PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT!

[Mistmatz]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Couldn't agree more John. Over half of all aircraft losses in the Pacific War were non-combat. That's on both sides. On average, about 10% of the aircraft in the theatre were lost to operational causes PER MONTH! The game doesn't begin to reflect this.

Of course it doesn't reflect it. It doesn't try to reflect it. And how hard would that be to change? What it would take? Ten minutes to open the file and alter the OP losses percentage or whatever it is? Then close the file and save it and pack it up with the next patch? It wouldn't even require testing. A simple glance at any number of game totals of total sorties of all kinds versus OP losses juxtaposed with published OP losses based on total sorties of all kinds would tell the person doing the fix what the new ballpark "percentage" ought to be vis-a-vis whatever he finds in the code. So what? I'm understating the time it would require? Okay, then, let's say half an hour or even a full hour (tops) instead of ten minutes?

There's so much that could be done so easily to fix so many of this game system's worst problems (not all of them, but we could certainly make a serious dent) . . . if only there were the will. [8|]

Could it be that you underestimate balancing issues? You know this is a _GAME_ and not real world or real history. Making everything historically accurate would probably lead to a bad game experience, as we - the players - dont have the historical point of view. It is basically our hindsight that makes it impossible to base a game on purely historically data and routines. Thats why our PC-wars with all the fluffy bits and bytes are not comparable strategywise and operationwise to what happened in reality (and I'm not even talking about pain and death here).

My point is, this is a game and the manufacturer of this game is responsible to provide a good gaming experience. I appreciate if this experience feels as historic as possible and I agree that there are many items were 2by3 or matrix could have done better (maybe far better), but its never a task of 10 mins, 30mins or an hour as you wrote to change an issue on a complex game like this without seriously affecting game balancing. So please Tristanjohn stop ranting and 2by3/matrix please keep improving the game with patches based on the input of the userbase.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Quit trolling TJ unless you plan on joining Lt. Calley

One word posts just to annoy people is not acceptable use of the forums.

Now one-word replies are off limits all of a sudden? Or just off limits to me?

Let's see. You'd offhand place me in the same category as somebody the company alleges to have "threatened" it, and who posted other racially-motivated stuff I've been lead to believe (I wasn't around then) or whatever it was, just because I'm constantly critical of the product I've purchased? That's sad, Ray. Real real sad.

Sorry. But as long as I'm here I intend to speak my mind. I know no other way.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Couldn't agree more John. Over half of all aircraft losses in the Pacific War were non-combat. That's on both sides. On average, about 10% of the aircraft in the theatre were lost to operational causes PER MONTH! The game doesn't begin to reflect this.

Of course it doesn't reflect it. It doesn't try to reflect it. And how hard would that be to change? What it would take? Ten minutes to open the file and alter the OP losses percentage or whatever it is? Then close the file and save it and pack it up with the next patch? It wouldn't even require testing. A simple glance at any number of game totals of total sorties of all kinds versus OP losses juxtaposed with published OP losses based on total sorties of all kinds would tell the person doing the fix what the new ballpark "percentage" ought to be vis-a-vis whatever he finds in the code. So what? I'm understating the time it would require? Okay, then, let's say half an hour or even a full hour (tops) instead of ten minutes?

There's so much that could be done so easily to fix so many of this game system's worst problems (not all of them, but we could certainly make a serious dent) . . . if only there were the will. [8|]

Could it be that you underestimate balancing issues? You know this is a _GAME_ and not real world or real history. Making everything historically accurate would probably lead to a bad game experience, as we - the players - dont have the historical point of view. It is basically our hindsight that makes it impossible to base a game on purely historically data and routines. Thats why our PC-wars with all the fluffy bits and bytes are not comparable strategywise and operationwise to what happened in reality (and I'm not even talking about pain and death here).

My point is, this is a game and the manufacturer of this game is responsible to provide a good gaming experience. I appreciate if this experience feels as historic as possible and I agree that there are many items were 2by3 or matrix could have done better (maybe far better), but its never a task of 10 mins, 30mins or an hour as you wrote to change an issue on a complex game like this without seriously affecting game balancing. So please Tristanjohn stop ranting and 2by3/matrix please keep improving the game with patches based on the input of the userbase.

Some of these issues are straighforward in nature. The perfect example is the OP loss rate. That's a known. Simply reflect that (a snap) and you're home free on that score. You don't achieve a good balance by not getting stuff right when you easily otherwise could.

