Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:43 am**

make this thing open source

Sure. Let's make all proprietary information open source while we're at it, and then see what happens to free enterprise.

There's nothing stopping Neverman from starting an open source EiA project on SourceForge.net, as long as he's not making any money or profit in violation of copyright laws. So, where's that at?? If it's all so simple... [8|]

Posted: **Tue Apr 06, 2010 5:54 pm**

"Trademark violation" is certainly not "nothing", and profit is not necessary at all to justify litigation.

Posted: **Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:31 pm**

ORIGINAL: Grognot

"Trademark violation" is certainly not "nothing", and profit is not necessary at all to justify litigation.

Yep! Pzn failed law school 101.

Posted: **Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:32 am**

Oh, if only everyone had as positive an outlook as Ole PZ the world would be a better place... heck, a hurricane could roar through and he would probably be happy his yard was getting watered!!!

I would not say Matrix is gulity of fraud, but i think 95% of the people that bought this the first month after it was released agree it was far from ready, and Marshall has been forced to scramble to address one bug after another as they came up. As such, while at first glance you would think the AI could/should have been looked at by now, there have been more important things to get fixed. Plus, is there any AI out there for any game that really deals well with the diplomatic side of any game?

Posted: **Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:55 am**

Personally, I'm more bothered by the apparent regressions than the the rest.  I distinctly remember fewer significant lapses-of-war in previous versions, for instance -- e.g. the Russian AI would normally stick an infantry corps just into Finland (but not the Finnish capital!) for this very reason.

I also don't recall the AI having been quite as self-mutilating when choosing whom to sue for peace -- twice now in the same game, an AI has chosen to unconditionally surrender to the opponents... who *aren't* the ones occupying their capital in force, leading to an additional surrender (and thus another round of nasty terms and PP loss) to the one who is.  There are cases where this can make sense (like one of those other enemies having captured a large number of factors and a good leader), but those cases are rare enough that they're the exception to the rule.   Strange.

Posted: **Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:00 am**

Opening the AI source code, without the main code, won't impact profit margin. Second you can make something open without making it right free. The idea would be to let anyone code the AI. There are people out there that just like to code AI just for the challenge.

Plus, is there any AI out there for any game that really deals well with the diplomatic side of any game?

No, I made research about the game "Diplomacy" they have been developping AI for years now and still don't give good result as I read on their website. There is a club of guy that do that.

But we could have a sparing partner like military AI. Thyat is in the realm of the possible. I just think that we need someone else to work on it.

As I see, the problem would be to make the link between the diplomacy and the strategic thinking for the computer.

Posted: **Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:24 am**

ORIGINAL: Skanvak
Opening the AI source code, without the main code, won't impact profit margin. Second you can make something open without making it right free. The idea would be to let anyone code the AI. There are people out there that just like to code AI just for the challenge.

That's not likely to be feasible unless the code base was designed to be that modular from the very beginning. If the AI code is woven throughout the rest of the code base or requires direct knowledge of the implementation of internal data structures rather than of just some abstract API, then it's useless to open it up without also opening up those details. And *that* may have other problems, such as revealing too much IP about the engine itself or facilitating misuse of the saved game files.

Posted: **Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:38 am**

Opening the AI source code, without the main code, won't impact profit margin. Second you can make something open without making it right free. The idea would be to let anyone code the AI. There are people out there that just like to code AI just for the challenge.

Again, this is totally beside the point. It would be a sensitive business decision for Matrix Games and the individual developers like Marshall and Outflank Games to release their proprietary game code, in whole or in part. Not likely. Some folks need to go back and review Business 101, or try starting their own business and put up or shut up. [;)]

Posted: **Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:42 pm**

While I agree with Skanvak.... I'm inclined to believe what Grognot believes, and that is that this game was poorly designed (ie. is not coded robustly or modularly), so it's a moot point.

If it was then I do think it would be ok to release that part of the code, if done in an API fashion.

