playable yet? Part II

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: timewalker03

pzgndr no matter what you have to have some sort oversite in a project like this. Look at what happens when a company listens to a few people and enacts that, rather than taking what the overall majority wanted and still wants. EiA became EiH because of a few and it was few people made the suggestion to look into the rules for EiH. They then came in contact with I believe his name is Michael Treasure and from there the amoeba this game is was created. When it came down to it Matrix and Marshall took it upon themselves. Once the game was released they then realized that it really was not the popular choice. I do fully understand that EiA could not be a direct crossover. That is very obvious to anyone who played the board game. For those who have said using EiH to make up for historical accuracy of the game use that argument to make the case for EiH must realize there was some license taken by Avalon Hill originally to create a playable game. AH also through the Generals tried their best to make up for some of the games problems the original game had. And if you go all the way back to the first release of EiA you will recall all of the French infantry corps were 25I 3C. I remember my first game ever played where France had all corps maxed out and Charles lost 3 straight battles to the monster that was France. So this was a flawed board game. Also the best version of this game was the Naval Academy or was it Air Force Academy version of the game which streamlined a lot of the game and also made the game closer to accurate without changing game mechanics much. I have been burned by Matrix before with games, and I just hope furiously that it doesn't happen again. Right now things still do not look good.

Sorry to sound like a jerk here, but vague unsubstantiated statements really burn my a#$e. Just to be clear, who were these "few people"? If you were aware of what those few people wanted why didn't you speak up and counteract them? If you knew that the company (what company?) listened to those few people, why did you buy the product? How do you know what the "majority wanted and still wants"?

Since we seem to be voicing our opinions as to what the majority wants and still wants or what the "popular choice" is, I definitely lean towards EiH over EiA. As you stated, EiA wasn't going to be a direct port because (IMHO) it was unplayable w/o houserules.

BTW, you weaken your argument by listing yet another version of the game and declaring that best. How many versions and combination of versions are there? How could any publisher/programmer have made a choice of versions or combination of versions that would have satisfied this lot?

[iamspamus]

Why does Matrix need an "impartial" moderator? It's their forum on their site. Sounds like they can do what they want. I don't have a problem with that.

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
... When you continue to argue despite evidence to the contrary that we are not paying any attention to our customers, it starts to move from criticism into the realm of bashing.

...

The previous thread was locked solely because it was degenerating into personal attacks among forum members. You can check other forums, we do the same there when that happens, it has nothing to do with whether we are supporting a game or not.

Regards,

- Erik

What you might want to do to facilitate people understanding this concept (that you lock threads for personal attacks) is have a person not involved with the game or game discussion be responsible for locking the threads. This would be tough, because that person would have to answer "reported posts" on a product he/she doesn't work with. But, if that were done, then there could be very little argument that the locking was done to shut people up.

Having been involved in various forums for a long time, I've seen a tendency for the forum users to attack a the person who locked the thread as being partial to one side or the other (usually the opposite to the one that person holds). Even normally excellent posters can somehow be dragged down by a series of bad posts. Frequently, it's not even possible to determine "who started it" (as if we're sixth graders).

I've been caught in it myself, and it's hard to recognize when one is posting. What I've always tried to do (usually after being prompted by another poster or a moderator) is take a short break (a few minutes) and reevaluate. It's amazing that something that took days or weeks to build up can be eliminated in only a few minutes. But, it's not always easy, even though short.

Putting in an "impartial" moderator helps by making it clear that the person making the decision to lock a thread is NOT one of the participants, and also is NOT emotionally tied to the discussion (i.e. by being part of the team that supports the product). In other words, that person has an insulator around himself as regards THIS game (he may very well be involved in OTHER games; just not the one in question).

Make sense?

[borner]

i agree, this is Matrix's forum, and they should be free to moderate it.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

Why does Matrix need an "impartial" moderator? It's their forum on their site. Sounds like they can do what they want. I don't have a problem with that.

Because people arguing over something they are emotionally attached to sometimes become raging fools, spouting acrid words that get worse and worse. If someone who has a vested interest locks the thread, they just get madder. I'm not sure why, but for some reason people can get a lot more hostile on a forum than they ever would if they met face-to-face.

The point of an "impartial" judgement is to nip that kind of criticism in the bud. When Joe-EIA or Jane-EIH get mad at the guy who locked the thread (claiming partiality), his/her response can be "I don't even know how to play this game. I locked it out because your attacks were not against the game, but against each other.", then they really don't have any argument any more.

