May 15, 200818 yr Who: Anyone who wants to participate, hosted by TonyE and CV32 What: Discuss what you think is needed to consider the next HC patch 'ready', and anything else When: (Saturday) May 24th @ 19:30 GMT TonyE will be there from at least 45 minutes before 19:30, until at least 21:30 19:30 GMT = 1:30 pm Central Time US, 2:30 pm Eastern, 11:30am Pacific,... Where: #harpgamer on the NewNet IRC Network (irc.eskimo.com is usually pretty stable) Why: Because we need your input on the future direction of the game. How: Use your favorite IRC client; servers list: http://www.newnet.net/newnewnet/serverlist.php HG Java Chat 1: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?automodule=javairc HG Java Chat 2: http://www.harpgamer.com/HARP_irc_connect_form.php HG Simple Win32 Chat application: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=281 Detail: We invite you to come share your thoughts and opinions about HC over the next couple of releases and beyond. We may or may not post a more detailed agenda for the chat. For now consider it a good chance to get your 2 cents heard directly by the people writing the code, editing the official database, etc. We're at a bit of a decision point for the 2nd patch, do we wrap it up soon and release it 'soon' or do we start re-wiring the inner works which will delay the next release many months? Come to the chat to share your opinion. I expect we will make the log of the chat available on HarpGamer after the chat has finished. How to Prepare: Try connecting to the IRC channel before the designated meeting time, there is often someone around between 2100GMT and 0200GMT but you can connect to test at any time. Look over the release notes, the first patch was 2008.024, everything since then is listed in the release notes at: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?s...post&p=7413 Look over the Bug Tracker to see some of the newer reported bugs and their status: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...p;showproject=6 Look over the Defect Tracking forum to see most of the older reported bugs and their status: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showforum=46 Consider some of our (near-mid term) planned areas of effort SAR (Search and Rescue) HC Launcher (for managing databases, battlesets, scenarios, etc. Terminal attack maneuvers and how to model At Sea Replenishment/Logistics [*]Take in the WishLists for ideas: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showforum=35 (hint, if you make your own wishlist, that'd be a good place to remember all of your notes until the chat ) We're looking forward to the chat, please spread the word!
May 23, 200818 yr This is your friendly reminder to come chat this Saturday I´ll try if my customers let me...
May 24, 200818 yr Author Chat accomplished, thank you to those who attended, hopefully we'll see even more of you in the future. The chat suggested that we wrap up a couple of important items before releasing another patch but not to hold it for the majority of the known issues. Critical Issue: HARM problem http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2333 The pro multiplayer group did not make as strong of a showing or stand as expected so multiplayer remains a distant goal but not the only or the primary goal. Log of chat: [13:35] TonyE: well, we may as well get started, from here on to the end of our 'officialish' chat your words will probably get posted up on a forum or three. [13:35] Gdtrfb: woohoo [13:35] TonyE: The background is that 2008.024 was released about mid-March to the public. [13:36] TonyE: So if we look to do another release in the 3-month time frame from then it has to be finalized and packaged soon. [13:37] pmaidhof: What were the major developments completed since the mid- [13:37] pmaidhof: March release? [13:38] TonyE: since 2008.024 the big things have been in the BS Builder, being able to include the database in the battleset files, making it less tricky to operate, etc. [13:38] pmaidhof: What developments are close, but not there yet. Would it be beneficial to wait for something on the cusp that would have a good bang [13:38] pmaidhof: I think the Battle Builder was/is a huge development. [13:38] TonyE: smaller things since 2008.024 are the skinning things, the ability to replace many of the game graphics. [13:38] pmaidhof: I have toyed with it. [13:39] pmaidhof: BB would warrant a release IMO [13:39] TonyE: more than a few crashes are no longer with us, some battleset scenarios have had small fixes and tweaks, WestPac 2.0 has had a lot of work done. [13:39] Gdtrfb: could we get MP? [13:40] pmaidhof: :) He said that...not me :) [13:40] *** Renemobil has signed off IRC (Broken pipe). [13:40] TonyE: We have a lot of unsolved issues. [13:40] *** Renemobil has joined #harpgamer. [13:40] TonyE: hehe, no MP for the next patch unless the patch wasn't released for a long time. [13:41] Gdtrfb: lmao....anyhoo unrep would be cool too [13:41] TonyE: The open issues that throw up the biggest alarm for me revolve around formation assignments not being well kept. [13:41] TonyE: splitting groups and have the ships continue as if they were still in the unsplit group, etc. [13:42] TonyE: I think my question (to start with) for you guys is what needs to be fixed/added before a next patch? [13:44] Gdtrfb: the formation editor could use some work eg....the ability to have larger circle [13:44] *** Herman has joined #harpgamer. [13:44] TonyE: hi Herman [13:44] pmaidhof: No familiar enough with the formation editor assignment issues. [13:44] Gdtrfb: wassup herm [13:44] Herman: Hey [13:44] TonyE: the question at present is " I think my question (to start with) for you guys is what needs to be fixed/added before a next patch?" [13:45] Herman: Hi Joe [13:45] Herman: can anyone send me a quick log of what I missed? [13:45] Gdtrfb: didnt miss anythin [13:46] TonyE: sure Herman, e-mail on the way [13:46] Herman: k [13:46] Herman: thx [13:46] pmaidhof: I think the BS Builder, allowing for the exploitation of battles heretofor unaccessable, such as the Falklands, which despite its limitations is the primary example of modern operational naval warfare [13:47] CV32: my apologies, guys, looks like i have to step out for an hour [13:47] Herman: I think that Pete has a point [13:47] Gdtrfb: agreed... [13:47] TonyE: Joe, I personally don't consider the need for more/larger formation rings a priority item. It also requires breaking file formats and if we do a patch soon, I won't be breaking the formats before the patch. [13:47] Herman: see ya, CV [13:48] Gdtrfb: k...msg recieved [13:48] Renemobil: hmm [13:48] pmaidhof: Can someone, Joe, explain the issues with the formation rings, offline if you wish. [13:48] Herman: Joe does have a good point, though [13:48] Herman: larger rings do solve many of the problems/desires, potentially [13:48] * Renemobil doesn´t understand pete´s wish.. [13:48] TonyE: true Pete, and 2008.024 has the BS Builder, just not as functional as the current one. Probably most annoying being that you can't use the prettier washed out color textures and there are some limitations on needing scenarios in a battleset [13:49] Herman: is Pete asking for a more functional BS builder? [13:49] pmaidhof: No, I like the BS Builder big time. [13:50] TonyE: Pete is offering a case for releasing a patch sooner than later and BS Builder changes being a driving factor or big ticket item anyway [13:50] pmaidhof: Look at what it allows with one member's Falklands scenario, possible linked to a campaign - his name escapes me at the moment, there is a "w" in it. [13:50] TonyE: yah, wmarsh [13:51] Herman: I'm not a BB user, but as a player, I think that some method to handle Battlesets is a big improvement [13:51] pmaidhof: If nothing else is close enough for release, I think that the BS Builder would generate enough interest to carry through development of the "next" great item. [13:51] Herman: I consider myself somewhat experienced, but even I had to learn how to get the Falklands battleset to run [13:52] pmaidhof: Re: Rings, the larger the rings tend to cause me to run aground pickets, subs, and or flank security. [13:52] Herman: re: rings - the larger rings allows folks to use the buoys better [13:52] Renemobil: no heman [13:52] Renemobil: herman [13:52] Herman: they can set them far from the base/group and the planes will do good missions [13:52] pmaidhof: ? buoys? Soanr Buoys? [13:53] Herman: y [13:53] * Renemobil doesn´t think the ASW screen would go out further than 200miles... [13:53] Renemobil: if you want smarter ASW warfare,... [13:54] TonyE: LR ASW patrols are going to get an overhaul sooner rather than later so I wouldn't base formation ring sizes on LR ASW aspects. [13:54] Herman: It doens't have to correspond with what an ASW screen would normally do [13:54] Renemobil: we need the searh patterns for ASW missions [13:54] Gdtrfb: would it be poss to have a manager for bs? ala SH3 manager screen..re asw...yes it would S-3's [13:54] Herman: right. the rings are a good work-around for search patterns, IMO [13:54] Gdtrfb: brb screeming kid [13:54] Herman: but if they are getting re-worked soon, then it can be skipped, IMO [13:55] TonyE: Joe, see http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2423 about a HC launcher [13:55] Vince: I agree with the search patterns, and not only for ASW [13:55] TonyE: the Launcher is one of the things I might expect you guys to say is needed for the next patch (or not, that's why we're asking) [13:56] Vince: it would be cool to ba able to specify, in the SE, for example that a Bear has to cover a specific area [13:56] Herman: yup [13:56] Vince: exp. if far away from the base [13:56] Herman: the "Single Point" patrols are way too limited [13:56] Herman: that's why I thought the extended Range Rings could have helped for Bears, too [13:57] TonyE: okay, so far I haven't heard of anything that needs to be done for a near-term patch? Is that the consensus? [13:57] Vince: there are workarounds, like joining an orion to a formation and then puting it in the outher ring, but not always you have a formation near [13:57] Vince: Tony: different ready times for A/C? [13:58] Gdtrfb: yes on RT [13:58] Vince: maybe a beginning, like 30 mins for helos, 2hours for fighters 4H for bombers [13:59] Vince: I think that my other wish - limited stockpiles on ships for A(C is still too big foir a near-term patch, right? [13:59] Renemobil: hmm [13:59] TonyE: more than a hundred defects that are documented and none of them need fixing for the next patch? [13:59] Renemobil: lots of wishes [13:59] * TonyE is frankly a bit surprised [13:59] Vince: well, if you have the time for 200 defects, my witsh is to switch to fixing ANW =) [14:00] Renemobil: hehe [14:00] Vince: seriously, I do not see many game-breaking problems in HCCE [14:00] Renemobil: there are some [14:00] Renemobil: like the Harm bug [14:00] Vince: ? [14:00] Gdtrfb: would like to see the SAM management improved [14:01] Renemobil: Harms won´t fire against a group when the main unit has shutdown its radar [14:01] Vince: ah [14:01] Renemobil: yep Improved SAM-Handling would be really really cool [14:01] TonyE: have you tested that lately? I thought there were only a few specific cases of that left? [14:01] Renemobil: yes [14:01] Renemobil: but the [14:02] Renemobil: they are still a bit annoying [14:02] TonyE: annoying enough that it has to be dealt with before next patch? [14:03] Renemobil: good qustion.... [14:03] TonyE: for those playing along at home, http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2333 [14:03] Vince: Tony: maybe you could give some hints about the improvements that *already* are in the next patch [14:03] Gdtrfb: also would like to know if poss to implement damage effect on subs? [14:04] Herman: sorry, is the HARM bug fixed, then? [14:04] Herman: I agree with Joe. It is very pressing of all the bugs [14:04] TonyE: Vince, things done already, http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2395 (start at HCE - 2008.025, two posts from the end of the page, then all of page 2) [14:04] Vince: herman found a bug? this is a first... O__o [14:04] * pmaidhof is in and out at the moment [14:04] Renemobil: and what annoys me too is the complete AAW behaviour [14:05] Renemobil: the AAW feels a bit lazy [14:05] Renemobil: loosing ships that did not fire a single SAM or gun in self defense [14:06] Renemobil: the behaviour we couldn´t track down [14:06] Renemobil: only a "feeling" [14:06] Herman: I saw that in Falklands, perhaps [14:06] TonyE: unless someone hollers loud and clear I'm taking all this to read that nothing is pressing to be done for the next patch, meaning we can move on to your dreaming. [14:07] Herman: but I couldn't pinpoint it, either [14:07] Vince: well, that *happened* in falklands [14:07] Vince: take the Shieffeld case [14:07] Herman: no, the Harm issue seems to be unfixed [14:07] Herman: am I correct? I don't see it as fixed [14:07] TonyE: it is not completely fixed but nobody is saying it has to be fixed. [14:07] Herman: then I am saying it [14:07] Herman: it is a bad one [14:07] * Renemobil too [14:07] Gdtrfb: also when i prosecute a sub contact usually get a prompt every 2 secs to fire another torp..it should wait til at least the orig torp has run its course [14:07] TonyE: there we go [14:08] Vince: ah [14:08] TonyE: okay, now we have one item that has to be dealt with for the patch [14:08] Herman: Yes, Joe. It does, but at least there is a work-around for it, atm [14:08] Renemobil: two [14:08] Vince: when I prosecute a sub contact with two helos, it would be nice for them to use different search patterns [14:08] Renemobil: for the AI side Herman? [14:08] Herman: sounds like a feature request, V [14:08] Renemobil: there´s a similar behaviour with SSM [14:09] Herman: R: what similar behaviour? [14:09] Vince: herm: more a problem with the AI: the two A/C ignore what the other is already doing [14:09] Herman: right [14:09] * TonyE feels the need to also comment on the HARM/SSM/... thoughts that it cannot be properly fixed without breaking the file formats and a huge rewrite; all we can do is tweak until it is 'good enough' [14:09] Herman: Bad behaviour, but not a 'bug', perhaps [14:10] Herman: okay, if that's all you can do, that's all you can do [14:10] Vince: Tony: Re: the Harm problem, I have the feeling that if one doesn't know it he rarely will meet it [14:10] Renemobil: the AI fires several salvos of SSM against a target befor the first one hits [14:11] Vince: since it sounds like more a cheat that something that a player would normally do [14:11] Herman: V: I disagree [14:11] Herman: a player should bump into the HARM problem quite often. [14:12] Vince: well, if I see HARMs coming I usually either switch all the radars off, or try to weather them. [14:12] Herman: anytime the "primary" unit in a group shuts down, you can't fire at the other units even if they are radar active [14:12] TonyE: the HARM one does come up, yes, especially in newer scenarios with air defenses in a base formation. [14:12] Vince: why should someone turn off only the main platform's radar? [14:12] Herman: no, it is destroyed [14:12] Herman: The AI has a base with many subsidiary SAM units in the group [14:12] Vince: ah [14:12] Herman: if you destroy the 'primary' group radar, you can't fire on the subsidiary SAMs [14:13] Vince: you mean that the HARM do not fire also if the main radar is *destroyed* [14:13] Vince: ok, understood. then, I agree that it is a problem [14:13] Gdtrfb: The thing with HARM is they dont allways remeber the pos of rader even in RL [14:13] Renemobil: ok have to go [14:13] Herman: so, the 'work-around' is to go "UP" the list (destroy the SAMs first) then destroy the Base Last [14:13] Renemobil: cu [14:13] TonyE: cya Rene, thanks for coming [14:13] Herman: bye Rene [14:13] Vince: bye rene [14:13] Herman: yes, I agree, Joe [14:13] Gdtrfb: late R [14:13] Renemobil: there will be a log on hg to read? [14:14] TonyE: yes Rene [14:14] Herman: the targets flicking on/off all the time is annoying [14:14] Renemobil: thanks [14:14] Renemobil: good night [14:14] Vince: Herman logs everything - even porno calls [14:14] *** Renemobil has signed off IRC (Connection reset by peer). [14:14] Gdtrfb: LMAO [14:14] Herman: ESPECIALLY porno calls [14:15] Vince: Tony, it is difficult to come up with specific requests for a "within reasonable time" patch [14:15] Herman: The Formation Patrol problem is the other big one for me [14:15] Herman: it has a work-around (for the player) but it is quite onerous [14:16] Herman: so, it isn't a "crash" problem, but more "bothersome" [14:16] TonyE: Vince, once we get past the 'must fix for patch' items I do want to get a feel for how you guys would like the rest to go. Is MP priority #1, is logistics priority #1, etc. [14:16] Gdtrfb: I agree the thing is also for the ai you cant utilize their AC assets properly without larger FE [14:16] Gdtrfb: MP...MP....MP...MP [14:17] TonyE: Herman, station keeping problems a deal breaking for you or just really nice to have fixed? [14:17] Herman: Logistics, IMO [14:17] Gdtrfb: Logistics number 2 imho e.g Unrep/vertrep [14:17] Herman: T: station-keeping is one of the "nice" fixes. NOt deal breaking in the least [14:17] Vince: Tony: MP is of course a priority since the Kesmay times [14:17] TonyE: okay, thanks Herman [14:17] Vince: exp. now that the game is so much more polished [14:18] Herman: oh, one last big bug [14:18] Herman: the "AS-4s attacking subs" -- didn't notice it fixed [14:18] *** Rene has joined #harpgamer. [14:19] Rene: have forgotten 1 thing [14:19] TonyE: AS-4 attacking subs http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2502 [14:19] Herman: T: that's the right one, yes [14:19] Rene: ROF is ignored by most mounts [14:20] Rene: only guns work properly [14:20] TonyE: true Rene [14:21] Gdtrfb: It seems the reload times on Sparrow mounts are to quick....imo [14:21] TonyE: so anyone else have thoughts on the AS-4 being a must fix for patch? [14:21] Herman: (at least they work) -- sounds like a DB tweak, to me [14:21] Vince: I sometimes wonder how herman finds bugs [14:21] Rene: fixing it should break the file format, rigth? [14:21] Vince: "Barges in harbours cannot be torpedoed" [14:21] Herman: you know the old adage of "Infinite monkeys and infinite keyboards..." [14:21] Vince: who *tries* that in a normal game? O___o [14:22] * Herman ahem, Royal Oak in WW2 [14:22] *** Herman is now known as Otto. [14:22] *** Otto is now known as OttoK. [14:22] *** OttoK is now known as Herman. [14:22] Vince: yup, but you have to chase for it in an Harpoon game [14:22] Rene: Vince, even barges can not be sunk by ASM [14:23] Rene: if they are only ground capable [14:23] Rene: and not antiship [14:23] Herman: I think that you are at least allowed to fire ASM at them [14:23] Rene: only when the ASM has both target flags [14:23] Herman: ah [14:23] Herman: I can't remember [14:23] TonyE: hehe, missile ROF could be made better without breaking file formats but breaking the file formats will allow more fun. The missile ROF is pretty well understood at present though and can be made pretty good via DB tinkering. [14:24] Herman: in that example, I thought that I had the option to fire Harpoon, but I can't be certain [14:24] Herman: since so much depends on File formats, why not just break them? [14:24] Vince: yup. May '68 all over again! [14:24] TonyE: because when we break them, the game will be broken for a long time, hence the urge to release a patch before then. [14:24] Rene: Tony? how can i prevent a sub from firing 20 torps at once from 4 tubes? [14:25] TonyE: you cannot Rene [14:25] Herman: you seem to have: [14:25] Herman: Formation bug [14:25] Herman: HARM Bug [14:25] Herman: RoF [14:25] Herman: ASW Patrols [14:25] Rene: same with SSM [14:25] Rene: [14:25] TonyE: I only have HARM bug [14:25] Herman: and probably Logistics and Custom Ready times are tied up with format, too [14:25] Herman: I thought HARM bug was associated with format, too? [14:26] Vince: tony, what about an expansion, then [14:26] Vince: in the future, of course, and you have to pay for it [14:26] Vince: but the opportunity to offer new battlesets with scenarios, and break the files [14:26] Vince: like AE for WitP [14:27] Gdtrfb: well the AAW thingy for sure needs to be fixed as does the ASW torp thingy [14:27] TonyE: the HARM bug can be tweaked without breaking format [14:27] pmaidhof: Logistics a la TacOps [14:27] Herman: so soon after the game was released? [14:27] Vince: herm: why not? [14:27] Vince: we are talking about 6-12 months here [14:27] Herman: wonder if the customer base will accept it [14:27] Gdtrfb: Unrep would be very nice [14:27] Herman: y [14:27] Herman: and customized ready times, too [14:28] Herman: I think V has a point, though [14:28] Herman: if there are lots of really new features, an expansion might fly [14:28] Vince: I mean, we have the caribbeans, south atlantic... [14:28] TonyE: remember that charging for things doesn't put any more significant money in the programmer's pocket so there is no benefit to charging the customer again. [14:28] Herman: screw that, then [14:28] Vince: tony: ? [14:29] Gdtrfb: could we maybe take up a collection for T??? [14:29] Vince: should HCCE get an expansion, you wouldn't be paid for it? [14:29] TonyE: Vince, I get a small percentage of the sales, and I split that with Brad and Scott (Akula). [14:30] Vince: a different model that mine then [14:31] TonyE: so for HCE I've been paid ~$110, not nearly enough to even pay for the programming tools, let alone time [14:31] * Vince blushes [14:31] Gdtrfb: WHAT!!! 110 bucks......thats insane.... [14:32] Vince: it is what I was paid (in euros) to review it for my magazine [14:32] TonyE: okay, I'm happy enough that a patch soon is the route to go and the discerning players here don't feel too strongly that anything outside of HARM tweaking is required for that patch. [14:32] Herman: well, it does give a good idea how well HCE is selling [14:32] TonyE: hehe Vince [14:32] Vince: 8/10 for those who want to know [14:32] TonyE: is now when we get to talk MP? [14:32] Gdtrfb: WOOOOOHOOOO....MP [14:33] Vince: tony, I'm looking at this page http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?s...er=all&st=0 [14:33] Vince: how can I see which problems have already been fixed? [14:33] *** Rene has signed off IRC (Connection reset by peer). [14:34] TonyE: the ones with hearts are fixed to the original reporter [14:34] TonyE: 's content [14:34] TonyE: with exclamation point they have not been fixed [14:34] TonyE: with right-pointing arrow, I think they were fixed, original reporter may or may not agree. [14:35] Gdtrfb: brb monster wakin up [14:35] Vince: what I could do is browse them, and compile a list of my 10 problems to be fixed before the others [14:35] Vince: and e-mail it to you [14:36] TonyE: sure Vince, that would be kind of you [14:36] Vince: now, let's talk about MP [14:36] TonyE: [14:36] Vince: while you discuss the technalicies, I'll organize the tournament [14:36] Vince: there is one thing that always made me curios [14:37] Vince: i.e. something published on the HULL mailing list [14:37] Vince: that MP code was in HC since the very begining [14:37] Vince: and it was used in the brief stint on the kesmay network [14:37] Vince: so, what would be the problems in reactivating it? [14:37] TonyE: a vast simplification but partially true. The game was designed with MP in mind but MP code was not actually written. [14:38] TonyE: so the game doesn't need an entire re-write to accommodate MP but it isn't like flipping a switch and suddenly it works. [14:38] Vince: I