playable yet? Part II

[iamspamus]

U R a Chaos Ranger!!!

Is there a badge with that? If so, I want one. Not that I earned it. I just want one... [:D]

ORIGINAL: borner

I think they just like to stir things up and watch the chaos!

[iamspamus]

Just to be antagonistic (Isn't that what this thread is about???), I'll say it. ME is lazy. I don't see any good that he's done. [:-] I know that he beats puppies too. [X(] He's a bad man...

Just kidding. Thanks for all of the hard work, ME! [&o][&o][&o] I appreciate it.

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

1. There's no question or doubt that Marshall has put a ton of work into this thing. No one is questioning Marshall's work ethic, that is certainly not in question.

[iamspamus]

Thanks, DB, that was a cogent listing of the issues.

I will say that #1 goes back to an issue of timing, since everyone wants all of the fixes "now". You can't have it all now and have a lot of time to test for bugs. (I will say that I'm not a programmer and so don't know much about the programming side.)

For your fourth point, I'm not sure how to do this as the game could tend to be slow. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on what can change...while not changing the game (ie. combining phases and such.) The EIA purists should be jumping all over this, whacking it with the "no-no" stick.

I will say that I've been impressed with the Matrix and ME. I think that they have listened and are working to fix the game. It may have started with a flawed premise (ie. EIH 3.0), but it is good and getting better. (BTW: I don't necessarily think that it was flawed, especially since we all used house rules and variants and such AND they are going back and doing the EIA original.)

Jason

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

Well, Eric, I know you asked Neverman, but the question is too much to resist. Likely the shortest answer that the game came out with some critical bugs that took time to uncover and fix, and I think many of us who were not on the forum before 2007 were not prepared for the initial set backs this caused. I would say that the internal game testing (both the actual game and the concept) process failed in this case to uncover some serious problems, and may be flawed.

For a longer list of major problems, I would include the following (not in order of importance):

1. Bugs (this was almost licked in 1.04, but came back with a vengeance in 1.05)
2. Security during battles (the Marshall has proposed an acceptable fix due for 1.06)
3. Naval Evasion (also in proposed for 1.06?)
4. Very slow game PBEM speed (need to automate/compress some player interactions beyond skipping, not sure how this was missed in game design).

So, 1.06 might fix problems 1 to 3. Then a couple of improvements to speed up non-AI play (problem 4), and we'd have the game that most of us wanted about a year ago (1.07?).

Some outstanding second rank issues would be to get rid of automated single corps battles, too many insignificant minors willing to fight the Grand Armee to the death (slows game and is unrealistic), a better naval system (no light fleets and maybe naval chits?), and a better graphic interface.

The Marshall has come along way, and my sense is we are maybe over half way there.

[Erik Rutins]

Thanks for the feedback - I'm definitely aware of those issues and we're working on them (and have made good progress on many). What I was more interested in was what issue we had "blown off" or "not learned from our mistakes on" regarding Neverman's original post. I haven't heard an answer to that yet. I just want to make sure that we're not ignoring something that's critical to the game's improvement. All the things mentioned here have been heard, noted and are on the improvement plan. They can't all happen at once unfortunately, so we're getting to them as fast as we can.

Regards,

- Erik

[NeverMan]

Erik,

I guess you didn't read my post... oh well, just proves my point.

C'est la vie!

[Erik Rutins]

Actually, I did. You said:

For starters, the entire EiH disaster. But that's really just the beginning.

And rather than doing a classic EiA as a base and building on top of that EiH is used for the base and now classic EiA is going to be a "scenario" of that? Just seems inside out to me.

That's not an answer to my question. This is just criticism of the original release and design. We _have_ listened on these issues and we have already announced plans to create a more "pure" EIA scenario. Without getting a time machine and going back to the original design and changing it, that is the only possible way to resolve this request at this point. As I said, everything cannot be done all at once, but we've acknowledged this and stated our desire and plan to address it. How this shows that we are ignoring feedback is beyond me.

I asked for a very specific example of your original claim. You said:

the real problem comes in that Marshall/Matrix are still willing to question solutions/features which even the majority of the community thinks needs to be changed, this is a problem. This was their ORIGINAL problem too, which is why we have some craptastic EiH variation! Even more damaging then just the product is that Marshall/Matrix seems to be unable to learn from their mistakes, which is not good.

