I'd like to reply to Dave's post (erm from 2008), as I didn't have time to reply in detail, back then:
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
However, if I accept this for the campaign feature, then I must also accept it for all the other features on our wish list. So then what sets one of these features apart if not the actual feedback we have received. In the absence of any other data being available this is about all we have to go on.
Understandable. Still, you might want to include another point in your thinking, particularly the fact that the people providing feedback in forums or via email usually form the minority if looking at the total number of customers, as the silent majority won't provide feedback.
So, if looking at things objectively, I have to say that requests - like the ones above posted by Howard, SeaMonkey etc (I'd include myself there) -, don't necessarily represent the silent majority, means that, in general, there's a chance "forum-whores" may not represent the customer-base as a whole, true. So in that context, only a questionaire handed to each and every customer (i.e. via email) would have the potential to give halfway reliable infos of what the "majority" really thinks.
That said, it might be a good idea to create a set of questions, pretty much like a poll with let's say 10 or 20 questions (multiple choice-style) where the user just has to check radio buttons, and put it on the Panther/Matrix website, then send the link to registered customers of COTA/HTTR. This would be a cheap way of getting more accurate feedback. A forum and a few emails shouldn't be seen as reliable source of info when it comes to what the majority of customers wants.
But this whole deal (regarding creation of a bigger fanbase/customer pool) is pretty much a matter of setting the right priorities on the developer side, it just involves an objective analysis.
Sure, there is personal taste and individual background/game experience, but if comparing HTTR to COTA in a fair and objective way, I'd come to the following conclusions:
1) HTTR was extremely challenging and entertaining, due to various reasons:
- The maps were very challenging, due to the type of terrain (difficult terrain consisting of polders, large woods, narrow highways - while still offering enough flat terrain for para landings), the scenario design and the force composition...
- although the engine did not allow to render totally realistic movement modes for motorized units in general or heavy units in particular (motorized units could enter heavily wooded areas, the movement speed was just reduced, some community designers set the movement rate to "1", as "hot-fix"), this did not restrict the player from having heaps of fun....
- the estab composition/era allowed for development of at least a few custom scenarios, namely Operation Cobra, the Normandy/hedgerow scenarios, the really good Bastogne scenario, giving the game a somewhat higher replay-value. The restricting factor here (when looking at the low number of scenarios) was, apart from the locked estabs, the terrain - to some extent, as due to the limited space for layers/textures (in the engine) additional types of terrain couldn't be added:
existing types had to be overwritten and the graphics changed, it was not possible to just add new terrain types. Terrain types I could imagine: Fords (passages in rivers providing shallow waters where vehicles could cross them within short time frames), trenches, MG nests (providing some protection), and i bet there are more types I can't think of atm.
2) COTA was less fun (for me at least), for various reasons:
- While the terrain is way more difficult than the dutch TO, the COTA theater made for a less entertaining game, the game could have been called "Minor Road to Athens", too, due to the terrain that is/was widely unaccessable for motorized units, which includes - quite surprising - infantry units.
In addition, COTA still didn't allow to add more types of terrain, as described in the HTTR section, as it featured the same limited space holding the different types of terrain.
- for new players, the COTA terrain wasn't as easily readable as the terrain in HTTR. HTTR allowed for (almost) instant fun, even though the player might not have been aware of details or goodies of the game mechanics. COTA's learning curve had already been raised by introducing the new movement-mode and the supply system, and - unlike in HTTR, where the player could cheat a bit - by consistently enforcing the effects of fatigue.
The visual presentation suffered, purely due to the rough greek terrain, not due to imaginary flaws in map-design. Contour-lines would have helped here.....
- for me (well, given, I'm anything than a newbie-player), there were only 2 scenarios that put up a real challenge, namely the italians vs greeks-scenario with the Italian Armored Division and the scenario with the German Panzer-Regiment (see my AAR in the COTA forum), due to the force composition. The CW forces just didn't have the tools to really stop the invasion. In contrast, the Allied player actually had a chance to win in HTTR, even with historical arrival dates, if he focused on speed, primary goals and a proper strategy. That's one of the reasons why I still play HTTR once in a while, while COTA is collecting dust....
