ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In general 'shortcut' and 'automatic' are words that make the hair on the back of my neck rise. They immediately imply that there is a way to do this already in the player interface, so we are just talking about convenience.
Now, I actually use the player interface more than all the beta testers combined, so if there is something that is tedious to do, I learn about it very quickly. And I spend time brooding about possible ways to make it easier. For instance, I just went through several forms and repositioned the buttons so they are grouped together, to minimize the distance you have to move the mouse when making a series of decisions on the form.
But both shortcut and automatic means taking control out of the hands of the player and having the computer go off on its own and do things. That makes me nervous, for it requires that I figure out in advance all the possible situations where these actions might occur and guaranteeing that the way I program for them is perfect - always making the correct decision on behalf of the player. I have learned from experience that my ability to make perfect decisions is always doubtful.
Steve
I understand project constraints, risks of feature creep and the need to keep to a simple design for cost and risk reasons. I also understand psycological reasons such as fatigue at as a project nears it's end. (I have worked in the software industry for the last 10 years, most of this time as either a developer, architect or consultant.) If one agrees that an idea is good, but too complex to be in scope in the first release, it usually gets recorded as candidate functionality for future releases. Clearly, I realize that many of my more involved suggestions are unlikely to be included in the first release, given the current scope definition (ie a computerized WIF FE), and release plan.
But the rather consistent rejections of my proposals seem to go beyond that, and they have from the start. From statements like the above, it seems that the real difference lies in differences of taste. It's hard to argue agains that, and the seeming consistency of it indicates that I am simply wasting everyone's time coming up with these kinds of suggestions.
Btw, I am not really suggestin any real automation. (I've been thinking of suggesting it, but not really taken it that far). By real automation, I mean that the the game would actually execute actions for the player. Rather, what I have suggested falls more in the domain of information gathering. (This comes natural for me, since my work lies in the intersection between statistical analysis/business intelligence and more classic programming, for which I am currently emplyed as an architect) By placing the information "at the fingertips" of the player (excuse the cliché), I seek to speed up play. I do NOT want the game to make any kind of prioritisation on behalf of the player. This is purely the domain of the player, in my opinion.
I realize that some of the things that I've suggested would require some more or less involved code, and having to run that code every time I right-click, could also require some optimization of that code. Except for the actual UI, though, I would think that most of or all of this code has to be written as support algorithms for the AIO sooner or later, anyway.
But I still feel that thehre is a considerable difference of philosophy and taste, that will at least require the game to be released before I start coming up with suggested features.
That being said, the game does seem to shape up rather well, and I really look forward to it's realease. I must say that I'm quite impressed by the dedication you have been showing to the product and the willingness to go on with minimal income and very long hours to see it through, without compromising on quality. I get the impression that you alone do the work that most software companies require at least 4 people to get done.
I hope that you will be rewarded for this when the game comes out. Have you put any thought into what price level you should sell it at? I have the feeling that this kind of niche game is not going to be terribly price sensitive when it comes to sales volume, so you may be able to sell it at $100-200 even online. Alternatively, it may be a good idea to charge some kind of monthly fee ($5-10/month, for instance, for online play, if you are going to provide a playing lobby, etc.
Simmilar to, for instance, MS flight simmulator, the game is not going to face much in terms of newer, more technically advanced, competition. This means that it's not likely to be faced with much price preassure very soon.
For further revenue, you may want to create a deluxe version. Ideally, this would be compatible with the standard version for multiplayer purposes, etc, but could include player help systems, maybe a full hardcopy of the MWIF maps (at WIF FEW scale), etc. Maybe even some of my suggestions could find it's way into such a product.
Cheers
Hakon