[treespider]

Duhhh. . . .

I take it that you agree?[;)]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Quit trolling TJ unless you plan on joining Lt. Calley

One word posts just to annoy people is not acceptable use of the forums.

And by the way, my short comment wasn't to "annoy" anyone but merely was in direct reference to that same precise point which I'd made a post or two above it, in response to Scholl, I believe. This change would be an easy one to affect, and it is a change furthermore that was suggested by me if no one else just about a year ago.

This board is most definitely full of various trolls (for example, the obvious phantom accounts run by your "good" people around here I imagine), but to typify my work as such is insulting . . . and in the long run that approach can only hurt the company, whether you like and appreciate what I say or not. My mind is chock full of good ideas when it comes to wargames, as are the minds of some others who post here regularly. All of this should be looked at as a collective body of constructive criticism by Matrix and dealt with appropriately. Why attack someone who 1) pays good money for the product you produce and 2) offers good feedback as to how to improve that product so that 3) in the future your company can therefore be more successful still because the customer has been made more satisfied yet? I just don't get that.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Duhhh. . . .

I take it that you agree?[;)]

Well sure! I had just remarked to Scholl (go back and read my post just above yours somewhere) that this would be a snap to change and ought to have been changed long ago. It's an obvious error and it could be picked up just like that. In other words . . you and I are on the same page. [:)]

[treespider]

Well sure! I had just remarked to Scholl (go back and read my post just above yours somewhere) that this would be a snap to change and ought to have been changed long ago. It's an obvious error and it could be picked up just like that. In other words . . you and I are on the same page.

I agree...with you and Frag...Matrix/2by3 have come close with the engine. And I pointed out a couple of "quick" fixes to the engine that could be instituted. However those changes would necesitate rewriting scenarios so they are not so quick, but would make a modders life easier.

[Mr.Frag]

Short sighted: Lets just jump in and change operational losses, that will fix everything!

Reality: Umm, why did Japan win Jan 1, 1943 ??? Oh, I see, god did I loose a lot of points with aircraft.

After effect: Rant: "Model is broken". "Look at the VP score for aircraft!"

Next step: Rebalance all VP in the entire game to account for the fact that aircraft VP have quadrupled and now need to be put in perspective with other VP (land, sea).

After effect: Rant: "I have to restart my game again! Why do you guys keep screwing things up???"

It's always so simple to make changes without giving it any thought of the long term effects, isn't it?

EVERYTHING has PROS and CONS

Try representing both sides when you post the "solution of all solutions" ... you might find it is more constructive in the end because everyone can contribute valid critique on both sides without resorting to arguing as they can actually "understand" the thought process involved by seeing it clearly represented as something more then a knee jerk reaction.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Short sighted: Lets just jump in and change operational losses, that will fix everything!

Reality: Umm, why did Japan win Jan 1, 1943 ??? Oh, I see, god did I loose a lot of points with aircraft.

After effect: Rant: "Model is broken". "Look at the VP score for aircraft!"

Next step: Rebalance all VP in the entire game to account for the fact that aircraft VP have quadrupled and now need to be put in perspective with other VP (land, sea).

After effect: Rant: "I have to restart my game again! Why do you guys keep screwing things up???"

It's always so simple to make changes without giving it any thought of the long term effects, isn't it?

EVERYTHING has PROS and CONS

Try representing both sides when you post the "solution of all solutions" ... you might find it is more constructive in the end because everyone can contribute valid critique on both sides without resorting to arguing as they can actually "understand" the thought process involved by seeing it clearly represented as something more then a knee jerk reaction.

Another after effect: If they got it right, the forum might die because no one would have anything to rant about.[;)]

[Erik Rutins]

Tristanjohn,

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
I couldn't care less about VPs. I only care about game play itself. If gamers are so lame as to require VPs then they're beyond hope here. Maybe they could petition Matrix to somehow address the altered VP issue at the same time, though again, that sounds like an utter waste of development resource to me.

Unfortunately, when you are in charge of actually developing a wargame, you can't discard issues that affect entire systems and game balance so easily. Solutions need to take all cascading effects into account or your players will roast you alive. [;)]

It's been awhile since I said this, so let's review:

[i]There is almost no aspect of this game system that came out of the box correct, or even close to correct.[/i]

Now we can all chew on that for awhile. An unpopular statement, no doubt, but God's bare truth nevertheless.

