Complaints about 103

[Von Earlmann]

Heck Ed....I never had Matrix on my favorites....LOL

I have not played a lot with 1.03 yet and am sure I will find things I don't like

There were a plethora of things I didn't like about the old game.....just never said much........but I did have to spend a lot of time thinking of ways to design scenarios around the things I didn't like

Ain't no big thing!

VE

[Ivan]

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:

Ed, lets be frank about this. At the end of the day this is not about what you want. It is not about what I want. It is not about what any individual player of this game wants no matter how long they have been playing or how much they think they have some sort of ownership of this game. The game belongs to Matrix and they can pretty much do what they want with it. All the versions of this game you have purchased you still have access to and you can play them without alteration at your leisure with people who have like minded views. Then there are other people who would like to see the game grow, improve and develop even if that means some glitches and imperfections along the way. The people in this camp like myself will keep on patching and move along with the changes and adapt. That doesn't make either camp right or wrong we are just doing what we feel is right. What I think is unacceptable is for this game to be held in stasis because one camp does not want to contemplate change. No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to patch, are they? At the same time I don't think it's fair to put a gun to someone else's head (metaphorically speaking) and use emotional and over the top language because they happen to like change. You have a choice and I have a choice what we don't have is the right to dictate to others how a game we do not own will develop or not as the case may be. They didn't ask you because you don't own the game. They didn't ask me either that's why I'm not upset about the things I do not like but happy about the things I do like. I hope they continue to develop the game. If I want stasis I will play my old Talsonsoft editions or 1.02.

As a moderator perhaps you should be more moderate? I do not have a troubled mind, thank you.

[Chuck10mtn]

Hi All,
Here we go again, we've had this same discussion 3 times now on 3 different posts and we're still not getting any closer to a solution. Lets try the to figure a way to get on the same page.
I think we can all agree that Jason and the staff are greatly appriciated for all the work that they do to keep the game moving, I know some think in the wrong direction and some think in the right direction. How many of us would take someone hollering for us to change something, not many.
Lets try to find some middle ground so MOST people can come to the table and play the game. Making everyone happy is impossible so I say most.
I think the old assult rules favored the attacker way too much. I think the new assult rules favor the defender way too much. If we make it so you cannot see anything about the other sides unit other than its there whats wrong with that?? We ease back on everyman in a foxhole being John Rambo fighting off hundreds and we should all be happy.
Lets make the varible weather come into play every 10 turns that would be 1 hr game time. And we all know the weather can change in a hour.
I would like to see people trying to be posative and find a solution to what seems to have some people up in arms.
I personally don't see anything wrong with the changes it means some people will have to make changes in how they battle. As long as everybody has the same version we're all playing by the same rules. Just my opinion

Chuck

[Hawk Kriegsman]

I think the old assult rules favored the attacker way too much. I think the new assult rules favor the defender way too much.

I think it may be a bit to early to determine if the assault rules aren't any good. It has been a week. As an aside these are very similar to the assault rules that game out with the original EF game in 1997. I think the complaints may be more of "shock of change" rather than saying the rule sucks. I know I am one of the biggest users of disrupt, surround and capture. This will effect me greatly. But I have an open mind on the subject (that and I seem to be on defense in all my games so I have not tried many assaults).

If we make it so you cannot see anything about the other sides unit other than its there whats wrong with that??

If you think is is tough to assault now, It would be nearly impossible if the "D" was taken away. I think troops have a decent idea if the opponents are cowering, butting up, not firing effectively, not behaving in a customary way, etc (ie disrupted). I am against making the "D" invisible.

Lets make the varible weather come into play every 10 turns that would be 1 hr game time. And we all know the weather can change in a hour.

The assumption that the visibility is exactly the same over the course of the battle is a bit off in my opinion. Its not just about the weather. It covers a myriad of situations like, dust kicked up from tanks, explosions, smoke on the battlefield, etc all can have a varying effect on visibility. I don't think a minor varience of a hex or two under most weather conditions is a big deal.

I would like to see people trying to be posative and find a solution to what seems to have some people up in arms.

All we can do is constructively make our concerns known to Matrix.

Like it or not there is no solution. Its Matrix's game and they will do with it as they see fit.

I think everyone really needs to remember that.

Thanx!

[Ivan]

Well said Hawk!

As an aside I have been playing hill 239 under the new patch as the Allies and getting stuffed. So that means either the new assault rules are not so different to the old or I am a very crap player. My opponent has had no problem assaulting bunkers and neither have I. I wonder if people are playing different games sometimes.

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Well said Hawk!

I try to have a quality post at least once a month! ;)

Thanx!

[Von Earlmann]

[quote=Silkster53]
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."
Ed,
The game was not going to die,simply because people like me will play it and work with it. It did not stand the test of time. It went ten years with no changes because Talonsoft deemed it so.There was no one to complain to and no one to change it because they refused to let us use the code or work with us in any way.They took the money and ran as it were. So, if you can call refusing to change anything that a myriad of people wanted fixed standing the test of time: so be it: I have no argument for that.

