Forums

Like it or loathe it but the game has to advance or its dead.1 all your complaints ARE being taken onboard by Jason and his team who will fix major issues.2 there are no real canges to the game apart from the visibilty issue which im sure Jason is working on a quick fix for.3 most of the new stuff was intended for the designers to bring us new scenarios to play with new units and new capabities.4 the poeple like Jason and his team and Earl and other designers are doing a lot to keep this game going.5 as far as im aware they will listen and fix certain things members dont like.6 instead of complaining you should thank the poeple who have worked very hard to keep this game going.7 these are my thoughts and not intended to offend any member.

Complaining? Maybe... :chin:

Discussing? All the time! :stir:

I have never intended to offend the development team, I know they are doing their best trying to keep the game alive, just like solving the Vista issue and many, many more :bow:

However I don't have to agree with everything what was added into the game! :smoke:

In most cases it's just take it or don't use it. But in some cases you simply cannot...

Best regards

Slawek

I agree with Valor.

My intentions with posting my concerns with 1.03 are intended to provide feedback and express my opinion on the changes. Not to insult Jason and the CS crew at Matrix or denigrate their efforts to support CS.

I hope noone took them otherwise.

Mike

I'm the voice that will cry out in the wilderness.

I do not think a game that has lasted so long without support and very few changes after almost ten years was going to die.
I do not mind improvements. Heck I like the graphics, sounds, new units, and when I get around to them I am sure that I will like the new scenarios.

I do mind the fundamental change that was done. It changed the game and did not improve it.
Time will tell if it is a change for the better and it brings in a lot more players or returns some of those that left for whatever reason they stopped playing the old game.

If I cannot state clearly that they changed the game and I do not like either what they did or the way they did it, then I do not know who can?
If someone makes comments to me, over and over, trying to sell it too me ... sorry I am not buying it.

I do know that I can appreciate the effort, I can see the quality of work that went into it. But, I do not like the changes.
They took my favorite T.V. show and changed the plot and the characters. They re-wrote my favorite book and changed the ending. They made a game I used to like into a game that I do not like.

We're all adults here. What's wrong with strong comments of objection. Though I do realize I was harsh when I let my anger do some of the typing I know that I cannot accept the fundamental change to the game.

I hope you all can. I may be the only voice left saying it. But, that's O.K. by me.

As I see it, a lot of secrecy has surrounded the developments, thus some outcomes have surprised members, causing varying levels of concern if the outcome was either new or did not reflect expectations...I think the for example visibility issues lie in the latter area.

What to do? IF this is being done as a club venture, with no commercial overtones...well, the Manhattan Project or the destination beaches for D-Day it ain't. So what harm is there in telling people what the overall plan is, in some detail, the phasings, etc? Bound to increase interest, involvement, and sure to bring out some pearls of wisdom.
IF however, this venture has commercial aspects, I fully understand the need for a proper level of security. I would include IP/copyright issues here. But perhaps we peons could be thrown a crust a bit more frequently.

I and others have strongly criticised aspects of the developments. Unfortunately, a strong theme of responses to the critics has been along the lines that the development team, by virtue of their dedication and work, are completely above any criticism. Such thinking negates the Western tradition of freedom of speech, and responses along this line are without value. I am not talking about abuse or personal denigration, which has very largely been absent, but informed criticism. It also needs to be remembered that criticism of a complex issue rarely encompasses the entirety. One can respect the worth of 95% of the new units, while arguing that 5% are totally valueless and should be ditched. The new ORBATS are works of art, but do contain errors of terminology (which are now recognised). There are new areas which have been added on without understanding of their nature, with bizarre results.

A work like this doesn't happen at once..it evolves around a plan. The matter has been tightly held. There may be sound commercial reasons for this. If there are not, I think the information flow needs fixing. I have heard the odd call for ideas and wishes, but that hardly constitutes a two way flow. Remember, this is a club. We are not, although playing at some aspects such as Chain of Command, a military service. Security is hardly necessary, and should be pitched as low as can be...maybe discipline and commercial aspects (if any)only.

