barely better than at release I would say the game is not well supported. Marshall may be available here a lot, he has not improved the whole game much. This to me is the full argument. Matrix has taken a lame approach to this game and seems to continue this approach into the game's second year. The game has great upside, but will it be reached is still to be seen.

(in reply to gazfun)
Post #: 11
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/21/2008 6:42:13 AM   
gazfun


Posts: 986
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Australia
Status: offline
Well you may be a consumer.
But to be a gaming consumer I thought that you would have to be in a position to play anthing for a length of time. Rather than 2 or 3 months. From what Ive seen of some players.

Its like buying a mercedes for 4 weeks, then selling it, then buying another car and keeping that for another 4 weeks and it might be a VW. You couldnt really call yourself a consumer of VW could you.........from the point of view of a marketer, you would be just a consumer of motor vehicles right.

_____________________________

Create your own history at www.thegeneralshq.org

(in reply to timewalker03)
Post #: 12
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/21/2008 8:12:01 AM   
timewalker03

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 6/9/2003
From: Omaha, NE
Status: offline
Or what you have is a product that you think is a Mercedes and is sold to you as a Mercedes, but is really a Volkswagon. Now we are not talking a 2009 Volkswagon with all of the amenities we are talking a 1968 Volkswagon that you had to roll the windows down for air conditioning and the heater comes with the complete Carbon Monoxide package as did the old vehicles. Now in the State where I live we have what is called a "Lemon Law". If a vehicle is unsatisfactory as in breaks down more than 3 times by law it can be returned for the full price paid and cannot be disputed. Lets compare EiA in its first 90 days. I would say that the games I was in were stopped by "Failures" AKA Bugs more than 3 times. As per your description using vehicles as an example I and many many others would have the right to get our money back.

Here's the thing Gazfun. If you want to quote consumerism this product definately fits a lemon. Now as a wargamer I would like to see this product succeed but maybe not from the same standpoint as you do. I want to see a robust AI. Since I realisticly know that is the only way I will ever finish a game because the PBEM form of the game takes an unbelievable amount of time to play. I would like to see Scenarios added "For Free" and not in some expansion we have to pay for and not an editor so We consumers have to do all of Matrix's work for them. I would like to see the game brought back to EiA and not the crappy EiH version currently being used. (Oh and yes I played EiH back in my playing days.) I would also like to see Matrix put more behind this game and not short sell this game in any way. With one programmer it shows that Matrix really doesn't care about its customers as long as we continue to buy the game and "HELP" them develop it for free. Yes it may benefit us in the end, but how long will it be till the game is a Mercedes and not the Lemon it currently is.

< Message edited by timewalker03 -- 9/21/2008 8:14:21 AM >

(in reply to gazfun)
Post #: 13
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/21/2008 8:35:30 AM   
gazfun


Posts: 986
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Australia
Status: offline
Australian Design Group has recognised this as EiA you may call it as you wish, but since there is a change of medium used, then in essence it isnt the same game, but I dont wont to play the old board game again its even slower.
Speed of the game is subjective, Ive had players exchanging files within 5 minitues. And 6 months or more gaming time done in one night easily. A lot of players I see dont think outside the square.
But you have to get players in a local or same timeslot. The same time slot would apply in a TCP/IP game as well.
Some people like to play wargaming, but thats it, they like to play, but dont really want to commit. When in the old paperback game, people used to get tied up with rules, and delay, and complain about rule interpretation, now with PC gaming instead of bashing the other players with a rule book, they try to bash people responsible for making the game, or use a "its not really the same game excuse" for there lack of comitment, or even there lack of skills.
The mercedes aspect of my argument, wargamer vs game player


_____________________________

Create your own history at www.thegeneralshq.org

(in reply to timewalker03)
Post #: 14
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/21/2008 12:30:21 PM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1251
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
I have finished my latest round of testing on the latest 1.04 DEV release and have given Marshall the OK to release that as a beta.  There are a few fixes outstanding but it's much better than the current release, especially from an AI perspective (even playing France was a little tough).