Skanavak, if you are interested in designed the AI, you can certianly do this without knowledge of the code, since you have knowledge of the game. If you come up with a design and it's good, maybe Marshall will implement it.

Posted: **Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:26 pm**

So we should all agree with Pz or shut up?

Posted: **Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:53 pm**

So we should all agree with Pz or shut up?

Not necessarily. You are perfectly free to keep doing what you've been doing for years now (ie, whining) and expecting different results. Let us know how the hopey/changey thing works out for y'all. [:D]

Posted: **Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:31 pm**

ORIGINAL: borner

So we should all agree with Pz or shut up?

Perhaps, the correct answer to borner's question here is somewhere between these two extremes. Discussion/debate of various EIA topics is not the problem. Cult-like twisting of facts to fit a particular point of view is. Not surprisingly Neverman provides a good example today. He is not alone, as many people with different points of view have often twisted and warped facts in this forum.

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

While I agree with Skanvak.... I'm inclined to believe what Grognot believes, and that is that this game was poorly designed (ie. is not coded robustly or modularly), so it's a moot point.

Except that Grognot didn't say the game was poorly designed, nor not robustly, he did make a correct statement of how it would not be feasable to open up the program if the program was not modular to start with. From a modular angle I believe this to be true.

Where this discussion comes off the rail and crashes is when Neverman takes this to mean that if it wasn't modular to begin with it must be poorly coded, or just not robust.

The facts of life in regards to programming do not support Neverman here. Modular is one way, but far from the only way creating robust code.

As for being poorly coded, once again until Neverman or anyone else sees the source code this is just an opinion that he keeps repeating but cannot support with any substance.

Modular: Marshall is the only one who knows the design of this program. Maybe he did use this practice or maybe he or Matrix had a different view of thier goal, perhaps different techniques were called for. There is no right or wrong, turning a vision into a language that computers understand is an art form.

I hope this makes sense, I also hope the discussion of EIA continues as it is mostly enjoyable even though it will have little if any effect on the game. Honest, Robust and Open discussion is a good thing in my humble opinion.[:)][:)][:)]

Posted: **Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:04 pm**

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

ORIGINAL: borner

So we should all agree with Pz or shut up?

Perhaps, the correct answer to borner's question here is somewhere between these two extremes. Discussion/debate of various EIA topics is not the problem. Cult-like twisting of facts to fit a particular point of view is. Not surprisingly Neverman provides a good example today. He is not alone, as many people with different points of view have often twisted and warped facts in this forum.

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

While I agree with Skanvak.... I'm inclined to believe what Grognot believes, and that is that this game was poorly designed (ie. is not coded robustly or modularly), so it's a moot point.

Except that Grognot didn't say the game was poorly designed, nor not robustly, he did make a correct statement of how it would not be feasable to open up the program if the program was not modular to start with. From a modular angle I believe this to be true.

Where this discussion comes off the rail and crashes is when Neverman takes this to mean that if it wasn't modular to begin with it must be poorly coded, or just not robust.

The facts of life in regards to programming do not support Neverman here. Modular is one way, but far from the only way creating robust code.

As for being poorly coded, once again until Neverman or anyone else sees the source code this is just an opinion that he keeps repeating but cannot support with any substance.

Modular: Marshall is the only one who knows the design of this program. Maybe he did use this practice or maybe he or Matrix had a different view of thier goal, perhaps different techniques were called for. There is no right or wrong, turning a vision into a language that computers understand is an art form.

I hope this makes sense, I also hope the discussion of EIA continues as it is mostly enjoyable even though it will have little if any effect on the game. Honest, Robust and Open discussion is a good thing in my humble opinion.[:)][:)][:)]

You should take your own advice, I never said that code couldn't be robust if not modular. I used the word "or" in the quote you gave.

