I bit...
RobP
Will be interesting to see how it pans out. Just waiting for the downloads
to finish at the moment (bought Winterstorm to boot). I guess I will be
posting back after I have had a good play with it.
RobP
Bloodstar
You should have read ravinhood1 review on Gamespot :o)))
RobP
news:fu5l86$m68$1...@sunce.iskon.hr...
other reviewers seem pretty happy with the game. I'm kind of looking forward
to a CMBB alternative, will be interesting to see how it plays out. I come
from a boardgame and wargame background, long before computer wargames came
along and find it intriguing (if the posts are to be believed), that this
game is based on such an older engine.
No doubt about it, Matrix are going to be making me very skint this year if
they are going to be releasing some of the titles I think they are. My
problem will be trying to find the time to play them all.
RobP
Bloodstar
> other reviewers seem pretty happy with the game. I'm kind of looking
> forward to a CMBB alternative, will be interesting to see how it plays
> out. I come from a boardgame and wargame background, long before computer
> wargames came along and find it intriguing (if the posts are to be
> believed), that this game is based on such an older engine.
>
> No doubt about it, Matrix are going to be making me very skint this year
> if they are going to be releasing some of the titles I think they are. My
> problem will be trying to find the time to play them all.
LOL Glad to hear that.
I on the other hand just looking for Gary Grisby War in Russia as my next
Matrix purchase :o)))
So until now nothing in 2008. from Matrix for me.
Maybe if WITP Pacific Edition will be more dummies oriented :o)))
Mario
RobP
For me in no particular order its:
1. WITP Admirals Edition
2. Lock'n'Loaded
3. Battle of the Bulge
4. Combined Arms WWII
And they are the ones I know about!
RobP
eddys...@hotmail.com
> "Bloodstar" <george.washing...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fu5l86$m68$1...@sunce.iskon.hr...>> Just bought Kharkov, even though I have CMBB and still very much enjoy
> >> it. Will be interesting to see how it pans out. Just waiting for the
> >> downloads to finish at the moment (bought Winterstorm to boot). I guess I
> >> will be posting back after I have had a good play with it.
>
> > You should have read ravinhood1 review on Gamespot :o)))
>
> He seemed quite scathing,
The thing you should know about Ravinhood is that he was recently
banned from the Matrix forums for making fun of another poster with a
disabling disease. On top of that he was the #1 obnoxious poster there
for years and years and most everyone is glad to get rid of him as he
never posted about wargames anyway.
When he got banned he returned under a similar nick saying Matrix
would be sorry that they had banned him and that he'd be "reviewing"
their games at other sites.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Mike Kreuzer
news:5fa831e3-4a72-4dd0...@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
The review is here:
http://au.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/panzercommandkharkov/player_review.html?id=566636
He says:
(Cut & paste)
I find the game quite half done and incomplete. Let's take a good look at
it. First it comes with the IE 7.0 requirement issue to be able to use the
entire product "without glitches". They rushed to make some sort of
halfassed fix to allow it to work with IE 6.0, but, this comes with glitches
and bugs without any hope of fixing it so the editors work at all. Then it
doesn't come with any kind of step loss animations, if a unit takes a step
loss you would never know it by looking at it because if it's a 3 man stand
it will remain a 3 man stand until completely destroyed. Not even realistic
looking. If it's a 5 man stand same thing either they all stand up or they
all fall down at the same time. Then there is that pathing issue still in
the game from PC:OWS where units get stuck on each other and it takes
several phases to get them unstuck and half or all of them get eliminated in
the process of this unfixed bug from the previous game. Then there is no
melee animations or close assault animations when attacking an armored
piece. If you don't realize you are within 25m of the assault vehicle you
wouldn't know one was happening at all. Then there is no truck movement
allowed of ground artillery at all, no anti-tank gun or heavy artillery
movement at all either. You can still move infantry guns but without any
vehicles. Then the very ugly coins over the tops of units heads it makes the
maps look clutterfusted and once again removes any immersion that one might
get had they had stands.
I would invite anyone an everyone to just look at the tech support page as
well already their are huge amounts of issues that have cropped up since
release. Hardly what I would call a handful of people in a niche market like
wargaming. Quite a lot in fact. SOme examples:
Game Freezes, Performance Issues turns take over a minute or two to
complete, LOS issues, Random Generator script issues, CTD's, Menu lineup
issues, Silo Building LOS Issues firing thru walls so to speak, Redownload
issues after the fact. And many more.