I started with Photoshop 2.0 and Mac system 5; PowerPoint 2.0 and Illustrator 88 (1988), just to name a few. PC's were still in DOS, so I won't even go there. Most of those old verisons have advanced by at least 5 major releases over the past 20 years, and dozens of minor ones. Not all the advances were well received, like the jump from Word 4.0 to 5.0.

Version 1 of anything is going to be a work in progress. The great thing is that the Matrix team doesn't seem to mind the criticism. In fact they apparently welcome it. As long as they keep listening to suggestions I'm convinced the game will continue to improve, maybe 2 steps forward and 1 back, but it won't stagnate. So they missed on the visibility thing, but everyone I've played loves the hidden AT units. Tell 'em what you hate, but tell 'em what you love.

I understand completely, though, that many players would rather not be beta testers and to them I'd suggest going away for awhile (or playing the Talonsoft versions - I do) and coming back in a year to try it again.

K K Rossokolski Wrote:As I see it, a lot of secrecy has surrounded the developments, thus some outcomes have surprised members, causing varying levels of concern if the outcome was either new or did not reflect expectations...I think the for example visibility issues lie in the latter area.

What to do? IF this is being done as a club venture, with no commercial overtones...well, the Manhattan Project or the destination beaches for D-Day it ain't. So what harm is there in telling people what the overall plan is, in some detail, the phasings, etc? Bound to increase interest, involvement, and sure to bring out some pearls of wisdom.
IF however, this venture has commercial aspects, I fully understand the need for a proper level of security. I would include

IP/copyright issues here. But perhaps we peons could be thrown a crust a bit more frequently.

I and others have strongly criticised aspects of the developments. Unfortunately, a strong theme of responses to the critics has been along the lines that the development team, by virtue of their dedication and work, are completely above any criticism. Such thinking negates the Western tradition of freedom of speech, and responses along this line are without value. I am not talking about abuse or personal denigration, which has very largely been absent, but informed criticism. It also needs to be remembered that criticism of a complex issue rarely encompasses the entirety. One can respect the worth of 95% of the new units, while arguing that 5% are totally valueless and should be ditched. The new ORBATS are works of art, but do contain errors of terminology (which are now recognised). There are new areas which have been added on without understanding of their nature, with bizarre results.

A work like this doesn't happen at once..it evolves around a plan. The matter has been tightly held. There may be sound commercial reasons for this. If there are not, I think the information flow needs fixing. I have heard the odd call for ideas and wishes, but that hardly constitutes a two way flow. Remember, this is a club. We are not, although playing at some aspects such as Chain of Command, a military service. Security is hardly necessary, and should be pitched as low as can be...maybe discipline and commercial aspects (if any)only.

With all due respect I don't think anyone has objected to criticism, in fact they have asked for it. On numerous occasions they have asked for constructive criticism with examples from play and if possible saved games. Reading the Matrix forum the only thing they seem to have objected to is the over the top hyperbole which does not address the core issues.

Ivan Wrote:With all due respect I don't think anyone has objected to criticism, in fact they have asked for it. On numerous occasions they have asked for constructive criticism with examples from play and if possible saved games. Reading the Matrix forum the only thing they seem to have objected to is the over the top hyperbole which does not address the core issues.

I did not express one point as clearly as I should have. I spoke about responses to the critics...I meant that to mean from club members, some of whom seem to think that ANY criticism of the new work is bad form. I agree that none of Jason Petho's team have responded negatively to criticism, as far as I have seen. That is not to suggest that explanations of contentious points have been accepted or not.

Scud Wrote:I started with Photoshop 2.0 and Mac system 5; PowerPoint 2.0 and Illustrator 88 (1988), just to name a few. PC's were still in DOS, so I won't even go there. Most of those old verisons have advanced by at least 5 major releases over the past 20 years, and dozens of minor ones. Not all the advances were well received, like the jump from Word 4.0 to 5.0.

