anyone else about read to give up??????

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: Tanan Fujiwara

Is it really just me or has the world gone mad...[&:][&:][&:]

I believe that if you pay 70$ for a game, a price above your average PC game, it's because the product you're getting is above average too...[:(][:(][:(]

But forget about the money, which is not really the issue, and lets focus on threethings that are really schocking to me:

1º if the excuse behind the many bugs and braindead AI is that other games and companies experience the same problem on release, it's a preatty bad excuse... come on, it just sounds like "since everybody isn't profesional so are we"??...

2º the game came out like the perfect simulation of the original EiA strategy game, which it isn't. Many of the optional rules are absent, map and corp changes, some rules have been redisigned, many rules from EiH (why is the game called EiA is a guess to me), etc..

3º if the game is supposed to be ment as the ultimate multiplayer tool (without the optionals and the scenarios amongst other things is way to limited), since the AI is compleately braindead, then it too fails to live up to its expectations. I'm right now playing three campaigns, two of them with cyberboard, and both of them move at a faster pace then the one played with this game...

so forget the 70$ issue, forget that matrix games has released something that could have been a great game and that now will take months, maybe years to fix and probably it will still be limited in many aspects, forget many desilusionated fans of the game, forget the bugs, forget...

I don't now to you guys, but it seems an awfull lot of forgetting to me...[:@][:@][:@]

Well, here we have an educated response from someone who HAS played EiA and it ain't pretty. So much for the EiA vets theory(only noobs are having trouble), i don't think much more could be said other than....Oops
It's not about the money guys, but just because you pay a huge markup for a fake diamond the fact remains that it is still a "fake".

[Dave_T]

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

ORIGINAL: Tanan Fujiwara

Is it really just me or has the world gone mad...[&:][&:][&:]

I believe that if you pay 70$ for a game, a price above your average PC game, it's because the product you're getting is above average too...[:(][:(][:(]

But forget about the money, which is not really the issue, and lets focus on threethings that are really schocking to me:

1º if the excuse behind the many bugs and braindead AI is that other games and companies experience the same problem on release, it's a preatty bad excuse... come on, it just sounds like "since everybody isn't profesional so are we"??...

2º the game came out like the perfect simulation of the original EiA strategy game, which it isn't. Many of the optional rules are absent, map and corp changes, some rules have been redisigned, many rules from EiH (why is the game called EiA is a guess to me), etc..

3º if the game is supposed to be ment as the ultimate multiplayer tool (without the optionals and the scenarios amongst other things is way to limited), since the AI is compleately braindead, then it too fails to live up to its expectations. I'm right now playing three campaigns, two of them with cyberboard, and both of them move at a faster pace then the one played with this game...

so forget the 70$ issue, forget that matrix games has released something that could have been a great game and that now will take months, maybe years to fix and probably it will still be limited in many aspects, forget many desilusionated fans of the game, forget the bugs, forget...

I don't now to you guys, but it seems an awfull lot of forgetting to me...[:@][:@][:@]

Well, here we have an educated response from someone who HAS played EiA and it ain't pretty. So much for the EiA vets theory(only noobs are having trouble), i don't think much more could be said other than....Oops
It's not about the money guys, but just because you pay a huge markup for a fake diamond the fact remains that it is still a "fake".

I've been playing EiA for 15 years both F2F and PBeM using Cyberboard/XL/Notepad, so it's not EiA that's giving me the problem, but the inteface.

As an aggrssive player I manipulata Egypt when playing GB or Fr so I have a staging point for a war agaunst Turkey. In the original release if you landed home nation corps in Egypt whilst the Tu/Egypt minor war was still in effect then the home nation corps couldn't move because the game got confused with the Turkish corps in the Upper Nile area. How no-one noticed this in play testing is beyond belief. Unless, of course, no-one playtested in solo play.

When 1.01 came along a similar problem happened when Fr gained control of Sweden and dropped the Swedish corps in Dublin & Glasgow, the corps became stuck. I know this wan't playtested as we, as paying customers, were asked to playtest the patch oruselves.

Also in 1.01 random surrenders would occur. As France I has Austria surrender to me unconditionally 3 times in a row.

Anyone who can count to 20 without taking their shoes & socks off can easily see how all 3 of the above problems from official "stable" releases make the game unplayable. There were other problems, I'll dig out if you like.