This one just has too many elements missing to be THE wargame or the
dethroner of Combat Mission and I would say no better than fair for quality
and longevity. I'd stay on the fence on this one and wait for the 3rd
installement which promises to include "everything" or almost everything
that is missing in this one and not just portions as this one did and was
just portions more than the origional PC:OWS.
Also, I would invite you to invest your money into EU:ROME as I believe it
will be the better game of these two and it's release is just around the
corner. There will be hours and hours of gameplay value out of it and it's
much improved over EUIII. At least it offers a demo, download it and try it
out. I'm finding it very impressive though of course it has it's issues as
well.
(End of cut & paste)
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Mike Kreuzer
And the ban is at:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1766422&mpage=1&key=
Erik "there'll be no more banning" Rutins doing the banning.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Erik "there'll be no more banning" Rutins doing the banning.
What options where there left after this ?
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/m.asp?m=1774321
If you knew the guy from before the only question you'd have is "why
did it take so long ?" - that guy once posted that he didn't like HTTR
because "you had to move too many units each turn" - that's why I
didn't even bother to read his review of PC:Kharkov - it would be
worthless if he hadn't been banned and now it's untrustworthy on top
of that.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Mike Kreuzer
news:0a0ee0ea-7854-47e5...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 17 apr, 09:51, "Mike Kreuzer" <m...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com> wrote:
>
>> Erik "there'll be no more banning" Rutins doing the banning.
>
> What options where there left after this ?
>
Ahem, that was after he was already banned.
> http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/m.asp?m=1774321
>
> If you knew the guy from before the only question you'd have is "why
> did it take so long ?" - that guy once posted that he didn't like HTTR
> because "you had to move too many units each turn" - that's why I
> didn't even bother to read his review of PC:Kharkov - it would be
> worthless if he hadn't been banned and now it's untrustworthy on top
> of that.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
I read bits & pieces of his posts on the Kharkov forum & the posts I read
were all on topic, if a little unforgiving. I don't think he took kindly to
fanbois, which wouldn't have won him many friends on a company forum.
The first para of his review is all accurate, if again a little unforgiving.
I like the game, but those are all reasonable criticisms.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
eddys...@hotmail.com
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0a0ee0ea-7854-47e5...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 17 apr, 09:51, "Mike Kreuzer" <m...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com> wrote:
>
> >> Erik "there'll be no more banning" Rutins doing the banning.
>
> > What options where there left after this ?
>
> Ahem, that was after he was already banned.
Nope - he got a 2-week ban for making fun of a guy with a disabling
disease. Since forum-posting is his main hobby that freaked him out so
much that he retaliated, earning himself a permanent ban.
> The first para of his review is all accurate, if again a little unforgiving.
> I like the game, but those are all reasonable criticisms.
Could well be - I dunno - he's smart (and devious) enough not to go
slamming a game, making it too obvious he's out to get them and has a
score to settle, so he'll be more subtle.
But his last post in the Matrix forum made it quiet clear that he
would be seeking revenge, making everything he writes suspect.
"Just a final word before I go. Now you will find out who I really am.
You made a big bad mistake Erik.
You allowed morons and idiots on this forum to attack me while you
stood back and did nothing. You put out crap games and that is the
message I will send throughout the web now. Be sure and watch for my
"reviews". :) "
And now this guy writes a "review" of PC:Kharkov ...
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Baska
> would be seeking revenge, making everything he writes suspect.
>
> "Just a final word before I go. Now you will find out who I really am.
> You made a big bad mistake Erik.
>
> You allowed morons and idiots on this forum to attack me while you
> stood back and did nothing. You put out crap games and that is the
> message I will send throughout the web now. Be sure and watch for my
> "reviews". :) "
>
> And now this guy writes a "review" of PC:Kharkov ...
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
I searched for the review, but couldn't find it, has anyone got a URL?
Bas
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> I searched for the review, but couldn't find it, has anyone got a URL?
http://au.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/panzercommandkharkov/player_review.html?id=566636
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Mike Kreuzer
news:1e8e4c90-f946-4246...@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 17 apr, 10:22, "Mike Kreuzer" <m...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com> wrote:
>> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:0a0ee0ea-7854-47e5...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On 17 apr, 09:51, "Mike Kreuzer" <m...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Erik "there'll be no more banning" Rutins doing the banning.
>>
>> > What options where there left after this ?
>>
>> Ahem, that was after he was already banned.
