Speeding up battles - Page 4

Arryn · #31 March 3rd, 2004, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
PS: RE-windable combat "replay" isn't possible, as in fact it isn't a re-play, but a re-calculation. Saving all combat data or a video into a savegame is impossible for e-mail game.

Good point, I keep forgetting about the MP aspects. Thanks.

Sand · #32 March 3rd, 2004, 07:15 PM

It would be quite possible if you had to view at normal speed first, but could rewind to anything that you'd already seen (since it would have already been calculated locally). That alone would be a big help -- instead of having to repeatedly rewatch an entire battle for one key point, you could rewind over that one point.

Of course, that doesn't mean it's easy to program.

Arryn · #33 March 3rd, 2004, 07:24 PM

That's a great idea, Sand! They could write a new "movie" file whenever a battle is first viewed once through (perhaps even running the first pass at a faster rate). One movie file could be created per each different battle viewed that turn. The movie files would be excluded from MP turn transmissions, and would be deleted by the game whenever you 'host' another turn (so they don't stack up on your drive).

Gandalf Parker · #34 March 3rd, 2004, 07:37 PM

Oooohhhh and just think of the fun we can have if the movie files could be viewed outside the game! put up on web sites. made part of walk thrus and AARs. Be the starting basis of the Dominions Saturdy Morning Cartoon Show (different thread)

Im not being sarcastic. I really think it would be fun. Does anyone happen to know if there is a 3rd party program which can be used to record the battles to a playable file?

EDITED: I googled and yes such software exists. I will play with some and post what I find to a new topic. Maybe tomorrow

[ March 03, 2004, 17:59: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Arryn · #35 March 3rd, 2004, 07:44 PM

Now you have me excited, Gandalf! ...

Sly Frog · #36 March 3rd, 2004, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Heh, nice to see I'm not the only one to find 10s missile volleys 2-3x too slow. I run a 2.1GHz AMD, 512k RAM, GF4 4400. Dom windowed 1280x1024, at very high graphics detail, with a half-dozen or more apps, including Mozilla, Photoshop, and WinAMP in the background and arrows at most take 6s to reach their max range, usually only 3-4s for a hit at range ~25-30.

I'm sorry I wasted my time. You really have no hope of ever getting it. I debunk your "you must have an old computer" assumption, and now you literally try to take a complaint about the general speed of combat and ability to conviently use it to tell what is happening, and start fixating on whether something takes at most 6 seconds versus 10 seconds on a reasonable machine.

You have an information intake and processing problem; again, I'm sorry I wasted my time.

#37 March 3rd, 2004, 08:24 PM

Ug. this debate has turned into the old stale one as before.

SlyFrog, you may be tired that the excuse is that they programmers don't have the time to put forth to the effort of a major company who can do massive updates constantly, or even have the time to figure out how to get to the point where they can update and fix the replay speed.

But the price is the price, obviously if you paid for it you felt it was good enough. I would think that if you did you would feel that the product is good enough to deal with it's 'flaws'.

It's not as if suddenly the entire 'we want battle replay speed' is going to disappear, I just think the developers are tired of hearing and having to defend it, saying the same thing they have said over and over concerning it.

They are obviously continuing to support the product and more than likely intend to well beyond what most 'professional companies' would. And without scheming to get more money out of you.

Battle replay speed adjustment doesn't have anything to do with how fast your computer goes, how fast you see the speed replays, your attention span, or anything of that nature. It has to do with if it can even be programmed within the resources amount of time.

If you can't handle or don't want to accept that the programming in question has limited resources. Then there is nothing anyone can do to convince you otherwise.

Sly Frog · #38 March 3rd, 2004, 08:47 PM

Quote:

SlyFrog, you may be tired that the excuse is that they programmers don't have the time to put forth to the effort of a major company who can do massive updates constantly, or even have the time to figure out how to get to the point where they can update and fix the replay speed.

But the price is the price, obviously if you paid for it you felt it was good enough. I would think that if you did you would feel that the product is good enough to deal with it's 'flaws'.

See, this is so much more reasonable. I agree, and again, all told, this is one of the best games to come out. All I am saying is this: I think a lot of people think the lack of combat speed or viewing options is a pretty big detriment. I think they should fix it. I occassionally see people write that, and immediately get shouted down with the "It's not a problem and anyway don't expect them to change it because they are working in a basement and the game is brilliant and we cannot say anything bad or it may disappear into a poof of vapor" speech.

I'm not screaming that it must be done tomorrow. I'm not saying the game sucks. I am saying that every complaint does not need to be shouted down as though it were a fundamental attack on the game, and that at the game's price, I think the complete reliance on the "two guys working in a basement" argument is a little stale. I'm grateful for their efforts, and they seem like decent guys. That does not mean that there aren't some elements that could be improved that, in my opinion, would add a lot of functionality to the game, that probably should have been in there. I do not like to have people posting legitimate problems with the game shouted down. The developers should know if people think something is an issue. Not harassed and hounded with it day and night, but reminded from time to time.

A reasoned response like yours is a lot more palatable than what I have been seeing (not from the developers, they seem pretty decent too, although I wish they would give more of a commitment or answer to whether they will make the changes).

Sand · #39 March 3rd, 2004, 08:55 PM

Sly Frog, I agree. I've got a big list of "stuff I'd like to see", and I'm a little hesitant to post it now

, but I'm not expecting any of it to show up any time soon. Rather, I'm providing feedback to the developers of such a fine game for them to use as they see fit.

#40 March 3rd, 2004, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly Frog:
See, this is so much more reasonable. I agree, and again, all told, this is one of the best games to come out. All I am saying is this: I think a lot of people think the lack of combat speed or viewing options is a pretty big detriment. I think they should fix it.

On this I 100% agree. And have from the beginning that if it can, it should be fixed. If it can't, then is another story.

Quote:

I occassionally see people write that, and immediately get shouted down with the "It's not a problem and anyway don't expect them to change it because they are working in a basement and the game is brilliant and we cannot say anything bad or it may disappear into a poof of vapor" speech.

I'm not screaming that it must be done tomorrow. I'm not saying the game sucks. I am saying that every complaint does not need to be shouted down as though it were a fundamental attack on the game, and that at the game's price, I think the complete reliance on the "two guys working in a basement" argument is a little stale. I'm grateful for their efforts, and they seem like decent guys. That does not mean that there aren't some elements that could be improved that, in my opinion, would add a lot of functionality to the game, that probably should have been in there. I do not like to have people posting legitimate problems with the game shouted down. The developers should know if people think something is an issue. Not harassed and hounded with it day and night, but reminded from time to time.

I agree that nudging reminders should be given, and they are for the most part. You see the same threads popping up every so often so it would be hard to miss. Most of the time they usually go into a "Yeah, I agree this ..."

I don't believe that the 'excuse' of 2 guys in their basement with a dog and a fish programming is an excuse, as much as a limitation. I think that while a little zealous people are trying to tell people what they themselves never knew and were frustrated with the game. I agree they could be a little more reasonable though

Quote:

A reasoned response like yours is a lot more palatable than what I have been seeing (not from the developers, they seem pretty decent too, although I wish they would give more of a commitment or answer to whether they will make the changes).

I think this falls into the classic developer/customer logic. Developers don't want you to know what they are working on, in part for the surprise factor, in part because constant updates take away from their time programming, and Lastly because it spawns so much debate, flames, and other things.

While I feel this forum is mostly free of that, it's probably just another headache of "Why don't you do this, why don't you do that", "How come you are working on x, when y is so much more important" that the developers want to avoid.

[ March 03, 2004, 18:57: Message edited by: Zen ]