The current Beta allows fleets who are blockaded by only minor fleets to intercept & fleets in BBs to intercept. This isn't even on Marshall's "to fix" list, so the next "stable" release will include a major bug if not addressed.

People who say "I can play the game alright" are making allowances for the bugs & making work arounds. This is the same as buying a car which won't turn left & making circuitous journeys involving right hand turns & saying "It's OK, I can manage"

ADG apparently playtested the game & said it's fine to release. Conflict of interest not withstanding, don't you think you should have got an opinion from someone who wans't going to make $$$ on the release.

The playtesters you had were people who were desperate to get hold of a finished product regardless of & would be happy to OK a bugy version so they could get on & paly the game "for real". Some of them even eulogized over the Graphics, as if that is a big thing for a game like this, it's not - playability is.

Don't get playtesters who have conflicted interests of sycophantic Matrix fans, get aggressive players who are cynical & will push the game to it's limits in an attempt to prove it doesn't work.

Take a leaf out of Jagex' game design. When they started Runescape all those years ago the graphics were a minor concern, basic playability was thir foundation and they built up from there.

I don't want this product to fail & would like to actually play this through without having some frustration based on bad programming/testing ruin it. However, with the current development/testing stragegy that is more akin to damage limitation rather then true development.

[pzgndr]

When all is said and done sometime next year after WiF is released and EiA is "fixed", I'm sure there will be some lessons learned for how to do a board game adaptation. It looks like WiF is doing things right, whereas EiA is what it is. I'm not exactly happy about the current state of affairs with EiA, but I'm willing to be patient while things get worked out. And I am optimistic that they will eventually all get worked out.

That said, I should also say Matrix could have considered some alternative sales plan for a product like this. Technically it was "playable" and the AI was functional, but there were far too many unresolved issues and unfinished features to warrant a premium price tag upon release. Maybe sell something like this as a public beta for reduced price? At least have an open beta period for more playtesters than they did. Despite the issues, we do have the product in hand and can help work through the issues. For those of us willing to help.

I still cannot accept complaints from players who supposedly monitored these forums for the past few years and must have been aware of the issues involved. And even after release, having seen the various forum comments and game reviews, there is zero excuse for buying the product and then expecting it to be perfect, despite all the comments to the contrary. It's not like there are many casual players who accidently stumble upon a game like this and shell out top dollar without so much as a clue what they're buying. I got no sympathy. Caveat Emptor.

[jnier]

The game does need work, but it's still quite playable and bottom line is that I have fun when I play it.

And those who are quick to complain should remember: We are lucky that anybody is willing to put this much time and effort into a product that will probably only be mariginally profitable. Matrix & Marshall could make a lot more money spending their time elsewhere, and we in the hobby are very lucky that they consider this game to be a labor of love, albeit a sometimes frustrating labor of love. Without them there would never be a computer version of EIA, and with time this will be a great game.

[MorningDew]

ORIGINAL: jnier

The game does need work, but it's still quite playable and bottom line is that I have fun when I play it.

And those who are quick to complain should remember: We are lucky that anybody is willing to put this much time and effort into a product that will probably only be mariginally profitable. Matrix & Marshall could make a lot more money spending their time elsewhere, and we in the hobby are very lucky that they consider this game to be a labor of love, albeit a sometimes frustrating labor of love. Without them there would never be a computer version of EIA, and with time this will be a great game.

Very, very well said. I did not own the boardgame, but I'm looking forward to playing this one. I purchased when it was first released, followed the boards and am slowly learning. I know soon we'll hit a point where I feel comfortable enough to play, but what I've found so far is that each time I run through the tutorial, I understand a little more.

I'm patient and excited about the future for this game and I'm happy to help contribute in a small monetary way to the hobby.

[Killerduck]

As the game is, it is not very enjoyable. Bugs spoil multiplayer games and AI is nowhere near challenging for an experienced EiA player. All that said, I've played a full campaign through it several times [:)]

The game is playable and makes for a nice tutorial for newbies.

I have faith Matrix is going to update EiA several times (and I trust I will get an update with a scenario/board-editor, even if it takes years). They've done it with other games in the past.

Patience is a virtue (in EiA) [;)]

[Grapeshot Bob]

Well, my feeling is that the game should have a reasonable AI at the very least.
 
If the game is for grognards to PBEM then it should be advertised as such.
 
The AI really is ok as a training aid but it really collapses as a challenging opponent.
 