>
> Nope - he got a 2-week ban for making fun of a guy with a disabling
> disease. Since forum-posting is his main hobby that freaked him out so
> much that he retaliated, earning himself a permanent ban.
>
Dzzzz, thanks for playing. <g> Like I said, after he was banned.
>> The first para of his review is all accurate, if again a little
>> unforgiving.
>> I like the game, but those are all reasonable criticisms.
>
> Could well be - I dunno - he's smart (and devious) enough not to go
> slamming a game, making it too obvious he's out to get them and has a
> score to settle, so he'll be more subtle.
>
As I said, I do think the review's too negative; but at the same time I
think it is worth reading, cause it's a good summary of some of the bad
points of the game.
Now Ravinhood's been banned I don't see anyone else who's going to make
those points on the Matrix forum. And if they do, boy oh boy, I'm sure
they'll slip up somewhere else and get banned quick smart.
What-a-coincidence-ladies-and-gentlemen!
> But his last post in the Matrix forum made it quiet clear that he
> would be seeking revenge, making everything he writes suspect.
>
> "Just a final word before I go. Now you will find out who I really am.
> You made a big bad mistake Erik.
>
> You allowed morons and idiots on this forum to attack me while you
> stood back and did nothing. You put out crap games and that is the
> message I will send throughout the web now. Be sure and watch for my
> "reviews". :) "
>
> And now this guy writes a "review" of PC:Kharkov ...
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
I have no doubt Ravinhood was an annoying SOB, but that's not the point.
Erik "no more bans" Rutins just banned him. Twice. For me that's the main
game here, and it doesn't add a lot of credibility to Erik's claims about a
free & fair discussion on the Harpoon forum. From now on. <cough, cough> As
circumstances permit. <mumble, mumble> In the fullness of time ...
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
eddys...@hotmail.com
> > Nope - he got a 2-week ban for making fun of a guy with a disabling
> > disease. Since forum-posting is his main hobby that freaked him out so
> > much that he retaliated, earning himself a permanent ban.
>
> Dzzzz, thanks for playing. <g> Like I said, after he was banned.
Ah, my bad - I thought you referred to the perma-ban instead of the 2-
week time-out.
> Now Ravinhood's been banned I don't see anyone else who's going to make
> those points on the Matrix forum.
Really ? Are we reading the same forum ?
> And if they do, boy oh boy, I'm sure
> they'll slip up somewhere else and get banned quick smart.
> What-a-coincidence-ladies-and-gentlemen!
What coincidence ? A guy who's been obnoxious to other posters for
years and years gets a 2-week time-out and then goes berserk. I had a
run-in with that jerk as well - I bet most posters over there had at
some point in time.
Mike, do yourself a favour and read the PC:Kharkov forum : there are a
lot of people there raising good points and pointing at omissions -
are you seriously suggesting they are all going to get banned over
time ?
Here's another thing you could do : post a "Poll - who's sorry/glad
Ravinhood is gone" in the general forum and watch the sparks fly -
that guy was impopular not because of his (anti-)game posts (which
were few) but because of his personal and abusive post (which were
plenty)
I even invited him on more than one occasion to join us here on war-
historical because his main hobby seemed to be attacking other people
and I know we can deal with that type of guys - he never showed up.
> I have no doubt Ravinhood was an annoying SOB, but that's not the point.
>
> Erik "no more bans" Rutins just banned him. Twice. For me that's the main
> game here, and it doesn't add a lot of credibility to Erik's claims about a
> free & fair discussion on the Harpoon forum. From now on. <cough, cough> As
> circumstances permit. <mumble, mumble> In the fullness of time ...
Ah, ok, so you're main objection is the breaking of the "no more bans"
promise - which I thought was silly at the time - not the actual
reason why he was banned.
Just a question : would you have banned him ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Epi
says...
Sometimes when I read a review, it seems obvious that the reviewer is
trying to slam the product. Like the review of the Crteative Zen
Vision, that said the sound was OK. This review seems like that too.
It's therefore worthless.
--
Movies of the moment: A Face in the Crowd, and The
Night of the Hunter. They're oldies, but goodies.
----
One cool plane is the Columbia 400.
http://se.cessna.com/cessna400/
It may be the Cessna 400 now, but they would have
never created it. They aren't that interesting.
Click "Instrument Panel," and see how it has sticks
instead of yokes.
----
http://www.curlesneck.com
----
Epi
James D Burns
news:6454782c-0a36-49d1...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> he never showed up.