I have no interest in hearing you repeat that viewpoint again, or in spending time I don't have to waste disagreeing with you. We read these forums and consider all suggestions - yours included. If you want to insist that you haven't been heard, that we lack will or have a bad attitude, perhaps some who haven't been here for months to read our many replies and see our many efforts will believe you. In the past, we implemented a number of constructive design suggestions, none of which turned out to be easy or trivial to get into the game and working. We are now focusing on the few remaining stubborn bugs, as this game was released in July of 2004 and it is now January of 2006.

As for all the constructive suggestions in this list from other posters, I'm hopeful that we'll be able to spend some time on other points in the future, but right now it's just bugs, not redesigning any portion of the game. I have nothing against discussions that may lead to a consensus on one model or another, but the negative commentary you are well known for no longer has a place here. Either be constructive, or leave.

Regards,

- Erik

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Either be constructive, or leave.

Erik,


There are a other people that are unhappy with the product you sold them. Toadies like Frag have a lot to do with my avoiding this place. But if you ban this guy then somebody else will only replace him. The best way to stop hearing negativity is by fixing the game you foisted on us - not by squashing dissent.

[Sneer]

interesting
I can criticize some aspects of this game and still spend few hours per day every day since release day and make one more turn
I'm sure i'm not unhappy with product I bought
ther are things that probably need deep ingerention to reflect our ideas and views about reality but on the other hand for me WITP is a game and as a game I find it is good enough to spent too much time on it
so what's the problem ?
[>:][>:][>:][>:]
do you need to find a Graal ? or what ?
I think that if matrix decide to go for next product there would be justification for complete rebuild of certain parts of code but now .... I doubt
Look at their point of sight

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Well, I've been around here for some time now and that's the first occasion I can recall someone calling Oleg on his neverending bullshit in such a frank and, if you don't mind my saying so, refreshing manner. (He's been called any number of times on his rudeness with regard to the work of others, especially modders, but not for this type of completely misleading feedback.) Except for me, of course. I get into it with this company yes man frequently. Of course that won't change him a jot, but it does keep my tools sharp. [8D]

"Company yes man" - this is hilarious TJ, gotta remember that [:D]

Frankly, I'd rather be Matrix and 2by3 "company yes man" than seen in company of you, Jim, mdiehl or others who DON'T know to play this game (or don't even own the game) and blame the game for your ineptitude and/or inability to win whenever you snap your fingers and in a manner you'd see as most suitable at the moment (bad player bad player bad player bad player! )

Though I'd accept good PBEM challenge from any of you in a friendly manner, why not. Any side. Always fun to beat lesser players than yourself mwaghahahahha [:D]

To me, Jim's last posts basically concede what I've been saying all along: he did strategic mistakes in the past - though he'd never say that in as many words. Funny, one off, statistically irrelevant results can happen any time, and anyone posting one such result (without all the relevant data to boot) may count on "usual suspects" (Ron, yourself, mdiehl) jumping on every opportunity. To you, fact that someone's complaining is way less important than the basic reason WHY is he complaining. "Look someone's whining at 2by3 doorstep, lets jump in and harp on our favorite topics (ASW, A2A, general discontent, weltschmertz) yet once more!"

Some guy had this quote in his sig: "If you're in a fair fight, you haven't planned it properly." Don't know who's quote is that, but to me this whole thread, and Jim's initial problems fall into this category.

O.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: mjk428

There are a other people that are unhappy with the product you sold them. Toadies like Frag have a lot to do with my avoiding this place. But if you ban this guy then somebody else will only replace him. The best way to stop hearing negativity is by fixing the game you foisted on us - not by squashing dissent.

Somehow I don't think calling Frag, one of the most dedicated and hardworking beta leads on Matrix boards, a "toadie" will bring you points with Erik the Matrix man, but then again who knows [:D]

O.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Well, I've been around here for some time now and that's the first occasion I can recall someone calling Oleg on his neverending bullshit in such a frank and, if you don't mind my saying so, refreshing manner. (He's been called any number of times on his rudeness with regard to the work of others, especially modders, but not for this type of completely misleading feedback.) Except for me, of course. I get into it with this company yes man frequently. Of course that won't change him a jot, but it does keep my tools sharp. [8D]

"Company yes man" - this is hilarious TJ, gotta remember that [:D]

Frankly, I'd rather be Matrix and 2by3 "company yes man" than seen in company of you, Jim, mdiehl or others who DON'T know to play this game (or don't even own the game) and blame the game for your ineptitude and/or inability to win whenever you snap your fingers and in a manner you'd see as most suitable at the moment (bad player bad player bad player bad player! )

