Testing WITE

[KenchiSulla]

So, you get excellent customer support on an already good and potentially great, classic game and you complain that they made you pay?

I am confused

[marty_01]

[&:] Who's complaining? I think you need to read the thread in it's entirety. Someone suggested that DNO was somehow perfect right out of the box -- their subsequent argument being if DNO was perfect out of the box why isn't WiTE perfect right out of the box. The reality is DNO was not perfect right out of the box -- thus the GDW issued errata.

[saintsup]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi
For a game the historical results should be the average result.

I fully and respectfully disagree.

For me the purpose of a good game design is to make as good a modelization of real life (from the point of view of one type of actor, for exemple OKH chief of staff) as possible or funny to play.
This allows you to face the same choices, limitations, dilemas of this actor.

There is absolutly no chance that the real history (which is only one sample)is the most probable result of this model.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: saintsup


For me the purpose of a good game design is to make as good a modelization of real life (from the point of view of one type of actor, for exemple OKH chief of staff) as possible or funny to play.
This allows you to face the same choices, limitations, dilemas of this actor.

There is absolutly no chance that the real history (which is only one sample)is the most probable result of this model.

Exactly. Very well expressed.

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: marty_01

[&:] Who's complaining? I think you need to read the thread in it's entirety. Someone suggested that DNO was somehow perfect right out of the box -- their subsequent argument being if DNO was perfect out of the box why isn't WiTE perfect right out of the box. The reality is DNO was not perfect right out of the box -- thus the GDW issued errata.

I think you should reread the OP. If that is not complaining I dont know what is...

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Well,

the game is interesting, but as long as it has the major problems i will not buy it (and i bought nearly all other games about the eastern front)

why?

it is simple....

the aproach to the historical results are broken (nobody needs to be offended, just my pov)
why?
For a game the historical results should be the average result. So in the east 1941 a average axis player should reach nearly the same front lines and the same results, if played historically. Same is true for the russian side.
If it is nearly impossible to get as far as the axis did AND the game needs to tweak hard coded better results by the blizzard, it is not good. Point. I bet the crew had a lot very good points about it. But for the people who want to play, both sides should have the chance to do BETTER as historical results.

In the moment everything i read say that the germans are dead after winter, cause the army is anhilated...
maybe they do not tell the truth, because i do not play the game i can only share the experiences they describe.

Sure, we have 20/20... but this is true for both sides... axis players try to avoid the german mistakes and russian players try to avoid the russian mistakes.
Why do we need strange rules that kill the fun and the playability (for the axis side) of the game?

If someone belive, the evil nazis had only luck and in normal circumstances, they should have gone only as far as kiew (or in the case of german wehrmacht-fans, that the russians under all circumstances should be destroyed after 10 weeks) he is wrong.

My opinion is, the players should find out the best way to perform better...

and this game is - as far as i see it so unbalanced, that the historical german results are "near perfect with big mistakes by russian player"... so i have no interest in it. Sadly, i need to wait until "Generals edition" or even for WitE-2
But the big problem with the game will be repeated in WitW, if the team thinks that the historical result is not "average" outcome.

it isn´t important if someone belive that the result x is right or wrong - but in the moment nearly all (!) russian AND axis players stop the aars in the blizzard.

I was really disappointed that the weather was even worse to WitP (here we have more weather-zones). I hoped for weather-result for each hex instead of zones but i was shocked about the "one weather for all"-Result.
That is - honestly - silly. In the northern area (leningrad) it could be cold with snow and ice and in the southern area it is mud. Even in summer it should be mud, wet,clear, dusty.... in an area about 5-10 hexes...
With blizzard all about the map the gc is not playable... because if you tone down the weather you make a big mistake, but if you do it the way it is, it is also a big mistake.
can´t say that i know how difficulty it is to redo the weather in the game. But to belive that in 2000km distance the weather is the same is , err, i can´t and i won´t say the words.