Again, very specifically, how is this true? I don't mind you saying "I still don't like the game because it doesn't have feature X or rule Y.". But I take umbrage to claims that we are not listening to the community or learning from past mistakes.

Regards,

- Erik

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Actually, I did. You said:

For starters, the entire EiH disaster. But that's really just the beginning.

And rather than doing a classic EiA as a base and building on top of that EiH is used for the base and now classic EiA is going to be a "scenario" of that? Just seems inside out to me.

That's not an answer to my question. This is just criticism of the original release and design. We _have_ listened on these issues and we have already announced plans to create a more "pure" EIA scenario. Without getting a time machine and going back to the original design and changing it, that is the only possible way to resolve this request at this point. As I said, everything cannot be done all at once, but we've acknowledged this and stated our desire and plan to address it. How this shows that we are ignoring feedback is beyond me.

I asked for a very specific example of your original claim. You said:

the real problem comes in that Marshall/Matrix are still willing to question solutions/features which even the majority of the community thinks needs to be changed, this is a problem. This was their ORIGINAL problem too, which is why we have some craptastic EiH variation! Even more damaging then just the product is that Marshall/Matrix seems to be unable to learn from their mistakes, which is not good.

Again, very specifically, how is this true? I don't mind you saying "I still don't like the game because it doesn't have feature X or rule Y.". But I take umbrage to claims that we are not listening to the community or learning from past mistakes.

Regards,

- Erik

Warspite1

Neverman - I don`t believe you. You have been moaning for god knows how long about this game - and no doubt for good reason for most (?) of the time given the amount of bugs it was released with. But when Erik asks you specifically for your comments and you have the floor - so to speak - you choose to make the most lazy, ill-considered and unhelpful response - unbelievable! Please have the good grace to respond properly to Erik and see what happens from there.

Many people, having spent good money on this game, are on your side - but your response does nothing for you or us to advance the cause.

[pzgndr]

Neverman - I don`t believe you. ...you choose to make the most lazy, ill-considered and unhelpful response - unbelievable!

Sadly, this is not surprising at all. For quite some time now, his agenda has clearly been something other than constructive criticism. He has now lost all credibility. Where he and a few others rant in a most unreasonable manner, I and many others have offered more sober and reasonable rebuttals. But to absolutely no avail. Now our Don Quixote "hero" chooses to tilt directly at the Matrix Games windmills. Current score is Erik Rutins 2, NeverMan 0. I'm stepping back with my bag of popcorn to watch how this horror show proceeds from here. As Napoleon said, "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

[Dancing Bear]

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

For your fourth point, I'm not sure how to do this as the game could tend to be slow. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on what can change...while not changing the game (ie. combining phases and such.) The EIA purists should be jumping all over this, whacking it with the "no-no" stick.

Jason

Two suggestions (that have also appeared elsewhere).
1. The game should allow some phases that re revealed simultaneously in the board game (dip and eco) to be played simultaneously in the matrix version (i.e. no need to wait for the player in front of you to do his turn before you for these phases) maybe combine a sim dip and sim eco phases.
2. Allowing players to toggle between full EIA when at war, and some sort of peace mode, as most of the time, most players are at peace, and strict adherance to the game sequence is an unnecessary hindrance. Skipping does this somewhat, but teh game should take this further with allowing players to pre-program their reinforcements during their dip phase, and select an autoforage option for the next land phase.

Originally a complete 10 year game required players to interact with the game over 3,400 times (this is the combined total for all players). Skipping reduces this to about by about a third. If the above are implemented, we get down by another third, and have a game than can be played in a year or two, instead of three to five years, which is a playable amount.

[borner]

Amen, another patron of the combined phases club has spoken! Come one come all. Meetings at the corner pub the 2nd Tuesday of the month!
 
Marshall, I fully understand you cannot get to everyone's suggestions at once. As long as you get to mine first I can let it slide!   (and for your overly sensative poeple out there.. that was a joke)
 
 

[Marshall Ellis]

Borner:
 
You're first, just not the first-first.
Will 1a do? LOL!
 