Let's see what happens from here.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to gazfun)
Post #: 15
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/21/2008 2:21:04 PM   
timewalker03

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 6/9/2003
From: Omaha, NE
Status: offline
My personal experiences with the board game were fine. My game groups did not have problems with speed. In the 4 PBEM games I have participated in not one made it past march without restarting, and none restarted due to player participation, but because of bugs in the game. Once again it goes back to game design. I will not bash players or their level of play at all. I will not bash players dedication since the factor of Real Life plays into things and dedication may change on a moments notices due to unforseen factors. The only negatives I have found with the game are how the game plays and how crappy the AI is. As delatbabel has stated we should see an AI improvement which would be nice since I bought the game for a single player challenge and not for a PBEM lifelong game.

Being a Wargamer does not make anyone special in any way. You are not any better than a video game player, you just play games from a different niche then as an example a sim player. Blaming the problems of a game on the players is a sad way to try to hide behind the fact that the game is currently sub par compared to the original board game. I do fully understand that you will not have a direct port, and I do realize ADG gave a thumbs up to the game in its current form. I am sure they make some money every time a copy sells which of course they endorse since they have to do nothing to make the money they are making. No matter what, it comes down to quality of product and how Matrix treats its consumer. I did not purchase this game to help them develop it further. I purchased this game to play EiA solo. Not for the PBEM feature. If they wanted me to playtest the game they should have selected me when they asked for testers in 2003 as I put in an app to test. And I would still be here helping them. Instead I paid $60 to be a tester which falls into the realm of Bull$%^& as far as their company practices go. I also don't support something in a blind manner, and I would be promoting Matrix and Marshall if things were good from the start. Which of course they weren't. The only fault when it comes to dedication lies in the games maker. They launched a much inferior product than they could have, and the progression to make this the best game possible is very slow. Hopefully that will change.

< Message edited by timewalker03 -- 9/21/2008 4:55:06 PM >

(in reply to gazfun)
Post #: 16
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/21/2008 3:32:50 PM   
GShock


Posts: 1245
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline
Amen.

(in reply to timewalker03)
Post #: 17
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/21/2008 6:15:55 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gazfun

Well you may be a consumer.
But to be a gaming consumer I thought that you would have to be in a position to play anthing for a length of time. Rather than 2 or 3 months. From what Ive seen of some players.

Its like buying a mercedes for 4 weeks, then selling it, then buying another car and keeping that for another 4 weeks and it might be a VW. You couldnt really call yourself a consumer of VW could you.........from the point of view of a marketer, you would be just a consumer of motor vehicles right.


this is a HORRIBLE analogy, a better one would be this:

It's like buying a Mercedes that you are planning on driving for the rest of your life and it breaks down after 4 months, you turn it in and get another, that one breaks after 4 months, you turn it in and get another, that one breaks after 4 months, etc, etc, etc, etc...

I am in a game I have been playing since I obtained EiANW and the game is now done. Why you ask? Player's leaving?? NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The game is essentially done because there is a glitch that is stopping us from continuing and Marshall can't/won't find the problem and fix it. It's that simple.

Your analogy is void of any real fact since you don't know any of us. In fact, I have noticed that more TGHQers abandon the game then the people that are on here complaining (myself and some others I am in games with included).

I understand your desire to defend Matrix/Marshall but for 70 a pop I don't think they need a defense.

(in reply to gazfun)
Post #: 18
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/21/2008 6:18:26 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

I have finished my latest round of testing on the latest 1.04 DEV release and have given Marshall the OK to release that as a beta.  There are a few fixes outstanding but it's much better than the current release, especially from an AI perspective (even playing France was a little tough).

Let's see what happens from here.



Are the free VP/PP still in the game? If so, then that's why it's still challenging. It's not that the AI is good it's just that the comp gives itself endless amounts of VP/PP. It's hard to compete with that even when you've gotten two unconditionals from all neighbors, have been in wars you've won the entire game and own most of the map.

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 19
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/21/2008 6:27:49 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: timewalker03

My personal experiences with the board game were fine. My game groups did not have problems with speed. In the 4 PBEM games I have participated in not one made it past march without restarting, and none restarted due to player participation, but because of bugs in the game. Once again it goes back to game design. I will not bash players or their level of play at all. I will not bash players dedication since the factor of Real Life plays into things and dedication may change on a moments notices due to unforseen factors. The only negatives I have found with the game are how the game plays and how crappy the AI is. As delatbabel has stated we should see an AI improvement which would be nice since I bought the game for a single player challenge and not for a PBEM lifelong game.