I wouldn't be so sure he isn't already here.
After reading this:
>"Now you will find out who I really am."
It leads me to believe he is already here under a different moniker. If so
he's a typical coward as most who hide behind monikers are. Perhaps he's
using his real name here or he's affiliated with the industry since the "who
I am" statement makes me think he's expecting people to know him for
something.
Jim
Giftzwerg
says...
> I have no doubt Ravinhood was an annoying SOB, but that's not the point.
>
> Erik "no more bans" Rutins just banned him. Twice.
Wait a minute, though. Is it your position that *no one* should *ever*
be banned from the Matrix forum?
How about a guy who starts posting kiddie porn? Or warez / crackz?
Forums always have rules. And my suspicion is that somewhere in the
Matrix rules is a condition that can be reasonably argued to cover
"insulting forum member with debilitating disease."
You (and I) might argue that this isn't enough. We might even *suspect*
that a ban sometimes has more to do with scathing criticisms of products
than off-topic flaming.
But this ravinhood jagoff clearly said what it's asserted he said.
In other words, I'm not sure Mr. Rutins ever said "no more bans," just
that he'd reviewed a very different situation in another forum and, in
retrospect, had moved "the line" to ensure that Mr. Hum's posts were now
explicitly allowed.
He'd have to be insane to say "no more bans."
--
Giftzwerg
***
"One of the hardest things about being a liberal Democrat is that, when
you're talking to the resentful yahoos whose votes you unfortunately
need, you have to pretend to care about them. When you're trying to sell
Hope and Change, you need to give the rubes Hope that the Change is
going to be Change they want. Even when you know there s no Hope of
that."
- David Kahane
Giftzwerg
> After reading this:
>
> >"Now you will find out who I really am."
>
> It leads me to believe he is already here under a different moniker. If so
> he's a typical coward as most who hide behind monikers are.
Hey, Jimbo (If that really is your name); roughly half of the posters
right here in this group are using a "moniker."
Which ones are you calling "cowards," exactly?
eddys...@hotmail.com
> He'd have to be insane to say "no more bans."
This is what he actually said :
"1. There will be no further deletion of posts or banning of users
from
our Harpoon sub-orums unless they break our basic forum rules that
are
enforced everywhere else on our site fairly
2. We are accepting any and all bug reports on H3ANW at the H3ANW
forum. All will be investigated, none will be deleted.
3. (I realize this on is a tough sell, but...) A good faith effort is
underway to improve relations and responsiveness to customers,
including but not limited to handling of bug reports. "
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
b76937...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > He'd have to be insane to say "no more bans."
>
> This is what he actually said :
>
> "1. There will be no further deletion of posts or banning of users
> from
> our Harpoon sub-orums unless they break our basic forum rules that
> are
> enforced everywhere else on our site fairly
Exactly.
I'm the last one to support censorship, but the first rule this causes
me to suggest with respect to product criticism on company forums is:
"Vocal critics have to be like Caesar's wife; their conduct must be so
rigorously exemplary that they afford absolutely no avenue to be banned
for violating a rule that really exists."
This is why, when Don Maddox was here defending his censorship,
practically the first question out of my mouth was along the lines of,
"Quote the post that got <whoever> banned, and then cite the rule that
this post clearly violated." I never got an answer to that one.
But in this case, Mr. Rutins has already cited the post that led to the
temporary ban, and it's a trivial exercise to pull up the forum rule
that it violated. Shit, it could probably be argued - and reasonably -
that it violated all of them.
I'm sure Matrix was *delighted* to finally douche out this irritating
asshole from their forums. All the more reason for irritating assholes
to make sure that moderators can only sputter helplessly when asked
"what did he post that violated a rule," instead of calmly citing post
and rule.
Laryngoscope
"Mike Kreuzer" <mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com> wrote in message
news:480708c9$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Just a heads up to let anyone who is interested know, I have removed the IE7
requirement.
IE6 works fine now with no "graphical glitches" or loss of functionality of
any kind.
S.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> roughly half of the posters
> right here in this group are using a "moniker."
Well, the funny thing is my real name is *more* anonymous than a
pretty unique nick like Giftzwerg.
Think about it - if some "Eddy Sterckx" wrote some pretty stupid stuff
in some forum or ng I can always blame that Karp guy, but you can't :)
The question of why someone uses a nick was finally made clear to me a
couple of weeks ago when you explained it wasn't so much to protect
your anonymity from the people in here, but from HR departments,
vindictive people and other losers.
