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: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

 
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: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/17/2018 10:37:23 AM   
juntoalmar


Posts: 524
Joined: 9/29/2013
From: Valencia
Status: offline
I was wondering what a survey among the players would show regarding the convoy system, but looking at the comments perhaps you don't need a survey to figure out.

Although, to be fair, those who are happy tend to comment less in a forum than those who are not.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to joshuamnave)
Post #: 61
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/17/2018 4:07:22 PM   
TeaLeaf


Posts: 400
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar
(...)Although, to be fair, those who are happy tend to comment less in a forum than those who are not.

So the happy ones are just enjoying to play the Axis. Axis convoys always work .

(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 62
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/17/2018 8:37:24 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2645
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
An AI needs an automatic convoy route system...


And players who do not want to micromanage convoys need this also. As I patiently wait for the half-map Facist Tide scenario someday, my reluctance to play this game has been because I'm not a PTO guy and I don't want to wrestle with these worldwide convoys in a solitaire game. And the problems with convoys has been a turnoff. Seeing how most of these problems have been resolved, I may wade into the game with the upcoming official release and do what I can while I still await the Fascist Tide ETO game.

I offer a comment. Certainly players should strive for perfect utilization of resources every turn and perhaps manual control would allow reaching economic nirvana. However, reality is rarely perfect and the historical record for WWII is full of inefficiencies. The point is that 100% utilization is probably unrealistic, and if the AI/automatic convoy system is 90-95% efficient then that should be acceptable for most players. At least good enough. Good enough for me anyways, and probably other casual gamers here in the peanut gallery watching these discussions between a handful of veteran experts. Yes, certainly, get it right and as near to perfection as possible, but keep in mind the many other players who just want a working game that's good enough.

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 63
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/18/2018 4:17:47 PM   
TeaLeaf


Posts: 400
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline
Just for the record:
I understand the convoy system as it is today. Understanding all of WiF is a different matter, but this I do.

@ pzgndr:
Well said, but your comment would be more in its rightful place for a game that achieves more historical accuracy. Not for (M)WiF.
WiF has too much balance to accept a convoy system that cannot bring all our resources where we want them to.

In WiF, if you as the CW mismanage your convoylines one turn, it hurts, but you can correct it next turn. That is how WiF works. You must, among others, manage your action choices and your resources. If you mismanage one or both too often you are well on your way of losing the game. Now in MWiF we have a convoysystem that mismanages our resources too often and the player often cannot correct this mismanagement except if tampering with the Savefile.

And frankly, I too cannot understand the need for an automated convoysystem for the player. I can't see how we can cheat if it's not automated. How are we able to ship 5 resources and a BP through a sea zone that has 5 convoys? Or use an oil that has been spent during reorg? Perhaps if there's a bug allowing us to, but that's less annoying than being robbed of a few BP every turn by a bug in automation.

One game I calculated the CW + France would have lost 65BP in total because of the convoy-automation, if I hadn't corrected this by manipulating the save-file. But this manipulating is NOT recommended (nor is it easy for casual players) and 65BP is just game-losing. Heck, even 30BP is, depending on when and where. Definately if it's the CW early in the game...

If, after all this beta testing that we are doning, the final product has a convoy system that works as it does today, I will too turn my back on MWiF. I can't enjoy WiF if I have to play it with a 30 to 60 BP handicap as the allies every time. If that would be the case I would have to insist my German and Italian opponents build their submarines without doing anything with them.
Automation would be my choice too, if it can be done, but if I were making this game I would build in a plan B for if it can't. And that plan would most likely be just simple: no automation (at least not for the player).

Last but not least:
I do not say that the current version of convoy-AI is not working. For me it is not working but I have manipulated my savegame (I was forced to, because, well, see above), so that's why I asked how other players are experiencing it nowadays.

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 64
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/18/2018 4:31:38 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 17614
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joshuamnave

Are you freaking kidding me? The only thing preventing manual control of convoy chains is that some players might accidentally cheat? I'll GLADLY take that over the disaster that the convoy system is currently. Right now the computer cheats us out of resources regularly, and even when we get it to work right, it's a frustrating nightmare.

