A Great Game: Shame about the attitude

[Marc von Martial]

Well,

at first I´m sorry if (only speaking of me here) some replies may sound "snooty" or "arrogant" but I´m not a native english speaker and might miss the tone the one or other time. But that´s definetly not intended.

You may also consider that we´re no gods here. There are allways people out there that know much more then the designers and developers, wether it´s historical "facts" (everything is discussable of course, just take two WW2 books on the same matter, you´ll find that a few historians agree ) or hardware/software issues.

We make games yes, but we´re no allround computer technicans and defintly not the MS support hotline . Our main goal is to help where we can, between working on this and other projects, but some problems are hard to track down via the web. Ever tried to help a buddy out with his PC problems via the phone ?

Cheers

[wpurdom]

I have just started reading the posts while awaiting arrival of UV after having been a fan of Grisby precursors for years. I have been most impressed with the responsiveness of Matrix and their willingness to engage in lengthy explanations for the benefit of those who want them to tune up aspects of the game in just the way they want to. The responsiveness of their replies compare quite favorably with many of those raising the critiques. Those complaining seem to operate under the theory that if they are not agreed with, then it must be due to a lack of understanding to be cured by repeating the same point more loudly.
OTOH I do not want to take my criticism of the picky enthusiasts too far. Most of the arguments are worthy of consideration and they will generate some improvements to the game. But when the criticism is considered, it is a perfectly valid response that Matrix's proposed gaming solution gives a valid historical result more reliably and Matrix prefers that to a chancy, complicated proposal that may possibly reflect the physics of the operation better. After in some cases (e.g., mines) we are operating in severe ignorance and its probably best not to get too fancy. It's not Matrix that needs to look at attitude.

[Sabre21]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marc Schwanebeck
Well,

You may also consider that we´re no gods here.....



Say it ain't so....Gary Grigsby must be a GOD!!! Maybe the rest of ya are minor dieties...but not Gary:D


hehehe


Andy

[Mark Ezra]

I believe I've been around Matrix people before there WAS a Matrix. These are gifted and tenacious wargamers who have given up much of their lives to produce some of the finest wargames ever produced with more on the drawing board. Have I ever seen them pissed over some question, comment, or debate over some element of the game. You bet. They go ballistic just about 1/10th of the times I do. Somebody has a question, gets "the wrong answer" and asked the question over and over again. Waiting and hoping for the "right answer", I expect. Is Matrix always right? Is any Game producer always right? Is Grigsby actually God?... No, No and Yes. There are very few game companies willing to create wargames. It is just way too demanding a task and the rewards are...well hopefully there are rewards for these brave few. The Matrix team do their best and respond to their customers suggestions and comments. If your particular suggestion isn't taken it certainly isn't because they didn't listen or didn't care. And if, after a number of try's to get your point across, someone speaks a bit brusk or stomps on your tiny ego, just chalk it up to human nature. Unless it's Grigsby...then you must submit and say "thank you sir, may I have another!

[Adam Parker]

Gee I've held off for a while - especially on the "RTFM" thread.

1. For the record I've seen no "slapping down" of opinions here by the Matrix team.

2. The "RTFM" response of David I once saw was totally justifed. In that thread a gamer cried "bug" when no such beast existed. The manual simply had not been read properly. Even the title of that gamer's thread was puposefully misleading and vulgar.

I empathise with David's response on the basis that in these days of our dear internet, misinformation and mischief can quickly alter a buying decision.

After so much simultaneous griping as was evidenced on this site and against other game producers (HPS, Breakaway etc) on others, a little steam was due to be let off - and I believe prosepective buyers of UV saw that for exactly what it was.

I sincerely hope UV becomes a run-away success, as with the much hard-worked quality titles of other game houses. Some games may be duds but others gems. My goodness, for educational value alone this game is worth the purchase.

[Nikademus]

I've been around Matrix from near the beginning, (and consider my copy of Steel Panthers WAW version 1.0 a "collectors item" now )

As such i would have to say with honesty that i've never orbited around a wargame company that has so cattered to it's customer-base or listened to their input as much as Matrix has overall.

Even more importantly, i've never seen such a degree of "actual change" be implemented into the games in question after listening to said input as much as I"ve seen it here.

But i'm not going to jump on you Didz because i can understand the frustration. Part of the challenge, especially where wargames are concerned is that virtually everyone concerned is going to have a viewpoint, opinion or profer a certain angle on the way they feel "history" should pan out in these wargames.

