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

[76mm]

This goes on and on...

I never bought this game because it was patently obvious from this forum that it had significant issues when released, and I won't buy it until it becomes clear that the AI is fixed.

I never buy games anymore until I've read some reviews and checked out the forum. I recommend that people asking for a refund do the same. Asking for a refund is kind of silly, for the reasons Eric explained. Caveat emptor, man! I used to make exceptions for some game companies, but no longer. Sad really, but that's what the industry's like these days...

[ecn1]

This game is was never about the AI. I really dont understand why people keep complaining about it. A game this complicated and nuanced, you cant really make an AI that is challenging in any meaningful way. Those have played EiA as a boardgame know this. So all this bitching about AI is total nonsense.

So, I would rather have the time spent on what can be improved, fixing bugs and enhancing the game to improve gameplay and have it more accurately mirror the boardgame for pbem play - and hopefully eventually TCP/IP play.

erik

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: ecn1

This game is was never about the AI. I really dont understand why people keep complaining about it. A game this complicated and nuanced, you cant really make an AI that is challenging in any meaningful way. Those have played EiA as a boardgame know this. So all this bitching about AI is total nonsense.

No.

First, many games as complicated and nuanced as EiA have decent AIs. Not as challenging as a human player certainly, but enough to make single play enjoyable.

Second, EiA wasn't advertised or sold only to those who have played EiA as a board game. Nor was it advertised and sold as multiplayer only. It was advertised and sold as a PC game with an AI.

Hence the need for an honest attempt to deliver as promised.

I'm an early buyer of EiA who has shelved the game until the AI improves. I'm patient. And I'm not complaining.

But the idea that EiA should somehow be exempt from the standard that applies to every other game of its type just because a bunch of folks played it as a board game is, to borrow your phrase, total nonsense.

[ecn1]

yah, if you are a huge game publisher, and come out with a game like CIV, sure you can spend the time and resources on an ai... matrix is not such a publisher...it does what it can, but it would take a whole lot more to program an ai which was even close to good for a game like this one...

but, EiA is alot about diplomacy, its not about combat and resource management as other games, etc...so when it come down to it, its basically a human vs. human game and no ai is going to replace that. Even the combat is system of chit picking is about nuance and psychology of opponent, weighing a range of not quantifiable factors, so an ai will never do well there..

truth hurts, but this will never be an ai driven game....so find some friends and join a pbem game

erik

[NeverMan]

Queeq,

I agree with your logic; however, I think that until the basic mechanics of the game are fixed (which there still seems to be plenty) then "fixing" the AI to play better is a 2nd priority. All of the major mechanics of the game should be resolved FIRST, because they effect both multiplayer and single player games. JMO.

[tevans6220]

ORIGINAL: ecn1

This game is was never about the AI. I really dont understand why people keep complaining about it. A game this complicated and nuanced, you cant really make an AI that is challenging in any meaningful way. Those have played EiA as a boardgame know this. So all this bitching about AI is total nonsense.

So, I would rather have the time spent on what can be improved, fixing bugs and enhancing the game to improve gameplay and have it more accurately mirror the boardgame for pbem play - and hopefully eventually TCP/IP play.

erik

Wait just one second. If the game had been advertised as PBEM only or with an AI that was only good for training purposes then your statement might hold water. It wasn't advertised that way. Nowhere did I see something like "Since the boardgame is complicated and nuanced, we're really not going to make a challenging AI. The AI we include is for training purposes only with the emphasis on PBEM." As a matter of fact Erik stated here and on other forums that the AI would be worked on after all the major bugs were eliminated. Why would he say that if programming and fixing the AI was total nonsense? Why didn't he just say "Guys this game is just for PBEM. We'll fix the major bugs and that's it"? Sorry but I think your statement is total nonsense. It doesn't even jibe with what Matrix says. If you want to play PBEM that's fine but not everyone does. Complaining about the AI or lack thereof may be considered bitching and total nonsense to you but to those of us who don't want to PBEM it's a serious matter.