Though I'd accept good PBEM challenge from any of you in a friendly manner, why not. Any side. Always fun to beat lesser players than yourself mwaghahahahha [:D]

To me, Jim's last posts basically concede what I've been saying all along: he did strategic mistakes in the past - though he'd never say that in as many words. Funny, one off, statistically irrelevant results can happen any time, and anyone posting one such result (without all the relevant data to boot) may count on "usual suspects" (Ron, yourself, mdiehl) jumping on every opportunity. To you, fact that someone's complaining is way less important than the basic reason WHY is he complaining. "Look someone's whining at 2by3 doorstep, lets jump in and harp on our favorite topics (ASW, A2A, general discontent, weltschmertz) yet once more!"

Some guy had this quote in his sig: "If you're in a fair fight, you haven't planned it properly." Don't know who's quote is that, but to me this whole thread, and Jim's initial problems fall into this category.

O.

Not to come to TJ defense but I think people are disatisfied with the "feel" of the game. As you brought up the original post in the thread ...Jim was disgruntled with the fact that he inflicted no damage to the Japanese, not that he didn't win. IMO certain players on this forum could care less about winning or losing, but care more about having to make decisions based upon a realistic environment.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Not to come to TJ defense but I think people are disatisfied with the "feel" of the game. As you brought up the original post in the thread ...Jim was disgruntled with the fact that he inflicted no damage to the Japanese, not that he didn't win. IMO certain players on this forum could care less about winning or losing, but care more about having to make decisions based upon a realistic environment.

How come we rarely see winners complain it's almost always the losers? [8D]

Though, there were some RARE examples of winners posting what they considered "strange results", but 95% of whiners YELLING AT DEVELOPERS TO FIX SOMETHING IN THREAD TITLES are losers. Plain & simple.

Jim's original post is as I sad one off result, one battle, one small part of one day of 1000+ days war. Yes it can be rationalised, and no it does not mean that air model is broken or would need TO BE FIXED! immediatelly. It was, obviously, his worst result, as it triggered him to write that angry post (other results, we may assume, although perhaps not very good for him, were not as BAD as that one, though frankly, who cares?).

Hundereds and thousands of other battles go on and on in dozens of games we all play, and MOST of those battles work well. We play more battles each day, than whole Pacific War had during 4 years of real time! Sure, strange things will happen from time to time (mostly as result of trivial fact that one player is being way better than other).

We don't know whole lotta stuff: commanders ratings, altitudes, distances, ranges, base levels, pilots EXP ratings.... fatigue... We don't know SO many BASIC facts about this ONE battle, we can only conclude a) he lost, and b) he's not happy about it, and c) any- *any* - sort of complaint is sure to make TJ & co happy. Bwa-friggen-wha!

O.

[Erik Rutins]

mjk,

ORIGINAL: mjk428
There are a other people that are unhappy with the product you sold them. Toadies like Frag have a lot to do with my avoiding this place. But if you ban this guy then somebody else will only replace him. The best way to stop hearing negativity is by fixing the game you foisted on us - not by squashing dissent.

I'm not (at present) planning to ban anyone. I'm sorry you agree with Tristanjohn though, because I feel he's wrong about a number of things and I don't believe those who disagree with him are "toadies".

I dispute that we foisted this game on you or anyone else. Players and reviewers alike are clear in their praise for what War in the Pacific accomplished and how much fun it can be. I've played the heck out of it myself, as well as participating in the beta test. All of that gives me a bit of perspective on these discussions as well, I'm not talking out of ignorance here.

I don't see the need for negativity or dissent. I don't see the need for claiming nothing in the game works. None of those accomplish anything and you can count on the fact that none of us have time to address repeated negativity. However, I've posted hundreds of posts here in the past and written hundreds of internal e-mails bringing player reports of problems, suggestions for new features, etc. to light and I'm just a fraction of the staff at Matrix and 2by3 that regularly patrols these boards and reads your posts.

This may not be the game you wanted, this may not be the design you would have made, but there seems to be no "agree to disagree" stance here. From some posters, I see constructive criticism - that's fine. I don't think anyone on the design team thought it was even possible to get something this large and complex to be perfect in every regard. This game was built by humans, after all. Continuing to hammer on design disagreements 17 Months after release that have already been responded to many times and in many cases addressed strikes me as over the top.