Finally : if Ravinhood had shown up in here I'd have spotted him ages
ago. You can change your nick, but you can't change your personality
or writing style - just ask Mario.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > roughly half of the posters
> > right here in this group are using a "moniker."
>
> Well, the funny thing is my real name is *more* anonymous than a
> pretty unique nick like Giftzwerg.
Another insanely weird thing is that Giftzwerg isn't, apparently, unique
*enough*, and I've actually had people point me to stuff that some other
Giftzwerg said somewhere else. Cripes!
> Think about it - if some "Eddy Sterckx" wrote some pretty stupid stuff
> in some forum or ng I can always blame that Karp guy, but you can't :)
I can try. But it's a lot harder.
> The question of why someone uses a nick was finally made clear to me a
> couple of weeks ago when you explained it wasn't so much to protect
> your anonymity from the people in here, but from HR departments,
> vindictive people and other losers.
The whole issue really boils down to whether we assign any additional
credibility - or "bravery" - to someone who signs himself "Godzillaman"
or "William T. Smith."
And long ago, I decided two things:
(1) There's no way for me to determine if "William T. Smith" is really
William T. Smith - and who gives a flying fuck anyhow?
(2) Given (1), the only reasonable way to assess credibility is to
actually examine the *argument* that <name here> is proposing, and
attack or agree without respect to "who" is doing the posting.
> Finally : if Ravinhood had shown up in here I'd have spotted him ages
> ago. You can change your nick, but you can't change your personality
> or writing style - just ask Mario.
... or Glenn Greenwald, a prominent example of a writer / blogger who
got busted for serial sock-puppetry.
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> I'm the last one to support censorship, but the first rule this causes
> me to suggest with respect to product criticism on company forums is:
>
> "Vocal critics have to be like Caesar's wife; their conduct must be so
> rigorously exemplary that they afford absolutely no avenue to be banned
> for violating a rule that really exists."
All of this has me thinking : why on earth would anyone want his forum
to be a fanboy-only place where no criticism can be heard ?
I mean, I can understand how pleasing to the ego it is to have a
couple of fanboys – the moderate kind – for a while - but are
established wargame developers really the prima donnas who yearn this
kind of attention ? If you’re in this business for the ego-trip, you
won’t last as reality has a habit of biting you in the lower backside.
Also from a publisher’s pov – say some new customer comes along, sees
a forum with nothing but happy faces, buys the game and finds out it’s
a buggy piece of crap. First of all : such a guy is *never* going to
buy another game from you and is more than likely to badmouth your
company at every other forum at every other occasion. No, even from a
business pov it makes more sense to allow criticism of a game, that
way a prospective buyer’s thinking process goes : uh, ok, there are
some problems with this game – just like with practically every other
game – but the developers seem to be responsive to problems, so I can
live with that, sold.
A fanboy-only forum simply doesn’t make good business sense.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <6dbdf87b-342a-4963-9031-dedf1487af06
>
> > > roughly half of the posters
> > > right here in this group are using a "moniker."
>
> > Well, the funny thing is my real name is *more* anonymous than a
> > pretty unique nick like Giftzwerg.
>
> Another insanely weird thing is that Giftzwerg isn't, apparently, unique
> *enough*, and I've actually had people point me to stuff that some other
> Giftzwerg said somewhere else. Cripes!
*Another* Giftzwerg ... so you claim :)
80 million Germans on this planet & plenty of non-Germans (like me)
who know the folklore tales of "Giftzwerg". It would be a miracle if
no-one else had taken it as a nick.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Mike Kreuzer
>
> A fanboy-only forum simply doesn’t make good business sense.
The competition between ego stroking and business sense is usually a no
brainer. Literally.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
ERutins
I'm frankly disappointed in your characterization of me and the whole
Ravinhood drama.
First, I never said there would not be any more bans. I said there
would only be bans for breaking our general forum rules, which are
fairly enforced across all our forums and have resulted in only a
handful of bans over the years. This is the second time I've perma-
banned someone in eight years.
Read his posting history. He'd been a member on our site for five
years and had made over 3,000 posts. A good portion of those were
criticism of our games. He had never been banned before, he had been
warned about insulting other customers but that was it. You can find
criticism of our games all over our forums if you but look. It isn't
even always constructive. We do _not_ censor our forums of criticism
and we do _not_ ban people for criticizing our games. The AGSI sub-
forum was, for quite a while, not directly moderated by us. That has
now changed and what happened there has never happened elsewhere on
our site.
