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.
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