Again, maybe you should take your own advice, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

Secondly, I don't need to see the code. Marshall has explicitly stated regarding several issues that the code is not robust enough to accept some of the needed changes (ie. that "this is hard coded into the engine", as one example).

Again, you have no idea wtf you are talking about, as usual.

Posted: **Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:13 pm**

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

You should take your own advice, I never said that code couldn't be robust if not modular. I used the word "or" in the quote you gave.

Again, maybe you should take your own advice, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

My error and I apologize for it.

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Secondly, I don't need to see the code. Marshall has explicitly stated regarding several issues that the code is not robust enough to accept some of the needed changes (ie. that "this is hard coded into the engine", as one example).

My point is not that the code is robust or not, it was that Grognot did not say it was. My point was that you implied he did and agreed with him to support your position that the code was written poorly. Yes, Marshall did say certain areas were less than robust. The leap you take to saying it is poorly written code is where you crash and burn. Without seeing the code, you have no support for this statement. Yet, you repeat it over and over with your implications, jabs and digs at the game. Somehow expecting if you say it enough it will become true. Sorry, but this is not how computer programs work, at least in reality. Robust code can be poorly written or it can be Mona Lisa quality. The same holds true for non-robust code.

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Again, you have no idea wtf you are talking about, as usual.

Once again, mature comments just flow from you as you type. I'm comfortable that my experiance with software more than meets the standard for being able to talk about this subject at an advanced level. So yes, I do have an idea of what I am talking about.

If the day ever comes when the code is released please attempt to prove the quality of the code is poor. If you don't have the knowledge or experiance for this get some help. The answer may surprise you.[:)]

Be well,

Posted: **Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:29 pm**

Pz, you have to work for Martix. I am thrilled you are happy with the current product. Personally, when I shell out $70+ for a game, I expect better results. Plus, in my opinion, it is silly a game would be designed where you have to commonly load a dozen more files that are in order to simply pick up where the last one left off. I really do not care if you disagree, as based on the games I have been in, I know I am not alone in this. I will let you get in the final word on how unreasonable my position is or how I should be happy that the game has improved from where it was.

Posted: **Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:06 am**

I am thrilled you are happy with the current product.

WTF is your major malfunction in life? No, I am NOT "happy" with the current product. There are still bugs to fix, promised features to implement, game options to consider, AI enhancements and improvements to make, editor issues to resolve, classic EiA map and OOB and other scenarios/campaigns to implement, etc.

The difference here is how most folks recognize that we are where we are and nothing is going to change the past, and that the mature thing to do is to help move towards where we should be. Pissing and moaning about game design decisions made years ago changes nothing and accomplishes nothing now. Perhaps you several "experts" feel so much better about yourselves with all of your backseat driving "advice"? Nice. Good for you.

Posted: **Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:39 pm**

such language. [:-]

Posted: **Sat Apr 10, 2010 11:01 pm**

JFC, my one year old doesn't whine as much as some of you, and he's teething.

Borner, is Pzgndr's language the only thing you take exception to, or do you want to point out where else in his post you disagree with or wish to prove him wrong on?

Many of us are not "happy" with the current state of the game.

Many of us are doing what we can to make it better.   Some are contributing more than others.

And incessant posting about what should have been done is nowhere near close to "contributing".

Todd

Posted: **Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:31 pm**

ORIGINAL: Thresh

And incessant posting about what should have been done is nowhere near close to "contributing".

Todd

This is simply inaccurate. Matrix/Marshall do look to these forums to see what needs to be done and whether it's right or wrong, the group that shouts loudest (posts the most) usualy gets heard. IN FACT, this is practically the basis for what is wrong with the game now, not enough people who knew wtf they were talking about posted back when this game was first bieng ported.

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:29 am**

Having more posts makes your argument more relevant? That's a new one.

And as an aside, some of you still have no idea wtf your talking about.

If you did you wouldn't keep carping over decisions made a few years ago that can't be undone.

T

Matrix Games Forums

Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty?

RE: Current difficulty?