The reason for his two-week ban was that over the past few weeks he'd
been getting more and more obnoxious to other customers and I was
receiving a regular stream of PMs about his behavior. I actually cut
him a lot of slack, but when he decided to insult someone about their
terminal illness, it was too much. I gave him a two week ban to
consider his behavior to other customers. None of his posts were
deleted, feel free to read through them, but keep in mind that part of
why he wasn't banned before now is that he was frankly excellent at
annoying people while staying just short of crossing the line of
breaking the forum rules. As soon as I banned him, he created a new
account, taunted me and threatened us with poor review of our games
across the internet. Creating a new account to taunt the mods after a
ban is cause for a longer ban. Threatening to exact revenge on top of
that is cause for a perma-ban. That's what he got. He then created
yet another account to taunt again, until I told him we'd contact his
ISP for harassment. They guy was pretty clearly a bit unhinged - most
people after being such jerks as to insult someone with a terminal
illness would step back and apologize, not become more and more
intransigent.
So what happened next? Up until the ban, he was looking forward to
Panzer Command very much and spoke the same day as the ban to say that
he had ordered it but not received it yet. Immediately after the ban,
he posted a "review" of a game he hadn't played yet, complete with
rating, at the Wargamer and then copied and pasted that to
Battlefront.com as well. He then also copied and pasted it to
GameSpot. Over the next two days, suddenly at GameSpot and IGN Panzer
Command Kharkov received five or six ratings of "1.0". At
Battlefront.com, when other posters disagreed with him, a poster
called CaptBly backed up Ravinhood and explained how reasonable his
argument was. This worked well for him until Steve at Battlefront
jumped in, locked the thread and discovered that CaptBly and Ravinhood
were one and the same. He was talking to himself, using a second
account and posting in a way that would make him appear to be
reasonable. He's too smart to post an actual review that is nothing
but a slam-fest. Instead, he rates it just low enough that no one
would buy it, posts only negative points (most of which are his pet
peeves) and exaggerates issues. I really doubt anyone could have done
it much better and that's what's so frustrating for me - it's easy for
folks to be taken in if they don't know the game and haven't read the
other feedback.
In short, this is a customer that turned on a dime from eagerly
anticipating Panzer Command to spending all his free time going around
the net "reviewing" it negatively, simply because he was banned for
two weeks for behaving very poorly to other customers in our General
Discussion forum. If that's the kind of person you want to support,
it's your choice.
Regards,
- Erik
eddys...@hotmail.com
> [snip]
>
> > A fanboy-only forum simply doesn’t make good business sense.
>
> The competition between ego stroking and business sense is usually a no
> brainer. Literally.
I have a hard time believing anyone can stay in business while
ignoring reality. Unless you've got 22 million dollar in the bank -
then you can pretty much ignore reality for the rest of your life.
This is kinda the phase Battlefront is going through right now : they
were sick and tired of doing WWII and fully expected all their fans to
follow them to this new type of game and era they were going to make –
now reality has hit home that them being sick & tired of WWII is
immaterial, because their fans hold the cash which keeps them afloat
and their fans want WWII. It’s tough when it takes you years to
finally figure out that the customer is always right – tough and
expensive.
Look at it in reverse : the Koios guys really wanted to do Ancient
miniature tabletop games but found-out the fan-base wasn’t big enough
to support the sort of thing they were doing. There was some talk
about them doing ACW, Napoleonic, etc – but they’re all marginal
compared to WWII - so they switched to WWII - I don’t know (or care)
whether or not that was a bit forced onto them due to market forces
and if it would have been their first pick if they really could afford
it, but that’s the way it is.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Frank E
>On 17 apr, 13:42, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm the last one to support censorship, but the first rule this causes
>> me to suggest with respect to product criticism on company forums is:
>>
>> "Vocal critics have to be like Caesar's wife; their conduct must be so
>> rigorously exemplary that they afford absolutely no avenue to be banned
>> for violating a rule that really exists."
>
>All of this has me thinking : why on earth would anyone want his forum
>to be a fanboy-only place where no criticism can be heard ?
>
>I mean, I can understand how pleasing to the ego it is to have a
>couple of fanboys ? the moderate kind ? for a while - but are
>established wargame developers really the prima donnas who yearn this
>kind of attention ?
Yup. As evidence I'll offer up Battlefront, Harpoon 3, Storm Eagle
and BC3K. Those developers really do have a god complex imo. I think
game development attracts that type of a person since you are creating
worlds; playing God to some extent.