Version 1 of anything is going to be a work in progress. The great thing is that the Matrix team doesn't seem to mind the criticism. In fact they apparently welcome it. As long as they keep listening to suggestions I'm convinced the game will continue to improve, maybe 2 steps forward and 1 back, but it won't stagnate. So they missed on the visibility thing, but everyone I've played loves the hidden AT units. Tell 'em what you hate, but tell 'em what you love.

I understand completely, though, that many players would rather not be beta testers and to them I'd suggest going away for awhile (or playing the Talonsoft versions - I do) and coming back in a year to try it again.

Ya know spud, I have bitten my tongue and actually could have really gotten nasty when I confronted the Matrix changes.
What they have done is make a major fundamental change to the game.

This is not a tweak to a word processor program or a new way to sort fields as the technology & speed of the hardware improved.

This fundamental change, "for the sake of realism" in the new Assault Rules actually goes back to something that was rejected years ago.
The Variable Visibility rules were dropped into the game and totally fail to represent any "realism" to this game scale.
In my opinion they should never have been made a hard wired part of the game.

For ten years we played our game. We asked for and got, new units, graphics, scenarios, etc.
I am trying to recall if anyone wrote or discussed "variable visibility" or "close assault" enough to make changes to it.

I am not talking about the bugs or the upgrades. I am speaking out againt the wholesale change to the game itself.
What if your software provider changed your programs to go back to something that was "improved" prior to their changing it back?

I'm not against upgrades or improvement. I'm against changing the way something is done for change sake, when it was not needed.

Ivan Wrote:With all due respect I don't think anyone has objected to criticism, in fact they have asked for it. On numerous occasions they have asked for constructive criticism with examples from play and if possible saved games. Reading the Matrix forum the only thing they seem to have objected to is the over the top hyperbole which does not address the core issues.

With all due respect Ivan, you can use my name. I am the hyperbole king. ;)
I could care less what Matrix objected to. I could care less if I express myself using any illustration, analogy, or hyperbole.
They asked me to accept wholesale a fundamental change to the game I played and loved over the last ten years.

They asked me to jump through hoops to correct their glitches. In my opinion I did not want glitches corrected I wanted the new close assault rules removed.
I was not going to be sucked into the little game of "we can fix that" or "we can do that differently". This could go on forever as I presented case after case for dismantling the new assault rules and the variable visibility rule.

And, believe me. I gave all the constructive criticism that I could. But, as I say over and over, it's not how the various parts of the close assault rules that I want fixed. It is the close assault rules that I want removed.
They had how long, and what you don't understand, in the time to make this change, to one, get it right, and two, to hear over and over that some of us did not want fundamental changes like the close assault rules.

I find "variable visibility" a sham and a shame that does not represent anything in the scale of the game that even resembles realism. And, for those who think I am talking about AT that can remain hidden, you would be wrong. It's the fact that visibility can change dramatically over the course of a game. Unless it is a rainstorm I do not see visibility being reduced from ten hexes to three hexes in the course of a game where visibility was a major factor.
The close assault rules, even without the bugs, do not even come close to the "realism" that was intended. What it did was swing the pendulum from one side to the opposite side.

If it is about what I want, or constructive criticism that I give, I have done so with specific examples?

Now what more, besides my screaming at the top of my lungs, "that they have changed the game itself" can I do to ease your troubled mind?
When my fingertips are practically bruised and bleeding from typing all the "examples" and explaining all of what I believe.

Sheesh. Matrix makes the wrong change and wants to drag out the process of correcting the change so that the changes will be accepted over time, and you object to hyperbole? :chin:
I have removed Matrix from my "favorites" and have no intention of ever visiting their forums again. If that makes you, and them happy, then we all will be happy, eh? :smoke: