Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 9/13/2016 8:37:50 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 1838
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Matrix does a lot of stupid things.

This game should have been developed from the standpoint of making good solo play (with good AI). This at least would have let players play... then, and only then, should multiplayers be developed. Sigh, whatever.

That said, I doubt the AI will ever be any good.


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.

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 61
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 9/14/2016 12:29:41 AM   
Cataphract88


Posts: 709
Joined: 10/5/2012
From: Britannia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Matrix does a lot of stupid things.

This game should have been developed from the standpoint of making good solo play (with good AI). This at least would have let players play... then, and only then, should multiplayers be developed. Sigh, whatever.

That said, I doubt the AI will ever be any good.


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.


+1

_____________________________

Richard

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 62
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 9/14/2016 4:31:09 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7504
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 63
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 9/14/2016 12:35:21 PM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 1838
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

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.


Yes, but that requires that they are gentlemen.

I did that, early on, and had to quit because my opponent and I were seeing the stacks through Google Hangouts video, but unless you were checking all the moves back and forth and have an excellent memory, you couldn't (obviously) know the units under the uppper ones of the stacks.

(I believe) he hided some faster units under slow ones, hoping I wouldn't realize, which I did not, because I had taken a rest while he was moving and could not check the stacks, only see the upper unit. We were exchanging files but it was slow and had frequent errors so we stopped oding it.

I asked him to do the move again, because I hadn't realized what he had done and I didn't have the opportunity to check it myself and he rejected it. So that was the end of the game.

That's why I don't believe in such mends of the lacks of the game (at the moment), you depend on the clean playing and good will of your opponent, which shouldn't be necessary.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 64
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 9/14/2016 7:34:41 PM   
RFalvo69


Posts: 345
Joined: 7/11/2013
From: Lamezia Terme (Italy)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Ahh, but with a little creativity you can quite successfully use the Solo mode to play with one or even several others.


Sure. Actually, from now onward Matrix will code and sell only wargames lacking both AI and MP - because all that it is needed from the player is "a little creativity".

Meanwhile, the third anniversary since this game was published is approaching - and all I see for the foreseeable future is "a plan of groups of lists of items still to be fixed/completed before finishing these other things". This from someone who bought the game along with the hardbound books in total good faith - three years ago.

< Message edited by RFalvo69 -- 9/14/2016 7:36:55 PM >


_____________________________

"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")

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 65
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 9/15/2016 1:06:20 AM   
Viktor_Kormel


Posts: 372
Joined: 11/14/2013
Status: offline
I enjoy the game becouse I ám lucky and I can play in hot seat mode with my old friends whom I used to play the boardgame (impossible to do nowdays: family, pets and lack of space)but it´s very frustrating fight with bugs (old and regressive. In my opinion, a game with solo and hot seat mode bug free would be enough but I understand insatisfaction of many of you. I hope the game development continues and the things get better for all.

_____________________________

Sorry, for my bad english! "Wiffing" since 1990 to the tomb!

(in reply to RFalvo69)
Post #: 66
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 9/15/2016 4:25:44 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7504
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Ahh, but with a little creativity you can quite successfully use the Solo mode to play with one or even several others.


Sure. Actually, from now onward Matrix will code and sell only wargames lacking both AI and MP - because all that it is needed from the player is "a little creativity".

Meanwhile, the third anniversary since this game was published is approaching - and all I see for the foreseeable future is "a plan of groups of lists of items still to be fixed/completed before finishing these other things". This from someone who bought the game along with the hardbound books in total good faith - three years ago.

You're right. Matrix should have built Skype and Teamviewer like all the other game companies did.

Edit: Nice of you to pop by and share your wisdom every 45 days or so. Clearly a dedicated WiFFer.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 9/15/2016 4:28:32 AM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to RFalvo69)
Post #: 67
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 9/15/2016 4:59:34 AM   
RFalvo69


Posts: 345
Joined: 7/11/2013
From: Lamezia Terme (Italy)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Ahh, but with a little creativity you can quite successfully use the Solo mode to play with one or even several others.