The convoy system as it is coded DOES NOT WORK. I'll take one that does not enforce the rules but works over one that is just plain broken. And it's not even remotely a difficult choice.
My feelings exactly. I guess that's a "+1" in the vernacular of the internet.

For me it's simple ... a game is made for players (not players for the game). Also, I bet a fix to the convoy system that gave players full control over routing would significantly increase game play and, more importantly from Matrix's point of view, game sales.


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to joshuamnave)
Post #: 65
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/19/2018 5:34:11 PM   
AllenK


Posts: 6418
Joined: 2/17/2014
From: England
Status: offline
I've just completed setting up a solitaire game in 2.9.4. There were two noticeable improvements over 2.7.1.

Firstly, the automatic routing is now recognising and using CP's in Faeroes Gap. In 2.7.1 (and some earlier versions) it would only send through FG when there were no CP's in Biscay. This wouldn't in itself have been a problem but for the second issue of the manual over-ride not working (or rather it seeming a bit hit and miss). This meant the computed route couldn't be altered and everything had to be either routed through Biscay (generally giving the Axis a search bonus for 10+ CP's) or longer convoy routes and sub-optimal production for the number of available CP's.

The AI routing did make some choices I didn't want however, the second improvement meant for those instances where I didn't want to use the AI generated route, I was able to over-ride the computed route with a default of my own.

I'll have to play through a few impulses to get to setting up trade agreements and see what happens when those are enforced but being able to set default routes seems promising.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 66
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/20/2018 7:18:58 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 1963
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joshuamnave

Are you freaking kidding me? The only thing preventing manual control of convoy chains is that some players might accidentally cheat? I'll GLADLY take that over the disaster that the convoy system is currently. Right now the computer cheats us out of resources regularly, and even when we get it to work right, it's a frustrating nightmare.

The convoy system as it is coded DOES NOT WORK. I'll take one that does not enforce the rules but works over one that is just plain broken. And it's not even remotely a difficult choice.


This is a very serious matter, it may be with your mate you will not have problems (although I wouldn 't bet much on some of mine... But, in the Internet? Absolute strangers? Hah! Good luck.

But although it's a serious matter, the convoy issue is such a pain in the ass and from so long ago that it might be worth it.

(in reply to joshuamnave)
Post #: 67
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/20/2018 10:54:04 AM   
juntoalmar


Posts: 524
Joined: 9/29/2013
From: Valencia
Status: offline
Sorry, but I don't understand this statement from Steve:

"All in all, the rules of the game limit how the player implements production and saving oil/build points. When playing over the board, or with other methods that don't check the rules, the player can get away with anything his opponent doesn't 'catch'. My objective was (and is) to have the program play the game according to the Rules As Coded. "

That the convoy routing is manual doesn't mean that the convoy routes shouldn't be checked. They are not linked together. For example, Ground Strikes are not automated (user has 100% control of when and where to send a GS) but the rules are checked (you can't send GS with disorganised air units).

I don't understand why there is either:
a) Automatic convoy and rule check.
b) Nothing at all.

I think convoy routing is the only part of the game that is automated. The rest of the game is manual and rules are checked always.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 68
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/20/2018 12:39:18 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8239
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar

Sorry, but I don't understand this statement from Steve:

"All in all, the rules of the game limit how the player implements production and saving oil/build points. When playing over the board, or with other methods that don't check the rules, the player can get away with anything his opponent doesn't 'catch'. My objective was (and is) to have the program play the game according to the Rules As Coded. "

That the convoy routing is manual doesn't mean that the convoy routes shouldn't be checked. They are not linked together. For example, Ground Strikes are not automated (user has 100% control of when and where to send a GS) but the rules are checked (you can't send GS with disorganised air units).

I don't understand why there is either:
a) Automatic convoy and rule check.
b) Nothing at all.

I think convoy routing is the only part of the game that is automated. The rest of the game is manual and rules are checked always.


I do understand. It's pretty simple. See it as a land combat. The player wants to attack a certain hex and the computer calculates the attack factors of the units the player allocates. Now, you say: "hey, I want to put the attack factors in manually". Everybody will than say: "that's ridiculous, since the computer knows the factors so why do I have to put that number in manually". Also players will say: "hey, is that according to the rules?"...

