ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
A change for the worse. We had this discussion here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2611142 , so i don't want to repeat arguments for leaving the so-called bug as it is. Just that all of the discussion's participants were against "fixing" it, and those participants were all long time TOAW players/wargamers and experienced (delete this in my case) scenario designers.
Not quite true. And how about the 500 or so designers who aren't around any more to post in.
I only want to say (as an argument against fixing) that it wouldn't have broken many scenarios and if so, this hand full of cases could have been edited for the final 3.4 release. Pity.
We don't know how many it would have broken - one is too many. And they couldn't have even been identified before release, much less fixed. Most wouldn't even have been fixable. This bug would have allowed no resupply at sea at all. Not realistic in plenty of topics.
It was a bug. It had to be fixed. Maybe we can add a designer option for this at some point, but it was too late for that in 3.4. And it needed to be done in a more carefully considered fashion.
Some designers may be out of reach. But then, what do you fear if you change some bits and bytes of their original data by yourself or someone else from the Beta testers or the community? Patent lawyers?
Well, it's too late anyway.
We misunderstand each other i think...
I meant each one of the discussion participants was either an experienced TOAW player or scenario designer.
And yes, one single broken scenario will already be too much.
And no, i don't think that a lot of scenarios would have been affected. And those that would have been could have easily been fixed. When the designer might be out of reach, then without his consent.
And yes, a designer option would be appreciated, but the other way around.. :)
And yet i think it is a change for the worse.
< Message edited by Telumar -- 12/4/2010 9:43:20 PM >