Why can't the F4 ledger be a little more like this?

[hgilmer]

And once you set the sliders, I don't think they stay where you placed them. Of course, I have had to reload several times so possibly I had to reload to a turn before I set them.

[montgomeryjlion]

The sliders are useless IMHO.
The rest of the information is quite poorly displayed.
However, all the information is there.
Yes, I'd like the interface to be better.
If it can be done easily and cheaply, Great!
If not, let's get other things fixed.
Like Diplomacy...

[hgilmer]

I don't really care that much on what is possible may happen with stock. What would be very helpful is an exact accounting of what happened on the last turn.

Like with capital.....

(For informational purposes, these numbers may not be the actual costs of decisions and other things.)

Beginning balance capital 100
Decision: Colonial immigrant (15)
Built: Tobacco Farm (27)
Sales: To colonies 20
Sales: To international markets 100
-----
End Balance, capital 178 <--- With that being the ACTUAL ending number, not some probable number.

Now, you may claim that that is what is happening, but actually it is not. It is forward looking with probabilities, not backward looking with actual numbers.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[McNaughton]

I don't really care that much on what is possible may happen with stock. What would be very helpful is an exact accounting of what happened on the last turn.

Like with capital.....

(For informational purposes, these numbers may not be the actual costs of decisions and other things.)

Beginning balance capital 100
Decision: Colonial immigrant (15)
Built: Tobacco Farm (27)
Sales: To colonies 20
Sales: To international markets 100
-----
End Balance, capital 178 <--- With that being the ACTUAL ending number, not some probable number.

Now, you may claim that that is what is happening, but actually it is not. It is forward looking with probabilities, not backward looking with actual numbers.

I think in a lot of games we get accustomed to knowing absolute results. We are given guarantees of profit, success, and that a certain investment is guaranteed to pay off at a predicted rate.

Now, the idea that things are displayed as confusing is one thing, but, having a guarantee is completely something else. Possibly it would be good to have a 'optimal and pessimistic' range (i.e., if everything goes well, expect this much, and everything goes to hell, expect this much, therefore you should end up somewhere inbetween).

One thing that playing Pride of Nations is that we should get over the belief that we can optimize everything down to the penny.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[hgilmer]

Thank you, Mr. Lensman. Yes, what happened, not what will possibly happen.

I don't know if it is ever possible. Or what have you. I was just wishing that could be something as a "Boy I wish this would happen!"

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Aurelin]

Don't like the sliders myself. I'd rather just input the numbers. Maybe a future patch?

[Franciscus]

And what, pray tell, is your justification for making a judgmental statement concerning my opinion on a game I haven't even seen yet? Rather rude isn't it and off-topic for this thread?

As you are asking:

I was refuting your basic argument that GUI improvements can't be done with the example of a game (http://www.histwar.com) developed by a single man, that AFTER release created a whole new GUI for his game.

I was also referring to your public expressed aesthetic tastes, expressed in relation to another fine game (SOWGettysburg), which graphics you disparaged, among other things, specifically in comparison with TW games. Histwar has much worser graphics than NTW, so I presume that they will not be to your liking. If I am wrong, accept my apologies

Regards

[McNaughton]

Ah, sorry about that, there were discussions like this in the beta about just that, and thought that it was also the same.

Anyways, the idea is out there, if there is time and not too many other projects ahead, I am sure they will give it a good go and work on things.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[rezaf]

Gary, why do you keep insisting I had sorta 'demanded' these changes and made the whole idea look like a simple rearrangement of 'pictures'.

Even mocking up the screen took the better part of two hours, and I was merely thinking about how to do stuff and moving (parts of) pictures around.
I'm well aware that actually coding something like that wouldn't be an easy task. Chances are it's impossible because some elements are locked in the places they appear and cannot be easily replicated elsewhere.

Like I wrote in a previous post, I can totally relate to the idea that making these changes now could be a waste of resources (in this case developer time).
To me, it looks like either a massive failure of the beta testers not to make clear this area of the game needs improvement OR a massive failure on part of AGEOD to listen to and act upon said feedback.

