saddened by poor interface

[SunDevil_MatrixForum]

Mogami

Do not wear yourself out, you still need to write some AARs in the future. Pace yourself, pace yourself..... [:D]

[CommC]

It may be too late for major changes to WitP, but the frustrating part is that all of these suggestions, for bigger buttons, more user friendly displays, more information more readily available to the player, were made when UV came out and as WitP was in development two years ago. All these suggestions and requests from players were summarily and completely ignored.

[mogami]

Hi, Well I take exception to that post. I don't think a person has to search very hard to find features that were suggested by players of UV as desired improvements to WITP.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I've been here before. Nothing to do with the UI issue it's that other issue that divides gamers. I've struggled to define it before and so will likely fail here as well but prehaps someone will see what I mean and be able to choose the correct verbage to express it.

There are players who are not concerned with winning a game. They are more interested in the experiance win or lose. They are after several things enlightenment prehaps. One of their major complaints in the past has always been the outcome of the war is produced by built in conditions and not game play. (Call it conduct of the war) There is no chance to alter anything. Sure they can win a battle here or there or even the game from time to time but only as a result of luck (usally in the form of an opponenet or AI that is exploited rather then the game mastered) These players do not mind doing the dirty work. The really hard work af planning and co-ordination. They don't quit the game in adverse situations because they are enjoying the experiance. All they ask is an honest game.


Then there are the players who really want to win. Often they want to reverse the verdict of history and win with the side that lost. But they want to be in charge of the battles and have the program handle the details. (basically "First with the most" is their motto. ) They are not interested in details (also known as the "click fest") They want action. The most important things are being able to organize everything in a short time so they can fight the war.

I'm not the one to judge the merits of either since what makes a person play wargames and where they find enjoyment is personal and a matter of taste not correctness.

Now it is often supposed that Grognard means stickler for detail. That is only a side effect.
A Grognard is a player loyal to the class of game in the historical department but also who follows particular companies and designers. A Grognard buys products from his company by his designer sight unseen.
UV/WITP were designed with the Grognard from the start. Grognard testers and a forum that had a few Grognards watch dogging and questioning every rating, map hex. No project can ever be all inclusive or it will never be complete. A lot of Grognard desires were left out. A lot of non Grognard items were introduced.

The final result is something that will make a very few people very happy. Be playable with reservations to more and something uncomprehsable to many.
I don't think a game can actually have too many details for a Grognard (as long as they actually have some impact no matter how slight) There are players who in a strange way are searching for some sort of truth. In a game of pure mathematics where combat is a product of weaponsxnumbers a lot of history is ungamable. Can a game on Antietam ever be honestly done and have play balance? DOes anyone suppose that had they been in place of McClellan the war would have continued much past Sept 18 1862? But there are players who would want a game on that subject to not only allow a victory for the south but allow them to destroy the Army of the Potomac. Could a Grognard design or play such a game? The Southern player would almost have to be one who was able to pay attention to detail. The actual result was a testament to the tactical skill of the Confederate command. That they could achive a draw was astounding. Few players of such a game would even begin one with that as their objective but given the hindsight any Union player would have oonly a host of built in restrictions could save even the most skilled Southern player. Yet there are those who would willingly play the South every game while others considered it a one sided waste of time.

I'm struggling here to explain that their are persons who think the value is in the detail. Detail is tedious and boring. But they would refuse a program feature that told them what to do, how to interpt the detail. And then there are players who would be happy if from time to time the program issued them orders "attack Saipan, use these forces. Everything is organized and ready"

Interface means something different to me. Now I admit it is because I have grown use to the present system and I can make it do what I want and understand it. I might like a new interface better. That has never been what I am trying to say. My point was my focus was on having the detail present in a form I could access. Since this exists I am happy. Less detail better interface would be for me a step backwards. No more detail and yet still better interface would be nice but I have always known exactly wat the interface was going to be like and never did it cross my mind to engage in improving it rather then busy myself with getting as much detail included in a managable form.

Does ungainly mean the same thing as unmanagable? It is good we have person expert in UI on the forum and I sincerly hope they are able to impact future designs. If this is the intent then it is a benifit. If however UI is being used to explain results then I do not conncur. I know this to be true not because I can't handle critism but because I myself find the UI easy to use and more then sufficent for allowing me to gather the data, manipulate the detail and mange the game. Not once has a poor tactical result provoked in me the feeling "stupid interface is to blame"

All games in my experiance are both strange, bewildering and wonderful early on. Many games I thought unplayable because of their complexity I now look on as the work of the simple minded. WITP after 2 years still produces in me wonder and awe and promises me such exploratiion that I am afraid I will never be able to completly plumb it's depth.