"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."

I stopped playing the game for a spell because I was burned out. I was very bored with the same old surround,disrupt,herd and capture stuff. I came back,my wife thinks it was a poor choice(see you can't please everyone) but so far I am still enjoying things. I do think it is a bit premature to say the changes did not improve the game....remember Talonsoft let it go for ten years.......I guess I can give the Beta brigade and Matrix a few monthes :-)

Who knows in the end we may have the perfect wargame........:-)

von Earlmann

choice 1 the glass is half full

choice 2 the glass is have empty

The new engineer rules "The container is twice as big as it needs to be"

[Von Luck]

Guys thank you for all your input but dont go to war with each other on it.My point was as i said change will happen Jason and his crew will try and fix issues you dont like so be patient and lastly do what i do install all versions that way you can play any and all scenarios as you see fit.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Ed, lets be frank about this. At the end of the day this is not about what you want. It is not about what I want. It is not about what any individual player of this game wants no matter how long they have been playing or how much they think they have some sort of ownership of this game. The game belongs to Matrix and they can pretty much do what they want with it. All the versions of this game you have purchased you still have access to and you can play them without alteration at your leisure with people who have like minded views. Then there are other people who would like to see the game grow, improve and develop even if that means some glitches and imperfections along the way. The people in this camp like myself will keep on patching and move along with the changes and adapt. That doesn't make either camp right or wrong we are just doing what we feel is right. What I think is unacceptable is for this game to be held in stasis because one camp does not want to contemplate change. No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to patch, are they? At the same time I don't think it's fair to put a gun to someone else's head (metaphorically speaking) and use emotional and over the top language because they happen to like change. You have a choice and I have a choice what we don't have is the right to dictate to others how a game we do not own will develop or not as the case may be. They didn't ask you because you don't own the game. They didn't ask me either that's why I'm not upset about the things I do not like but happy about the things I do like. I hope they continue to develop the game. If I want stasis I will play my old Talsonsoft editions or 1.02.

As a moderator perhaps you should be more moderate? I do not have a troubled mind, thank you.

Oh sir Ivan, I can get perfectly frank.

The first thing I will tell you in a "frank" fashion is that you do not tell me what my duties are here, nor what I can write or not write about the changes that Matrix made. There you are stepping over the bounds. Be careful where you want to take the discussion because I have a lot of "frank" words that I have not said.
I think I have been more than fair to you, Jason, and the boys at Matrix.
Just because I wear the hat of Ladder Commander and moderator of this forum it does not mean that I do not have the right to express my belief that they made fundamental changes to the game that make it stink.
If you think I wanted status quo you are again mistaken and I will surely knock down any strawman that you wish to place as my reason.

Secondly, don't try to school me on how corporations work. I've had much too much experience in that area. This may all be about "making money". That is what corporations do?
But, corporations also study the effects of changing a product. Ever hear of "new" Coke, or know why we have Classic Coke?
Ever hear of the Edsel?

How'd they do? That was a bunch of corporate boneheads who thought they could force something on the consumer.
I didn't drink "new" coke. Why? Because I don't like it.
I don't play Advanced Squad Leader. Why? Because I don't like it.

I've played the Campaign Series since West Front came out. Why? Because I liked it.
I've been a member of the Blitz. Why?
Because I played PBEM with one guy from Florida and I wanted to expand my PBEM experience. And, I liked it.

You keep bringing up your one gaming experience using the new version 1.03 patch. Good for you. Glad the one game was not changed for you.
I was in the middle of 16 PBEM games, some of which my opponents paused because of what the new rules did. I've had some return to play and I can tell you the experience, over many scenarios, that the changes made were fundamental. And, my experience says that the change is wrong for the game.

Years ago and up until recently all that was ever said that was needed to keep this game going was to provide support, update the graphics, make it a no CD install and boot up, add new scenarios, add new units, fix all bugs, and the rest of the little things that would improve the game.
No where was "completely change the way the game is played" was ever discussed as what would make the game great. A very small group of people made that choice. I will not be silenced because you, or they, do not like what I have to say.

Please experience more and enjoy your "new coke" if you want. And, don't tell me that I cannot express my opinion. I can take or leave your opinion as much as you can take or leave mine.
Just don't tell me how to do my job along the way. If you don't like it Jim Mays, Paul, or Randy will be a place you can go to air your grievances?
Just do not come on the forums and expect that I, or anyone else, who disagrees with you are not going to express their opinions because you think we should be more "moderate". I don't sit on the fence and vote what I think everyone else will want. I lead. If no one follows or agrees it will not change my opinion.

Bottom line, that is all I have done. Expressed and defended my opinions.

[Nort]

I like Diet Coke. ;)