saddened by poor interface

[mogami]

Hi, Aircraft upgrade paths are not hard coded. They are set by the scenario designer in the editor. It is easy to change the paths. What cannot be done is change paths in a game.
Also you cannot go backwards (return to a type after you've upgraded)

This most likely has to do with the AI's handling of groups and production.

I don't see why in a two human game there is any need for a path at all. (Other then remaining within a class of aircraft)

Can we put this on the wish list? (Is it hard to program "ignore all upgrade paths"? But as a side effect the human allied player would need to gain control of his aircraft production (currently it reflects the upgrade paths) So it looks more major then in sounds.

My prefered method would be start with the existing airgroups and from then on have the players generate them as they want. Check aircraft in pool, pilots in pool, go to airgroup creation menu and create an airgroup. It enters training and emerges at the proper time at a specific Home Airfield. Minor nations get their airgroups in the current fashion.

[carnifex]

Here is an example of where the interface could use a major help.

Tiny buttons make my head hurt. Literally. And I have perfect eyesight and no Parkinson's whatsoever.

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: nihilimus

Actually, I think the defensive nature of Matrix staffers is where the point is lost. It does not serve your company well to act so defensively when a portion of your audience offers suggestions.

While I agree great graphics are critical to pulling in an audience, so is usuability and much of what is being said here crashes the core of this very complex game's workflow.

Points made about easy access to maps, addition quick keys, modular windows available to the user to popup, drop, hide while seeking the data for important decisions. All of this is to streamline workflow.

Yes... Some of our less visually-oriented friends don't need that and may be happy with either writing details on a pad or trying to remember across the vast expanses of the Pacific. I -- like military leaders past -- prefer a visual representation backed by quick access to data.

Like I allready sayed earlier in this thread. All of the comments are appreciated and we definetly do not scrap them. We allways have and will appreciate comments and discussions and we often, in fact very often, have listened to our fans and customers and incoporated suggestions they made.

While I agree great graphics are critical to pulling in an audience, so is usuability

Nobody of the staff will disagree with you on that.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

You just apply a new coat of paint (graphics and sound) and you spend your time (aka money) on the stuff that REALLY matters, the design, the play, and the AI.

The manpower and time does not interfere here. And if you think that the graphic department staff does not REALLY matter in game design, then you obviously underestimate the potential graphics have on sales and on luring new blood into the market. Especially in wargaming.

If you do 3D shooter you MUST have killer graphics to keep the company alive and able to develop a new title. When you do wargames you add spicer graphics to get people from other genres attracted and interested.


But honestly, I´m very tired of this "graphics take away from gameplay development" discussions, since nobody ever acknowleges that these two departments simply don´t interfere .... [>:]

They take way when you reinvent the underlieing interface every time. FPS developers used to write their own 3D engines from scratch almost every time. I don't think many do that anymore. They even now reuse a lot of standard level design elements.

There is always a need for snazzy artwork, no matter what. Graphics are the curb appeal of any game, even a wargame. Even in business we need great splash screens and intro videos, backgrounds and such. But that snazzy eye-candy needs to sit on top standard stuff that can be reused or derived from, over and over and over again and again. "Spicer" graphics are great, so long as the lay on top of industry (and I mean overall software industry) standard UI elements.

The real problem is when the graphics BECOME the game as it is today in so many FPS and RTS games and seems to be creeping into the turn based Wargame genre as well. It is the tail wagging the dog syndrome and I see articles in the game media bemoaning that fact all the time. That's the paradigm I keep referring to. The "its just the way it is because it's always been that way".... type of thing. Problem is, most of these comments come from people who never done anything BUT game development. It's the exact same thing I alluded to in my Tandem comment in another post and Mogami made in his post concerning the map.

And before you jump on that one in my perspective, you'd miss. We incorporate quite a lot of ideas from the entertainment software industry in our own work. It took a long time, but we use a LOT of game-style graphics in our work now. Time was, we didn't, and that was our mistake! I think you folks make the same fundemental error of ignoring the latest developments from the business world by falling back on the old "...you just don't understand..." mantra.