Again, good articulation of the issue. While I have been more critical of underlying developmental choices, I have held steadfastly that this is a great game for ALL types of wargamers. The developers have tried to strike a delicate balance by allowing the player to let the computer take care of vast amounts of detail or let the player do it. The problem is, very few trust the computer to take care of the details well enough for their satisfaction, so even though they would like to let it handle things, they don't, and that leads to frustration.

When we see the AI (or whatever you call it) take the auto-convoy TF's right through Japanese held bases it makes one distrustful of the computer controlled parts of the game. I would be more than happy to just let the Japanese aircraft production take care of itself, but after that masterpiece the other day on Japanese aircraft production, I became convinced the default management wasn't very good.....so yet another detail I'd rather ignore I felt I had to dig into.

There are times, I swear, that reading the forum too much, makes the game LESS enjoyable, kind of from an "Ignorance is Bliss" sort of thing. It's like medical professionals make the WORST patients. They simply know too much. I was content to let the computer control aircraft production, but one glance at one thread, ended that contentment forever....

[CommC]

Yes, certainly, many player suggestions since the UV days have been incorporated into WitP, but I think most would agree that many interface-related suggestions have been on the table a long time, and have been largly ignored by the WitP dev team.

[Grotius]

I don't agree, CommC. I liked the interface in UV, and the devs have implemented big improvements in most of the things I didn't like. It's now a lot easier to examine and sort air groups by fatigue and morale. Mousing over a TF now provides much more info on TF load, home, and destination. I'd still like a few more keyboard shortcuts, but for whatever reason, WiTP actually feels less mouse-centered to me than UV.

Moreover, the UI is really a minor concern for me. I can learn any reasonable interface. What counts is gameplay and features. WiTP has both of these in spades. I think maybe folks should chill out and fire up the game. We've got the best computer wargame ever made in our hands now. Let's go enjoy it.

[Bodhi]

ORIGINAL: Grotius
We've got the best computer wargame ever made in our hands now. Let's go enjoy it.

Probably the correct attitude. [;)] I'm sure most will eventually find a way of working with, or around, the UI. At the end of the day it IS a superb game. Maybe time to go and hunt out some unaccompanied transports.

[Panzer76]

ORIGINAL: Mogami
There are players who are not concerned with winning a game. They are more interested in the experience win or lose. They are after several things enlightenment perhaps. One of their major complaints in the past has always been the outcome of the war is produced by built in conditions and not game play. (Call it conduct of the war) There is no chance to alter anything. Sure they can win a battle here or there or even the game from time to time but only as a result of luck (usually in the form of an opponent or AI that is exploited rather then the game mastered) These players do not mind doing the dirty work. The really hard work at planning and coordination. They don't quit the game in adverse situations because they are enjoying the experience. All they ask is an honest game.

Then there are the players who really want to win. Often they want to reverse the verdict of history and win with the side that lost. But they want to be in charge of the battles and have the program handle the details. (basically "First with the most" is their motto). They are not interested in details (also known as the "click fest") They want action. The most important things are being able to organize everything in a short time so they can fight the war.

I think this divison is way too simplistic. Most people have traits froom both of the "groups" you desciribe. And how does wanting to win turn into a wish for a click feast game [&:]

The thing I have been driving for all the time is not to dumb the game down, but make it more accessable through better UI.

Little enjoyment, only frustration comes from a cumbersome UI.

[Captain Cruft]

ORIGINAL: Kid

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft
A simple text or HTML file would do ...

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

If you look at the Wish List pinned at the top of the page, you will see notes in blue text that was added by me. It will tell you which items I've added to the list and which ones I have not. As for bugs, I will never post that list.

Yes I knew about the Wish List thread and thank you. I do realise that lack of time is an issue.

Now, let's be controversial for a minute. I think the nub of this whole issue is that the game is woefully underpriced. It's just not economic for the developers to do much.

So, how do you get to charge more? Obviously, selling the game at an up-front price of $500 is not going to work. The answer - stop acting like the music business and move to what I shall call for the sake of argument the "Everquest model" or perhaps the "phone company model".

Details:-

• Separate out the front-end (map/unit editor) from the back-end (combat resolution engine)
• Separate out the AI player, let's call it Mr Bot.
• Put the back-end and Mr Bot on a server
• Make Mr Bot configurable or maybe even scriptable so that players can create their own improved versions
• Make the front-end available for download at a reasonable price e.g. $29.99
• Charge a monthly fee, say $9.99, to use the server to play either other humans or Mr Bot and family. Turns (game state files) get uploaded to the server via a web interface or email. The server then informs players via email when their combat resolutions have run and delivers to them (again via web or email) their revised game state files and combat replay.
• Make the first month free

People will generally not baulk at paying a monthly fee for something that they want. This way, the dedicated players who carry on for 2-3 years+ will generate a revenue stream of $200-500+ each. Others who just dabble will only end up paying about the same amount as they would for any other game. You use more you pay more.