It might make sense to have several overall strategies for each power. The computer would pick one strategy at random and concentrate on that strategy. The AI should be able to get around most problems with this because the AI will almost certainly be playing against a single human opponent. The AI would concentrate on filling an overall set of criteria with natural alliances forming and cooperating with one another.
 
Perhaps the AI version would only allow the human player to use one of the "real" major powers like France, Great Britain or Russia with the computer playing all the other countries. 
 
Yes, this solution might violate the spirit of the human versus human version but it would go a long way to satisfy those newbies who never played the boardgame and don't give a flying damn about the boardgame.
 
The game would also benefit a great deal from having play glitches and bugs ironed out. Have we figured out how to combine allied fleets so we can replay Trafalgar yet? Trafalgar was kind of important.
 
 
 
GSB

[Ashtar]

I am having a lot of fun playing this game pbem and I am very grateful to Matrix for bringing it together.

In the past I complained about some bugs, and especially about a certain lack of understanding of EIA basic
mechanics, but the game is getting better with every patch.

Bugs are being wiped out and rules are getting closer and closer to the desired state.
Yes, the interface is hard, but still playable, while I have no big hopes on AI, this game is too
complicated for having an AI able to compete with expert players.

Overall, it was well spent money (and I chose download plus physical shipping) [:D]

[Marshall Ellis]

Hey guys:
 
I sincerely apologize for the frustrations! I can tell you that I will not stop improving this game and will ALWAYS listen to you what you have to say! I value your opinions and hate it when you're frustrated. You're my customer and want only for you to be satisfied! I will not stop until you are satisfied!
 
PLEASE don't give up yet!
 
 

[Erik Rutins]

Allow me to second this. We realize a lot of you are not happy with how EIA is functioning right now. That will not remain the status quo if there's anything we can do about it. Marshall is working very hard to make the needed improvements and we will support him in every way we can.

[BruceSinger]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Hey guys:

I sincerely apologize for the frustrations! I can tell you that I will not stop improving this game and will ALWAYS listen to you what you have to say! I value your opinions and hate it when you're frustrated. You're my customer and want only for you to be satisfied! I will not stop until you are satisfied!

PLEASE don't give up yet!

First - Thank you for the game!

I am currently playing a 1.02i game as Turkey and have made it though the first year. A lot of the Ottoman Empire bugs have been fixed. Good Job.

[Marshall Ellis]

Keep playing BruceSinger!
Appreciate the encouragement!
 

[alvaradotx]

my experience is just as bad. bought WAW and then they UPGRADE with WAW a World Divided that you have to pay for...Bought Forge of Freedom and quit trying to play and wasting all that time in a beta sold as final product.
will wait to invest in any other products until they have been out at least a year . I read the forums to stay in touch with products I am interested in and see what progress is being made.

[Marshall Ellis]

I cannot argue, Alvarado. Keep looking because it's getting better. Perfect? Nope. Some people love the rush of being close to the tornado and some don't. That not a judgement call for right or wrong, just a fact! You ought be able to relate because if you're from Alvarado then you guys got hit pretty hard just the other night, right?
 
These games are tough to play on the board and VERY tough to port to the PC!
 
 

[YohanTM2]

There are more buyers out there as well. My brother has the game and is acting as our beta. As soon as he says it is really playable by PBEM at least 2 more of us will buy.

[Erik Rutins]

Alvaradotx,

ORIGINAL: alvaradotx
my experience is just as bad. bought WAW and then they UPGRADE with WAW a World Divided that you have to pay for...

Excuse me, but there was a two year gap between those products and WAW received multiple free upgrades. It was perfectly playable from the first release and the upgrades improved it significantly. The AWD improvements were absolutely "new release level" and you're the first person I've heard say that WAW was a bad experience.

Bought Forge of Freedom and quit trying to play and wasting all that time in a beta sold as final product.

Again, this release had one critical bug on release, which was fixed within a week. The developers then spent a year improving it further with free upgrades that had additional scenarios and new features. It's an outstanding game. I've played through several full PBEMs of it and it is absolutely not a beta and was not at initial release either.

While I respect each customer's opinion, I really have to wonder when the above games are used as an example of what's wrong, when the vast majority of our customers point to them as "what's right".

If anything, you can look at these two previous releases and see how much effort we put into improving them even when they were fine at releae, then see what we expect to do for EIA, which had more problems. EIA will be "fixed", it just may take some time to get it to the point we all want it to be.