[Captain Cruft]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck
Like I allready sayed earlier in this thread. All of the comments are appreciated and we definetly do not scrap them. We allways have and will appreciate comments and discussions and we often, in fact very often, have listened to our fans and customers and incoporated suggestions they made.

I'm sure this is true. However what would be really really good for both company and customers is if you were to produce a list of ideas that you have taken on board. This would just serve to quantify and clarify things; it would not imply any commitment to implement anything.

A simple text or HTML file would do ...

Oh and the same thing for bugs would be even better [8|]

[Marc von Martial]

They take way when you reinvent the underlieing interface every time.

Do we?

seems to be creeping into the turn based Wargame genre as well.

Care to give any examples ?

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck
Like I allready sayed earlier in this thread. All of the comments are appreciated and we definetly do not scrap them. We allways have and will appreciate comments and discussions and we often, in fact very often, have listened to our fans and customers and incoporated suggestions they made.

I'm sure this is true. However what would be really really good for both company and customers is if you were to produce a list of ideas that you have taken on board. This would just serve to quantify and clarify things; it would not imply any commitment to implement anything.

A simple text or HTML file would do ...

Oh and the same thing for bugs would be even better [8|]

We do this internally, we don´t have the staff to make this public.

[Spooky]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Aircraft upgrade paths are not hard coded. They are set by the scenario designer in the editor. It is easy to change the paths. What cannot be done is change paths in a game.
Also you cannot go backwards (return to a type after you've upgraded)

This most likely has to do with the AI's handling of groups and production.

I don't see why in a two human game there is any need for a path at all. (Other then remaining within a class of aircraft)

Can we put this on the wish list? (Is it hard to program "ignore all upgrade paths"? But as a side effect the human allied player would need to gain control of his aircraft production (currently it reflects the upgrade paths) So it looks more major then in sounds.

My prefered method would be start with the existing airgroups and from then on have the players generate them as they want. Check aircraft in pool, pilots in pool, go to airgroup creation menu and create an airgroup. It enters training and emerges at the proper time at a specific Home Airfield. Minor nations get their airgroups in the current fashion.

I would love this feature for "airgroup creation" to be implemented in WITP ... and the "hard-coded in the scenario" plane upgrade path disabled.

BTW, I do not believe that it implies a player-controlled allied plane production since the allied plane production was mainly dedicated to the War in Europe ...

[mogami]

Hi, You can get a quick idea just by booting up UV and then WITP. However I don't recall a major issue with interface. The current system was what was always being considered when changes were made. Even all the posters that wanted WITP to go in other directions skipped over the interface. (Their projected changes would utilize the current interface as well)

However you can also boot up High Way to the Reich. Interface is nothing like UV/WITP so it is not a Matrix thing. When you team up with a writer you don't start by telling him to change his methods. I clearly see the 2 sides here and understand them both.

If you were to begin an entirley new project using brand new people I would expect "state of the art" However when a large portion of your buyers would buy the product sight unseen because of the designers past products then...........I don't know if the other interface is better. I like that phrase "more intutive" because WITP is more intutive for persons used to GG/DOS games while windows is confusing and the situation is reversed for person used to windows when they see the present interface. I was able to 100 percent operate the game from the moment I installed the first version. I still have trouble getting newer versions of Windows to do what I want them to. (I hate XP)

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: nihilimus
Actually, I think the defensive nature of Matrix staffers is where the point is lost. It does not serve your company well to act so defensively when a portion of your audience offers suggestions.

Unfortunately this happens in a lot of game fora and usually it's nothing to do with the staff but over-zealous fans. It's also made worse by the tone and aggressiveness of criticism. It then degenerates to a personal level where even good points made by posters fall on deaf ears.

