Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Where this need is felt required the poster should at least provide a link to examples of their work where they demonstrate how every program they produce works flawlessly and has no detractors.
ORIGINAL: Phantom Account
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Where this need is felt required the poster should at least provide a link to examples of their work where they demonstrate how every program they produce works flawlessly and has no detractors.
Here's my perfect code:
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::cout << "Hello, world!\n";
}
Beyond that, it gets a little shaky. [:D]
ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, No one objects to anyone posting about the game. It becomes SPAM when you post the same things over and over.
Excuse me, but don't you post the same things over and over?
Tell me. How much progress would have been made with regard to the goofy ASW routines if people had not beat that dead horse to death? If I recall, the original stance of Matrix was that it was "working as designed." Hell, isn't that your own response every time someone complains about a design feature? Don't you constantly revert to the same old "You're just a bad player so who'd listen to you?" argument?
There is no reason to post about the subject again except in response to questions.
It's human nature to want a response to a question. It's human nature to expect a response from a company you've bought something from when that product doesnt work right. Also, when the company initially stonewalls a complaint (for instance, problems with ASW were routinely denied by company representatives) it is also human nature (for some people at least) not to necessarily accept this response as the final word on the subject. Some people want and expect more than that. That's just the way it is out here, and has been since I was small.
The game is not currently in design change mode (exceptions might be made for items with drastic game impact)
The game is still in bug fix mode.
The bug-fix part is moving along slowly enough from what I can see. I'm glad Matrix hasn't completely abandoned the project, though.
As for changes to the game design itself which would have "drastic game impact," that list is, unhappily, a long one.
In both bug and design posts the posters need not dwell on how screwed up the designers or testers were while game was pre-release all that does is make people suspect the poster has another agenda.
Another agenda? Another agenda other than what? Please tell me what "our" agenda is supposed to be? To applaud Matrix at every turn no matter how unsatisfied we might be with the game we bought? Are we to sit here quietly on the boards engaging in nothing more than harmless prattle? Except, of course, unless one wishes to praise Matrix for releasing the best wargame ever . . . which doesn't happen to function well in many respects, at least according to some people . . . but we're not supposed to mention that little detail, are we?
Where this need is felt required the poster should at least provide a link to examples of their work where they demonstrate how every program they produce works flawlessly and has no detractors.
It's never been a question of the game not working "flawlessly." Matrix has been afforded loads of slack with respect to bugs per se, and the company is duly treated to warm rounds of thank-yous whenever it does fix something.
The reason one reads about other kinds of "complaints" is that the game was designed fundamentally wrong in many respects, according to some people, and for this reason the results in play tend to come out "odd" according to their lights, a situation which does not make for completely happy campers in all quarters. Irksome, is it not?
Oh, well, it seems that life just isn't always fair.
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, If I recall correctly the code for ASW was not changed but made to actually run as designed. There were bugs in ASW routine that produced the "goofy" results. It was changed when save files were provided not as a result of SPAM attacks on the forum.
ORIGINAL: Mogami
ORIGINAL: Phantom Account
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Where this need is felt required the poster should at least provide a link to examples of their work where they demonstrate how every program they produce works flawlessly and has no detractors.
Here's my perfect code:
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::cout << "Hello, world!\n";
}
Beyond that, it gets a little shaky. [:D]
Hi, why Hello World? Why not Hello everyone in the world by name. Or at the very least "Hello (insert name of person runining program) "
ORIGINAL: Mogami
ORIGINAL: Phantom Account
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Where this need is felt required the poster should at least provide a link to examples of their work where they demonstrate how every program they produce works flawlessly and has no detractors.
Here's my perfect code:
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::cout << "Hello, world!\n";
}
Beyond that, it gets a little shaky. [:D]
Hi, why Hello World? Why not Hello everyone in the world by name. Or at the very least "Hello (insert name of person runining program) "
ORIGINAL: Mogami
ORIGINAL: Phantom Account
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Where this need is felt required the poster should at least provide a link to examples of their work where they demonstrate how every program they produce works flawlessly and has no detractors.