Now, look at convoy chains. The player has put convoys in place to get resources to factories overseas. So why not have the computer calculate the build points involved? Problem is that the program doesn't seem to be able to give a optimized result. That's a whole different show, because that means that the programmer needs to fix things. Just as a programmer needs to fix things if in a land attack suddenly the big bad 1SS Panzer isn't calculated in the combat factors...

That's the way I see things.

< Message edited by Centuur -- 11/20/2018 12:40:15 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 69
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/20/2018 3:47:53 PM   
juntoalmar


Posts: 524
Joined: 9/29/2013
From: Valencia
Status: offline
I understand your point, but I see it differently.

- I don't want that the players set the convoys and set manually at the end of the turn how many BP they get (Vassal like). Players could cheat or miscalculate the right amount of BP. If I'm not wrong, that what Steve and you say as bad idea (which probably is).
- My desired option is that players set manually the routes like: Venezuela oil -> sea area x -> sea area x+1 ... -> port -> factory (or something similar), and the game engine calculates the right amount of BP per player. Manual routes & rule check. No cheating or players' miscalculations. If the player set wrongly a route, ideally the game should prevent that from happening or inform the player with an error message like ("There is not free convoy in X sea area to carry that resource" or "The minor port Y has exceeded it maximum capacity") when creating the route. Less optimally, the error message would come at the end of the turn.

Following your land combat example, you decide your combats manually (the game is not deciding for you where you attack or artillery use) and the game engine checks the rules.



_____________________________

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

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 70
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/20/2018 5:17:54 PM   
TeaLeaf


Posts: 400
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline
How does MWiF not check the rules if we place the convoys manually? Sorry but I don't see why it doesn't/cannot.
If we try to transport 6 resources/BP through a sea area with only 4 convoy points, how does MWiF not enforce the rules by denying us transportation of the excess 2?

I know I oversimplify it right now, but this is the foundation of how to have MWiF enforce the rules of convoy routes.
Allocate braipower to it and you'll find the solution. If I can do it, you can do it too.

Ofcourse, if you guys find it easier to program automated convoy routes, fine by me. But have it working then! Through the entire game (not only during set up or untill the end of '42)! WiF is not a game where it is acceptable to lose up to 60BP as the allies due to program failure. Ask any1 if they are willing to play a game of WiF as the allies against you as Axis if they will have up to 60BP less to spend during the game. I certainly wouldn't want to be robbed of almost an entre frontline...

(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 71
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/20/2018 5:35:05 PM   
juntoalmar


Posts: 524
Joined: 9/29/2013
From: Valencia
Status: offline
In any case, and without knowing how the implementation is done, I expect that just enforcing the rules is much easier than creating an AI that creates the routes and enforcing the rules (which is what we have been trying to solve for the last few years).



_____________________________

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

(in reply to TeaLeaf)
Post #: 72
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/23/2018 4:54:19 PM   
TeaLeaf


Posts: 400
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AllenK

I've just completed setting up a solitaire game in 2.9.4. There were two noticeable improvements over 2.7.1.

Firstly, the automatic routing is now recognising and using CP's in Faeroes Gap. In 2.7.1 (and some earlier versions) it would only send through FG when there were no CP's in Biscay. This wouldn't in itself have been a problem but for the second issue of the manual over-ride not working (or rather it seeming a bit hit and miss). This meant the computed route couldn't be altered and everything had to be either routed through Biscay (generally giving the Axis a search bonus for 10+ CP's) or longer convoy routes and sub-optimal production for the number of available CP's.

The AI routing did make some choices I didn't want however, the second improvement meant for those instances where I didn't want to use the AI generated route, I was able to over-ride the computed route with a default of my own.

I'll have to play through a few impulses to get to setting up trade agreements and see what happens when those are enforced but being able to set default routes seems promising.