understand that, but the kesmay edition had a *working* multiplayer, right? [14:39] Vince: I mean, what happened to that code? [14:39] TonyE: yes, and we don't have that code, and I've frequently asked [14:40] TonyE: it would have been fun to revive that even how it was (buggy and not even operable on the Internet) [14:40] Gdtrfb: where can we get it? the code [14:40] TonyE: apparently we can't, those who had the HC code have not been able to find the kemai version. [14:41] Gdtrfb: arrrrgh....so it needs to be re wrote? [14:42] TonyE: as for moving forward with MP, there is a potential partial answer that happens before full MP. It is one player entering in orders for both sides while those two sides watch using a remote viewer on their own systems. [14:42] TonyE: correct, MP needs to be added anew. [14:42] Gdtrfb: gotta go the girl is throwin up ....cya guys try to get back later [14:43] *** Gdtrfb has signed off IRC (Quit: Powered by IBIRC from [http://community.bbresources.net/]). [14:43] Herman: sheesh, a little vomit and he runs away [14:43] TonyE: our view of real MP was to keep it fairly simple, allowing multiple players per side where any player on the Blue side can control any Blue unit, so not units per player, but shared and the players work out division of duties (if there are multiple people playing on one side) [14:44] Herman: that sounds good, too! [14:44] Herman: (already kinda happens that way in ANW ) [14:44] TonyE: no need for a dedicated server but not saying it wouldn't be possible to run one. [14:44] * Herman thoughh I doubt it is an intentional ANW behaviour [14:44] Vince: herman: ehehehe! [14:45] TonyE: we cannot have a true umpire capability for political reasons, but I don't think there is a huge demand for that anyway (i.e. umpire un-does a kill, gives Tony more Tomcats, etc.). [14:45] Herman: is an Umpire that high in demand? [14:45] Vince: like that general exercise before the Gulf War [14:45] Herman: other than for a professional company, who would want it? [14:45] Vince: where the red side gave hell to the blue one, and the exercise was reset =) [14:46] Herman: it's called, "Re-start". simple. and doesn't need an Ump [14:46] TonyE: playing TacOps with Pete as umpire you start to appreciate some situations where an umpire is nice but it isn't something I'd ever see myself missing in HC [14:46] Herman: we already do re-starts in ANW [14:47] pmaidhof: what do you mean by that T? [14:47] Herman: AoA comes on and says, "Oops. I made a mistake. Can we re-start from the last save?" [14:47] Vince: Tony, I don't know if it is a fixed bug or not, but it is something that bothers me since the first harpoon [14:47] Vince: you ask for details about a platform [14:47] Vince: and the pop up asks if you want to see all or only those *known*é to be in a scenario [14:47] TonyE: Pete, your using the hand of Umpire and moving units across a bridge was nice. [14:47] pmaidhof: ah [14:47] pmaidhof: yes [14:48] pmaidhof: not seeing that in HCE [14:48] TonyE: I could see a situation where it'd be oh so nice to bribe the umpire for just 4 more harpoon missiles [14:48] pmaidhof: might be some, very few instances. [14:48] Vince: but sometimes you get platforms you shouldn't be aware of, like a KURSK submarine being somewhere [14:49] Vince: or you have an unknown A/C contact, but in the "platform data" you suddenly find a new entry for Su-24s [14:49] TonyE: ah yes, not fixed Vince [14:49] Herman: yes, I have seen it, too [14:50] TonyE: so Vince, you think MP is really important? Herman places it after logistics. [14:51] TonyE: I know Brad votes for increased database limits in terms of items per annex being critical. [14:51] Herman: My reasoning is thus: if folks are desperate for MP, the can get some relief with ANW. but logistics is for everyone who enjoys HC [14:52] Herman: and the DB limit, too [14:53] TonyE: Pete, I don't know what your priority is for big time items? [14:54] Herman: and the apparent dearth of ANW MP players makes me question just how many would take advantage of it [14:54] TonyE: that is one of my biggest arguments against rushing into MP Herman [14:54] Vince: Herm "If folks are desperate for MP, the can get some relief with ANW" are big words [14:54] TonyE: lots of people want it but will anybody use it... [14:54] Vince: This very morning (local time) I *had* to seek relief after 30 mins with ANW [14:54] Herman: real life is just too big a problem [14:55] Herman: scheduling difficulties, etc [14:55] Vince: Brad Wardell (GalCivII) is against MP [14:55] Herman: V: that doesn't count. You were already nauseous [14:55] Vince: he made a compelling argument against it [14:56] Vince: his reasoning is that it is better to invest resources in the area of the game played by 90% of the costumers (SP) instead of doing it for something that appeals to only 10% of them (MP) [14:57] Vince: however, Wardell's AI is maybe the best ever done for a strategy game [14:58] Vince: if you have a quad core system you can use the option to give all the four cores to the AI thinking, and marvel at what it does without cheating [14:58] TonyE: hehe, nice [14:58] Vince: Harpoon is not strong in this area, IMHO [14:58] Herman: I think it is a good point, yes [14:59] Herman: things like Threat Axes could be added, DB size enhancement, Logistics, Ready times, etc. could probably all be added much more easily than MP, right? [14:59] Vince: many scenarios end with an one-sided carnage - the point being if, during the slaughter, you managed to fulfill the VCs [14:59] TonyE: yes H, MP is a big undertaking for HC. [15:00] TonyE: DB size, logistics, and ready times all together are probably less intensive in effort than MP [15:00] Herman: yup [15:01] pmaidhof: Priority for Big Time Items, exclusive of reality or any one elses: [15:01] TonyE: and there is always the issue of bringing the relevance of HC more into the present and out of the Cold War, communications