playable yet? Part II

Empires in Arms is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. Empires in Arms is a seven player game of grand strategy set during the Napoleonic period of 1805-1815. The unit scale is corps level with full diplomatic options

Moderator: MOD_EIA

mr.godo
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:19 am

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by mr.godo »

I'm sure Saint Harry approves of the game as is. Ready to go. Look at the last release announcement. Just a few minor bugs to fix! Hurrah!

Everyone knows the great game designers are German! ;-)

Sorry. A big 'screw u' to panzer grenadier. Do some research on the software development life cycle. Development and bug fixing don't mix! I know they promised some features after 1.0, but all that says to me is planned feature creep. The game has inherent design flaws imo and they don't have the time to fix bugs and provide sensible enhancements. The gui is horrible. Awful. Ugly. Bad Bad Bad. That's just an opinion, but if you really like the gui they're using, maybe you should upgrade from Windows 3.11 and try something a little more modern.

The difficulty should be in playing the game, not using the game. EiA needs a 2.0.
Mr. Godó
User avatar
pzgndr
Posts: 3189
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by pzgndr »

Sorry. A big 'screw u' to panzer grenadier. Do some research on the software development life cycle. Development and bug fixing don't mix! I know they promised some features after 1.0, but all that says to me is planned feature creep. The game has inherent design flaws imo and they don't have the time to fix bugs and provide sensible enhancements. The gui is horrible. Awful. Ugly. Bad Bad Bad. That's just an opinion, but if you really like the gui they're using, maybe you should upgrade from Windows 3.11 and try something a little more modern.
The difficulty should be in playing the game, not using the game. EiA needs a 2.0.

Alright. Do you feel better now? There's really no point in wasting any time arguing with you and NeverMan and a couple others with an axe to grind, is there? Tell you what mr.godo, we'll all sit around and wait to see what happens in this bright new year. Maybe, just maybe, Marshall Ellis and Matrix Games will make an announcement terminating EiANW and start work on EiA 2.0, with a more gooder gui, whatever that is. Uh-huh. Pigs may fly too. Much more likely, however, Marshall Ellis and Matrix Games will proceed with game development as described and do exactly what they say they are going to do. With your blessings or without them. We shall see, yes? Onward. Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah, Zip-A-Dee-Ay...
Bill Macon
Strategic Command Developer
Empires in Arms Developer
Thresh
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 4:19 am
Location: KCMO

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by Thresh »

Godo,

Do you think Harry calls Matrix everyday to let them know how disappointed with the game, if indeed he is?

Or would once be enough?

Perhaps the difficulty in using the game is a PBKAC error on your end...

Todd
User avatar
Tarleton
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:02 pm

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by Tarleton »

ORIGINAL: Thresh
Perhaps the difficulty in using the game is a PBKAC error on your end...

Thresh,

PBKAC?
Tarleton
Unofficial and Unlicensed Matrix EiA Forum Consulting Psychotherapist

Haya Safari!

Marching song of the Schutztruppe Ost-Afrika
Thresh
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 4:19 am
Location: KCMO

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by Thresh »

Don;t they have Google on St. Helena?

[;)]

Todd
User avatar
Tarleton
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:02 pm

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by Tarleton »

ORIGINAL: Thresh
Don;t they have Google on St. Helena?

[;)]

Todd

Be careful....or I'll have to recommend yet another trip there for you.....
Tarleton
Unofficial and Unlicensed Matrix EiA Forum Consulting Psychotherapist

Haya Safari!

Marching song of the Schutztruppe Ost-Afrika
mr.godo
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:19 am

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by mr.godo »

more gooder gui?

Graphical User Interface. It's the thing with all the buttons and colours on your screen. It's got nothing to do with the game other than to allow you to interact with the computer programming.

Matrix will do whatever they choose to, I'm not an idiot who would think that someone could expect to control a corporation in that way. Relax, panzer grenadier. What I would really like to know is what their development cycle is rather than hearing from you that it's a fly by the seat of their pants release cycle. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's not putting in feature changes, he's just making fixes. A lot of fixes.

I've read it suggested that one of the excuses for the game not being as good as it should be, interpreted by some as not playable, is that it isn't a finished product. That might be a general understanding between the developer and the niche, but for people who don't want to buy into a development cycle, it may not be all that interesting. Let's change the thread to 'Is it a finished product?' since the game is technically playable.  I'm sure that will go over well.
Mr. Godó
User avatar
Tarleton
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:02 pm

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by Tarleton »

ORIGINAL: mr.godo
Let's change the thread to 'Is it a finished product?' since the game is technically playable.  I'm sure that will go over well.

Frankly this is the most sensible advice I have heard regarding the validity of this thread. That is essentially what this thread is about now, and "Playable?" or "Unplayable?" are black and white options which lead to the hyperbole and create a zero sum discussion which all of us (even Never Man....I see you over there Never Man[:-]) agree is not the situation at hand.