[ecn1]

I never said that the game was advertised correctly, I am just saying is that the reality is the AI will never be good or really up to par. It will always be a cake walk, its just too complex, especially the diplomacy and aspects of the combat system... I think most experienced players would agree...

so you can bitch, but the reality is that if you are looking for a pure ai game, look elsewhere, this will never be it...

if you are looking for aweseome pbem, or eventual tcp/ip game multiplayer game, this is your game...dont get me wrong, I love this game....it just will never be a solo, ai driven game....

[Queeg]

I can understand why those few of you who just want a PBEM version of the board game hope the developer will devote all its resources to that end. The rest of us, though, would like to see the game deliver as advertised -- and as other similar games deliver.

Again, my complaint is not with the developer -- they say they are working on the AI and I'm content to wait patiently while they do so.

But I do disagree with the handful of board game players who insist that the developer needn't even try.

[timewalker03]

I am currently in 4 PBEM games. I must say that PBEM is the slowest and least use of diplomacy I have ever played in my 20 years of playing EiA. In all 4 of the games I am in 95% of the communication is the broadcast of next turn for a specific country. Even with the policy of 24hrs turnaround per player rules of the gaming group, we have been playing for 2 months + and are just starting the 3rd month (March 1805) of game play in one of the games. This is with minimal wars and mostly minor Gobbling. The ironic thing about this is that in the Mid 90's I played this game via Mail in a 7 player with an 8th as moderator and the game moved along much faster than this and we didn't have to worry about bugs creeping up.

In the other 3 games, 2 are on hold due to bugs and we are waiting for the 1.02 actual patch to be introduced. The 4th game I started on January 4th. We just completed the March Economic Interphase and are now on hold till the 1.02 patch due to having to use over 10 backup files just to get this far due to bugs. It seems there are a lot of combat issues with files or something because all 10 backup uses were after combat related problems.

I like ECN1 am in favor of TCP/IP. I realize that there will be those who vehemently oppose TCP/IP who will jump in and say it will never happen even though Marshall has stated that it is already about 80% programmed. When it is implemented I will truly enjoy this game bugs and all since it will make the game more dynamic and much closer to the real game.

I am still baffled that Matrix has only one programmer working full time on this and that the amount of bugs/fixes is as immense as it is. The sad thing about this is we should be getting scenarios as patches and not fixes as patches after 5 months. As for game purchases, this is definitely my worst ever dollar to satisfaction as my criteria. I am also totally miffed at ADG for allowing this game to be released to the public in this bad of shape.

I will continue to play in my 1/4 PBEM games that are still progressing, but I could see that one grinding to a halt very soon due to frustration over the bugs in the game.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: ecn1
This game is was never about the AI. I really dont understand why people keep complaining about it. A game this complicated and nuanced, you cant really make an AI that is challenging in any meaningful way. Those have played EiA as a boardgame know this. So all this bitching about AI is total nonsense.

Plenty of games as complicated and nuanced as this have adequate AIs, even if not good enough to challenge an experienced player. If Matrix didn't think it was up to it, then they shouldn't have tried, and focused on building a PBEM platform (BTW, it sounds like PBEM doesn't work very well either...). But if you're just using it for PBEM, why not use the free VASL version?

Morever, many (most?) players won't buy a game, period, if they can't play solo. So restricting this to multi-player only would mean cutting sales significantly. I'll bet Matrix doesn't consider that "total nonsense"...

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: timewalker03

I am currently in 4 PBEM games. I must say that PBEM is the slowest and least use of diplomacy I have ever played in my 20 years of playing EiA. In all 4 of the games I am in 95% of the communication is the broadcast of next turn for a specific country. Even with the policy of 24hrs turnaround per player rules of the gaming group, we have been playing for 2 months + and are just starting the 3rd month (March 1805) of game play in one of the games. This is with minimal wars and mostly minor Gobbling. The ironic thing about this is that in the Mid 90's I played this game via Mail in a 7 player with an 8th as moderator and the game moved along much faster than this and we didn't have to worry about bugs creeping up.