Obviously not something that can be done for any existing game like WitP, but for the future ... ?

[Panzer76]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft
Now, let's be controversial for a minute. I think the nub of this whole issue is that the game is woefully underpriced. It's just not economic for the developers to do much.

I would argue that the game is not underpriced, far from it, its overpriced. It has a too limited market, thus a high price. To attract a bigger market, you need to make the game more accessible, and, we are back to the UI (among other things) again

You are arguing that the realtive few people that would buy the game as it is has to shoulder the costs, and that gets pretty expensive for the few customers there is.

These are two different business strategies, I know which one I would go for. Alas, I do not make that call, and Im sure there are plenty of people that are happy I dont

[MikeToth]

My only gripe with the interface is the fonts............. totally unreadable.....


Matrix - if you fix anything please fix this.... give a a choice or use a more legible font. These old eyes can't make heads or tails out of them.


thanks much

[FirstPappy]

This is not a game I would pay "subscription" prices for. For me, those games are reserved for when I want instant and constant interaction with other subscribers or a highly animated application. With WitP, you are mostly looking at a map and various charts etc. If I'm paying a monthly fee, I'd better be getting my money's worth by having tons of bits and bytes flowing through that port constantly.

[Captain Cruft]

ORIGINAL: Pappy
This is not a game I would pay "subscription" prices for. For me, those games are reserved for when I want instant and constant interaction with other subscribers or a highly animated application. With WitP, you are mostly looking at a map and various charts etc. If I'm paying a monthly fee, I'd better be getting my money's worth by having tons of bits and bytes flowing through that port constantly.

That is of course your perogative.

I am just wondering about a solution to the problem of the wargames industry being uneconomic that's all. It's very generous of people to basically give away their work but how sustainable is it?

P.S. The subscription model is rapidly becoming de facto in the mainstream games market.

[GBirkn]

Captain Cruft, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree with it. I think that putting this sort of a game on a subscription model would result in drastically lower total revenue. People do not like recurring charges; they'd rather own than rent. And they can tell when someone is taking a product that's inherently own-able and trying to force it into a rental model in order to squeeze more money from the market.

And I don't agree at all that "mainstream games" are going de facto subscription. Subscription games are appropriate in the "MMORPG" area, where you have a genuine need a large set of central servers and many on-line players to make a community seem alive, but even in that context there are more failures than successes. For every Everquest there are several Motor City Onlines.

[Captain Cruft]

ORIGINAL: GBirkn
Captain Cruft, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree with it. I think that putting this sort of a game on a subscription model would result in drastically lower total revenue. People do not like recurring charges; they'd rather own than rent. And they can tell when someone is taking a product that's inherently own-able and trying to force it into a rental model in order to squeeze more money from the market.

Yes, you're right. The trouble is that people are not prepared to pay the real cost of owning the product. Or perhaps I should say that they are not prepared to pay the real cost of a product which will continually improve over its N year lifespan. The way this game is marketed is very much as a one shot affair which to me doesn't make sense given how long it will be used.

And I don't agree at all that "mainstream games" are going de facto subscription. Subscription games are appropriate in the "MMORPG" area, where you have a genuine need a large set of central servers and many on-line players to make a community seem alive, but even in that context there are more failures than successes. For every Everquest there are several Motor City Onlines.

Again you're right, MMORPGs have lead the way. Other genres are slowly going that way too though, FPS and RTS servers have to be paid for too. What you might find happens is the growth of the "generic gaming service" rather than per-game subscriptions.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

ORIGINAL: Kid

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft
A simple text or HTML file would do ...

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

If you look at the Wish List pinned at the top of the page, you will see notes in blue text that was added by me. It will tell you which items I've added to the list and which ones I have not. As for bugs, I will never post that list.

Yes I knew about the Wish List thread and thank you. I do realise that lack of time is an issue.

Now, let's be controversial for a minute. I think the nub of this whole issue is that the game is woefully underpriced. It's just not economic for the developers to do much.

So, how do you get to charge more? Obviously, selling the game at an up-front price of $500 is not going to work. The answer - stop acting like the music business and move to what I shall call for the sake of argument the "Everquest model" or perhaps the "phone company model".

