V1.03 -The Downside

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Well said Rod.
I think you walked into the nursery and all the mom's and dad's went to protect their babies?

Though everyone put a lot of time and effort into this and should feel like they need to defend every aspect, they really should not "attack" you over it.
Nor, should anyone defending their "thoughts and ideas" feel that anyone is directly attacking "them". And, we can all present ourselves with proper decorum as we make our cases? :smoke:

My only belief is that when criticism is made there should be solutions presented. And, when someone feels that criticism is made against them, for the work they have done, they should be open enough to take a step back and reevaluate their direction. :chin:

Personally, I do not like a lot of the new things. What Gary wrote really scares me. I am a firm believer in this game design as it was intended. Modeling in a lot of "stuff" to make it into already existing games will not improve it, it will only change it.
If players and develpers want to shift the game more toward OpC or TOAW, I would suggest that they be directed to those games and leave the Campaign Series alone.
I read on the Matrix forums that a player wants to add C-47's to drop supply to front line units. IMO, that is a foolish direction and way out of the scope of the game. Supply rules were fine for the scale intended.

Fix the bugs, make it work well, upgrade the graphics and units.
Making it into something it is not is not the way to go. Yes, I've said this over and over. Here will be my last time. :rolleyes:

As long as I can design and play scenarios that were done within the intent of the original designer/developers I will be happy.

Game on!

[RedDevil]

If you walk into the nursery spewing and spitting on everything, flopping on the deck like a fish, most people grab will their kids....
What flies in your area as normal, doesn't always mean the same in another person's mind.

Sorry for misleading anyone here, but all I asked is that Rod show respect in his dissection and sharing in his disappointment of new units and items in the new release. No attack on his style was implied, it was suggested to tone it down to a more acceptable level
\ IMO Calling the work garbage, comparing it to your adolescent bathwater wars, and demanding removal based upon these observations isn't a solution, it is quite disrespectful of one's work. I just felt the presentation was horrible and addressed it. Would you want to continue working for months, for free, to listen to and have to deal that style of criticism?

Anyways that's past us now I think.

The units are there for a reason, the series is using an ABSTRACTION of naval combat, it's purpose is for designers & players who want to use it for scenario design and playing.

The quality control over naval warfare isn't quite as stringent as it would be for the land units, because they are abstracted and really not a major part of the series' core meat.. Consider it a side dish without salt and butter at the moment. They are there at this point for representation and considered a work in progress for future efforts in bringing more scenarios to the players. The few scenarios that utilize them have been tested to a point of mutual satisfaction among the beta brigades members.

This game is over as you knew it, it only gets better from here on out, but within the limitations of a code that is over 15 years old. Gotta have some give and take in the graphics and appearance of some things represented.

hypothetically speaking here only, this is not a true scenario in the developments of something, but it shows a point.
Subs can shoot planes down, whilst there is no method to optionally decrease the firepower of the sub just for AA fire tho, would it be right to not allow the sub to shoot at air units at all? Probably, but since the coding makes a sub a naval unit, changing it's abilities thus affects all naval units, and none of them can shoot at planes! therefore you get a slippery slope syndrome.

This is the quagmire faced by the development team when adding and removing features.

[majog]

Ok as a developer and tester I will jump in. Let me start with that these posts really got me fuming! You can obviously satisfy some of the people some of the time and none of the people all of the time. Jason and his band of merry marauders, had on a volunteer basis put in countless hours and battled through lots of frustrations to deliver the 1.03 upgrade. If all that you can find to complain about is a few boats and air units then kudo’s to him and the team as if you look at all the changes and modifications these are a drop in bucket.

When this project started I read all the “wish list” posts and had to laugh at many of them yet the teams involved carefully weighed each and programmed in what they could. I never agreed with the anti-cheat requests as from a programming side I knew how difficult it would be yet the team at least delivered something, even if not perfect but instead of a thank you's, they got gripes.

Considering that none of the team got paid for their efforts bring out this upgrade, I think that is just plain rude and unthankful to gripe about individual things you do not agree with! I have been involved in the Modern Warfare project and know that many of the changes will make some people happy but others not. Heck many of them I don’t agree with but we come to consensus on and move forward with for the overall best interest of the game.

The bottom line is that no one is forcing to play any of the scn’s you do not like nor is anyone forcing you to apply an upgrade. There are still players like Chema who are on the TS version and developing scn’s. Maybe instead of finding little things to nitpick, you can decide not to play the scn and instead write a thank you post to Jason and all the VOLUNTEERS that put in countless hours bringing you this upgrade with many of the things you requested.

Sorry if this seems harsh but I can't stand people that chose to trash other peoples work when they are not willing to or do not have the skills to be part of the solution in advance.:soap:

[Montana Grizz]

I'm certainly no game developer and not much of a player, but I enjoy the game and I certainly appreciate the efforts made to improve it.

Jason, among others have taken the time and effort to assist me with not only the technical aspects of the game, but also tactical and strategic ones.

I offer them my sincere appreciation for their efforts.

Pat

[Colonel Talvela]

I was not aware that The Blitz had a style manual for comment on the MBs....

#20
Message Boards

Message Boards are moderated by club leadership with discussions concerning historical and game issues relating to each individual ladder. While we respect free speech, we reserve the right to edit or delete messages which we determine to be inappropriate.

Please refrain from personal attacks, ie namecalling, or cursing on the message boards. Debate can become heated, but lets keep the flaming to a minimum so that we can have reasoned and impassioned discussion.

