Moderator: MOD_EIA
Let's see what happens from here.
Franco: And now my friend, the first-a rule of Italian driving.
[Franco rips off his rear-view mirror and throws it out of the car]
Franco: What's-a behind me is not important.
You dont know anything about TGHQ at all quiet frankly, since april this year you havent visited us much. And havent said too much to us with only 9 posts since april 2008 and 2 or 3 of those are only files uploading posts. So I hardly think you can say anything with authority.Your analogy is void of any real fact since you don't know any of us. In fact, I have noticed that more TGHQers abandon the game then the people that are on here complaining (myself and some others I am in games with included).
This is to do with issues of the OLD GM not to do with the game, it is the performance or non performance of people thats the main cause. Nothing to do with TGHQ.ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Well, I'm in Game 5 of your THGQ and in over a month real time we've managed ALMOST a month game time with 2-3 players dropping out. That's what I know.
ORIGINAL: gazfun
This is to do with issues of the OLD GM not to do with the game, it is the performance or non performance of people thats the main cause. Nothing to do with TGHQ.ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Well, I'm in Game 5 of your THGQ and in over a month real time we've managed ALMOST a month game time with 2-3 players dropping out. That's what I know.
ORIGINAL: NeverMan
ORIGINAL: delatbabel
I have finished my latest round of testing on the latest 1.04 DEV release and have given Marshall the OK to release that as a beta. There are a few fixes outstanding but it's much better than the current release, especially from an AI perspective (even playing France was a little tough).
Let's see what happens from here.
Are the free VP/PP still in the game? If so, then that's why it's still challenging. It's not that the AI is good it's just that the comp gives itself endless amounts of VP/PP. It's hard to compete with that even when you've gotten two unconditionals from all neighbors, have been in wars you've won the entire game and own most of the map.
ORIGINAL: NeverMan
ORIGINAL: timewalker03
My personal experiences with the board game were fine. My game groups did not have problems with speed. In the 4 PBEM games I have participated in not one made it past march without restarting, and none restarted due to player participation, but because of bugs in the game. Once again it goes back to game design. I will not bash players or their level of play at all. I will not bash players dedication since the factor of Real Life plays into things and dedication may change on a moments notices due to unforseen factors. The only negatives I have found with the game are how the game plays and how crappy the AI is. As delatbabel has stated we should see an AI improvement which would be nice since I bought the game for a single player challenge and not for a PBEM lifelong game.
Being a Wargamer does not make anyone special in any way. You are not any better than a video game player, you just play games from a different niche then as an example a sim player. Blaming the problems of a game on the players is a sad way to try to hide behind the fact that the game is currently sub par compared to the original board game. I do fully understand that you will not have a direct port, and I do realize ADG gave a thumbs up to the game in its current form. I am sure they make some money every time a copy sells which of course they endorse since they have to do nothing to make the money they are making. No matter what, it comes down to quality of product and how Matrix treats its consumer. I did not purchase this game to help them develop it further. I purchased this game to play EiA solo. Not for the PBEM feature. If they wanted me to playtest the game they should have selected me when they asked for testers in 2003 as I put in an app to test. And I would still be here helping them. Instead I paid $60 to be a tester which falls into the realm of Bull$%^& as far as their company practices go. I also don't support something in a blind manner, and I would be promoting Matrix and Marshall if things were good from the start. Which of course they weren't. The only fault when it comes to dedication lies in the games maker. They launched a much inferior product than they could have, and the progression to make this the best game possible is very slow. Hopefully that will change.
Great post!
For me, I just feel that they should take the blame for making this game. I don't really see how the "gamer" comes into play at all. The game is not stable, what does that have to do with gamers? Gazfun, you are really grasping at straws here.
The game is in bad shape and has been since it was released. It's getting better but very, very slowly. Personally, I don't really care about the AI since the only way it's ever going to be challenging is if it gives itself a bunch of free VP/PP, otherwise it's a blow over, so that doesn't really make it an AI or technically "challenging". There has been little done to improve PBEM since the game was released. There are still game-stopping bugs.
You can use the "one developer"; however, the game has been in development for years and they still charge MORE than most PC games that are finished and polished.
ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
What game stopping PBEM bugs are you talking about?
Are those bugs that I am not aware of?
Are they in Mantis?
ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
ORIGINAL: NeverMan
ORIGINAL: timewalker03
My personal experiences with the board game were fine. My game groups did not have problems with speed. In the 4 PBEM games I have participated in not one made it past march without restarting, and none restarted due to player participation, but because of bugs in the game. Once again it goes back to game design. I will not bash players or their level of play at all. I will not bash players dedication since the factor of Real Life plays into things and dedication may change on a moments notices due to unforseen factors. The only negatives I have found with the game are how the game plays and how crappy the AI is. As delatbabel has stated we should see an AI improvement which would be nice since I bought the game for a single player challenge and not for a PBEM lifelong game.