I like ECN1 am in favor of TCP/IP. I realize that there will be those who vehemently oppose TCP/IP who will jump in and say it will never happen even though Marshall has stated that it is already about 80% programmed. When it is implemented I will truly enjoy this game bugs and all since it will make the game more dynamic and much closer to the real game.

I am still baffled that Matrix has only one programmer working full time on this and that the amount of bugs/fixes is as immense as it is. The sad thing about this is we should be getting scenarios as patches and not fixes as patches after 5 months. As for game purchases, this is definitely my worst ever dollar to satisfaction as my criteria. I am also totally miffed at ADG for allowing this game to be released to the public in this bad of shape.

Considering your PBEM game has a 24 hour turn around and the mail doesn't, I'm not sure how your Mail game went any faster, unless you guys were paying for overnight delivery, which I doubt.

As far as the one programmer, I agree. At this point Matrix should devote just a few more resources to this game to AT LEAST get the major bug fixes fixed.

To Queeg: I'm not opposed to there being an AI and I think there should be since that is the way it was advertised, although I totally agree with ecn1 that this game is too complex and would challenge 76mm to name a game as complex and dynamic as this.

Although I have always been in favor of TCP/IP play and supported it way back when, I can see the other side. It would be very difficult for most players to get together on 1 specified night a week. Maybe if the group was flexible from week to week on which day it would be. But, if it's not that much work I don't see why this game can't have PBEM and TCP/IP play.

I do think though that the TCP/IP should wait until after all the major bug fixes and some decent AI development, since the game wasn't advertised with TCP/IP play. Personally, I probably wouldn't mind, after the major bug fixes (I don't really care about the AI), paying for a TCP/IP "extension" patch/pack/whatever, since the game wasn't originally advertised that way to begin with.

[tevans6220]

Matrix doesn't do a whole lot of programming. They're just the publisher. Programming is pretty much left up to the developer. The problem is that most development teams are one or two man shows doing it part-time as a second income. While some may see nothing wrong with that, I think it's a huge problem. Bugs seem more frequent and take longer to get patched. Even testing seems to be affected. One thing I've noticed with small development teams is that patches usually come out in beta format and the consumer usually ends up being the quality assurance/testing department.

[timewalker03]

Yep and that's the situation here and the point to a lot of this thread. I just view it as 2008 business practices. Crappy and not caring about who gets hurt or in this case upset. I spent $70 and not very satisfied. I will wait it out, but I have no expectations anymore. I just no longer recommend Matrix to any of my friends. Also I believe that we will see a 2.0 version of this game which will contain Scenarios and a completed and totally playable game. We will have to pay $70 for that game though since they will say it's a different version. I can see that coming down the Matrix Pipeline and may even have been planned all along. Not sure since My trust for Matrix is gone.

[timewalker03]

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

Matrix doesn't do a whole lot of programming. They're just the publisher. Programming is pretty much left up to the developer. The problem is that most development teams are one or two man shows doing it part-time as a second income. While some may see nothing wrong with that, I think it's a huge problem. Bugs seem more frequent and take longer to get patched. Even testing seems to be affected. One thing I've noticed with small development teams is that patches usually come out in beta format and the consumer usually ends up being the quality assurance/testing department.

Also if this is the case then Matrix has some of the worst oversight ever for a business. With this game's release it just proves incompetence or lack of any caring about the consumer.

[Xikar]

i've made a few comments and obviously hurt a few feelings from those who don't want certain points brought to light.... i'm an old hand at PC/pbem games and this isn't unusual, there is always an old gaurd you run into that doesn't permit certain issues to be discussed. I feel all of your pain.

[adrianthomson]

ORIGINAL: jjax

Hey Dave_T

When I was a young lad, I would always spend my monthly allowance on a new Nintendo game. Back then, the only thing that could tell you whether the game was any good or not was the cover art. More often then not, the cover art was misleading. That’s when I felt absolutely ripped off.