- the mixed movement feature in COTA added realism to the movement in general, which is basically a good thing, but it created a new state where the player gets frustrated, because infantry battalions (foot units) can't enter woods as a whole, anymore. This happens because the BN HQs and it's AT platoons are defined as motorized units, while the bulk of these units consists of foot soldiers, so that the player has to detach the "wheeled" units before entering woods, losing the ability to have them controlled by a friendly AI HQ.
Since fully motorized infantry units can't access woods anymore, at all, missions where such units are fielded exclusively turn out to be less fun/realistic .
This feature should have been postponed until a fully working dismount-function was in place. Right now tanks can't even enter light woods (a type of terrain that can be easily accessed by tanks in RL, since 30-60ton vehicles will just plow through them as if they were matches poking out of the ground).....
- the composition of the estabs in COTA didn't allow for the creation of scenarios other than the one custom scenario in Norway, these 2 North African scenarios from PoE (not even published yet) and another modder, The Sealion scenario and the Leros scenario. Please correct me if i missed a scenario. The estabs didn't allow for 1940 France scenarios, nor for Russian ones, , nor for Netherlands 1940 or 1940 German what-if scenarios (Saarland). So, the force composition for this theater restricted custom designers even more, in addition to having no access to the estabs....
- while the supply system may be a neat feature enhancing the overall realism of the game, the absence of this system wouldn't necessarily kill the game's entertainment factor. Even worse, a good amount of man-hours had to be put into squashing the bugs in the supply system after game release, whereas this time could have been put into those kind of features that would make the game more user-friendly (see below for suggestions). Also, the system still seems to use a strange resolution, means that even with the latest patch particular units won't get resupplied, although they're not surrounded and although the roads between the base and the units are not occupied. (I made screenshots of this, but I was too lazy to post them, I have no interest in COTA anymore)....
- On one hand, the exit points upped the level of realism in a way that events in those sectors could be recreated where a force just had to cut through in order to proceed to the main goal (i.e. to the primary line of defense) or to bypass the enemy's main line (i.e. Ardennes 1940). On the other hand, they formed something like an anti-climax, as it's not necessary to destroy or route the bulk of the opposing force, the player "just" has to make it to the exit....
I accept that there are those like yourself who passionately prefer a campaign style of game. It's just that I do not think you are in the majority. Further, I also accept that there are people like yourself who love to design scenarios. But there are very few of you indeed. I know we all like to think we are part of the majority but the wise man sees and accepts that in some if not many ways we are not part of the majority. All wargamers should realise this. By defintion we are in a minority game-wise. And in many ways it's good to be part of a niche. The bonds that bind are stronger.
[].....
In the final analysis for our company to survive we need to cater to the needs of the majority of wargamers. By creating a revolutionary design - ie not your traditional turn based hex based wargame - we have already turned into the wind and taken a great risk. We have gradually won over more and more wargamers and we have done this by listening to their demands and responding where we can within our very limited resources. We need to make each post a winner from here on.
According to my best assessment, the demand for a campaign feature does not yet warrant giving it priority nor does spending a lot of effort to enhance the scenario editors. I may well be wrong but IMO we would not garner a large increase in sales sufficent to justify the effort and expenditure.
You restrict access to the estab, and at the same time you wonder about the fact that there were never more than 5-6 community scenarios for each part of the AA-series.
Then your analyzis is that there is no need to grant access to the estabs as it wouldn't result in a higher number of custom scenarios anyways, and that publishing of a corresponding tool would just make a select company of modders happy, without gaining anything.
This, with all respect, may be either an error of thinking on your side, or a false statement you knowingly present to the community, in order (as you may think) to protect your product and future releases.
I'm working as project manager, and I can tell that it's exactly the other way around, that it's all about setting the RIGHT priorities, and - last but not least - that there's a chance that you're currently prioritizing items that could be put aside for a while, in fact.
Once you would have granted access to the estabs (at least partially), and once you would have added one or another feature to the scenario editor/map editor (to make it easier to design scenarios and to come up with more sophisticated scenarios - i.e. Normandy theater) you would very well see more custom scenarios. A bigger pool of maps enhances replayability of the game, and THIS will attract more players/customers.
Now couple this with an additional campaign feature, and may it just be the most rudimentary version, then you will be able to pull even more customers.