Being a Wargamer does not make anyone special in any way. You are not any better than a video game player, you just play games from a different niche then as an example a sim player. Blaming the problems of a game on the players is a sad way to try to hide behind the fact that the game is currently sub par compared to the original board game. I do fully understand that you will not have a direct port, and I do realize ADG gave a thumbs up to the game in its current form. I am sure they make some money every time a copy sells which of course they endorse since they have to do nothing to make the money they are making. No matter what, it comes down to quality of product and how Matrix treats its consumer. I did not purchase this game to help them develop it further. I purchased this game to play EiA solo. Not for the PBEM feature. If they wanted me to playtest the game they should have selected me when they asked for testers in 2003 as I put in an app to test. And I would still be here helping them. Instead I paid $60 to be a tester which falls into the realm of Bull$%^& as far as their company practices go. I also don't support something in a blind manner, and I would be promoting Matrix and Marshall if things were good from the start. Which of course they weren't. The only fault when it comes to dedication lies in the games maker. They launched a much inferior product than they could have, and the progression to make this the best game possible is very slow. Hopefully that will change.


Great post!

For me, I just feel that they should take the blame for making this game. I don't really see how the "gamer" comes into play at all. The game is not stable, what does that have to do with gamers? Gazfun, you are really grasping at straws here.

The game is in bad shape and has been since it was released. It's getting better but very, very slowly. Personally, I don't really care about the AI since the only way it's ever going to be challenging is if it gives itself a bunch of free VP/PP, otherwise it's a blow over, so that doesn't really make it an AI or technically "challenging". There has been little done to improve PBEM since the game was released. There are still game-stopping bugs.

You can use the "one developer"; however, the game has been in development for years and they still charge MORE than most PC games that are finished and polished.

(in reply to timewalker03)
Post #: 20
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/21/2008 9:34:19 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2256
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

Let's see what happens from here.


Bingo. Move onward.

I am reminded of a quote from the 1976 movie, "The Gumball Rally":

quote:


Franco: And now my friend, the first-a rule of Italian driving.
[Franco rips off his rear-view mirror and throws it out of the car]
Franco: What's-a behind me is not important.




(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 21
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/21/2008 10:07:51 PM   
gazfun


Posts: 986
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

Your analogy is void of any real fact since you don't know any of us. In fact, I have noticed that more TGHQers abandon the game then the people that are on here complaining (myself and some others I am in games with included).

You dont know anything about TGHQ at all quiet frankly, since april this year you havent visited us much. And havent said too much to us with only 9 posts since april 2008 and 2 or 3 of those are only files uploading posts. So I hardly think you can say anything with authority.
Out of the 5 games we that had started with us we still have 4 going, and they have been going since around December 07
We had 3 restarts in one game, and that has continued for 6 months and going strong, because of the strong commitment of players.
The fiflth game pulled out as the GM and a few people drifted away from us, due to a combination of personel problems, and email issues, but they didnt keep up with the patches, and so caused a sync problem all the time.
The fourth game GM pulled out and has been replaced by a stronger GM, this games will be continuing, and looking for 1 player, replacement due to personel problems.
We have had a few replacement players but at quiet an acceptable level.
A lot of the guys are having fun with the game actually. We have had hassles with bugs sure but the main thing is that most of us just keep on keeping on, and adjust to suit, that situation, but we find that mostly not to many bugs have come forth since 1.02, and the game has stabilised a lot since 1.03 thanks to Marshall and the testing team.
Thanks guys all of us at TGHQ appreciate it immensly.

< Message edited by gazfun -- 9/21/2008 10:16:30 PM >


_____________________________

Create your own history at www.thegeneralshq.org

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 22
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/22/2008 1:32:27 AM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
Well, I'm in Game 5 of your THGQ and in over a month real time we've managed ALMOST a month game time with 2-3 players dropping out. That's what I know.