Anyway, the more I play around with PoN, the more I realize the TRUE problems of the game lie elsewhere. Not finding information easily is one thing, but as I compliled the mockup, I obviously DID find all the necessary information - and let's face it, you don't really NEED the info for all goods every turn. You complile it every now and then for a specific good, and thus, while it's still not less of a chore by itself, one can live with having to do it.

But the bugs, the unresponsive interface and especially the turn times make the entire game a chore to play.

PoN beta testers, I'm curious, how many GCs did you play, start to finish?
Why haven't you run into all the issues, such as constant warfare without reason, lack of new generals, broken german unification, erratic and unrealistic combat results etc.?
_____
rezaf

[Jarkko]

PoN beta testers, I'm curious, how many GCs did you play, start to finish?
Why haven't you run into all the issues, such as constant warfare without reason, lack of new generals, broken german unification, erratic and unrealistic combat results etc.?

I am not a PON beta tester, but those questions sound awfully familiar to me You will be told the beta testers are not responsible to you, and besides, they can not tell anything about the beta because of their NDA.

If I may bet, I would say the betas didn't play a single GC through. You can't run the game in hands-off mode, so somebody actually has to click the end turn button after the game turn has processed. Assuming the game wouldn't be won by some AI nation before the end date, it would take to simply press end turn when ever possible 50+ hours to get throug to the end (presuming the betas ran a version of the game which runs much slower than the retail version (ie had additional logging etc running; that is at least the way it has been in the games I've beta tested over the years (I've not tested any AGEOD games, so I have no first hand experience on that obviously))). I don't know how often AGEOD generates new beta versions for testing, but if it is the "once per week" as I've often seen for other titles, then it simply would mean there is not enough time for betas (at least, if they have work and/or a life in addition to beta testing ) to run the GC through with a given version (and it is no use to the devs to have somebody run through the GC with an older version).

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[rezaf]

Ah well, I guess we're arguing about semantics, and there's not need to do that.

I guess I CAN imagine people getting used to the games shortcomings - especially the interface. That stuff happens all the time.
In that case, there should've been additional beta cycles with fresh testers.

Then again, the games many other flaws strongly indicate there was a distinct lack of testing in the first place.
I guess they ran the game in auto-mode like you described, and the computer won't notice nor complain about most non-crash related issues unless specifically instructed to look for them.

Then again, maybe the devs just don't care. Nobody bothered to respond to this thread...
_____
rezaf

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jarkko]

Then again, maybe the devs just don't care. Nobody bothered to respond to this thread...

Devs are (mostly) unable to answer this week. They will back in business next week

EDIT: Bah, "grayed"

[Athens]

Ah well, I guess we're arguing about semantics, and there's not need to do that.

I guess I CAN imagine people getting used to the games shortcomings - especially the interface. That stuff happens all the time.
In that case, there should've been additional beta cycles with fresh testers.

Then again, the games many other flaws strongly indicate there was a distinct lack of testing in the first place.
I guess they ran the game in auto-mode like you described, and the computer won't notice nor complain about most non-crash related issues unless specifically instructed to look for them.

Then again, maybe the devs just don't care. Nobody bothered to respond to this thread...
_____
rezaf

Just look to the creation dates of some data files in the gamedata and events folders. There are evidence some parts were added or modified very lately; So in any case, testing done was made about an uncomplete or partially obsolete engine...That's not new, uncommon among games these days. But PON being very complex, these problems are more numerous and the GUI shortcomings just multiply this feeling; For the most part, colonial system is working but player hasn't sufficient insight about failure causes of its attempts.

[Franciscus]

Ah well, I guess we're arguing about semantics, and there's not need to do that.

I guess I CAN imagine people getting used to the games shortcomings - especially the interface. That stuff happens all the time.
In that case, there should've been additional beta cycles with fresh testers.

Then again, the games many other flaws strongly indicate there was a distinct lack of testing in the first place.
I guess they ran the game in auto-mode like you described, and the computer won't notice nor complain about most non-crash related issues unless specifically instructed to look for them.