It's not the majority but it is a significant percentage from what
I've seen. Usenet seems to be a pretty good acid test in that regard.
People with that type of a personality tend not to last long around
here and end up leaving in a tizzy.
>If you?re in this business for the ego-trip, you
>won?t last as reality has a habit of biting you in the lower backside.
There are certain jobs where that type of personality seems to do
well, sales for example. Personally, I can't stand having people that
agree with me all the time, if nothing else, it's boring. <g>
>Also from a publisher?s pov ? say some new customer comes along, sees
>a forum with nothing but happy faces, buys the game and finds out it?s
>a buggy piece of crap. First of all : such a guy is *never* going to
>buy another game from you and is more than likely to badmouth your
>company at every other forum at every other occasion. No, even from a
>business pov it makes more sense to allow criticism of a game, that
>way a prospective buyer?s thinking process goes : uh, ok, there are
>some problems with this game ? just like with practically every other
>game ? but the developers seem to be responsive to problems, so I can
>live with that, sold.
>
>A fanboy-only forum simply doesn?t make good business sense.
>
I think that there's a natural tendency for any forum to devolve into
a fanboy-only forum unless you actively take steps to prevent it. A
majority of the posters will be fans of the game and odds are that the
foum moderators will be some of the biggest fanboys. Someone shows up
and criticizes the game, the fanboys respond, things get a bit heated
and when the moderator jumps in he's probably going to side with the
regulars who've been posting for months or years.
Even worse is when a moderator tends to be one of the instigators. One
of the few game forums that I follow regularly, Shrapnel's Dom3
forum, has always been bad in that regard. I've never bothered to post
there cuz I know I'd get banned within a couple of weeks. <g>
Rgds, Frank
Mike Kreuzer
news:d99a1a9d-0ee0-49b4...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Mike,
>
> I'm frankly disappointed in your characterization of me and the whole
> Ravinhood drama.
>
Erik, I'm supporting his right to say stupid things, not the things he's
saying. The more I disagree with what he says the more I'll support his
right to say them.
But it's your forum & you made a judgment call. I disagree with it but
it's not the end of the world, I disagree with a lot of things. Anyway, he
obviously seems to have found other outlets for his, err, passions.
OK, giving you the "no more bans" moniker was a tad juvenile ... sorry man,
kind of guy I am on occasion.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Mike Kreuzer
> b76937...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
>> > He'd have to be insane to say "no more bans."
>>
>> This is what he actually said :
>>
>> "1. There will be no further deletion of posts or banning of users
>> from
>> our Harpoon sub-orums unless they break our basic forum rules that
>> are
>> enforced everywhere else on our site fairly
>
> Exactly.
OK, I misremembered the detail of that. But (adopting the recovery
position) ...
While I have no reason to doubt that Erik's an honorable man -- and I
wouldn't and haven't claimed anything otherwise -- this promise doesn't mean
a whole lot while the rules he's enforcing are quite so open ended.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/register.asp
Amongst other things rule one bans anything that: "violates any local,
state, national or international law or regulation."
Any law. Anywhere. Matrix games, that great bastion of Sharia law, where
unveiled women will be stoned. And not in a mellow way. And that law in
Thailand that says it's illegal to leave your residence without underwear:
Strictly enforced by Erik. (But how does he always know ...)
Put in a more serious way, there's almost nothing that can be posted that's
not in breach of some law somewhere, even if it's some despotic French law
demanding French language content or something similar. It's a company
forum, I know the deal, I'm not surprised.
>
> I'm the last one to support censorship, but the first rule this causes
> me to suggest with respect to product criticism on company forums is:
>
> "Vocal critics have to be like Caesar's wife; their conduct must be so
> rigorously exemplary that they afford absolutely no avenue to be banned
> for violating a rule that really exists."
>
Yes, I agree. If their point in being there is to be part of some sort of
loyal opposition. Which it may not be of course.
> This is why, when Don Maddox was here defending his censorship,
> practically the first question out of my mouth was along the lines of,
> "Quote the post that got <whoever> banned, and then cite the rule that
> this post clearly violated." I never got an answer to that one.
>
> But in this case, Mr. Rutins has already cited the post that led to the
> temporary ban, and it's a trivial exercise to pull up the forum rule
> that it violated. Shit, it could probably be argued - and reasonably -
> that it violated all of them.