(in reply to gazfun)
Post #: 23
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/22/2008 1:51:12 AM   
gazfun


Posts: 986
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Well, I'm in Game 5 of your THGQ and in over a month real time we've managed ALMOST a month game time with 2-3 players dropping out. That's what I know.

This is to do with issues of the OLD GM not to do with the game, it is the performance or non performance of people thats the main cause. Nothing to do with TGHQ.


_____________________________

Create your own history at www.thegeneralshq.org

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 24
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/22/2008 2:41:09 AM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gazfun


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Well, I'm in Game 5 of your THGQ and in over a month real time we've managed ALMOST a month game time with 2-3 players dropping out. That's what I know.

This is to do with issues of the OLD GM not to do with the game, it is the performance or non performance of people thats the main cause. Nothing to do with TGHQ.



You were trying to "call people out" based on the game and you were implying that most games were closed due to people's non-commitment and not bug issues and saying that people basically need to buck up and be "wargamers". All I was pointing out is that YOUR group (THGQ) has had several dropped players just in the month I've played with them, that's all. My point??? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

(in reply to gazfun)
Post #: 25
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/22/2008 8:25:38 AM   
robfun


Posts: 19
Joined: 5/10/2006
Status: offline
 Ok, here's my ten cents worth. I also have been playing EIA since it's release and have gone through the hassles of the restart, as bug after bug was found. Also of course having had the players themselves leave a game for one reason or another.
The bug issue I beleive is coming under control, at the present moment there don't seem to be any game stoppers. However I too paid I believe good money to purchase this game, but have also purchased games at retailers, for a lot more money, and found them to positive rubbish. (I'm censoring myself here, as you may gather.) and these are games released by supposedly reputable companies.
Marshall at least is putting in the hard yards to improve the game, I'm not sucking up to him just stating fact.
I agree that gamers should have the right to complain if it's a legitate complaint, and it's obvious that here it's at least being taken into account. As I previously alluded to "others " have got your money and couldn't care less.
Also the updates are coming out, other companies would release a disk and have you buy it.
There is a game here that has a lot of potential I only hope Matrix realize it.

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 26
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/22/2008 1:07:02 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

I have finished my latest round of testing on the latest 1.04 DEV release and have given Marshall the OK to release that as a beta.  There are a few fixes outstanding but it's much better than the current release, especially from an AI perspective (even playing France was a little tough).

Let's see what happens from here.



Are the free VP/PP still in the game? If so, then that's why it's still challenging. It's not that the AI is good it's just that the comp gives itself endless amounts of VP/PP. It's hard to compete with that even when you've gotten two unconditionals from all neighbors, have been in wars you've won the entire game and own most of the map.


It is still in 1.04 but I have adjusted in 1.05 to a more realistic / random level.



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 27
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/22/2008 1:09:43 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: timewalker03

My personal experiences with the board game were fine. My game groups did not have problems with speed. In the 4 PBEM games I have participated in not one made it past march without restarting, and none restarted due to player participation, but because of bugs in the game. Once again it goes back to game design. I will not bash players or their level of play at all. I will not bash players dedication since the factor of Real Life plays into things and dedication may change on a moments notices due to unforseen factors. The only negatives I have found with the game are how the game plays and how crappy the AI is. As delatbabel has stated we should see an AI improvement which would be nice since I bought the game for a single player challenge and not for a PBEM lifelong game.

Being a Wargamer does not make anyone special in any way. You are not any better than a video game player, you just play games from a different niche then as an example a sim player. Blaming the problems of a game on the players is a sad way to try to hide behind the fact that the game is currently sub par compared to the original board game. I do fully understand that you will not have a direct port, and I do realize ADG gave a thumbs up to the game in its current form. I am sure they make some money every time a copy sells which of course they endorse since they have to do nothing to make the money they are making. No matter what, it comes down to quality of product and how Matrix treats its consumer. I did not purchase this game to help them develop it further. I purchased this game to play EiA solo. Not for the PBEM feature. If they wanted me to playtest the game they should have selected me when they asked for testers in 2003 as I put in an app to test. And I would still be here helping them. Instead I paid $60 to be a tester which falls into the realm of Bull$%^& as far as their company practices go. I also don't support something in a blind manner, and I would be promoting Matrix and Marshall if things were good from the start. Which of course they weren't. The only fault when it comes to dedication lies in the games maker. They launched a much inferior product than they could have, and the progression to make this the best game possible is very slow. Hopefully that will change.