Mr. Godo, you do NOT need a trip to St. Helena. You deserve a day at Malmaisson.[8D]

Tarleton
Tarleton
Unofficial and Unlicensed Matrix EiA Forum Consulting Psychotherapist

Haya Safari!

Marching song of the Schutztruppe Ost-Afrika
NeverMan
Posts: 1712
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 1:52 am

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by NeverMan »

Sadly, I'm not hard to find. :)

Playable was always intended to be this, unfortunately, there are people who will always want to argue semantics when the conversation goes south for them. It seems we do have a few of those that keep posting here (for some reason or another).
User avatar
borner
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:15 pm
Location: Houston TX

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by borner »

I think they just like to stir things up and watch the chaos!
User avatar
pzgndr
Posts: 3189
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by pzgndr »

It's the thing with all the buttons and colours on your screen.

We all know what a gui is, thank you. What we do not know is what you and others mean by "bad" gui and what specifically a "good" gui should have. It means nothing to just say this or that is bad, for you. For me it is an acceptable gui; it is functional and handles the game functions well enough. I've seen worse, and the fancier ones with pretty graphics do not necessarily do anything better. The gui is not an important issue right now; it can be improved later after the game features are squared away.
I've read it suggested that one of the excuses for the game not being as good as it should be, interpreted by some as not playable, is that it isn't a finished product. That might be a general understanding between the developer and the niche, but for people who don't want to buy into a development cycle, it may not be all that interesting.

There's really no suggestion or excuses or might be about it. The deal between Matrix and the forum community was to get the game out as it was rather than wait another year or more. Sorry, that was the deal mr.godo. Go back and read the forums prior to December 2007 and see for yourself. Since you joined in April 2008, one has to wonder if you did any research yourself about this purchase - did you read the forums, the game reviews, anything? If you did, how could you possibly have reached the conclusion that you were not buying into a development cycle?? The game was released as is with issues to resolve, scenarios to add, an Editor to add, etc. Again, that was the deal, for good or bad. If anything, what most of us did not anticipate was how bloodly long this would take! But here we are, waiting still, continuing to improve slowly but surely, and like Old Man River the game keeps rolling along. And like Old Man River the course is not likely change, however slow it is going.
What I would really like to know is what their development cycle is rather than hearing from you that it's a fly by the seat of their pants release cycle. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's not putting in feature changes, he's just making fixes. A lot of fixes.

You think I make this stuff up?? Marshall Ellis and Erik Rutins and occassionally David Heath have all spoken up repeatedly about this game's development, and have repeatedly acknowledged the known issues and have committed themselves to resolving them. Again, read the forums and see for yourself. So yes, I shall correct you because you are wrong. There are planned feature changes beyond just bug fixes - new scenarios to add, classic EiA scenarios and map to add, scenario Editor to add, TCP/IP network play to add, various standard and optional rules to add, new game options to add, AI enhancements to add, etc. But go ahead and don't listen to me. Use the search function and see what Marshall and Eric and David have had to say over the past couple of years. Do your own "research" for a change. Then ask yourself why you would buy into a development cycle when it was plainly obvious to a casual observer that this game was (and is) still a playable work-in-progress.

So, here we are. You can bitch about history if you want to but it won't change anything in the past. Better to stay focused on the future and stick with constructive criticism moving forward, yes?
Bill Macon
Strategic Command Developer
Empires in Arms Developer
User avatar
borner
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:15 pm
Location: Houston TX

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by borner »

I could not agree more about being constructive.... as for being playable, that has been a matter of opinion, that people are allowed to debate here. As I said, personally, I think Marshall has put a lot of hard work in, and have moved from the non-playable group to marginally playable. Viva 2.33!!!!
 
 
NeverMan
Posts: 1712
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 1:52 am

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by NeverMan »

1. There's no question or doubt that Marshall has put a ton of work into this thing. No one is questioning Marshall's work ethic, that is certainly not in question.

2. I don't care what "deal" Matrix had with the community, this game is still in the development cycle and any respectable software company doesn't publish software in the development cycle. I don't think the company can or should use some "forum deal" as an excuse to why their product is not a finished one.

3. IMO, the GUI is so-so. At first I really thought it sucked but after awhile you just get used to it and it takes a serious backseat to all the other problems with this game.

4. While the game is getting better, the real problem comes in that Marshall/Matrix are still willing to question solutions/features which even the majority of the community thinks needs to be changed, this is a problem. This was their ORIGINAL problem too, which is why we have some craptastic EiH variation! Even more damaging then just the product is that Marshall/Matrix seems to be unable to learn from their mistakes, which is not good.
User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 38321
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Contact:

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by Erik Rutins »

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
4. While the game is getting better, the real problem comes in that Marshall/Matrix are still willing to question solutions/features which even the majority of the community thinks needs to be changed, this is a problem. This was their ORIGINAL problem too, which is why we have some craptastic EiH variation! Even more damaging then just the product is that Marshall/Matrix seems to be unable to learn from their mistakes, which is not good.