Many other things are not customer-friendly, but can be solved. But not so the weather-problem, esp. with blizzard.

So, if someone is frustrated because he give a lot money and can´t play the most interesting scenario, this is a major problem.

The good thing is, that matrix does listen to the users and do solve problems (if they can solve them) so this part of the critism is utterly wrong. Matrix is a company with extremly well known behaviour

So i hope for winter 2011, maybe in this time the game is playable (Grand Scenario!, not the smaller scenarios.... they will work, but they are not my interests for this game (i think they are a nice addon to the "real" game (GC 1941))

But i waited 10 years, so i can wait another one

I don't think it will take 10 years to acheive the balance in the game between playability and realism. There is an incredibly large number of game players out there, and I think there will now be more focus on post Dec 5, 1941 scenarios. When the winter scenario is fixed, I expect another surge in interest in the Grand Campaign. Realistically, the more constructive criticism from players trying out major sections of the campaign (with fixes), the faster the game will converge to most people's likeing. What is most dissapointing to me after reading the AARs for almost a year now is the dearth of games covering the 1942+ scenarios. Whether the German Army could or could not take Moscow in 1942 with an all-out effort is one of the most interesting questions of the war. This was more likely to happen in my opinion than Moscow falling in 1941. I think the game will only become a master-piece when the 1942 scenarios become as interesting to most players as the 1941 ones. After all, in a realistic simulation/game, don't you expect to Russians to still be effectively fighting into 1942?

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Part of the issue is the definition of "winning" is different depending on who you ask. If the Germans can't outright defeat the Russians a good percentage of the time, then some will feel the game is "broken" because in their view, they feel the Germans should have been able to do this. Those that feel this way have no interest in measuring German "victory" by how long it takes the Russians to capture Berlin by the end of the game (if they do at all). In addition, this type of player is likely to quit after it becomes clear that the Germans can't win outright. The Russian version of victory is a little more clear cut and that is can you do better than historical to force the Axis out of the war?

The Pacific side is far more clear cut as most Japanese players know they can't win an outright victory and are fine with "victory" as defined by how well the Allies do compared to the time line.

In reality, the German chances for outright victory in the east would have been fairly low although I rate them higher than the chances of Japan to win an outright victory in the Pacific. The chances of a negotiated settlement on the eastern front were higher during 1941/first part of 42 and Stalin even considered this according to one source I have seen recently, but of course Hitler wanted no part of a settlement when he thought the Germans were close to victory. The game doesn't reflect this and I don't know that it should since the Axis player is not playing the role of Hitler and there are other political reasons the Nazi's would have likely never accepted a settlement short of what they planned for Russia anyway.

Bottom line is German players expecting a 40-50% chance of outright victory are deluding themselves. They need to look at the victory conditions and play accordingly.

The game should still be enjoyable/worth playing even if there is a very small chance of absolute German victory. I would think the Germans should be able to attack against the Russians very effectively through 1942, even if the Russians have 2 million more men. The German infantry and panzer quality, if not wiped out in the game, should have still given them overall superiority. In the game case, Hitler's insane strategies would have no effect and the German Army would be guided by rational thinking. In WitP/AE, this is like the expectation that the Japanese will be on the offensive for the first 6 months of the war, if not longer. The Japanese Army and Navy had no unified strategy and did not optimize using the forces they had. They knew there was no way of "winning" the war, but started the war hoping from some type of favorable armistice. The German Army must accept a similar appraisal. This does not mean the German Army should not be fun to play the first three years of the war, and some type of pseudo-victory would not be obtainable.

[bdtj1815]

ORIGINAL: marty_01

[&:] Who's complaining? I think you need to read the thread in it's entirety. Someone suggested that DNO was somehow perfect right out of the box -- their subsequent argument being if DNO was perfect out of the box why isn't WiTE perfect right out of the box. The reality is DNO was not perfect right out of the box -- thus the GDW issued errata.