[Tige]

ORIGINAL: Mogami
I guess when I helped make the map. OOB, and looked at the map for 2 years it never occured to me that other players would not instantly understand the weres and whats as they watch a turn resolve. By habit I check every unit that egages in combat and can tell what effect the previous turn had. I know where Coast Watchers are located and when the turn is running I know what they are seeing. (As the sighting occurs I decide what my reaction during my orders phase will be)

It is difficult to find a way to convince you that some day all these added features would be more clutter then use. WITP is not a casual game. There is a vast amount of input for players to absorb and utilize. However for players watching a turn resolve who are watching "Their Plan" evolve much is understood automaticlly. When one of my TF is sighted 20 hexes from nearest land by an enemy carrier type aircraft I do not need a giant red x placed on the map so I can remember it. If I first take the time to study the situation I understand where certain enemy forces are going to or coming from when I sight them. This is not an attempt to justify the ommision of your desired player aids. Only my explanation for why I never brought them up in testing. They never occured to me.

I understand where you are coming from as the more I play the more familiar I am with certain locations and chokepoints. I too will plan ops durning the resolution phase and having your CV(s) spotted within striking distance of Rabaul is something I don't need to be continually reminded of .

It is not so much a player aid I'm requesting with certain maps and charts. It is just a more efficient way of doing things, again, thats why war rooms have maps, not bookcases . If you take each turn individually and react as the resolution unfolds you may or may not be over-reacting. This would become more evident in a PBEM game. Visualizing your coastwatcher and/or recon results on a chart you can link events together over weeks or months. Is that convoy you spotted a couple of times headed South down an island chain just bringing supplies to keep a small outpost operational or are they linking up with the surface combat ships reportedly headed their direction from the West? This may or may not seem like a unrelated event but after a couple of days it is much easier to interpet movement on a chart than a clipboard.

Seeing your own plan unfold is easy, it is trying to see your enemy's plan unfold is where the ability to visualize the big picture becomes important. This is where the stacks of paper bogs you down, scrolling through the sigint and coastwatcher reports then locating them on the map etc etc. All of this is can be much, much more efficiently done via one map with the ability to layer certain bits of information on it.

Seeing a chart with all sighting reports can give time to track, evaluate the accuracy and meaning of what you are confronted with.

-Tige

[Black Cat]

I wonder if some of the non Matrix programming types who have contributed so much, for so long, to this thread could design a utility or 2 so we can pull the much desired info out of the Game for review by Alt-Tab out.

John McDonnel did a nifty little one that`s on Spooky`s site that archives all the Signet reports allowing you to review and even print them out from the desktop.

One that lists all your air units current strength and losses by day would be one that could be helpful.[8D]

[mogami]

Hi, Don't you tink part of it is simply the product is finished and now all the "I could have done it betters" appear? UV was in development for 2 years. There was an open forum. WITP required another 2 years with an open forum. (And WITP reflects a vast amount of inpput from these forums) And now that it is out people express saddness that the finished product is exactly what it has always claimed it would be. We are told we don't listen or we close our ears. Everyone knew who the designer was. Many of us expected the interface to be exactly what it is. Many of us have no problem with "might have been"
If a person knows how to do it better but also knows exactly what another programmer always does "wheres the beef"?

[Captain Cruft]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck
Like I allready sayed earlier in this thread. All of the comments are appreciated and we definetly do not scrap them. We allways have and will appreciate comments and discussions and we often, in fact very often, have listened to our fans and customers and incoporated suggestions they made.

I'm sure this is true. However what would be really really good for both company and customers is if you were to produce a list of ideas that you have taken on board. This would just serve to quantify and clarify things; it would not imply any commitment to implement anything.

A simple text or HTML file would do ...

Oh and the same thing for bugs would be even better [8|]

We do this internally, we don´t have the staff to make this public.

OK, well I'm a little sceptical that's the real reason but whatever. I do think it would do immense good in the community though ... and now I'm going to shut up [:)]

Except to say that I am absolutely certain I could not do better ... and thanks for an awesome creation.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck



Can you please explain me how an actuall answer to a question by you that obviously also answers it can be "smartassed" [&:] ?