In short, you restrict yourself to a certain amount of customers and to an extremely low amount of custom missions (
if thinking about the low amount of custom scenarios for the last 2 games, one might be even tempted to say that it's not necessary to include SM/MM in BFTB, as they're less useful for customers than for PG-designers - due to the locked estabs) by setting certain priorities and by employing your restrictive policy regarding the estabs.
If that's what you want, if you want this gem (your game displays the BEST operational simulation on this planet) just to be acknowledged by a group of "insiders", with the number of customers slowly rising, over the decades, well - then be it. But you may have turned 75 or 80 by the time you've gained a substantial increase of the customer base. And other customers may turn away, as for them, OOB and map research along with the 39,845th AI enhancement or bridge-building capability won't justify the price for a full game, after the 4th or 5th sequel.
My suggestion would be, since you have limited resources (regarding manpower), that you should first focus on items that have potential to broaden your customer base, before you focus on tweaking AI behaviour or adding/improving supply systems, new movement modes or reserve group pools.
Embrace the whole community and potential new customers by making the game more accessable, before you add another bunch of sophisticated AI details only experts would see/appreciate:
- Add a campaign feature (doesn't have to be a killer app with all bells and whistles),
- add contour lines to the height layers (as shown by barbarossa i think?) so that it's easier to read the layout of the terrain,
- release the estab editor and grant access to the estabs, even though you might feel like you'd give away your "sterling cutlery", you could
a) grant access partially (say lock a certain number of estab entries) and you would then be
b) rewarded with more community efforts and enhanced community acceptance.
- add ONE button to the main menu, which will open a flash file in the user's browser, giving an overview (map) of the operation (with the borders of each scenario shown), maybe along with a little animation and music. Immersion plays a vital role for most casual gamers, you have to include that in your thinking. Such a button is possible (technically) as the credits screen (ABOUT button in the game, the "Conquest of the Aegean"-logo is an active link which leads to the matrix website) in COTA already has this functionality (it opens a webpage), so don't tell me it needs extra/sophisticated programming. [:)]
- alternatively, if you really can't bring yourself to release the estab editor, contract select community mappers, pretty much like the BETA user agreements people have to send/fax to Matrix if they want to become BETA testers, restricting and controlling the theaters these mappers would be allowed to cover, with a legal contract. Non-disclosure of the estab editor to 3rd parties could be forced that way, too.
The next step then could be
- to focus on the release of several add-ons, prior to adding sophisticated features. Releasing a new theater every 6-8 months should be possible. People will always pay for more "fodder" (theaters) for their beloved AA-game (or CmdOps, if you will), I am sure, and they will appreciate and trust the expertise of the DDT (Data Design Teams) researching the OOBs and the designers creating the actual scenarios.
This may secure extra sales, and might put you in a position where you can afford to employ 1 or 2 programmers, giving you more manpower to work on substantial enhancements that justify a full price-tag for a sequel.
Accessable estabs released as part of a new sequel alone justify a full price tag, but minor and even major improvements won't necessarily justify such a tag. Personally, I feel like a donkey with PG sitting on my back, where PG is swinging around a carrot on a fishing rod in front of my mouth.
Once I think that "I'll get the carrot" (COTA was like that, and BFTB will be like that - i am sure) and that the actual PG release will provide me with heaps of fun and enable people to come up with even more scenarios, close inspection of the most recent release then makes the customer feel like PG just keeps swinging the fishing rod, as PG is scared to be forced out of business, or because PG keeps focusing on features that don't have potential to pull a bigger fanbase.
The official reasoning then ranges from "
we don't have the resources" to "
unlocking the estabs won't do anything" and "
this has been on the wishlist for a long time, but it doesn't have priority".
Community efforts (in case the estabs would be unlocked) shouldn't be seen as competition, nor should some unlocked estabs be seen as killer app with potential to drive PG out of business. In case you think like that, then this is your main error in thinking.
Your current policy doesn't seem to set the right priorities, sorry.
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
By creating a revolutionary design - ie not your traditional turn based hex based wargame - we have already turned into the wind and taken a great risk.
True, it was risky. But revolutionary design alone may not provide enough economical viability. You may have to make one or another compromise, if you want to broaden the game's acceptance.
PS:
I've posted some of my points (collected above) here and there in your forum, over the course of 3 or 4 years (starting a few months before COTA had been released, IIRC), but I felt like i had to present them in one post, today, sorry for the long essay.