modeling, deeper electronic warfare, etc. [15:01] pmaidhof: 1 Amphibious Warfare, i.e. land the landing force. [15:02] pmaidhof: 2. Logistics, both in port and unrep/vertrep [15:02] pmaidhof: 3. Anyone elses #1 [15:03] TonyE: thanks Pete [15:04] pmaidhof: dripping with sarcasm??? [15:05] Herman: the amphibs are nice, IMO, but isn't most modern AW done with helos? [15:05] TonyE: no, I'm a fan of amphibious warfare since it opens the door to many things besides amphibious warfare (just the units carrying other units idea goes amazingly far). I would truly like to land the Marines too. [15:06] TonyE: yes H, same mechanism as a landing craft except the landing craft is a helo. [15:06] Herman: ah [15:06] pmaidhof: H: yes, but do not disregard the LCAC and EFV, if they ever get the latter to float. [15:06] Vince: Tony: two rthings for the scenario editor [15:06] Vince: things [15:06] Vince: 1. Targets priority [15:07] Vince: for example: Narvik has priority 2, the convoy priority 1 [15:07] Vince: if the convoy is not sighted, then the base launches against narvik [15:07] Vince: if it is sightend, then the target is switched [15:08] CV32: back [15:08] Herman: wow, huge wish, I think [15:08] Herman: hey CV [15:08] TonyE: I think you should publish your wishlist at HG Vince [15:08] Herman: how about an ability to run a scen in the SE? [15:09] Herman: like we do in ANW [15:09] TonyE: yes, that's a wish that won't happen until the SE comes out of the dark ages (aka 16-bit land) [15:09] Herman: (and since that one guy says that it was once possible in HC) [15:09] pmaidhof: MP was possible once too H [15:09] TonyE: I don't think it will ever again be possible in HC Herman, but I guess strange things happen. [15:11] Herman: the show all can do most of the things, already. [15:11] Herman: as long as there is a way around things, it's not a problem [15:12] TonyE: well, the MP fanatics didn't make out too well today :| [15:12] pmaidhof: So I'm tracking anything on a transporting ship/plane right now is ordnance, and thus expendable, not trnasferable onto the playing surface? [15:12] Vince: Tony, can an AI aircraft "see" with any kind of sensor that a radar is in front of him? [15:12] Herman: is there any possible way to test/gauge for MP desire? [15:12] TonyE: correct Pete [15:12] Herman: ESM, perhaps\ [15:12] TonyE: right Herman, ESM [15:13] pmaidhof: The mother-child-grandkid discussed in wishlists need to be expounded upon further. [15:13] TonyE: gauging MP, I'm open to ideas. We can run polls but I would imagine they have to be along the lines of "which of the following four things would you most like to see?" [15:13] Herman: is there any way to make a rudimentary MP run? [15:14] Vince: because, if so, it could be interesting to have a routine where, if the A/C has anti-radar missiles, it fires them, if not, the A/C plots a course around the radar [15:14] Vince: just to avoid the terrifing "let's go over narvik to be shot down" event [15:14] * Herman Do like I did. Just blow up Narvik [15:15] TonyE: rudimentary MP, yes in that case of one person entering the commands for both sides while the Red and Blue players watch on the remote viewer. [15:15] TonyE: that's a good way to get what I think of as rudimentary MP with a fraction of the effort. [15:15] Herman: don't think that comes close enough, IMO [15:17] Herman: we were talking about the ANW demo idea for MP [15:17] Herman: any chance of getting two players to play on the same side of a current scen? [15:18] Herman: i.e. both players somehow visit the game via remote desktop to play together against an AI? [15:18] TonyE: I hear you Vince, adding intelligence sure is time intensive, but at some point some attempts probably have to be made. [15:18] TonyE: yes Herman, how does that differ from playing alone? [15:19] Herman: it simulates things like forcing people to get together [15:19] Herman: they can see the problems of even *finding* someone willing to play with them [15:19] Herman: once folks see how hard it might be to ever find a willing opponent, their desire for MP may diminish [15:21] TonyE: hmm, I don't think that'd indicate much since there isn't a good reason to meet up with someone to battle the same AI they are trying to escape. [15:21] Herman: true [15:21] TonyE: or should I say, markedly less incentive than if the MP really worked. [15:22] Herman: but the remote viewer won't give them enough hands-on feel, I think [15:22] pmaidhof: Remote viewer multiplay sounds very much like the earlier TacOps CPX experience, whereas a player did not even need a copy of tacops, only a copy of the map and an IRC connection. [15:23] pmaidhof: It is still one of my most enjoyable methods of TacOps although it has somewhat fallen out of favor with the current MP capabilities. [15:23] pmaidhof: H: It would give the player the feel of the commander, no micromanagers need apply. [15:23] pmaidhof: [15:24] Herman: yes, it would give that flavour [15:25] Herman: I don't think I'd find it enjoyable, I guess [15:25] Herman: of course, once I got the umpire 'trained' to what I like, I bet that it could work [15:25] Herman: he'd know exactly what I meant when I asked him for certain manoeuvres [15:27] pmaidhof: That somewhat the joy of it, murphy's law, friction whatever you want to call it. Train and trust your subordinates, then roll the dice. [15:27] Herman: yes, you train and have years for the training [15:28] TonyE: I need to wrap up the recorded portion of our grand event. What I gathered is that the participants aren't seeing much of anything that should hold back the positive things that a near-term patch would provide. In addition, the pro MP crowd did not show up in enough force or with a good enough argument to justify shelving everything else for the next 18 months to implement MP. [15:29] TonyE: On both of those accounts I'm somewhat surprised, I expected a longer list of things that should be