Details:-

• Separate out the front-end (map/unit editor) from the back-end (combat resolution engine)
• Separate out the AI player, let's call it Mr Bot.
• Put the back-end and Mr Bot on a server
• Make Mr Bot configurable or maybe even scriptable so that players can create their own improved versions
• Make the front-end available for download at a reasonable price e.g. $29.99
• Charge a monthly fee, say $9.99, to use the server to play either other humans or Mr Bot and family. Turns (game state files) get uploaded to the server via a web interface or email. The server then informs players via email when their combat resolutions have run and delivers to them (again via web or email) their revised game state files and combat replay.
• Make the first month free

People will generally not baulk at paying a monthly fee for something that they want. This way, the dedicated players who carry on for 2-3 years+ will generate a revenue stream of $200-500+ each. Others who just dabble will only end up paying about the same amount as they would for any other game. You use more you pay more.

Obviously not something that can be done for any existing game like WitP, but for the future ... ?

Yes, I've been an advocate of the client-server architected turn based wargame concept for a LOOONNNGGG time. Back in the 1990's right up until just a couple of years ago, a small non-profit group, Wolfpack, used to run one of these. The game was known as "Empire". It was a shallow game with lousy clients that used Unix-like command line instructions and never really took off, but the concept was a good one, IMHO.

We have a fairly large group of PBEM players already. I am quite sure these players would love a more responsive, flexible way to play head-to-head and how many posts have we seen concerning a desire for multi-player or team play?

You are correct in that what you have to do is break out the client, which is nothing more than a presentation layer, from the server, which is run on high performance big-iron with a big, fat communications pipe attached to it. Everquest continues to be enormously successful, but it took a while for it to take off. My son is involved in that effort and it is quite vibrant today. They make money selling subscription access but the also make good money selling new clients.

And imagine the possiblities of a client-server model. On the server side you now open up the possibility of using Enterprise level, robust RDBMS's to manage literally millions and millions of "rows" of data, not only for game data but also for the AI to use.

Not only that, you could still offer a standalone version that ships both the server and a client so folks could still do the solitaire thing.

But don't expect Matrix, themselves, to do this. It's going to take a new Partner to take the first steps. Hmmmmm..... sounds like something I might be interested in tackling myself in near future.....

[GBirkn]

Captain Cruft, I should also say that you're right when you point out that wargaming will be doomed if the economic model doesn't make sense. I don't think that the Matrix and 2x3 folks got into this field in hopes of becoming wealthy (although in a perfect world, as I define it, they'd all be as rich as John Carmack), but they've got to at least cover their costs with a reasonable return on investment, and ideally make a living from what they're doing. As a wargamer, I'll be very much the loser if they can't do that.

I admit that I don't know the solution to this problem, and I hope that a solution can be found.

[GBirkn]

<double post by mistake -- sorry>

[Caltone]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Any one partnering with Gary in the future best make sure they keep him completely away from the programming side of the house and let him do what he does best.

If not the programming side of the house, what is it exactly you think Gary does?

IMHO the man is the best wargame designer ever. Along with the others in 2by3 and Matrix, he is doing what he does best, giving me and his legions of fans years of gaming goodness. This game is his ultimate achievement and it's what I've been waiting for since PACWAR.

While there are some screens I would like to see (main one is a list of what areas are producing HI and what overages/shortfalls they have), I find the game easy to play and an enjoyable experience. From the majority of your posts, you find the game a chore. If that's the case, perhaps its time to move on? This is an upgrade to a previous design and there is no way or no need to redo the GUI.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Pappy

This is not a game I would pay "subscription" prices for. For me, those games are reserved for when I want instant and constant interaction with other subscribers or a highly animated application. With WitP, you are mostly looking at a map and various charts etc. If I'm paying a monthly fee, I'd better be getting my money's worth by having tons of bits and bytes flowing through that port constantly.

One could not charge the $30.00/month fees Everquest charges, for sure, because the server side is providing a much different service in what I will call the "Wolfpack" model (a turn-based wargame, Everquest). One may not be able to charge much more than covering the costs of operation + maybe a 10-15% margin on that side. And that final number would largely depend on the volume. The financial backing would need to be able to operate at a distinct loss for two years or so, much like Everquest did, before things start crank up. You'd have to subsist on client-side revenue in the mean-time.

Unlike most Matrix partners, an effort at this type of thing would have to be pretty well capitalized. I doubt it would be a short-term money maker at all, probably operating at a loss for two-three years or so. But long term, if it caught on, and most of the really good multi-player things eventually do, it could be quite profitable, eventually. Good thing is, much less capital is needed on the server side because you are not cramming massive amounts of data down the pipe, eating enormous chunks of RAM for each logon (ala the Everquest model), and 99% of the work is local, number crunching and data access.