As with our gaming ladders, the related message boards are moderated by the Ladder Commanders and their Assistants. In all issues relating to message board content their word is final. If you have further issues with the board moderation contact the club senior officers.
______________________________________________

Thanks for pointing this out Colonel Talvela. I had not noticed your status as a member of the CS Ladder. Care for a game?

:smoke:

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Ok as a developer and tester I will jump in. Let me start with that these posts really got me fuming! *removed the spew in between* VOLUNTEERS that put in countless hours bringing you this upgrade with many of the things you requested.

I take most of what you have written as the same type of "writing" that Randy wanted to point out. Maybe a little less "old" former feelings should be counted out by you? :chin:

Sorry if this seems harsh but I can't stand people that chose to trash other peoples work when they are not willing to or do not have the skills to be part of the solution in advance.:soap:

Don't say you're sorry if you don't mean it.
First off, us lamoes that cannot program the microwave to cook what we want or make the VCR time screen stop blinking are not going to be much help are we? :(
Secondly, I don't have to know how it is designed to use a wheelchair. Nor, do I need to bow down to everyone who patented parts for the wheelchair, or even those who worked on it without receiving compensation for their labor.

What I do not need is a lecture from anyone. :angry:
If you all spent your hard won 'free time' working on the game I can say, "good for you", "attaboy", "well done". I've mentioned over and over about the things I liked in the upgrade.
I've even mentioned what I did not like and the reasons why. Don't put a racing package on a Volkswagon Beetle and tell me you want me to watch it perform at the Indy 500. It is surely not what the Beetle was created to do? :conf:

Rod had some great points. Don't fault him for his delivery of the message (that's my job, that I volunteer hours of my time to do). He says his naval experience warrants his opinion, that the naval aspect is "wrong", he has the right to say so. And, if his "fix" is to return the naval units to their original abstracted form, he has that right. As much as you have the right to come here and say the rest of us have not "pulled our weight" because we do not like the add-ons to the game scale?

And, lastly, if any of the volunteers think about not doing what they love to do, they may want to consider why they love it, and do it, in the first place?
I'm plenty happy that the game is supported by Matrix.
I'm not so happy that the scale has been "thrown out" to make additions form a wish list. You can add a racing package to Beetle and it won't be an Indy racer. You can put chrome on a '57 Chevy and it will not be a Belair (plus, it would really depreciate a very nice car)? :whis:

I've given kudos to all the team on multiple forums. I will not give an ounce of blood over that. Don't ask me too do that? :smoke:

[Fubar1]

I only wish I had the time and skill to do the work that was needed to create the 1.03 update.

To the Beta brigade testers, thanks. To Jason and his minions, thank you. To Matrix, for continuing a great game that should have been long dead in the world of here today gone tomorrow games, thank you. To the dedication of the club heirarchy, thanks (or should I be saluting :chin:)

I think debate and discussion is a healthy thing. No problem in any opinions being expressed as long as it is done in an "adult" manor. If you don't like the TV show your watching change the channel, if you don't like the add-on of additional units, do not play them.

Anyways, my 2 cents that nobody asked for or wanted.....:whis:

[Colonel Talvela]

Thanks for pointing this out Colonel Talvela.

You're welcome. Just doing my service to the the blitz community

I had not noticed your status as a member of the CS Ladder. Care for a game?

:smoke:

I own WF, and iff you go way back, you would find that I have posted in this forum a time or two asking some CS questions. But I never could get into WF much. Perhaps because I only played against the AI. Afterall, I didnt like CM when I only played against the AI either.


As for playing a game - I doubt you would find it very enjoyable - probably along the lines of playing chess against your 5 year old. But maybe I would learn to like it if somebody who knew what they were doing would teach me.

[RedDevil]

Hey guys Jason and CO. are not looking for salutes and pats on the back here really. (well they are nice and greatly appreciated!)

I'm sure Jason DOES want feedback on the patch however and he'd like to discuss things, however initially calling those efforts garbage just didn't really sound like a positive start towards discussing anything :)

That's all it takes perhaps to get a discussion going is to be respectful of people's efforts, even if you don't agree with them.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Thanks for pointing this out Colonel Talvela.

You're welcome. Just doing my service to the the blitz community

I had not noticed your status as a member of the CS Ladder. Care for a game?
:smoke:

I own WF, and iff you go way back, you would find that I have posted in this forum a time or two asking some CS questions. But I never could get into WF much. Perhaps because I only played against the AI. Afterall, I didnt like CM when I only played against the AI either.


As for playing a game - I doubt you would find it very enjoyable - probably along the lines of playing chess against your 5 year old. But maybe I would learn to like it if somebody who knew what they were doing would teach me.

Hi Colonel T,

No worries mate.
I have looked in the dBASE and did not find you as a member of the CS Ladder but, you are most welcome to join.

If you look at my "stats" I've lost and drawn almost as many games as I won. Heck, I've lost more games than most of the ladder members have played (sometimes I think, almost all their games combined). :)
If you ever have a wish to purchase the updated, and excellent, Matrix CS version I'd be more than happy to give lessons. I'm generous to my students. Until they beat me ... :conf::chin:

I have to admit, I tried CM but, could never get it off the ground. I think I have one game reported against the Coyote! His win because I could not get the hang of the PBEM file exchanges. :rolleyes:

You may not like the turn based nature of CS after playing CM, but, you will surely appreciate what the little "old" game can do. :smoke:

You are always welcome to come here and discuss anything about the Campaign Series. Even to help me remember the Club ROE's!