Being a Wargamer does not make anyone special in any way. You are not any better than a video game player, you just play games from a different niche then as an example a sim player. Blaming the problems of a game on the players is a sad way to try to hide behind the fact that the game is currently sub par compared to the original board game. I do fully understand that you will not have a direct port, and I do realize ADG gave a thumbs up to the game in its current form. I am sure they make some money every time a copy sells which of course they endorse since they have to do nothing to make the money they are making. No matter what, it comes down to quality of product and how Matrix treats its consumer. I did not purchase this game to help them develop it further. I purchased this game to play EiA solo. Not for the PBEM feature. If they wanted me to playtest the game they should have selected me when they asked for testers in 2003 as I put in an app to test. And I would still be here helping them. Instead I paid $60 to be a tester which falls into the realm of Bull$%^& as far as their company practices go. I also don't support something in a blind manner, and I would be promoting Matrix and Marshall if things were good from the start. Which of course they weren't. The only fault when it comes to dedication lies in the games maker. They launched a much inferior product than they could have, and the progression to make this the best game possible is very slow. Hopefully that will change.
Great post!
For me, I just feel that they should take the blame for making this game. I don't really see how the "gamer" comes into play at all. The game is not stable, what does that have to do with gamers? Gazfun, you are really grasping at straws here.
The game is in bad shape and has been since it was released. It's getting better but very, very slowly. Personally, I don't really care about the AI since the only way it's ever going to be challenging is if it gives itself a bunch of free VP/PP, otherwise it's a blow over, so that doesn't really make it an AI or technically "challenging". There has been little done to improve PBEM since the game was released. There are still game-stopping bugs.
You can use the "one developer"; however, the game has been in development for years and they still charge MORE than most PC games that are finished and polished.
What game stopping PBEM bugs are you talking about?
Are those bugs that I am not aware of?
Are they in Mantis?
CleverDevils is still stuck.ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
What game stopping PBEM bugs are you talking about?
Are those bugs that I am not aware of?
Are they in Mantis?
ORIGINAL: Jimmer
CleverDevils is still stuck.ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
What game stopping PBEM bugs are you talking about?
Are those bugs that I am not aware of?
Are they in Mantis?
However, to refute what someone said earlier, I am unaware of ANY game-stopping bugs that have clearly existed since the original release. The current one CleverDevils is experiencing MAY have been in existence (we may have been the first game to actually have an Ottoman Empire get played in a war). But, I don't think there are any obvious ones that are not end-cases.
ORIGINAL: Jimmer
Show me. Show me a verified bug that has been present in the code since December.
ORIGINAL: delatbabel
I have finished my latest round of testing on the latest 1.04 DEV release and have given Marshall the OK to release that as a beta. There are a few fixes outstanding but it's much better than the current release, especially from an AI perspective (even playing France was a little tough).
Let's see what happens from here.
ORIGINAL: NeverMan
ORIGINAL: Jimmer
CleverDevils is still stuck.ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
What game stopping PBEM bugs are you talking about?
Are those bugs that I am not aware of?
Are they in Mantis?
However, to refute what someone said earlier, I am unaware of ANY game-stopping bugs that have clearly existed since the original release. The current one CleverDevils is experiencing MAY have been in existence (we may have been the first game to actually have an Ottoman Empire get played in a war). But, I don't think there are any obvious ones that are not end-cases.
Jimmer, be serious man. If you want to have blinders on that's fine, but too many people here value your opinion and this post is seriously misleading. NO game-stopping bugs since the ORIGINAL RELEASE??? ARE YOU SERIOUS???
Not good enough. You saidORIGINAL: NeverMan
Without looking at the code, I'm going to say that the bug CleverDevils2 has now "has been present in the code since December."
The game will be coming up on a year soon and there are still bugs in the game that cause CRASHES to games, meaning some games can't continue due to these bugs that have been around almost a year now.
No. It's waiting for Gwheelock to become an official beta-tester, so he can get version 1.04. Then, he'll fix the game, give it to me to take my turn, and then re-fix it (since I suspect that every time I move something will break in the Ottoman area).ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
(BTW: I thought cleverdevils was on again???).
ORIGINAL: Jimmer
Not good enough. You saidORIGINAL: NeverMan
Without looking at the code, I'm going to say that the bug CleverDevils2 has now "has been present in the code since December."
The game will be coming up on a year soon and there are still bugs in the game that cause CRASHES to games, meaning some games can't continue due to these bugs that have been around almost a year now.
Show me where there was a bug existing in December (i.e. produce a bug report, a forum post, whatever).
I contend that the vast majority (~100%) of the significant bugs have been eliminated that were logged at or shortly after release. There indeed are new bugs now, some perhaps which were in the code then, but were not reported. There are even a few that got lost in the change of bug-reporting processes. But, I cannot think of any that existed and were documented in 12/2007. In fact, I can't think of any that were logged at 1.02 that aren't fixed in 1.03 (both released versions).
Your error may have been in focusing on the last sentence of my post. If you did that, you might have gotten the impression that I thought there were no bugs present at all. But, taking that sentence without the rest of the paragraph is taking it brutally out of context, which I clearly stated in the first sentence of that paragraph ("... that have clearly existed since the original release.")