Easy. I don't expect to EVER be told, directly, by support staff, to RTFM. I would FIRE any of my support technicians here if I EVER got even a remote INKLING they were talking to a customer like that. There is a way you inform poeple about where in the manual a certain item is without slapping them in the face with a ignorant RTFM comment. It's not appreciated and I, for one, will not tolerate being talked to like the four year child.

I find it hard to believe you cannot tell that that is poor customer service and where someone can be highly offended by RTFM like comments. I KNOW how stupid I am concerning this game, I don't need thin-skinned beta-tester to slap me in the face with it.

He didn´t directly and only sayed RTFM. He even gave you an answer to your "complaint".

Frag is not customer service, he´s a member of thuis community, helping and answering peoples questions beyond duty. For years!

Just have to say it amazes me how Mr. Frag goes out of his way to help us crazy WITP fans so unselfishly for so long. I would have gone bzonkers by now. If he gets a little flustered once and a while I dont blame him at all and all I want to say is thank you and keep up the great work!!!! He problably should have said RTFM to me many times and im sure lots of others would say the same!!! [:D]

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

They take way when you reinvent the underlieing interface every time.

Do we?

seems to be creeping into the turn based Wargame genre as well.

Care to give any examples ?

I apologize for not being able to articulate my points very well. You stated before the graphics and UI widget development never interferes? I simply don't get that. May be a semantics problem here. I'm not talking about the combat animations, the opening splash screen and movie here. I'm taking about the game dialogs and their component GUI widgets. Those UI widgets that collect and present information to the user.

If I use a standard Windows GUI dialog as developed using the Visual Studio diaglog editor, in order to customize it, and make it look like a "game" UI element and not something out of Microsoft Word, I would expect the graphics department to have a huge array of, themes, images, brushes and the sort to create the "Motif" my game wants to present, available for me to use in generating ListBoxes, ComboBoxes, Pushbuttoms all with the ownerdrawn flag set and then paint them accordingly. All VERY easy to do using MFC, wxWidgets, Fox, etc.... I can pretty much recreate the WitP diaglog motif right now using standard WIN32 stuff.

Graphics get in the way, by convincing the staff that WIN32 Widgets won't cut it, they want to roll their own, because either they feel they are better able to create the "feel" or simply because, as you stated, doing bitmap buttons, and textured dialog background is "boring" and you don't want a "boring" job. Either way, if that happens, the tail has just wagged the dog!


And my example of all the "candy" invading wargames is all the DirectX stuff in WitP. I can play MPEG video, MP3 files, display a UI, etc.. all without having to use DirectX because while all that stuff is "nice" it has very little to do with the appeal of the game. This is NOT EverQuest II, it is, as one poster stated, a database editting excersise!

And why, again, does a database editting application have to eat up 200MB RAM and peg my CPU at 100%, 100% of the time? I can't seem to figure that one out at all?

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, You can get a quick idea just by booting up UV and then WITP. However I don't recall a major issue with interface. The current system was what was always being considered when changes were made. Even all the posters that wanted WITP to go in other directions skipped over the interface. (Their projected changes would utilize the current interface as well)

However you can also boot up High Way to the Reich. Interface is nothing like UV/WITP so it is not a Matrix thing. When you team up with a writer you don't start by telling him to change his methods. I clearly see the 2 sides here and understand them both.

If you were to begin an entirley new project using brand new people I would expect "state of the art" However when a large portion of your buyers would buy the product sight unseen because of the designers past products then...........I don't know if the other interface is better. I like that phrase "more intutive" because WITP is more intutive for persons used to GG/DOS games while windows is confusing and the situation is reversed for person used to windows when they see the present interface. I was able to 100 percent operate the game from the moment I installed the first version. I still have trouble getting newer versions of Windows to do what I want them to. (I hate XP)

Always well put and eloquently spoken. Yes, it is truely a matter of "perspective". The two sides can meet, however. I can easily make Windows code look like anything BUT a Windows App just as you guys can make nonWindows UI's look a lot like Windows. One involves using the OWNERDRAWN flag and its associated WIN32 Event stream, an industry standard, and one involves using something unique. Not a problem, I suppose, if you intend on resuing the UI in dozens of new titles over the years, even if you'd have to train a new programmer in how to code it with every new hire.....