Here's my perfect code:
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::cout << "Hello, world!\n";
}
Beyond that, it gets a little shaky. [:D]
Hi, why Hello World? Why not Hello everyone in the world by name. Or at the very least "Hello (insert name of person runining program) "
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Many don't seem to realize that there does exist a middle ground between "goo gooing" and trashing the game at every opportunity. Anyone who does not trash the game is immediately labeled a fanboy of some sort and has his every post trashed along with the game.
But don't forget that those who criticise it are labelled as trashers also. Works both ways.
The fiction that those who consistanly trash this game are somehow "carrying the torch for wargaming excellence" makes me ill.
Oh my. How quickly we forget. You are doing just that here.[8|] Guess you are not part of that middle ground.
Original: Detravel:
For a long time save games were not looked at because it was "working as designed". The fact that it was finally looked at and changed would indicate that for more than a year the standard response by Matrix/2by3 representatives of "working as designed" was WRONG.
ORIGINAL: Mogami
ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, No one objects to anyone posting about the game. It becomes SPAM when you post the same things over and over.
Excuse me, but don't you post the same things over and over?
Tell me. How much progress would have been made with regard to the goofy ASW routines if people had not beat that dead horse to death? If I recall, the original stance of Matrix was that it was "working as designed." Hell, isn't that your own response every time someone complains about a design feature? Don't you constantly revert to the same old "You're just a bad player so who'd listen to you?" argument?
There is no reason to post about the subject again except in response to questions.
It's human nature to want a response to a question. It's human nature to expect a response from a company you've bought something from when that product doesnt work right. Also, when the company initially stonewalls a complaint (for instance, problems with ASW were routinely denied by company representatives) it is also human nature (for some people at least) not to necessarily accept this response as the final word on the subject. Some people want and expect more than that. That's just the way it is out here, and has been since I was small.
The game is not currently in design change mode (exceptions might be made for items with drastic game impact)
The game is still in bug fix mode.
The bug-fix part is moving along slowly enough from what I can see. I'm glad Matrix hasn't completely abandoned the project, though.
As for changes to the game design itself which would have "drastic game impact," that list is, unhappily, a long one.
In both bug and design posts the posters need not dwell on how screwed up the designers or testers were while game was pre-release all that does is make people suspect the poster has another agenda.
Another agenda? Another agenda other than what? Please tell me what "our" agenda is supposed to be? To applaud Matrix at every turn no matter how unsatisfied we might be with the game we bought? Are we to sit here quietly on the boards engaging in nothing more than harmless prattle? Except, of course, unless one wishes to praise Matrix for releasing the best wargame ever . . . which doesn't happen to function well in many respects, at least according to some people . . . but we're not supposed to mention that little detail, are we?
Where this need is felt required the poster should at least provide a link to examples of their work where they demonstrate how every program they produce works flawlessly and has no detractors.
It's never been a question of the game not working "flawlessly." Matrix has been afforded loads of slack with respect to bugs per se, and the company is duly treated to warm rounds of thank-yous whenever it does fix something.
The reason one reads about other kinds of "complaints" is that the game was designed fundamentally wrong in many respects, according to some people, and for this reason the results in play tend to come out "odd" according to their lights, a situation which does not make for completely happy campers in all quarters. Irksome, is it not?
Oh, well, it seems that life just isn't always fair.
Hi, If I recall correctly the code for ASW was not changed but made to actually run as designed. There were bugs in ASW routine that produced the "goofy" results. It was changed when save files were provided not as a result of SPAM attacks on the forum.
I am forced into repeating myself because the SPAM keeps coming. You do not have to ever post again on your favorite subjects. Your point has been read by those required to read it. You can move on to new subjects. (They will be read as well by those who need to read them)
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Many don't seem to realize that there does exist a middle ground between "goo gooing" and trashing the game at every opportunity. Anyone who does not trash the game is immediately labeled a fanboy of some sort and has his every post trashed along with the game.
Moses
But don't forget that those who criticise it are labelled as trashers also. Works both ways.
The fiction that those who consistanly trash this game are somehow "carrying the torch for wargaming excellence" makes me ill.
Moses
Oh my. How quickly we forget. You are doing just that here.[8|] Guess you are not part of that middle ground.