Sure. Actually, from now onward Matrix will code and sell only wargames lacking both AI and MP - because all that it is needed from the player is "a little creativity".

Meanwhile, the third anniversary since this game was published is approaching - and all I see for the foreseeable future is "a plan of groups of lists of items still to be fixed/completed before finishing these other things". This from someone who bought the game along with the hardbound books in total good faith - three years ago.

You're right. Matrix should have built Skype and Teamviewer like all the other game companies did.


No. From now onwards they can just use the existing technology.

quote:

Edit: Nice of you to pop by and share your wisdom every 45 days or so. Clearly a dedicated WiFFer.


Yes: nice of me to pop up only when I actually have something to say. A dedicated WiFFer? On the tabletop I think I'm a good beginner - I hope to improve my game now that I have the space to lay it down and play weekly with my friends. About MWiF, I'm a veteran screen-starer.

BTW: I have a car with a broken engine. But I go around with my friends without problems: I drive, they push. See? You only need "a little creativity". Wanna buy it?


_____________________________

"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")

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 68
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 9/16/2016 12:47:41 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7504
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
I am looking for a new vehicle actually. Have you checked the gas gauge?

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to RFalvo69)
Post #: 69
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 9/16/2016 1:27:21 PM   
RFalvo69


Posts: 345
Joined: 7/11/2013
From: Lamezia Terme (Italy)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I am looking for a new vehicle actually. Have you checked the gas gauge?


It gives incorrect readings. I'm told that fixing it is in "Future plans". However, you can use the car even without the fuel gauge "with a little creativity".

Are we finished? Because, if not, then I also have a bridge over the Strait of Messina to sell along with the car. Sure, it isn't there, but, you know, "with a little creativity"...

_____________________________

"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")

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 70
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 9/16/2016 3:47:29 PM   
Orm


Posts: 16366
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline


Could we get back to discussing MWIF now? (and be nice at the same time?)

Please.

< Message edited by Orm -- 9/16/2016 3:48:25 PM >


_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to RFalvo69)
Post #: 71
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 9/18/2016 1:21:05 PM   
wintercorn

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 2/18/2004
Status: offline
Are Fascist Tide / Day of Infamy available yet? I bought the game last month and updated to 2.1.4 and get the scenario unavailable popup window. Have I missed something or is this still not available? 2.1.4 update list references changes to Fascist Tide making me think that I missed something.

Many thanks

< Message edited by wintercorn -- 9/18/2016 1:23:04 PM >

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 72
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 9/18/2016 7:34:27 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7504
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4149535

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to wintercorn)
Post #: 73
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 10/12/2016 8:12:51 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

It is too bad you are missing out. With Teamviewer and Skype you can play this game just like you all are in the same room together.


Maybe you could convince me if there were a robust PBEM system; however, I'm not going to rearrange my schedule to the needs of an opponent just so that I could get on skype, while utilizing a 1/3rd party software package that gives someone control of my desktop while I look the other way. So no, Teamviwer and Skype, in addition to this still $100 game, do not take the place of:

1. A working multiplayer system, be that PBEM or online play
2. The ability to play the AI--like in every other PC wargaming title since 1984

There is seriously nothing that excuses a game being launched sans AI and sans real multiplayer. Furthermore, the price tag is still $100, and these things still don't exist after 3 years, while the developer happily messes around adding extra scenarios and rule sets, while ignoring basic functionality...

I don't mean that to be harsh or insulting, but rather to provide you with the context as to why, for me, it's ludicrous to say I'm missing out on a $100 game of solitaire. Hell, real solitaire is worth more than WiF at this point because at least it doesn't require me to play against myself.

_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 74
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 10/12/2016 9:13:48 PM   
76mm


Posts: 3172
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought
...these things still don't exist after 3 years, while the developer happily messes around adding extra scenarios and rule sets, while ignoring basic functionality...


If it makes you feel any better, the basic non-global scenarios (Fascist Tide/Day of Infamy) have not been released three years after the game came out...I was really sold a bill of goods on this one. I could see, maybe, if AI hadn't come out by now, but failure to release these basic scenarios is really weak.