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Don't you tink part of it is simply the product is finished and now all the "I could have done it betters" appear? UV was in development for 2 years. There was an open forum. WITP required another 2 years with an open forum. (And WITP reflects a vast amount of inpput from these forums) And now that it is out people express saddness that the finished product is exactly what it has always claimed it would be. We are told we don't listen or we close our ears. Everyone knew who the designer was. Many of us expected the interface to be exactly what it is. Many of us have no problem with "might have been"
If a person knows how to do it better but also knows exactly what another programmer always does "wheres the beef"?

Yes, I don't think the "I can do better" attitude helps at all, though a UI is not something which is typically known until one uses it. It's impossible to determine how a game plays from screenshots and descriptions. Further, I'm not really sure if customers should be expected to follow a 2 year design in order to have the "right" to post comments. If the risk of offense is so great, then really posting rights should be reserved only for those qualified to have shown enough interest prior to release

However, the thread began with some very general comments about what some obviously see as a weakness in the game design and promptly fell apart from there. Funnily enough, the same thing happened in the AI thread, and in threads all over the internet. A combination of fans being less over-sensitive to their sacred cow being criticised, and other fans's aggresive second guessing ensures that most of the 5 pages here are pretty worthless.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Don't you tink part of it is simply the product is finished and now all the "I could have done it betters" appear? UV was in development for 2 years. There was an open forum. WITP required another 2 years with an open forum. (And WITP reflects a vast amount of inpput from these forums) And now that it is out people express saddness that the finished product is exactly what it has always claimed it would be. We are told we don't listen or we close our ears. Everyone knew who the designer was. Many of us expected the interface to be exactly what it is. Many of us have no problem with "might have been"
If a person knows how to do it better but also knows exactly what another programmer always does "wheres the beef"?

I have to agree with this to a point. We love to pick things apart. It's part of being anally-retentative grogs... Some get taken aback, though, by the rather significant amount of defensiveness by Matrix staffers when some question their methods. Most of what I see in threads like this one are not so much as criticisms of this game, but in the general nature of this particular aspect (in this case the UI), and are mostly intended for digestion and incorporation into the next major project to come along. I certainly expect no radical alteration to the way WitP plays or looks. It's a done deal, and it does what it does the way it does it. It's success will be ultimately decided by how much money its investors make off of it.

The next one doesn't have to adhere to this one's approach at all, though.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: nihilimus
Actually, I think the defensive nature of Matrix staffers is where the point is lost. It does not serve your company well to act so defensively when a portion of your audience offers suggestions.

While I agree great graphics are critical to pulling in an audience, so is usuability and much of what is being said here crashes the core of this very complex game's workflow.

Points made about easy access to maps, addition quick keys, modular windows available to the user to popup, drop, hide while seeking the data for important decisions. All of this is to streamline workflow.

Yes... Some of our less visually-oriented friends don't need that and may be happy with either writing details on a pad or trying to remember across the vast expanses of the Pacific. I -- like military leaders past -- prefer a visual representation backed by quick access to data.

Since I was one of the first to reply I thought I should throw in a few more pennies. I've been reading this thread very closely, not looking for problems but absorbing all of your suggestions. We have a very small staff (buy more games! [;)]) and until we expand, there's simply not enough time to post back on everything. However, there are at least three people going through these suggestions. What we can do in future revisions is not up to me, but we are definitely watching, listening and as always we will try our best to continue improving the title after release.

Honestly, I was interested in the suggestions from the first post and remain so, I just couldn't agree with the idea that not much had changed since the original PacWar.

Regards,

- Erik