Great post!

For me, I just feel that they should take the blame for making this game. I don't really see how the "gamer" comes into play at all. The game is not stable, what does that have to do with gamers? Gazfun, you are really grasping at straws here.

The game is in bad shape and has been since it was released. It's getting better but very, very slowly. Personally, I don't really care about the AI since the only way it's ever going to be challenging is if it gives itself a bunch of free VP/PP, otherwise it's a blow over, so that doesn't really make it an AI or technically "challenging". There has been little done to improve PBEM since the game was released. There are still game-stopping bugs.

You can use the "one developer"; however, the game has been in development for years and they still charge MORE than most PC games that are finished and polished.


What game stopping PBEM bugs are you talking about?
Are those bugs that I am not aware of?
Are they in Mantis?





< Message edited by Marshall Ellis -- 9/22/2008 1:10:16 PM >


_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 28
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/22/2008 1:20:42 PM   
DCWhitworth


Posts: 671
Joined: 12/15/2007
From: Norwich, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

What game stopping PBEM bugs are you talking about?
Are those bugs that I am not aware of?
Are they in Mantis?



Yes I'd like to know too. What are these game stopping issues that Neverman seems to speak of so often ?

_____________________________

Regards
David

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 29
RE: 1.04 Update - 9/22/2008 2:19:23 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: timewalker03

My personal experiences with the board game were fine. My game groups did not have problems with speed. In the 4 PBEM games I have participated in not one made it past march without restarting, and none restarted due to player participation, but because of bugs in the game. Once again it goes back to game design. I will not bash players or their level of play at all. I will not bash players dedication since the factor of Real Life plays into things and dedication may change on a moments notices due to unforseen factors. The only negatives I have found with the game are how the game plays and how crappy the AI is. As delatbabel has stated we should see an AI improvement which would be nice since I bought the game for a single player challenge and not for a PBEM lifelong game.

Being a Wargamer does not make anyone special in any way. You are not any better than a video game player, you just play games from a different niche then as an example a sim player. Blaming the problems of a game on the players is a sad way to try to hide behind the fact that the game is currently sub par compared to the original board game. I do fully understand that you will not have a direct port, and I do realize ADG gave a thumbs up to the game in its current form. I am sure they make some money every time a copy sells which of course they endorse since they have to do nothing to make the money they are making. No matter what, it comes down to quality of product and how Matrix treats its consumer. I did not purchase this game to help them develop it further. I purchased this game to play EiA solo. Not for the PBEM feature. If they wanted me to playtest the game they should have selected me when they asked for testers in 2003 as I put in an app to test. And I would still be here helping them. Instead I paid $60 to be a tester which falls into the realm of Bull$%^& as far as their company practices go. I also don't support something in a blind manner, and I would be promoting Matrix and Marshall if things were good from the start. Which of course they weren't. The only fault when it comes to dedication lies in the games maker. They launched a much inferior product than they could have, and the progression to make this the best game possible is very slow. Hopefully that will change.


Great post!

For me, I just feel that they should take the blame for making this game. I don't really see how the "gamer" comes into play at all. The game is not stable, what does that have to do with gamers? Gazfun, you are really grasping at straws here.

The game is in bad shape and has been since it was released. It's getting better but very, very slowly. Personally, I don't really care about the AI since the only way it's ever going to be challenging is if it gives itself a bunch of free VP/PP, otherwise it's a blow over, so that doesn't really make it an AI or technically "challenging". There has been little done to improve PBEM since the game was released. There are still game-stopping bugs.

You can use the "one developer"; however, the game has been in development for years and they still charge MORE than most PC games that are finished and polished.


What game stopping PBEM bugs are you talking about?
Are those bugs that I am not aware of?
Are they in Mantis?






The CleverDevils2 bug.

This group now has to WAIT for 1.04 to come out before we can continue playing this PBEM game. If the game can't continue then it's a "game stopper", right?

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empire in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> 1.04 Update Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.195