No!! I think that if you are referring to my comments comparing DNO/WITE you really are being very literal, and probably must be American, stupid or unable to follow an argument (tautology?). Much of what I wrote in my original message has proven to be contentious, but has also attracted a level of support.

But it is annoying that your comments so mis-represent my initial post, as has happened so often in this thread. WITE is a very good game, but could have been so much better, and should have been on release if it had been tested properly. Not as is now happening by the people who spent £70+ pounds buying it without being warned that it was, in effect, a beta release needing someone to work out how to get it all right. TOE/Exp correcting patch?, was it the third or fourth I forget as so much has been patched in just 12 weeks (less time than it took the Wehrmacht to reach Borodino) just as an example.

[Wild]

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

ORIGINAL: marty_01

[&:] Who's complaining? I think you need to read the thread in it's entirety. Someone suggested that DNO was somehow perfect right out of the box -- their subsequent argument being if DNO was perfect out of the box why isn't WiTE perfect right out of the box. The reality is DNO was not perfect right out of the box -- thus the GDW issued errata.

No!! I think that if you are referring to my comments comparing DNO/WITE you really are being very literal, and probably must be American, stupid or unable to follow an argument (tautology?). Much of what I wrote in my original message has proven to be contentious, but has also attracted a level of support. But it is annoying that your comments so mis-represent my initial post, as has happened so often in this thread. WITE is a very good game, but could have been so much better, and could have been on release if it had been tested properly. Not as is now happening by the people who spent £70+ pounds buying it without being warned that it was, in effect, a beta release needing someone to work out how to get it all right. TOE/Exp patch? just as a beginning.

It has been pointed out to you repeatedly, that a small company like 2by3 does not have the resources to playtest and balance a game of this complexity to the standard you seem to be looking for, without releasing it to the public and then making improvements on the feed back they receive.
What is so hard to understand about this?
And then you imply others are stupid. Wow.

[Aurelian]

Wow indeed. I remember comments about Paradox games. How the manual was better used as toilet paper. Or how something like HOI wasn't even playable until ver 1.05.

I don't see anything like that being said about 2by3.

[bdtj1815]

Sorry, the stupid comment only referred to a particularly "stupid", and close to illiterate, post.

I have no idea whether 2by3 is two teenagers in a basement or a company who could challenge Microsoft on the FTSE 100, but Matrix has a pretty professional looking website which took my credit card details and money very fast and efficiently.

All I commented on was that charging £70+ for a game that was not ready for release is unfortunate. If this is true: "It has been pointed out to you repeatedly, that a small company like 2by3 does not have the resources to playtest and balance a game of this complexity" maybe they should not expect people to pay such large amounts of money for an amateur product.

It's unreadiness for release is proven by the fact that there have been six patches released in three months, not to mention now probably dozens of posts on this forum about many issues. Yet again I will state that I think that WITE has all the makings of a great game but on release was flawed and that I think it is unfortunate that it appears that it is the people who have bought it who are are the one's expected to correct it by their comments and suggestions.

I am sorry if this is seen to be negative but I do not buy games to play, in my limited spare time, that I then find out after expending many hours, and that is more important to me than money actually, that "however well you do in the first ?? turns you will be "f***ed" in the next 14" because we never really tested this because we are a small company, but we charge big/biggest money.

My present pbem opponent playing the Soviets is, graciously, suggesting "house-rules" to get us through the "BLIZZARD" so we might have a playable game into 1942.

Should "house-rules" such as this, already being suggested on this forum and receiving support be necessary?

[Aurelian]

2 By 3 Games was founded by three game industry veterans, Gary Grigsby, Joel Billings
and Keith Brors.

Now you know.