What, very specifically, are you referring to here?

Regards,

- Erik
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC


Image

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.
NeverMan
Posts: 1712
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 1:52 am

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by NeverMan »

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
4. While the game is getting better, the real problem comes in that Marshall/Matrix are still willing to question solutions/features which even the majority of the community thinks needs to be changed, this is a problem. This was their ORIGINAL problem too, which is why we have some craptastic EiH variation! Even more damaging then just the product is that Marshall/Matrix seems to be unable to learn from their mistakes, which is not good.

What, very specifically, are you referring to here?

Regards,

- Erik

For starters, the entire EiH disaster. But that's really just the beginning.

And rather than doing a classic EiA as a base and building on top of that EiH is used for the base and now classic EiA is going to be a "scenario" of that? Just seems inside out to me.
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3931
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by anarchyintheuk »

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
4. While the game is getting better, the real problem comes in that Marshall/Matrix are still willing to question solutions/features which even the majority of the community thinks needs to be changed, this is a problem. This was their ORIGINAL problem too, which is why we have some craptastic EiH variation! Even more damaging then just the product is that Marshall/Matrix seems to be unable to learn from their mistakes, which is not good.

What, very specifically, are you referring to here?

Regards,

- Erik

For starters, the entire EiH disaster. But that's really just the beginning.

And rather than doing a classic EiA as a base and building on top of that EiH is used for the base and now classic EiA is going to be a "scenario" of that? Just seems inside out to me.

You were in favor of an EiA classic version? I didn't know that. Where's a sarcastic smiley when you need one? Congratulations, I made it here almost 5 years w/o green buttoning anyone and you're the first.
NeverMan
Posts: 1712
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 1:52 am

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by NeverMan »

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins




What, very specifically, are you referring to here?

Regards,

- Erik

For starters, the entire EiH disaster. But that's really just the beginning.

And rather than doing a classic EiA as a base and building on top of that EiH is used for the base and now classic EiA is going to be a "scenario" of that? Just seems inside out to me.

You were in favor of an EiA classic version? I didn't know that. Where's a sarcastic smiley when you need one? Congratulations, I made it here almost 5 years w/o green buttoning anyone and you're the first.

OH, that's where the ignore button is, thanks!
User avatar
pzgndr
Posts: 3189
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by pzgndr »

the real problem comes in that Marshall/Matrix are still willing to question solutions/features which even the majority of the community thinks needs to be changed, this is a problem

What problem? On behalf of Matrix Games staff, Erik Rutins just asked you what specific problem "the majority of the community" wants changed that somehow Matrix is refusing to consider, and you blew him off. [:-]

So the game was designed around EiH. So what. Now Marshall is adding the classic map and classic OOB scenario to the game, which is a change in response to the community and yourself, and this is still a problem??

Anybody else remember the Foghorn Leghorn cartoons? Remember the weasel running around slobbering and spitting all the time and not accomplishing anything? I'm just saying... [:D]





Image
Attachments
weasel.jpg
weasel.jpg (16.13 KiB) Viewed 2 times
Bill Macon
Strategic Command Developer
Empires in Arms Developer
Dancing Bear
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:16 pm

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by Dancing Bear »

Well, Eric, I know you asked Neverman, but the question is too much to resist. Likely the shortest answer that the game came out with some critical bugs that took time to uncover and fix, and I think many of us who were not on the forum before 2007 were not prepared for the initial set backs this caused. I would say that the internal game testing (both the actual game and the concept) process failed in this case to uncover some serious problems, and may be flawed.

For a longer list of major problems, I would include the following (not in order of importance):

1. Bugs (this was almost licked in 1.04, but came back with a vengeance in 1.05)
2. Security during battles (the Marshall has proposed an acceptable fix due for 1.06)
3. Naval Evasion (also in proposed for 1.06?)
4. Very slow game PBEM speed (need to automate/compress some player interactions beyond skipping, not sure how this was missed in game design).

So, 1.06 might fix problems 1 to 3. Then a couple of improvements to speed up non-AI play (problem 4), and we'd have the game that most of us wanted about a year ago (1.07?).

Some outstanding second rank issues would be to get rid of automated single corps battles, too many insignificant minors willing to fight the Grand Armee to the death (slows game and is unrealistic), a better naval system (no light fleets and maybe naval chits?), and a better graphic interface.

The Marshall has come along way, and my sense is we are maybe over half way there.
User avatar
borner
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:15 pm
Location: Houston TX

RE: playable yet? Part II

Post by borner »

I agree, half-way there is about right. In may ways I still think of us as playtesters. It is clear Matrix released this before it was ready, but that was a while ago. Plus, a project as complex as this was sure to have new bugs come out once more people started playing. I will say that if EiH ever goes away, we all need to have a party! 
 
my hope is that they get the thing de-bugged and working properly, then come out with an EiA version, then work on the AI and Naval system.
Post Reply

Return to “Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815”