[NeverMan]

I'm pretty sure Marshall/Matrix said that in their opinion, combined phases wouldn't save any time... not nearly as much as "skipping" phases (which has saved close to ZERO time in the game I'm playing). Sorry, if I'm not being specific. [8|]

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear
Two suggestions (that have also appeared elsewhere).
1. The game should allow some phases that re revealed simultaneously in the board game (dip and eco) to be played simultaneously in the matrix version (i.e. no need to wait for the player in front of you to do his turn before you for these phases) maybe combine a sim dip and sim eco phases.
2. Allowing players to toggle between full EIA when at war, and some sort of peace mode, as most of the time, most players are at peace, and strict adherance to the game sequence is an unnecessary hindrance. Skipping does this somewhat, but teh game should take this further with allowing players to pre-program their reinforcements during their dip phase, and select an autoforage option for the next land phase.

Originally a complete 10 year game required players to interact with the game over 3,400 times (this is the combined total for all players). Skipping reduces this to about by about a third. If the above are implemented, we get down by another third, and have a game than can be played in a year or two, instead of three to five years, which is a playable amount.

Thanks DB, I've seen these general suggestions and I agree that whatever we can do to shorten PBEM without breaking everything that currently exists would be worth doing. I discussed some of these ideas with Marshall in 2008 and I know they're on his list.

Regards,

- Erik

[borner]

I can deal with 1a.... [8D]
 
yes, please, PLEASE, some phases being done together... not only is there less waiting, unless you are the host, there are less emailed files to deal with!! [;)] Seriously though, the longer the debate goes on, the more momentum combining some phases seems to be gaining. Either way you cut it, the bugs have to die first!!  

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I'm pretty sure Marshall/Matrix said that in their opinion, combined phases wouldn't save any time... not nearly as much as "skipping" phases (which has saved close to ZERO time in the game I'm playing). Sorry, if I'm not being specific. [8|]

Skipping won't save time IF you don't use it Neverman LOL!

From what I am seeing, skipping does help. You should never be waiting on the Prussian naval anymore

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I'm pretty sure Marshall/Matrix said that in their opinion, combined phases wouldn't save any time... not nearly as much as "skipping" phases (which has saved close to ZERO time in the game I'm playing). Sorry, if I'm not being specific. [8|]

Skipping won't save time IF you don't use it Neverman LOL!

From what I am seeing, skipping does help. You should never be waiting on the Prussian naval anymore

It's true, it helps in the Au and Pr naval phase (if THEY use it, which often times they don't since it's just as easy to have the host skip those turns since they are almost always in CONSTANT skip mode), so the player skipping feature doesn't really help there at all.

I don't use it because I don't like to skip my turns, unless I am AU or PR and it's the naval phase. I'm pretty sure that the game I am in (Mid 1806) no one has used this feature!

I'm glad YOU are seeing an improvement in YOUR game times. Maybe this will help make the game more enjoyable to YOU.

[Dancing Bear]

Well Neverman, the Marshall has you there.

Skipping works well when a player is at peace and nothing is going on, for instance Austria and Prussia are under enforced peace with France, and all the minors are gobbled up, why do they need a diplomacy or non-reinforcement phase? On the other hand, a player can't afford to skip when at war, so depending on where your game is, you should see more or less skipping. Perhaps there is a lot going on in your game (or everyone else is too intimidated to try).

There games out there, where if a player does not do his turn in 24 hours, the host skips his turn. These games scarifice tolerance for speed. Why not apply this same militant attitude to skipping. If you are at peace, you must continuously skip reinforcement, or other wise the host will take off a political point loss for wasting time (like an icing penalty in hockey). If you apply this rule, you might see some big gains in speed, and it is not as harsh as the 24 hour rule can be, so playing this way doesn't make the host a super bad guy.

However, don't get me wrong, I do not believe skipping is the final solution to game speed. It is just one, pretty limited tool.

[borner]

AHH!!! the powers that be seem to be interested in looking into doing phases at the same time. I may upgrade to 2.50 over that one!!!!!

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I'm glad YOU are seeing an improvement in YOUR game times. Maybe this will help make the game more enjoyable to YOU.

Now, now, Neverman! I was just sharing my observations. Am I'm allowed to share even if they are not the same as yours? LOL!

[borner]

Everyone, do not hammer on Neverman too hard. He as least has agreed to play in another game I am starting....... some people on here gripe, whine and complain but have given up playing all together.