[Michael T]

bdtj1815 your observations are nothing new. This has been the trend in niche gaming for a number of years. There are not millions of players (hence potential revenue) to justify prolonged testing by a large team on this subject matter. This is life. Go try Warcraft or something similar if you want the level of quality control you seek. If you want a really bad example just ask anyone who has been on the EIA train (including yours truely). Now that is a wreck. WITE is a good game as it stands. It will only get better with postitive contributions by all concerned i.e. players, testers and developers. There is no other game on this subject around nor likely to be in the near future. Many of us have been waiting years for such a game. Negative comments only diminish the potential sales base and hence directly the potential development of the game and any other titles that it may spawn. In short if you are a wargamer then attacking 2By3 is really shooting yourself in the foot. Play the game, enjoy it and help correct the problems. [:)]

This view goes for many of the other complainers/whingers as well.

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815
No!! I think that if you are referring to my comments comparing DNO/WITE you really are being very literal, and probably must be American, stupid or unable to follow an argument (tautology?).

So it's the Americans here that are the problem? Ya know...stupid and unable to follow an argument? It's prolly a good time for you to put the shovel down. The hole's plenty deep.

[2ndACR]

2by3 is the Holy Grail of war gaming designers. They are the best, always have been the best since the C64 days of long ago.

bdtj1815,

I have seen your comments, have answered your comments. You cannot name a single game that has been released in the last 10 years that was free of bugs/issues. Not a single one. All games have them. The key is, are they fixed? Many game companies release 1 maybe 2 patches and that is all she wrote. Not 2by3, support continues for a long time. It is also very very rare to even get to see a designer active on a gaming forum, 2by3 are active. We get to talk to the designer, he answers us, he listens to us, and even will act upon our concerns. No other game company that I can even think of has given that kind of support. That is why they continue to get my money (much to my wifes moans).

[bdtj1815]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

2 By 3 Games was founded by three game industry veterans, Gary Grigsby, Joel Billings
and Keith Brors.

Now you know.

Actually I know nothing more than I knew before! Gary Grigsby I have obviously heard of, Joel Billings I have seen posting on this forum and Keith Brors I have never heard of.

[bdtj1815]

ORIGINAL: bcgames

So it's the Americans here that are the problem? Ya know...stupid and unable to follow an argument?

Well you said it, not me.

[Senno]

If only it were the '70's and products were released to customers after perfect development periods like in the good old days.[:D]

Oopd, my bad. Did the Pinto come with a disclaimer?[;)] Warning: Drop Tank, try not to get rear-ended if at all possible.[X(]

I don't know of many computer games that don't patch. Well, abandonware doesn't, I suppose. But most if not all new games do. I suppose the whole industry needs a disclaimer, as they pretty much all patch, damn them. The only thing your post is evidence of is that you play very few games on the computer. The world has changed since the '70's, sorry.

However, an alternative view is that it is good customer service by responsive devs. And, we are waiting on the game between BigA and Speedy (Official Testers), not coerced customers[:'(] to gather data to see what fixes for the blizzard might be necessary. You also don't have to patch or use house rules graciously provided by a Tester, that may be used if desired.

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815
No!! I think that if you are referring to my comments comparing DNO/WITE you really are being very literal, and probably must be American, stupid or unable to follow an argument (tautology?).

[/quote]

ORIGINAL: bcgames

So it's the Americans here that are the problem? Ya know...stupid and unable to follow an argument?

Well you said it, not me.

No. You said it. And your attempt to edit your original post to change what you have said, is strike three, Troll. Should have edited it before he captured the screenshot.

[bdtj1815]

[quote]ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

2by3 is the Holy Grail of war gaming designers. They are the best, always have been the best since the C64 days of long ago.

bdtj1815,

I have seen your comments, have answered your comments. You cannot name a single game that has been released in the last 10 years that was free of bugs/issues.



Possibly not, but I can name many wargames that have been released that have not required six patches in three months that mean that the many hours spent in that time have been effectively wasted gaming time. The number of people now saying on this forum that they are giving up on games, or more worryingly the game, or have finished their AArs' must surely suggest that not all is right.

Must I again repeat that I think so much is great about this game but it is flawed, no one can surely question that fact, and that is so disappointing.