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 75
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 10/13/2016 7:16:22 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 37547
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

It is too bad you are missing out. With Teamviewer and Skype you can play this game just like you all are in the same room together.


Furthermore, the price tag is still $100, and these things still don't exist after 3 years, while the developer happily messes around adding extra scenarios and rule sets, while ignoring basic functionality...

warspite1

What extra scenarios and rule sets would that be then? I may be wrong but I don't recall any new scenarios or optional rules being made available since launch. What have I missed?

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 10/13/2016 7:21:18 AM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 76
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 10/13/2016 7:29:39 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 37547
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

It is too bad you are missing out. With Teamviewer and Skype you can play this game just like you all are in the same room together.


There is seriously nothing that excuses a game being launched sans AI and sans real multiplayer. Furthermore, the price tag is still $100, and these things still don't exist after 3 years, while the developer happily messes around adding extra scenarios and rule sets, while ignoring basic functionality...

I don't mean that to be harsh or insulting, but rather to provide you with the context as to why, for me, it's ludicrous to say I'm missing out on a $100 game of solitaire. Hell, real solitaire is worth more than WiF at this point because at least it doesn't require me to play against myself.
warspite1

Two things:

1. I don't think you are being harsh or insulting. The game is missing some key elements and you are not prepared to pay the price. Sounds like you are just stating your opinion

2. As for the comment re releasing the game as it was, that is something that has been debated hotly since launch. Fact is, if this game had waited for these things the game would still not be out and - who knows - the project may even have been shelved by now.

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.

Thanks to Steve's relentless perseverance in the face of considerable adversity I have been able to play World In Flames for the last 3-years (whereas sans MWIF there would have been no chance). Yes its bloody frustrating to be where we are - the convoys are driving me mad - but at least I get to play this most glorious of games once again.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 77
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 10/13/2016 9:07:59 AM   
juntoalmar


Posts: 452
Joined: 9/29/2013
From: Valencia
Status: offline
I couldn't have said better Warspite!



_____________________________

(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 78
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 10/13/2016 8:47:28 PM   
76mm


Posts: 3172
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

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.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 79
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 10/13/2016 9:15:39 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 37547
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

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.
warspite1

Not sure why you are angling for an argument here. But if you are going to have a go at someone's post, kindly have the good grace to read it properly. I said Revthought's opinion was 'fair enough' and not the Matrix position pre or post release.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 80
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 10/15/2016 3:49:05 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7504
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

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

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 81
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 10/15/2016 11:11:01 AM   
Cohen_slith

 

Posts: 1745
Joined: 10/5/2010
Status: offline
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)



< Message edited by Cohen -- 10/15/2016 11:12:39 AM >

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 82
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 10/15/2016 3:09:07 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 37547
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
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.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 10/15/2016 3:11:00 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Cohen_slith)
Post #: 83
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 2/5/2017 8:15:51 AM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 1197
Joined: 11/3/2016
Status: offline
quote:

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.

< Message edited by adarbrauner -- 2/5/2017 8:19:31 AM >

(in reply to Cohen_slith)
Post #: 84
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 2/5/2017 8:35:43 AM   
RFalvo69


Posts: 345
Joined: 7/11/2013
From: Lamezia Terme (Italy)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

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")

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 85
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 2/5/2017 9:20:23 AM   
RFalvo69


Posts: 345
Joined: 7/11/2013
From: Lamezia Terme (Italy)
Status: offline
quote:

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.

< Message edited by RFalvo69 -- 2/5/2017 9:27:06 AM >


_____________________________

"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")

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 86
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 2/5/2017 9:36:27 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 37547
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 2/5/2017 9:38:36 AM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to RFalvo69)
Post #: 87
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 2/5/2017 10:10:13 AM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 1197
Joined: 11/3/2016
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by adarbrauner -- 2/5/2017 10:12:32 AM >

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 88
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 2/5/2017 10:19:54 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 37547
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
[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?

quote:

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.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 2/5/2017 11:47:51 AM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 89
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of... - 2/5/2017 11:29:42 AM   
Centuur


Posts: 7879
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

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?

quote:

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

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of June, 2015 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

0.172