Regards,

- Erik

[Dave_T]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I cannot argue, Alvarado. Keep looking because it's getting better. Perfect? Nope. Some people love the rush of being close to the tornado and some don't. That not a judgement call for right or wrong, just a fact! You ought be able to relate because if you're from Alvarado then you guys got hit pretty hard just the other night, right?

These games are tough to play on the board and VERY tough to port to the PC!

Getting better? You're having a giraffe. Each "patch" introduces new bugs.

This is without doubt the worst game I've paid money for in 20 years and calling it EiA with player made rules is a joke condisering the number of core rules excluded due to them being a tad difficult to code.

If this were a car it would have had a product recall. Car manufacturers have morals. And answer emails.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Dave_T

Car manufacturers have morals. And answer emails.

Now I know you are off your rocker.

This is a VERY close adaptation to EiANW, VERY close. The major problem is that somewhere along the lines EiH got introduced. EiH sucks IMO. Maybe Matrix would have been better off calling this game Empires in Harms. Would you have liked that better?

Other than venting what is the point of posting on here every other day about how you don't like the game? There are plenty of people playing this game right now that are enjoying it very much, I'm sorry you are not one of them.

I'm just curious, have you played a PBEM game yet?

[pzgndr]

Other than venting what is the point of posting on here every other day about how you don't like the game?

Yeah, ditto. Marshall is aware of the whining. Erik is aware of the whining. We are all aware of the whining and complaining, ad nauseum. It's not helping anything at this point. Geez. [8|] Matrix has resolved to get things fixed. We need to be patient a little while longer. I'm like a venture capitalist here, viewing my time spent on continuing EiA development as an investment. I'm not complaining. I do wish the fixes would come a little bit faster, but we all wish for lots of things. No biggie. It's just a game.

The major problem is that somewhere along the lines EiH got introduced. EiH sucks IMO.

Being new to the game, it seems playable enough for me. I am still very interested in the editor and eventually seeing original EiA OOBs and a more updated EiH v4 or v5 OOB, which some say is better than the EiH v3 OOB currently implemented. I'd like to decide for myself which version I prefer. I don't see why players can't eventually have multiple OOBs for the various scenarios and campaigns. Be flexible. Marshall can help by providing more options. Like both AI and UMP options for non-players. Again, we need to be patient a little while longer. [:)]

[Dave_T]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Dave_T

Car manufacturers have morals. And answer emails.

Now I know you are off your rocker.

This is a VERY close adaptation to EiANW, VERY close. The major problem is that somewhere along the lines EiH got introduced. EiH sucks IMO. Maybe Matrix would have been better off calling this game Empires in Harms. Would you have liked that better?

Very close, excluding 4 corps per depot, combined movement, naval evasion, naval pursuit, leader casualties, ability to choose your own casualties on port evacuation, inability to add secondary districts to minors on later conquest, inability to add more provinces to kingdoms after creation, most of kingdoms missed off, retirement into city,. They're the major ones that affect gameplay

Yes. I wouldn't have considered buying it if it were marketed as EiH. It's marketed as EiA with player rule changes, not EiH with bits missed of that were too hard to code.

Other than venting what is the point of posting on here every other day about how you don't like the game? There are plenty of people playing this game right now that are enjoying it very much, I'm sorry you are not one of them.

Trying to get a response from Matrix who have ignored my emails and only respond to forums. I'm sorry I'm not one of them too. This game has promise but doesn't live up to it's advertising and doesn't work the way it's supposed to

I'm just curious, have you played a PBEM game yet?

Yes. Been playing PBeM for 10 years and the board game for 15. Didn't want this for PBeM but solo. The AI is currently bad, I can actually live with the bad interface & poor AI as the interface is only superficial and AIs can be improved but instances where, for example, movement to an adjacent area is "too difficult" or you end up fighting yourself in a port blockade box, make the game unplayable at a certain point and, therefore, not fit for purpose.

Personally I put this down to bad testing. The testers were people who wanted the game released regardless of problems where people who may want to buy it want a working product, not a product you have to devise "work arounds"

Very few people on the EiA list seem to have taken this up, I've seen no game postings asking for a PBeM using this, on the EiH list it's the same.

If I want to play EiA by email I'll continue to use cyberboard, notepad & excel.