I 'm very interested in your findings, AllenK!
Though I must say the current problems I have with all versions newer than 2.7.5 are way past setup:

1942 and I cannot force MWiF to send the cyprus resource to Russia to fulfill the trade agreement between Churchill and Stalin. MWiF insists on sending a Canadian resource all the way around Africa, even using the very convoy point in the Eastern Med!

(in reply to AllenK)
Post #: 73
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/23/2018 5:15:17 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 17614
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TeaLeaf


quote:

ORIGINAL: AllenK

I've just completed setting up a solitaire game in 2.9.4. There were two noticeable improvements over 2.7.1.

Firstly, the automatic routing is now recognising and using CP's in Faeroes Gap. In 2.7.1 (and some earlier versions) it would only send through FG when there were no CP's in Biscay. This wouldn't in itself have been a problem but for the second issue of the manual over-ride not working (or rather it seeming a bit hit and miss). This meant the computed route couldn't be altered and everything had to be either routed through Biscay (generally giving the Axis a search bonus for 10+ CP's) or longer convoy routes and sub-optimal production for the number of available CP's.

The AI routing did make some choices I didn't want however, the second improvement meant for those instances where I didn't want to use the AI generated route, I was able to over-ride the computed route with a default of my own.

I'll have to play through a few impulses to get to setting up trade agreements and see what happens when those are enforced but being able to set default routes seems promising.

I 'm very interested in your findings, AllenK!
Though I must say the current problems I have with all versions newer than 2.7.5 are way past setup:

1942 and I cannot force MWiF to send the cyprus resource to Russia to fulfill the trade agreement between Churchill and Stalin. MWiF insists on sending a Canadian resource all the way around Africa, even using the very convoy point in the Eastern Med!
I agree that getting the resources that you want sent in trade is a major PIA! I always take a deep breath after I start, or increase, a trade deal because I know it will play havoc with my current convoy routes and will usually take me 30 minutes to an hour to sort out to my sanctification.

For me, I just wish MWiF limited itself to enforcing the rules and left all the resource and convoying routing to me. For me, a high priority would be to give the players the option to choose between: (1) Resource and convoy routing with the AI as we have it now or (2) complete control over resource and convoy routing constrained by MWiF rules enforcement.


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to TeaLeaf)
Post #: 74
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 12/11/2018 3:27:03 PM   
headhoncho

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 12/11/2018
Status: offline
After years of watching and waiting, I'm getting ready to take the plunge on this product. Just wanted to add my voice to the others about some kind of common sense fix to the convoy situation. From years of tabletop play, my experience is that first, search and seizure is a very rarely applied rule so don't let the particulars of that drive any decisions, and second, there ought to be a way to balance concerns about cheating with a more transparent and user friendly result. Convoys are always a major pain, and it's hard enough to get them right as it is, so giving a little more leeway (less rigidity and more flexibility) to the convoy player ought not unbalance the game. Just my $0.02.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 75
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 12/12/2018 1:13:46 AM   
David Clark

 

Posts: 37
Joined: 2/24/2005
Status: offline
Steve is the only developer the game will ever have.

For some reason, he's decided to spend his last years bug-fixing this game.

He might change his mind at any moment, and retire.

He loves AI programming - working on the AI is probably the carrot that keeps him going.

Eventually he will realize that the game will never get to the point where real AI code can be written.

Until then, the convoy system is the only 'fun' code he can work on.

If we complain too much about the poor convoy AI, he might realize he has better things to do than deal with this whole thing anymore. Hell, he lives in Hawaii. I would have raised two middle fingers, shut off my computer for good and gone to the beach a decade ago if I were him.

Conclusion: Mentioning bugs may be unwise. This is the best we will get. It's the price we pay for having anything at all.

(in reply to headhoncho)
Post #: 76
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 12/12/2018 2:08:44 AM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1682
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline
I agree with David Clark. Concerning the convoy system, while not 100% perfect I have been able to get it working very well and know of others who have done the same (2.7.1).

I could care less about Net Play, but for some dumb reason Matrix does. To me its a waste of time and resources. I would rather have the missing optional rules and scenarios be implemented ASAP.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to David Clark)
Post #: 77
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 12/12/2018 7:35:12 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 1963
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I agree with David Clark. Concerning the convoy system, while not 100% perfect I have been able to get it working very well and know of others who have done the same (2.7.1).