fixed before the next patch and I though the pro MP camp would really yell and scream at any suggestion that logistics and other items may also have similar merit. [15:30] TonyE: I'll need to confer with Brad and Scott but I'm thinking we'll work to get a patch out soon and then break file formats and face many months (12+) of coding and testing before the game comes back for another patch. [15:30] TonyE: No particular MP focus but keeping it in mind in everything we do build. [15:30] TonyE: Does that sound like I'm not distorting the events too badly? [15:31] Herman: sounds about right to me [15:31] Vince: Tony, my "strategic" view goes like this [15:31] Vince: first, you should inquire if an expansion for the game would be feasible - let's say in 12 months or so [15:32] Vince: like HCCE - The Forgotten Seas, wathever [15:32] Vince: basically HCCE 1.5 [15:32] Vince: if so, then MP, new theatres and file breaking stuff could be put in that basket [15:32] pmaidhof: H: while training is continuous, billets and formations constantly change. Ad-hoc multi national task forcesare created all the time, along with the inherent inter-operability issues. Life doesn't always follow the UK regimental system for example. [15:33] * pmaidhof does not know how the bold came about. [15:33] Vince: if this turns out to be feasible,m then cutting down the list of what can be realistically done with HCCE should be simpler [15:35] Vince: if matrix says "no" to an expansion, then there you go - but at least you could move with a clearer strategic plan in mind [15:35] TonyE: If there is an expansion from Matrix (and with those large changes they may decide to make it a paid expansion), our agreement will not change. That much I do know from recent inquiries and conversations. [15:36] Herman: then don't do it [15:36] Vince: I'm talking about a paid expansion, of course [15:37] Vince: yup, but it would bebetter than working on MP for 12 months for free - instead that for 100 $ ) [15:37] TonyE: well, we're not doing it for the money, money would just allow more time to be spent on improving the game.
May 25, 200818 yr Gentlemen, I was late for the meeting... I was dodging storms at 28000ft. First of all, thank you guys who keep Harpoon alive, my highest respect! Having said that, with humble "player only" capacity, I would like to comment on the following: >The pro multiplayer group did not make as strong of a showing or stand as expected so multiplayer remains a distant goal but not the only or the primary goal. If I had been ontime for the chat, MP would have been the only feature I would have asked for, since it is the only feature that holds me from dedicating serious time to HCE, (as Tony already knows). Before give MP a push to 2009, let me ask: if there was a serious poll in the community, with a well designed questionnaire including funding ideas, and a good strategy to expose it not only to old time players, but also to potential new players, wouldn't be that a better way of gauging the value of MP? The dilema, as I percieve, seems to be that more game sales not necessarily mean more income to the programmers, therefore MP is gauged purely from the current old time community's perspective. In my opinion, MP has not been poping up in the lists of "wishes" by the stable community because from the "wisher" perspective, it is difficult to gauge the programming effort when compared to other minor changes that the community would like in the short term. The fact the MP is second in Tony's wishlist gives me a lot of hope. I am not sure who is the PRO multiplayer group, I assume it is Herman and his disciples? My comments reflect just my humble opinion based on a short life in the forums and chats of this community, so please forgive me if I missed important pieces of information of the discussion. And one more time, thanks so much to all you guys who keep Harpoon alive.... Jeronimo aka Jerome aka Angle of Attack
May 25, 200818 yr Author >The pro multiplayer group did not make as strong of a showing or stand as expected so multiplayer remains a distant goal but not the only or the primary goal. If I had been ontime for the chat, MP would have been the only feature I would have asked for, since it is the only feature that holds me from dedicating serious time to HCE, (as Tony already knows). Before give MP a push to 2009, let me ask: if there was a serious poll in the community, with a well designed questionnaire including funding ideas, and a good strategy to expose it not only to old time players, but also to potential new players, wouldn't be that a better way of gauging the value of MP? The dilema, as I percieve, seems to be that more game sales not necessarily mean more income to the programmers, therefore MP is gauged purely from the current old time community's perspective. In my opinion, MP has not been poping up in the lists of "wishes" by the stable community because from the "wisher" perspective, it is difficult to gauge the programming effort when compared to other minor changes that the community would like in the short term. The fact the MP is second in Tony's wishlist gives me a lot of hope. I am not sure who is the PRO multiplayer group, I assume it is Herman and his disciples? I would welcome a serious undertaking to gauge interest in MP from a variety of directions like you suggest. We had a very short brainstorming session on the topic during the chat yesterday. It can't be simply a "would you like to see multiplayer" question, a relative gauging of what players want to see probably needs to figure into the questions (i.e. MP will take about xxxx man hours, logistics xxx man hours,... how would you rate them). I see you thinking beside the box as well thinking about money, that's a nearly impossible case to make (it is expensive pulling me away from real life work to do Harpoon but it would make additional time available for MP instead of stealing it