And, occasionally, such people will see the light. Those who don't, well, eventually they give up and leave.

Matrix does not "need" to do this. But, it can help in situations where the participants have shown increasing hostility towards each other, especially when such hostility is partially (or wholly) baseless.

[Thresh]

Jimmer,

Can you name one game company's forums who are moderated by a 3rd party?

Todd

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Jimmer,

Can you name one game company's forums who are moderated by a 3rd party?

Todd

Not a third party. Just someone not involved with the particular game that forum covers. S/he should still be a Matrix person, I would think.

Sorry. I must not have communicated that well.

[baboune]

My personal answer: No this game is not playable.

Aside from the bad UI, and immense amounts of bugs, it is unplayable because it takes too long to play MP.

I paid for this, waited a year hoping it might get better (trusting MAtrix would somehow fix it), and I am still utterly disappointed.  I get frustrated every time I start the game, which does not happen much any longer. 

Matrix, can I get my money back?

[borner]

this goes back to an old point in several threads.... there are several changes away from Eia to EiH, but combining eco and dip phases is unpopular as it differs from the origional EiA rules. I would say allow eco, dip and reinf to be done by all players at once. This would greatly speed things up,a nd cause only minor changes to playability. A trade off yes, as seeing who reinforces in front of you is useful, but a trade off that has good value IMO.

[Dancing Bear]

On this last point, I am in 100% agreement with Mr. Borner. It is unfortunate that the game is hamstrung by a strict adherence to the phase schedule, which was the first thing to be thrown out the window by any group that played the board game.
 
I doubt very much that combining the diplomacy, reinforcement or economic phases would have any affect on game balance. There are relatively easy trade off’s to made to make even the placement of minor troops automatic, or worse case, add a response to a DOW phase that only kicks in when a war starts between major powers or between a major power and a minor with corps.
 
I would 100% support any such move to make the game faster, and more fun. Right now, the game is not that much fun, and if a game is not fun, why play it?

[Thresh]

On this last point, I am in 100% agreement with Mr. Borner. It is unfortunate that the game is hamstrung by a strict adherence to the phase schedule, which was the first thing to be thrown out the window by any group that played the board game.

No,it wasn't. 

In fact, the few times I've played where they were all combined caused more headaches in the long run.

Wait until you get DoW'd by someone who was suppose to be your ally, or you get Called as an ally and you can't answer because you forgot to include it in your orders.

Todd

[borner]

good point Todd, but that is all automatic in the game anyway, so it is the same as any group that had a house rule that all DoW's and answers to calls to allies had to be written down and done at the same time.

[iamspamus]

Agree, thresh. We played it phase by phase in EVERY game I was involved in (10 or so). This did make it a bit slow sometimes. On a fast day (ie. no war) we got through 9 or 12 months. On a slow one (ie. lots of war or multiple wars) we got through 3+. It just goes slowly.

Jason

ORIGINAL: Thresh

On this last point, I am in 100% agreement with Mr. Borner. It is unfortunate that the game is hamstrung by a strict adherence to the phase schedule, which was the first thing to be thrown out the window by any group that played the board game.

No,it wasn't. 

In fact, the few times I've played where they were all combined caused more headaches in the long run.

Wait until you get DoW'd by someone who was suppose to be your ally, or you get Called as an ally and you can't answer because you forgot to include it in your orders.

Todd

[baboune]

Hi,

Matrix, how about my money back ?

[tgb]

ORIGINAL: baboune

Hi,

Matrix, how about my money back ?

[:D][:D][:D][:D]

[baboune]

No I am serious.  I barely played the game except for trying an MP game (we only got into Mars 1805 after 5 months of play and then two players quit).  I have felt like a beta tester for something I do not like and will never play again.  I paid good money for this game, and I believed matrix when they said they would fix it. In the other threads, Matrix clearly acknowledges the problems etc. 

Summary, I am fed up with waiting and want my money back. So Matrix, will you get (yes or no) send me back my money?

Any official answer from Matrix will do. And if this is not read or acknowledged I will post it as a new thread for higher visibility.

[mr.godo]

You can only fix things that are broken. This game isn't broken, it is doing nearly what they wanted it to do, and it's getting closer everyday.
But that doesn't make this game any more playable.

I think baboune should get his money back.