Wargamers in general tend to be a ornary bunch to begin with. That makes it tough to please everyone, an objective which frankly is impossible to obtain. The Germans taking Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad all in the same campaign would be easier I think

I've had a few run-ins with fellow users who have at times, given me the impression they might be developers in disquise given how vehementantly they oppose even constructive critisism in the hopes of improving the game in question.....but never from one who wore the Matrix mantle.

Thats just my personal experience. Arguably the hottest controvsery and resistance i ever participated in was during the SPWAW transition from 6.1 to 7.0 to 7.1 with developers, testers, players alike all going at it over the controversial addition of "armor quality modifyers" Yet in the end, even during this period where tempers flared on all sides, Matrix still came through and implemented the modifications which (for the most part) satisfied all parties (I can only speak for myself of course, but i'm happy with the final product and i can be "anal" about the subject of that particular wargame ) I think Paul Vebber in particular deserved a medal for weathering the storm during that transition.

In my short time here on the UV board, i have seen little to nothing to change that opinion. A patch is forthcoming which will include some modifications based on some input I and other people have suggested. If that is'nt a sign of a responsive company I dont know what is.

Thats just my take on it.

[Von_Frag]

Originally posted by wpurdom
I have just started reading the posts while awaiting arrival of UV after having been a fan of Grisby precursors for years. I have been most impressed with the responsiveness of Matrix and their willingness to engage in lengthy explanations for the benefit of those who want them to tune up aspects of the game in just the way they want to. The responsiveness of their replies compare quite favorably with many of those raising the critiques. Those complaining seem to operate under the theory that if they are not agreed with, then it must be due to a lack of understanding to be cured by repeating the same point more loudly.
OTOH I do not want to take my criticism of the picky enthusiasts too far. Most of the arguments are worthy of consideration and they will generate some improvements to the game. But when the criticism is considered, it is a perfectly valid response that Matrix's proposed gaming solution gives a valid historical result more reliably and Matrix prefers that to a chancy, complicated proposal that may possibly reflect the physics of the operation better. After in some cases (e.g., mines) we are operating in severe ignorance and its probably best not to get too fancy. It's not Matrix that needs to look at attitude.

Well said sir, well said.

I too have been guilty of nitt picking some things in the game. But let that not detract from my feelings that this is one of if not the finest wargame I have ever played. Some others seem to have more experience here, but I have never been on a discussion board where the developers were there to answer questions.

Frag

[Paul Dyer]

Let me add my voice to the general tone of the replies here. I've also spent a non-trivial part of the last decade playing GG games, and am glad of the experience. IMHO the interaction of Matrix staff here is outstanding, and I cannot recall an issue where the response hasn't been either to acknowledge that they will work on an issue or else to provide a thought provoking counter argument. I think the basic model of listening to and interacting with clients is the right one - its a pity that this has to include the occaisional piece of crud that gets posted. For a small operation, in a difficult niche market, they're doing great.

Who would you rather see prosper - Matrix or Microsoft? Says it all really.

[Paul Dyer]

Originally posted by Mark Ezra
Is Matrix always right? Is any Game producer always right? Is Grigsby actually God?... No, No and Yes.

.

[dgaad]

I agree, I think I'm getting gypped on some of the altitude ratings too.

[Didz]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I request that you elaborate on a few points below to hopefully make this criticism more constructive. While I respect that you feel the way you do, I haven't seen the same things you mention, so a bit more specificity would definitely help.

I should also note that from time to time one of us has been a bit more brusque than we should have been. For that I apologize. Like the pilots in UV, we need occasional rotation to reduce our fatigue or the chance of us crashing increases significantly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


First of all I must apologise for not being able to get back to you earlier and I certainly wasn't looking for an apology when I started this thread. I merely raised it as a topic in the hope that everyone would take note and give a bit more thought to the tone of their future responses and hopefully improve the quality of the debate.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you could describe a slap-down, it would be appreciated.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In answer to your question. What I mean by a 'slap-down' is a scenario where a customer raises an issue or concern about the way the product operates and the support agent instead of logging the issue claims 'superior specialist knowledge' and slaps the customer down. E.g. "No that’s not a problem that's actually what happened historically."

Now I must add before every man and his dog screams FOUL. That what makes such a statement a 'slap down' is not whether it is correct or not. It may be perfectly correct that historically that’s what really happened.