from other goals). Money is also ugly from the perspective of who needs to be paid once one person gets paid. I may be the programmer but my code isn't worth squat without testers to drive refinement of the code, do they need to be paid, et al. As for who is the PRO MP group... I think that'd be Vince, yourself, and me for the hard core supporters. I know Brad would like it once the database limits are raised. I think your argument that the old guard of players who dominate the people making wishlists here and who are most frequently conversing with me do give me a biased opinion that MP isn't so key. So your efforts to get others talking could make a difference, until then I probably have to go with those who are going the extra mile (and nudging me every day towards their agenda ) for the game. I think Brad, Scott, and I are always going to listen and note the various opinions even if we don't act on them immediately. Anyway, I'm at your disposal to give any input you need on forming a survey for players and sponsoring it somehow if need be.
June 1, 200818 yr I'm a long time lurker, and loyal if not constant player of every version of both Harpoon families. I am also a dedicated simmer over 50, who for more years than I care to refect on gets together on line with friends around the country and world the majority of evenings each week for flight and tactical sims. As appears to often be the case in the forums for the various serious sims still active, we try out a range of releases periodically for a change of pace from Falcon 4 campaign or OFP, etc. The lack of a history of MP co-op and HTH for Harpoon has meant that Harpoon is virtually never considered, and I do not see it mentioned as a possibility in various serious discussions in other forums. Most of my friends online have heard of Harpoon, and many had played it at one time in the past. But as life and families take up more time in this stage of life, and our simming time is limited, we don't devote as much time to single player offline gaming as in the past, preferring the majority of 10-15-20 hours a week to be more devoted to the engaging social and satisfying community aspect of co-op sims. ANW has MP and that is a good step forward IMHO. But as seems common knowledge, the current version suffers from a plethora of issues and controversies. HCE on the otherhand seems free of this drawback. And most simmers I know are not aware that ANW is out there and has MP. The long lineage of Classic means that is the game that is the top of mind version - and not MP. "Harpoon 2" was often the other version people knew and know about and it wasn't Windows friendly. Guys are unwilling to invest (time, as much as money) in another sim if no one else has it and it doesn't have MP. End of story. All this is said as background to adding my two cents to AOA's insightful observations and reasoning for adding MP to HCE sooner than later. Serious sims of ANY ilk hang by a thread in commercial terms, and the communities surrounding them are loyal but relatively small compared to the major "communities" for Action and RPG genres. By not having a co-op and HTH component for HCE, not only is HCE cut off from the generic game-buying public out there in marketing terms; it is cut off from a significant segment of the hardcore serious sim community that would otherwise overlap in part with the Harpoon world. As it is, only the sub sim genre is out there for those interested in naval sims. And it suffers from the unfortunate restriction of no time acceleration permitted in MP (i.e., "Sub Command"). So even though many of us own that game and similar ones, they gather dust. Waaaay too long a time versus the window we have in the evenings. Global Conflict Blue 2 wisely allows time acceleration based on the lowest choice of any active player, at any given time. GCB has hardly any profile beyond a small contingent and is not a commercial sim. I apologize for writing at length, and for stepping unknowingly on any toes; that is not my intention. I speak somewhat selfishly on one hand, as I would enjoy having HCE as one of my circle's sims of choice and get to play it regularly with long time sim community friends. It's a great game, and continues to gain quality and capability over the years. But I also speak as a supporter of HCE as a "product" and want very much to see it reach greater success with the public. I am saddened that it remains in the bgackground and in the past for so many serious simmers nowadays. Lastly, in no way do I want to diminish the tremendous dedication by you Tony, and all the pillars of the Harpoon community! Within this community, the work, passion, devotion, and RESULTS may be matched, but certainly not exceeded by those other dedicated sim communities around classics like Falcon and EECH and newer sims such as LOMAC. My only purpose in speaking up is to add support for an upgrade that I believe would broaden the serious sim world support for the venerable Harpoon franchise. The focus on solving problems and adding functionality that satisfies the existing base of users that participate in forums like this is terrific. But I think most people understand that, just as in face to face situations, the majority of people don't speak up. So I would urge decision-makers to consider the implications in the context of limited time and resources of broadening HCE's appeal to those who already do purchase serious sims but avoid Harpoon, with upgrades that in no way dumb-down or reduce the sim in lowest common denominator directions. It can't be a bad thing business or community-wise to bring in more paying customers who are already serious about their sims.
June 1, 200818 yr Author Thank you for writing Eugene, we need to hear you and your friends speak up on such topics so your post is most welcomed. Uncommon for me, I have nothing to add to your post .
Create an account or sign in to comment