Then again, maybe the devs just don't care. Nobody bothered to respond to this thread...
_____
rezaf

One thing I can assure you, this dev team (Philippe Malacher, aka Pocus, and Philippe Thibault, aka PhilThib) DO CARE. There are no game devs out there more dedicated to their games and their players.

As to the question about beta testing, that's a problem, related to eventually the small size of the team, the complexity of the game, etc, but it's nothing new or specific to Ageod. All games have bugs, "niche" and complex ones like PoN, will have many. AACW, the most successful Ageod game to date had many at release time, that were slowly but surely squashed.
The role of a dedicated comunity is very important in the polishing of these "niche" games - I consider this a price to pay to be able to have devs that keep making good, historic strategy games.
Other business models could be considered, though, like paid beta pre-releases, that some other companies are doing...

Regards

[count taaffe]

One thing I can assure you, this dev team (Philippe Malacher, aka Pocus, and Philippe Thibault, aka PhilThib) DO CARE. There are no game devs out there more dedicated to their games and their players.
Regards

I second that
+1

[rezaf]

Guys, no need to defend the AGEOD devs against me.
I'm sure they're nice guys and all, and I love a lot of their games.

Personally, I think that maybe they bit off more than they (or rather their engine) can chew with PoN, but just because that's my opinion doesn't mean it's right. I guess I'd just have preferred if they'd, I dunno, developed some slick internal modding tools instead and started to pump out AACW-stlye games at a frightening pace.

In the Three Moves Ahead podcast one of the Phils recently attended, he used the anology of lego bricks. That's not such a bad one, imo.
Like with lego bricks, you can build a lot of creative stuff out of a bag of oldskool, plain lego pieces.
But you cannot get satisfying results if you try to build something like the lego starwars stuff. Lots and lots of custom bricks just for this purpose are needed, and if you'd use, anywhere, an oldskool lego brick when assembling one of the lego starwars models, it'd stick out like a sore thumb.

And about complexity, I dunno. There's some very creative approaches to some gameplay aspects, I'll give you that. But most of the time, the true challenge, if you want to call it that, stems from the game making it truly hard to get to the information you need to be successful.
That, and making the neccessary decisions is usually a chore.
Combine that with the unresponsive interface and the excessive turn processing times, and you've got a definite trend.
Anyway, the actual systems behind the chore and below the clutter are rather simple most of the time, or so it seems.

I can totally relate to the problem at hand - once development was far along enough that the most painful issues became really apparent, there was no going back. A small shop such as AGEOD can hardly just scrap a game of that scope after years of development and then live to tell about it.

Oh, and don't take my words about none of the AGEOD staff responding too seriously - especially considering their absence, but even not considering it.
The Phils bother to deal with fans and their opinions on their boards in the first place, and that's something other studios, big or small, often don't do.
So that's a big plus about AGEOD right there.

I guess I'm just a bit concerned - in interviews I keep hearing "buy this to send a message that you want such games" or "we will bring out DLC ... IF the game is successful enough!", so I wonder if it's a do or die situation for AGEOD (naturally, I'm NOT expecting an official answer to that).
IF another game is in the pipeline, I'd definately hope for it to be a more humble one again, depicting a single conflict with the detailed engine, with divisions and troop building, like in AACW or RoP (though I liked the former better). For me, those were the AGEOD days.
_____
rezaf

[Athens]

AGE engine has lost with the years its focus. Each new version has brought new details. Fine?

AACW: a few options ( conscription, embargo on cotton, prisonner exchanges...). Moddable, but not to the point to add news. In the same time, perfectly designed and with immediate feedback for players.

AACW: a recruitment ledger displaying all available units in a few windows. Players were criticizing the fact units could appear in any city, so a message for inform about new units placement has been added.

ROP and beyond: as much options as you want. Options may be created almost at will but feedback has become rather sparse for players. Regional decisions are yet much more opaque as only sterotyped sentences inform you of the failure without describing the cause.