Now that we have forums and online game sites to give us instant feed back on the quality of a game, it is almost impossible for a company like Matrix games to misrepresent their product to those that are willing to do some research before purchase.

Now, there have been a couple of bad games that I have purchased despite negative opinion(including some matrix games). And despite my anger, I choose to eat the cost. I think you should do the same (why??? see above).

If matrix gives you your money back, it’s very nice of them. But I would disagree with their decision.

On the bright side, I do think EiA will be improved. And when it is im sure it will cost you only the time of the download.

You had a good allowance!

[adrianthomson]

ORIGINAL: ecn1

This game is was never about the AI. I really dont understand why people keep complaining about it. A game this complicated and nuanced, you cant really make an AI that is challenging in any meaningful way. Those have played EiA as a boardgame know this. So all this bitching about AI is total nonsense.

So, I would rather have the time spent on what can be improved, fixing bugs and enhancing the game to improve gameplay and have it more accurately mirror the boardgame for pbem play - and hopefully eventually TCP/IP play.

erik

Like hell it isn't. If I had have known I was getting a multiplayer only game I would have never bought it.

Adrian

[Erik Rutins]

Just for the record, we've never stated that this game was "intended for multiplayer only". We did however state before the release that the AI was mainly for practice. Our intention as I stated post-release is to improve the AI. However, many more issues than we expected came up after release and until we get through those (have a look at the 1.02j beta if you want to see the current game status and help by reporting any problems you see) we can't reasonably embark on a lot of enhancements. Fixes first, enhancements second. None of us wanted to still be focusing on fixes 5 months after release, but as long as there are bugs we need to focus on those first.

We all feel that the AI needs further improvement and after we have a release (hopefully 1.02 official) that resolves the majority of the remaining issues and all serious ones, then we can focus on that.

Regards,

- Erik

[Tanan Fujiwara]

[font="times new roman"]Well this is really shocking… how can Matrix Games now say that the A.I. was advertised as mainly for practice, that is just another lie. I can recall many posts were Marshall himself made comments about the A.I., specifically on how good the A.I. was on taken advantage of an unguarded channel crossing and how keen the computer had been on surrendering G.B. So don’t go around making references to what has been said in the forums because many things have been said…[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]I am just feed up with all this, I DON’T want a refund, I want a game which I can play and as of now it is of no use for multiplayer, it’s way too limited and it is not EiA nor EiH… and I want a game with a decent A.I., right now it is a joke.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]The sad thing about all this is that Matrix Games is one of the few companies that make serious strategy games, but after what I’ve seen from “EiA” I will not buy any of their games again… and I was really interested in WiF and Napoleon in Italy, but I’ve lost faith and don’t want to end up with something like EiA.[/font]

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Tanan Fujiwara
Well this is really shocking… how can Matrix Games now say that the A.I. was advertised as mainly for practice, that is just another lie.

No, I did say that but frankly I say that about most AIs.

I can recall many posts were Marshall himself made comments about the A.I., specifically on how good the A.I. was on taken advantage of an unguarded channel crossing and how keen the computer had been on surrendering G.B. So don’t go around making references to what has been said in the forums because many things have been said…

Ok, sure - I meant what I said. I was not trying to dodge anything. The thing is, the AI works well for novice or even average players but is not up to snuff for skilled players or EIA boardgame veterans.

The sad thing about all this is that Matrix Games is one of the few companies that make serious strategy games, but after what I’ve seen from “EiA” I will not buy any of their games again… and I was really interested in WiF and Napoleon in Italy, but I’ve lost faith and don’t want to end up with something like EiA.

The sad thing is that EIA has been our most problematic release, by far, for the last year at least and I know folks are judging us by it. As I said above, which was the real point of my post - we are committed to improving it, but fixes come before other enhancements like improving the AI.