I could care less about Net Play, but for some dumb reason Matrix does. To me its a waste of time and resources. I would rather have the missing optional rules and scenarios be implemented ASAP.



No dumb reason, the reason is that most of the buyers bought it for it, and the possible future ones even more, it's only a very small minority (according to the polls in the past - and those were among "grognards", who are more prone to accept solitaire) who wants solo games.

In fact, it influenced us the naive idea that some day may be an AI, which I believe extremely improbable in spite of Steve's efforts and not because of complexity but because of sheer time, counting with only one programmer.

Remember that Matrix sells a huge majority (if not all) of his games for AI opponet or/and multiplayer, not solitaire.

Those are the reasons, I believe.

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 78
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 12/12/2018 3:36:01 PM   
headhoncho

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 12/11/2018
Status: offline
No offense intended in my comment towards Steve, of course... I totally praised his efforts in a different forum post, and I greatly appreciate his continuing perseverance.

It's comforting to hear people say they've gotten the convoy system to work, with practice. My only point is that it sounds like there's still room for improvement in this area.

Glad to let Steve and more knowledgeable folks triage the priorities. Personally, Guard Banner is one of my favorite parts of the game, so I'd love to see that in at some point. Thanks!

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 79
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 12/13/2018 3:15:54 AM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1682
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline
Joseignacio:
quote:

No dumb reason, the reason is that most of the buyers bought it for it, and the possible future ones even more, it's only a very small minority (according to the polls in the past - and those were among "grognards", who are more prone to accept solitaire) who wants solo games.


Just to be clear, "solitaire" in MWiF is not really solitaire as in playing yourself (solo). I have never played this game solo and never will. I always play it vs a human opponent. In this case trading files. I'm sure you and most people know this about "solitaire" MWiF, but perhaps not everyone reading this does.

As for the statement "most of the buyers bought it for it" (Net play)...I don't recall ever being asked that question when I bought MWiF. And I submit you are even less accurate when you write "possible future ones even more, its a very small minority". You cant poll someone who looked at this game today for the first time and bought it (unless you do it at the point of sale). Its possible there was a poll done a long time ago, but how accurate (highly doubtful)? As for grognards, I do not know of a single one that enjoys playing solo by himself. Every grognard I know revels in the contest of human vs human. MWiF human vs human is already here and doing quite well from my experience.

I don't care about Net play, trading files is just fine when playing another human opponent. Coding the remaining options and scenarios are of higher value to me than Net play.

Bottom line, I believe Steve is coding Net play because Matrix requires it, and there was an agreement between them that it happen. I think Matrix should drop that requirement for this game and ask Steve to keep going on Net play only if he enjoys doing so. I also think Matrix at this point should ask Steve to continue fighting bugs and give him complete leeway to do as he wishes, what ever that may be.

That being said, it appears Net play is almost here any way, what ever.

< Message edited by Jagdtiger14 -- 12/13/2018 3:33:53 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 80
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 12/13/2018 7:22:07 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 1963
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Joseignacio:
quote:

No dumb reason, the reason is that most of the buyers bought it for it, and the possible future ones even more, it's only a very small minority (according to the polls in the past - and those were among "grognards", who are more prone to accept solitaire) who wants solo games.


Just to be clear, "solitaire" in MWiF is not really solitaire as in playing yourself (solo). I have never played this game solo and never will. I always play it vs a human opponent. In this case trading files. I'm sure you and most people know this about "solitaire" MWiF, but perhaps not everyone reading this does.


Including me. I heard about trading files but didn't think of solitaire as the source, I myself traded files with my opponent when Netplay was too buggy, years ago, but they were files obtained with "netplay" gaming.

I have played solo solitaires sometimes (which is how I understood the players were doing, and I think some or many do) till after some turns I almost dropped dead of boredom.

quote:

As for the statement "most of the buyers bought it for it" (Net play)...I don't recall ever being asked that question when I bought MWiF. And I submit you are even less accurate when you write "possible future ones even more, its a very small minority". You cant poll someone who looked at this game today for the first time and bought it (unless you do it at the point of sale). Its possible there was a poll done a long time ago, but how accurate (highly doubtful)?


Accurate or not may be discussed, but the fact that you don't know it doesn't mean it was not done, and IIRW over 100 answers in a niche game like this, in it's early moments of developement is an important datum.

In those polls (which are somewhere in the older threads, the ones interested mainly in solitaire were very few. Once again IIRW 15-20% +-5%.

quote:

As for grognards, I do not know of a single one that enjoys playing solo by himself. Every grognard I know revels in the contest of human vs human. MWiF human vs human is already here and doing quite well from my experience.


True, but only grognards would accept only solo playing (which I believed was Solitaire for, after it's name), the same way that only reals chess frikies would play chess solo.

quote:

I don't care about Net play, trading files is just fine when playing another human opponent. Coding the remaining options and scenarios are of higher value to me than Net play.

Bottom line, I believe Steve is coding Net play because Matrix requires it, and there was an agreement between them that it happen. I think Matrix should drop that requirement for this game and ask Steve to keep going on Net play only if he enjoys doing so. I also think Matrix at this point should ask Steve to continue fighting bugs and give him complete leeway to do as he wishes, what ever that may be.

That being said, it appears Net play is almost here any way, what ever.



(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 81
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 12/13/2018 5:27:08 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7805
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
The last tabulated results of the poll are in post #260 of the thread linked below, but there were more replies after that, not sure how many voted multiple times though.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2108161&mpage=9&key=poll



_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 82
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 12/14/2018 7:38:55 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 1963
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline
Thanks for bringing the link.

There was a definition of what was solitaire which is what I had been using. Of course I knew people exchanged files in order to play avoiding the netplay bugs online but I believed they exchanged the netplay game files (thus, trying to avoid the sincronization and game "lobby" bugs...) as I did for a time.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2111310

quote:

Ah, a last thing, please don't confuse "Solitaire" play with "AI Opponent" play.

Here are the 5 mode of play, reminded to you :
Solitaire - you play both sides and make all decisions.

Head-to-head (Hotseat) - two players use a single computer, with the players taking turns moving their units/making decisions using the same mouse and keyboard.

AI Opponent - the player takes one side and the Artificial Intellengent Opponent plays the other.

NetPlay - 2 to 6 players with each player having his own computer; there are game 'sessions' where all the players log into the game and communicate their decisions using the internet.

PBEM - Play by email for 2 players, with all decisions communicated via email (an option to temporarily switch to NetPlay if they so desire).




< Message edited by Joseignacio -- 12/14/2018 9:02:22 AM >

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 83
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 12/14/2018 5:20:29 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7805
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
If you want to play with another person by email, it doesn't make much difference whether you use Solitaire or Head-to-Head. AAMOF when we played by screen sharing we found H2H just added needless overhead in the clicking required to tell the computer we were a different player. Either one requires the use of the "honor system" to keep US entry and pact chits secret. I suppose one could say doing so by email versus screen sharing even requires more "honor".

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 84
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 12/14/2018 7:02:34 PM   
TeaLeaf


Posts: 400
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline
As a player who gets the convoys working very well in 2.7.5 (they do what I want 100% of the time, sometimes with just a small workaround), I must wonder how people can get it working after 2.7.5.

Because I can't.
True, my savegames are 'tainted' (tampered with the GAM), but can't it have anything to do with our machines (OS, hardware, that stuff)?
Otherwise I cannot help but thinking that people who can get it working after 2.7.5 just have lower demands on CW production than I (and some others) do. Perhaps even don't care if the CW produces 21BP or 18BP per turn, as long as the CW gets 'most of their resources' to a factory?

I can tell you if the allies want to win the war, they HAVE to worry about NOT producing 18BP per turn and be able to actually crank it up to 21!
And higher once the PM's start to increase... Some sort of 'laissez faire' attitude doesn't get the CW anywhere.

But once again, I don't know the current state of the convoying, because I have no 'tamper-free GAM' game going on atm.
Soon I'll patch and start a new game, hope I can get the same 100% satisfaction while convoying as I get with 2.7.5 now.

< Message edited by TeaLeaf -- 12/14/2018 7:06:49 PM >

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 85
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 12/15/2018 12:15:46 PM   
jjdenver

 

Posts: 1836
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline
My #1 item would be convoy system.
My #2 item would be fixing cvp bugs. It often happens with various versions that I play (2.7.1, 2.9.1.4) that cvp's get "stuck" on a CV and it's as if they are not really there anymore - you can't take them off and they don't show up in naval combats. Also occasionally I see cvp's get "stuck" in a sea box.

I will literally never have a need for netplay. Only PBEM with files.

Thanks

(in reply to TeaLeaf)
Post #: 86
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 12/17/2018 8:15:59 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 1963
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

If you want to play with another person by email, it doesn't make much difference whether you use Solitaire or Head-to-Head. AAMOF when we played by screen sharing we found H2H just added needless overhead in the clicking required to tell the computer we were a different player. Either one requires the use of the "honor system" to keep US entry and pact chits secret. I suppose one could say doing so by email versus screen sharing even requires more "honor".


Thanks for that, I thought there had been a reason why I didn't like that system. I had only one (non frustrated by bugs) longer game with one guy and IMO he was not very gentlemanly, kinda tricky and mean, so I got scared of not regulated games. If you sum this to the variety of persons you find in tabletop, ..., you are still worried about this. There is a guy I no longer play with (in cardboard) called Dar***gton, here in Madrid, which is generally known as a cheater, I use to call him "Cheaterton" when speaking with my friends about him.

The problem is that, even though there are (it seems) a higher percentage of wiffers in Madrid that in other cities, the distance and the bad communications (frequent traffic jams), incompatible timetables (parents-family), make that guys like that are still admitted because some people accept a level of cheating as far as it's not outrageous. And guys like this still infect the gamers meetings.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 87
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 1/1/2019 7:53:35 PM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 1146
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Clark

Steve is the only developer the game will ever have.

For some reason, he's decided to spend his last years bug-fixing this game.

He might change his mind at any moment, and retire.

It is my fear. I am playing solo from time to time not following all patches. But, if Steve leaves, does anyone in Matrix have an idea of ​​the code to take it back?


_____________________________

Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.

(in reply to David Clark)
Post #: 88
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 1/2/2019 2:43:56 AM   
David Clark

 

Posts: 37
Joined: 2/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

It is my fear. I am playing solo from time to time not following all patches. But, if Steve leaves, does anyone in Matrix have an idea of ​​the code to take it back?



Nope. MWiF is programmed in object pascal, which is a sufficiently obscure language now that the remaining people who know it command big bucks, certainly beyond Matrix's inclination for a game whose marketing budget is long spent and whose niche-of-a-niche-of-a-niche market already either purchased the product or decided not to. Steve has these huge binders of the source code, but the vast majority of what he knows is probably implicit - approaches he could have taken, but decided not to for one reason or another, and bugs he saw coming and avoided without documenting. It would take a new programmer forever just to acquaint themselves with the code sufficiently to make minor changes, let alone code new features. Consider that MWiF was pretty much written from scratch rather than adapted from CWiF, which was an order of magnitude simpler.

In any case, Matrix doesn't really have 'programmers'. They're an online publisher that provides branding and marketing support, forums and download infrastructure to small groups that already have a largely finished product. What 'should' have happened was when the game was shipped in an unfinished and largely unplayable state, Matrix would have contracted someone to augment Steve and hopefully to take over from him someday. The decision was made to not do that, and I can't really argue. Matrix knows very well that post-release support is usually a waste of money with this customer base (which is mostly composed of game collectors, not game players) except for 'gamer goodwill', which is about as fictional an entity as can be imagined.

Everyone's gotten more than they by rights could have expected - Matrix has another entry in the product list, Steve is still working on his labor of love, and we get a game that works better than our tiny customer base would justify.

(in reply to ncc1701e)
Post #: 89
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 1/2/2019 7:10:42 AM   
nukkxx5058


Posts: 2265
Joined: 2/3/2005
Status: offline
So this is the end ?

(in reply to David Clark)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   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

0.184