Recruitment: the so called smarter system. A horizontal line of units you have to scroll to choose the one you want. If you want to build the last unit 3 times, you will have to scroll 3 times to choose this unit. And in ROP a replacement system no one after 2 years has been able to explain entirely.

The same could be developped for scripting language, more and more powerful but whose possibilities are for a large part ignored from the scenario designers.

And all this data about units, models,etc: always more fuel to add to the engine, always more hours devoted to create excel files for attributes whose a raising part isn't used. Do you know leader attributes can work only if the general is active or on the contrary unactive? But how often has this been used? For long, until PON, SVF has been the only one to have used this feature. But this is one more column in the models spreadsheet....

Details aren't anything. I commend the effort to build a system as open and complete as possible but clearly there's now a sort of monster a small team ofdev has more and more trouble to domesticate. Building a message system taking into account any case of the regional decisions parameters mix, almost unfinite, is in itself a tremendous task which can only be simplified by removing modding options. I'm serious

Why all starting economies in PON at start have their private capital shrinking with the starting settings? Why players are forced to either shut down running industries or cancel any commercial transaction for undersatnding how to run a profitable economy?

Because PON economy is so complex starting positions haven't be tested and fixed to let each nation having at start a running economy. And on the contrary, once understood economic principles, anyone is able in 1855 to get a maximized economy. and when pointed out, the official reply is PON is a slow journey which may lead to a reversal of the profitability 240 turns later...I'm yet laughing at. Frankly, you need 240 turns to face a challenge. And who knows if the challenge exists, as testing needs to play at least a few 480 full turns to get input about game balancing?

[berto]

AGE engine has lost with the year its focus. Each new version has brought new details. Fine?

...

I commend the effort to build a system as open and complete as possible but clearly there's now a sort of monster a small team dev has more and more trouble to domesticate.

I've spent the better part of the last year immersing myself in WITP:AE.

WITP:AE has the reputation of being the ultimate monster game. But as Athens says, the AGEOD games are now monstrous. In my estimation, nearly as big and complex as the WITP:AE game (and far beyond it even in the UI and graphics).

That's games vs. a single game.

WITP:AE is now the much more polished game (IMO perhaps the best game ever). Aside from being just a single game, it is now effectively on version 3 (its predecessors were Uncommon Valor, then the first WITP; oh, there's WPO too), and has a longer development/testing/playing time.

But what truly makes WITP:AE so polished (if still not perfect) is the game's community. Lots and lots of passion and competence and ... arrogance . Tons of AARs and ongoing PBEMs. Many mods in development. An amazing amount of activity.

Where is AGEOD's community? Remember how things were several years ago? Remember "The Lounge"? The joking and the camaraderie? What drove people away? Where did they all go? (See Athens' "Location: walking through a dying forum".)

If you solve the "community problem," you go a long way toward saving AGEOD.

Just my 2 cents.

(Tried very hard to stay out of these discussions ... some people dislike my input ... but finally can't resist the temptation. )

[Generalisimo]

Well, we are working on some refactoring of interfaces... and new interfaces too... actually, I have already done a new one and I am working on a new one right now.
But, it is a secret project until we make it public... so I cannot tell you exactly what they do ... or I will have to kill all of you!!

[marcusjm]

I think the main benefit for WITP is the one main forum they have, AGEOD is spread thinly around too many forums. Maybe the best is to migrate fully with Paradox.

Also. Gary Grigsby is as famous as you get in the wargame field, everything he does automatically gathers more fans due to his history. I can't think of one single more experienced wargamer producer. Maybe Norm Koger? I did not get WITP due to the subject matte but I am still contemplating getting Wite when it gets patched up and maybe looses a few dollars in price. .

[Franciscus]

I think the main benefit for WITP is the one main forum they have, AGEOD is spread thinly around too many forums. Maybe the best is to migrate fully with Paradox.

Although it saddens me much , this sugestion makes a lot of sense, specially as a means to organize bug reports and sugestions for improvement (subforums that do not and apparently will not exist here at Ageod...)

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted