On the cusp...

[Ballbarian]

I like them. Makes it much easier on a large map with many commanders on the move to see what is going on. Try to take away my arrows and you will draw back a nub.

[Endoperez]

Can someone explain me why this post was met with such hostility? All of these changes, AFAIK, are something that we won't have, but what I at least would LIKE TO. I don't think these changes are small enough for a patch, that's true. Starting a new thread for the suggestions was perhaps a bit too much; in the "patch wish list" thread this post was just one amongst many. Many suggestions have been seen before. "Better GUI" or "Improved GUI" are very common, better battle reports as well, and everything in this post was very precisely said. It's much easier to go to the game, check if his point is true and perhaps look for a way to improve than to do it from "GUI could be improved" post. What's wrong with you guys? Really?

[Nerfix]

I think it was kimmitt's, hmmm, how do you say it, way of presenting the things. And suggesting price drop and not knowing the name of the previous game of the serious will gather a wee bit of agro around here.

[Cainehill]

Frankly, I agree with some of what the guy says. Not map generation - that should happen rarely enough that even for SP it should be acceptable (although it seems that more maps shiped for Dom2, and it would have been nice if the _fixed_ versions of the old maps had shipped).

But turn processing : yes, it's okay for MP games, at least for non-blitz games. But if the turn processing gets longer and longer as games go on (and more battles take place with larger armies, etc), the SP game may have yet another nail in its coffin.

Frankly, I'm not sure _why_ it processes turns so much more slowly now - I don't see Dom3 doing much more than Dom2 did in going from turn to turn, except possibly for performing that @#$* aging check. Wouldn't be surprised if updating the graphics isn't the problem : I worked on some map processing software that took as much as 20 minutes to perform one operation, on a multi-processor minicomputer. Discovered that optimizing how the progress bar was drawn allowed me to knock it down to less than a minute, as it was recalculating and redrawing the bar even if the percentage of progress hadn't changed. Hundreds of times a second, it was redrawing an identical progress bar. Looking at the flickering display during turn processing, I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't the same thing. (And the smooth fade-in when viewing battles also gets irritating and time consuming, since there seems to be no way to skip it.)

Then the battle reports : for two years, players have been asking for at least the same battle report on sieges that we get on other battles. No good excuse for the lack of proper reports on them. And people have asked for more detailed reports, since #1, finding out _which_ 5 commanders out of 24 is tiresome yet sometimes vital. #2, finding out which troops died, same issue : it adds a layer of tedium and irritation to the game, since it's often difficult to even remember what troops exactly went into the battle, so looking at what remains isn't always helpful.

And as Endoperez says : the hostility of at least one response seems unwarranted. Maybe he's catching some blowback from the real idiots who were *****ing about the game, but still....

[Unwise]

It was met by hostility because although it theoretically offered some constructive criticism (I too would love to see something like the GalCiv "Epic Generator" to post turn results on a web site), his overall tone was that of a spoiled brat who demands that the game conform to his needs or else he will (*gasp*) Take His Business Elsewhere.

If looked at point-by-point, none of the requests is unreasonable, nor is his tone massively objectionable if looked at dispassionately. But to people who surf this forum because (a) they love the game, (b) they respect a two-man company that can create something with such depth as a part-time hobby, and (c) already have a great deal of time invested in the product, the tone rankles.

It's like you just bought a new 2006 Mustang Convertible, and you absolutely adore it. Then some stranger comes up to you on the street and says "I was going to get one of those, but the chassis is the same as the 2000, the interior is cheap-looking and the manual shift is tough to get used to. Until Ford fixes these problems, I'm not buying one."

None of the points are false, but by making them, the stranger implies (whether by design or not) that you have made a grave error by buying the product. Moreover, you get the impression that he is boasting that he is far more intelligent than you are because he can see the faults for the deal-breakers that they are while you are blind to them due to some (possibly genetic) defect.

[upstreamedge]

I actually really like his idea about more interesting battle reports. I think that would get tiresome for hardcore players, but now I think I will start posting how I kicked *** in the multi I am playing on the forum! I would like to know which of my commanders died, but I like watching battles, and my commanders don't die much. I think it is really good that the turns take a long time to load because I do my homework while the turns are loading And who cares about how long it takes for a random map to generate? I mean I can generate a medium map in under a min so I see no problem

[dirtywick]

There are some good points there, the map generator is really slow even on my computer. The battle reports could use some work as well in my opinion. Turn generation isn't too bad, maybe you're not sending that many rockets .

About the map, zooming out makes life easier.

[Agrajag]

kimmitt said:
I'm running a machine which is more than capable of guiding fifty rockets to the moon simultaneously.

That doesn't say much, consider the computers on the earlier spacecrafts.


Now, without reading all of the thread (I'm a bit busy on time right now, sorry :\)

1) I don't know what kind of CPU you have, but hosting and map generation both run fine on my computer.
You haven't even told us what kind of CPU you have.

2) I like it the way it is, but I can see how it could be more comfortable for some if it was in one screen.

3) Yeah, a coupld of guys making the game as a hobby are going to get a proffesional to do their work, that sounds like a bright idea

4) Not high on my priorities, but I agree that it could be cool.

[JaydedOne]

Unwise, you nailed it in one. A very thoughtful, and accurate I think, analysis of the situation.

[JaydedOne]

For what it's worth, turn processing for massive games in single-player is majorly off-putting and really has me at a point where I refuse to play the single-player game beyond, say, 8-10 players. It's still long processing at that point, but if I'm, say, also playing my PS2 and/or working from home, I can use most of the processing time to do other things. However, it does keep me from completely immersing myself in the game the way I'd like to and really takes away the fun, chaotic elements of a full 17-18 player map.

If there's any way to further streamline/optimize turn processing, that'd be a major wish for me in a patch downt he line.