RS
Here is a classic posting technique. Quote me several times followed by comments that don't even make sence.---- How am I trashing the game in my post??
Moses
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
I gave my post a second look when I wrote it. I meant to convey that you have labeled me a trasher of the game by my simply being an ardent critic for its completion/improvement. You are not the only one by far
ORIGINAL: moses
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
I gave my post a second look when I wrote it. I meant to convey that you have labeled me a trasher of the game by my simply being an ardent critic for its completion/improvement. You are not the only one by far
Apology accepted.
My point is that nowadays on this board many inject the thought that the game is a joke on every thread that appears. A newby asks a simple question which is answered quickly by several people. Followed by a torrent of the same few saying how this is another example why the game is a waste.
Other posters post long posts in which they practically shout their perceived brilliance, logic and superiority with posts that while using a lot of big words do little more than say that everyone else is stupid and/or completely clueless. Then they post about the proper use of logic. [>:][>:]
I don't think anything positive has changed due to these posters.
Changes result when a critical mass of rational posters debate things with some degree of mutual respect and convince a couple key people that its worth their time to make a change in order to 1.) improve the game that I'm sure they love. and 2.) to help keep their current and FUTURE customers happy. Those who simply trash the game at every turn lose on both counts.
At least thats my opinion.
I'll criticise Brett Farve all I want. Nothing wrong with this. But I know he's a great quarterback and and certainly light years from anything I could do. Plus every time I hear the words Green Bay I don't go on a rant about BF. Just once in a while when he makes a bad play.
Plus occasional critcism might be better recieved if occasionally some of the good points(of which there are many) are acknowledged.
Still, it does provide a modicum of entertainment watching two groups of people each "carry the torch" for whatever cause they're involved in.
So do you believe that the fans criticism of any bad plays makes him a better quarterback?? I think not, need a better analogy
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Every time a bug is reported the testers attempt to recreate it and when it can reproduced it is fixed.
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi,
1. I still don't agree there is too mch supply. I run out all the time as Japan. Period from Jan 42 to May 42 I am always low. I posted SRA status in several PBEm games. It is 1943 and I have repaired SRA to 10 percent of possible total. I have been stalled, lost battles and have low production directly as a result. I have not built production so that did not consume my supply (always wait till June 42 to begin playing with expansion because I don't know what my supply status will be before I capture SRA. Posts stating it as a matter of fact that there is too much supply in SRA ignore the fact that what Japan will actually have for use is unknown. So it is a fact that Japan does not have too much supply unless the SRA is captured intact or near intact and this only occurs in games where the Allied player removes the engineer units to use the avaition support else where.
It is the "Sir Robin" that results in extra supply for Japan and this case it is not the extra supply that results in Japanese rapid expansion and abilty to maintain the offensive but the fact that Japan is able to conduct the SRA operation without the need for Air cover or Surface escort and using smaller LCU while the rest goes out and attacks places otherwise safe from attack. The Japanese will still experiance a shortage but it won't matter as much because they are able to use much less for the historic needs and gather forces for unhistoric adventures.
2. Every post that noted a bug in ASW and provided a save was looked at to see if bug could be reproduced and thus fixed. In the end a file was sent that was the correct version and reproduced the bug. It was posted the error existed quite a while before it could be fixed. Not every case of a submarine being spotted and sunk was a result of the bug.
Every time a bug is reported the testers attempt to recreate it and when it can reproduced it is fixed.
3. WITP is bloody because the players are bloody. We accept loss rates that would make actual commanders cry at night.
I've played people who simply bulldoze me dispite the loss of every transport involved LCU being wiped out from being moved too far forward without air or naval cover, submarines parking right in Tokyo Bay for however long it takes to finally sink them, people who overstack airfields right in range of my LBA without realizing the airfield is only a size 1 and can't operate offensive missions.
Since I am involved in games with players who are very casualty mindfull (Kereguelen)
I can refute the notion the game is inhertly bloody. He has been able to maintain a successful defense without suffering high loss rates in ships men or aircraft.
I really feel their should be more a point loss for "Bloody" play