Criticize constructively, or not at all. You may be surprised how many good forum ideas crash and burn when the rubber actually meets the road in development. It's very easy to criticize and therefore critics should be aware that the gap between an idea, a suggestion or a criticism and actually implementing it is very large and often not easy at all.

With that said, I've said before that we don't plan to let this game fade into oblivion. Perhaps, a bit of patience and trust in us may be rewarded in the future.

Regards,

- Erik

[BLUESBOB]

Reply to el cid again

So what you're saying is that every Jap squadron had fantastic experience due to the fighting in China? That all land forces had great experience due to the combat in China? That all Jap ships had excellent crews due to the fighting in China? I find this hard to believe...especially the ships.

I can see giving some of the Japs an advantage in experience and morale due to their fighting in China. But definately not every single unit. Not every unit was in China. And training in no way is an equal substitute for actual combat experience. Had the game given the Japs a 10-15 point advantage in experience and a much higher morale, I think it would have been much more believable. This would more accurately shown their training and preparation. Even with just a 10 point advantage their experience would have climbed fast due to the Allies lower experience and older aircraft. But the way the game is set-up now EVERYTHING is adjusted to give the Japs an absolute strategic and tactical advantage in all combat...no matter what the ratios of Allies versus Japanese forces. Early in the war you can't do anything unless you have 2:1, 3:1, or even 4:1 odds against the Japs. And even then it's dicey wether you'll ever get a fair result. (I've seen this MOST of the time, once in awhile the AI surprises the hell out of you and let's you win one.

I'm not totally against the way the game is set up in many ways. I do believe the Japs are at a grave disadvantage throughout the campaign. In the first six months of the war, the overriding factor for the disadvantage is surprise. As the Allies, you know everything the AI or Jap player is going to do or should do. You know where they have to go and what they need to bring. You can move forward, you can fall back...whatever you need to do to keep your forces intact as much as possible. So, I can see giving the Japanese as many strategic, tactical, equipment, and material advantages as possible. It makes up for the fact that we all know what the Japanese war strategy is from the very beginning. The Japanese player can try a few new strategies, but they can all be anticipated. It's the Allies that actually have all the fun of changing their total strategy.

Hey...it's still a fun game even with all the flaws.

[treespider]

Erik said:
With that said, I've said before that we don't plan to let this game fade into oblivion. Perhaps, a bit of patience and trust in us may be rewarded in the future.

Hmm...cryptic statement....a portent of possible changes...the world wonders[&:]

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I'm not (at present) planning to ban anyone. I'm sorry you agree with Tristanjohn though, because I feel he's wrong about a number of things and I don't believe those who disagree with him are "toadies".

I don't like Frag when he goes into attack dog mode should someone dare criticize anything Matrix. See this thread ("Pre-orders?") as an example should you not believe this is ever a problem. Don't bother if you already know what I"m talking about.

tm.asp?m=632790&mpage=2&key=


And I don't agree with everything TristanJohn says. I just got riled when I saw an attempt to shut him down.

I dispute that we foisted this game on you or anyone else. Players and reviewers alike are clear in their praise for what War in the Pacific accomplished and how much fun it can be. I've played the heck out of it myself, as well as participating in the beta test. All of that gives me a bit of perspective on these discussions as well, I'm not talking out of ignorance here.

You're a good guy and I don't doubt your sincerity.

However, I certainly feel as if the game was foisted on me. Bought it for $70 on 7/1/04 and I gave up after about month.

All I want is for the game to work as designed. I'm not looking for new features. If in the end, the game is playable for me but I still don't like it, then that's the way it goes. But when Jap leaders are showing up on my ships, pilots are inconsistently available, and units disappear (among other things), the game is broke. Would have been fine with me not to even have individual pilots or leaders for every unit but the game was designed with them playing an integral part. Now, not only are they screwy but they're actually detrimental to play.

For reference I own 5 Matrix games plus the originals of your 2 freebies. I also purchased over 90% of Grigsby's games. Last time I filled out one of those old SSI survey cards I had purchased well over 50 titles released by Billings & Co. going back to '81. I'm not that hard to please but for 70 bucks I have certain expectations and they've not been met.

A big difference seems to be that those that are relatively happy with the game are PBEM players. That's not for me and not what I bought the game for. It seems that those players just view things differently.

...snip
With that said, I've said before that we don't plan to let this game fade into oblivion. Perhaps, a bit of patience and trust in us may be rewarded in the future.

Regards,

- Erik

I've been extremely patient and will have to continue to be.