The game is way too expensive for what it offers. Solo play is useless except for learning the rules and pbem is incredibly frustrating. I have one fellow who thinks a game should move along at a phase a day: that's seven nation phases to complete the whole phase. My experience is that it is more like one day per nation phase, and then sometimes more. So if you're into long drawn out boredom, this is pure gold.

What the game seriously lacks is any sort of interesting bits. such as
following moves of other players (it's great that you got rid of the erratic jumping, but it really needs to be fluid motion showing where the unit came from and where it's going to)
recapping battles (summaries for non-participants)
reviewing battles (an ability to go back to see what happened in a battle you were involved in)
a good summary of your own forces (i have 10 infantry and 1 cav in a corps. How do I know it's maxed out?)
a means of tracking strengths of other countries (this one pisses me off: if you're not involved in a battle, you have no inkling of what is coming at you. The entire grande armee could be next to berlin and you wouldn't know whether it's 5 corps of 5,000 troops or 5 corps of 100,000 troops.)
file sizes are ridiculously large
having to rely on a method outside the game to send files? WELCOME TO 1985.
phase passing when it's impossible for someone to do anything: prussian fleet? sure, they may build or acquire one, but until that day arrives, how about a phase pass?

seriously, if you can't hire someone to make this game tcp/ip friendly, you're not looking in the right places. Then again, the game as is wouldn't work online. Lose the UGOIGO mentality and think up a viable workflow that is entertaining and playable. Does everyone really need to make their builds in order? How about having a general phase where everyone sends their turn files at the same time to the host, who then processes them? That would save a week per turn in itself!

[Mardonius]

There are certainly improvements that can be done to accelerate and improve the game play. I believe that these are being done, as is evident on Mantis Bug Tracking System.

I am, indeed, a bit frustrated, at times, about how long some of these chages take but I am a not a programmer so really don't have a perspective about how long they need to take. So my impatience is really not much more than a kid wanting Christmas to speed up.[;)]

As far as Game Speed in a Multiplayer Game goes, much of the variability of the speed of a game is due to player discipline levels. I am in one glacial "game" that does nto even merit the name game as it moves way too slow. However, this is not a symptom of the program, it is a symptom of the players and their speed and their enforement of a time table. Even with the approx 40% time improvement (Thank you Gaz, I think you summed it up nicely), Glacial is still Glacial.

I am in another Game where we get most of a phase per day. We are now in November of 1807 and have been ticking along nicely and having a grand old time. We manage at this quick tempo because we enforce the 24 hour time limit and endeavor to get the average turnaround in under 6 hours. When someone goes out of town, we allow a trusted ally to play their moves. Another 40% in time savings will have us moving even faster.

So choose whom you play with carefully... and ensure that you all adhere to a rigorous timetable and you'll have fun (PLAYABLE)... if you don't, you'll wither of boredom (NON PLAYABLE).

Discipline is everything.

Semper Fi,
Mardonius

[DCWhitworth]

I think threads like this are pretty pointless. It seems to rapidly break into two camps, those who think the game is pretty good and those who are irreconcilable. The latter have got fed up and nothing Matrix does is going to make them happy.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

I think threads like this are pretty pointless. It seems to rapidly break into two camps, those who think the game is pretty good and those who are irreconcilable. The latter have got fed up and nothing Matrix does is going to make them happy.

Actually, only your post is pointless.

This thread serves as a "customer review" thread in which people can read specifics about why the game is good or why the game is bad and where the future of the game is going.

I also disagree that no matter what Matrix does some people won't be happy. This is just lazy thinking, IMO. If Matrix could fix this game so that it was EiA and THEN add all the extras as options I think that could make everyone happy. NOW, the fact that Matrix has gotten so far into this game and refuse to do this is another story altogether.

[borner]

I think Neverman makes a good point. Matrix did make a huge mistake early on. The assumed that the few people posting in the forum while this was under design, had the same views as the rank and file customer would have. As such, we have computer EiH. In several posts I think you can see Matrix admit to this. So, now what? Personally, I would like to see them do EiA, but I am worried that things are too far along for this. Plus, what new bugs will jump up if you go back to the old map - even as an option - and change the rules for the minors? I will say that the new updates seem to have less bugs than the old, so there clearly is some progress. As or TCP/IP, most games I am in have players from several nations, not just different time zones, so how many games will really have 7 people all able to sit around a computer at the same time? And is this worth the effort on the part of Matrix at this point when there is clearly so much else that needs looked at?