What makes it a 'slap down' is that the person making the statement gives no further explanation of the historical precedent for justifying the way the program works other than the fact that he just said it was right. In effect he is saying 'Hey! I'm the expert round here and I'm telling you this is historically accurate. So bog off'

Now personally I love these scenario's, I consider them a personal challenge and as you have probably noticed I keep battering away until I either prove my point or get a proper justification for the statement made.

Unfortunately, I've noticed that not all members of this forum are so persistent and my decision to start this thread was the result of seeing someone else raise an issue, get slapped down and not come back.

I would also add that what exacerbates the situation is the tendency for other forum members to jump on the band wagon in a well meaning display of loyalty and sympathy for the poor beleaguered Game Designer.

Which is great, as long as your not the poor sucker who thought you'd spotted a legitimate issue with the game and are now getting torn to shreds.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't seen the same things you mention, so a bit more specificity would definitely help.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I decided not to quote specific examples because obviously its impossible to do so without identifying individuals and I don't think that’s either appropriate or fair on a public forum. To a certain extent it doesn't matter because just checking the forum this afternoon I've noticed a change in tone so I'm happy with the result achieved.

I think if you read through some of the more intense debates and try to imagine that you are a customer who thinks he may have spotted something not quite right and who has raised it as an issue. And then look at the typical responses he gets from that viewpoint you'll get a better understanding of what I'm trying to explain.

Nobody actually accuses you of being 'dumb' or 'stupid' but all too often your issue gets dismissed off-hand with no real explanation of why it isn't an issue.

The question is, do you want to know about these issues or don't you?

My assumption is that this forum is part of your service quality loop and that therefore you wish to encourage a critical appraisal of your product. It is therefore important that people who have a question or issue don't feel too intimidated to post it and that having posted it their comments are not dismissed off-hand.


__________________
Didz

[ScabFace]

I expect grognards to be a little impatient with novices because of their very nature. The tone of this board's discussion has met that expectation. I am new to this complicated type of gaming experience but I am feeling my way along. The administrators & others responding to my questions have been very helpful & courteous. I believe it is important for me as a novice to be clear about the information I need, civil in asking, & always think twice before posting (means I have to RTFM & go back over the post on the board). "When in Rome..." is always a good policy. This game is a dream come true for any of us who have an interest in this subject & it has kept me glued to my chair at home whenever I get the chance. I am happy as a pig in poop that somebody went to all this effort for little return to make this wonderful game. Sure, I have some issues but these can be addressed in the right way. Just my opinion. Happy gaming. Thanks,
Dale

[Didz]

Certainly the issues of Turn Duration, TF Interdiction, Mine Warfare etc. are ones that need to be addressed to improve gameplay but the game is still perfectly playable and enjoyable in its current state. No, the game does not *certainly* need these things to be addressed to improve game play. If that is your opinion, I respect that, but to display such an opinion, as a certainty is purely false.

Ok! My apologies. I'm forgetting there are language difficulties between the UK and US.
What I meant to say was that the issues of Turn Duration, TF Interdiction and Mine Warfare need to be considered seriously and a pro-active judgement made as to whether anything needs to be done.

There was a poll done on turn length being shortened...over 70% responded that the turn length is fine the way it is. So why in the world would something like this 'certainly' have to be something to be changed?

Well, obviously its a matter of opinion whether 30% is a significant enough number to warrant serious attention. In the UK businesses adhere to the 80:20 rule on matters of service quality, so I would expect a poll result of 30% to be considered significant.
The other factor to consider is that this poll only represents the opinion of a very small proportion of the total UV sales and statistic's show that the vast majority of purchasers who are dissatisfied don't respond to polls or complain they merely don't buy another product from that supplier.

If you make such a 'life choice' then be a responsible adult and accept the consequences of acting in such a manner. Coming back over and over with your opinion does nothing more than show that regardless of whether or not people agree with it, you are going to do your best to ram it down our throats in the form of a gameplay change.

I am perfectly happy to accept the consequences of my actions in fact I quite enjoy the challenge of an intense debate. But as for ramming my opinions down people throats, well I'm sorry if you feel that’s the case. I am not aware of being guilty of posting the same issue over and over again as you suggest. In fact, I am as concerned as you are that some of the issues raised on this forum have led to such protracted argument. However, as far as I am aware I have only continued to contribute to any debate in order to respond to someone else or to build upon someone else's proposal.

Personally I wish the game makers/producers would cut loose with how they really feel with people when they act like this.

Personally I think it’s a credit to everyone on this forum that so far our discussions have remained civil. Even though I'm sure that there are a lot of people out there whose tongues are as sore as mine from being bitten.