>
> I'm sure Matrix was *delighted* to finally douche out this irritating
> asshole from their forums. All the more reason for irritating assholes
> to make sure that moderators can only sputter helplessly when asked
> "what did he post that violated a rule," instead of calmly citing post
> and rule.
Oh I've no doubt they were delighted.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Frank E
<mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com> wrote:
>I have no doubt Ravinhood was an annoying SOB, but that's not the point.
I don't keep up with the Matrix forums but judging from the threat
that was linked here, that's exactly the point. The guy wasn't
trashing Matrix or any of their games, he was just being an asshole.
Rgds, Frank
Giftzwerg
2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> Also from a publisher s pov say some new customer comes along, sees
> a forum with nothing but happy faces, buys the game and finds out it s
> a buggy piece of crap.
Whoa! Stop right there. You just answered your own question; the
protagonist visited the forum and *BOUGHT THE GAME*. Gave the
developers his fifty bucks!!! Victory!!!
Game! Set! Match!
> First of all : such a guy is *never* going to
> buy another game from you and is more than likely to badmouth your
> company at every other forum at every other occasion.
Sure, but this is only a concern if:
(1) The company is ever going to have another game.
(2) The company is willing to forego $50 *now* in hope of getting $50
at some hypothetical future time.
(3) The company has some sort of plan for the future beyond, "We need
money so we can buy pizza and beer for Friday."
My dad bought something like 20 cars from one single automobile dealer.
They got his money every time. And - trust me - some of the cars he
bought from them were pieces of shit. But the dealer always put things
right.
The trouble is, that dealer - as you point out - had to be thinking
beyond the car he was selling in 1971 to the cars he was going to sell
in 1974, 1976, and 1979. And the service he was going to sell *every*
year. And the stuff my father was saying about him in his huge circle
of friends and acquaintances.
> No, even from a
> business pov it makes more sense to allow criticism of a game, that
> way a prospective buyer s thinking process goes : uh, ok, there are
> some problems with this game just like with practically every other
> game but the developers seem to be responsive to problems, so I can
> live with that, sold.
>
> A fanboy-only forum simply doesn t make good business sense.
Honesty doesn't work, though, if you're a crook.
Consider AGSI. They only have the *one* product. HARPOON. They can't
allow scathing criticisms of that, in hopes that we'll respect all their
vaunted integrity and buy their new ADVANCED FULDA GAP LAND COMBAT game,
because they have no intention of ever building anything except "new"
versions of HARPOON and sucking more $50 bills from the credulous.
They might as well just keep being charlatans.
ERutins
> Erik, I'm supporting his right to say stupid things, not the things he's
> saying. The more I disagree with what he says the more I'll support his
> right to say them.
I don't disagree with his right to say stupid things. I do disagree
with his right to insult other customers on our forums. He was not
banned for saying stupid things, but for insulting other customers.
Basic civility is what we expect, not fanboys.
> But it's your forum & you made a judgment call. I disagree with it but
> it's not the end of the world, I disagree with a lot of things. Anyway, he
> obviously seems to have found other outlets for his, err, passions.
As long as you realize that his ban had nothing to do with his or
anyone else's opinion of our games, I'm fine with that.
Regards,
- Erik
Giftzwerg
says...
> > Exactly.
>
> OK, I misremembered the detail of that. But (adopting the recovery
> position) ...
>
> While I have no reason to doubt that Erik's an honorable man -- and I
> wouldn't and haven't claimed anything otherwise -- this promise doesn't mean
> a whole lot while the rules he's enforcing are quite so open ended.
Every set of statutes uttered by every legislature everywhere in every
country includes catch-alls like "driving recklessly" and "disorderly
conduct".
The police manual I operated under enumerated a whole laundry list of
crimes, offenses, and tackiness that cops weren't allowed to engage in,
and finished up with:
"... and any other conduct unbecoming an officer or against the good
order of the department or the community."
TRANSLATION: "Anything that the powers-that-be dislike."
Every forum is like this. Which is why I stay outta them.
ERutins
> While I have no reason to doubt that Erik's an honorable man -- and I
> wouldn't and haven't claimed anything otherwise -- this promise doesn't mean
> a whole lot while the rules he's enforcing are quite so open ended.
You're right that the rules as written are open ended. The rules as
enforced are a bit different though and the proof is really in the
pudding. We've run a pretty relaxed forum that's open to all
viewpoints for a long time now. The things we frown on are
discussions on politics, religion and personal attacks of any kind.
We try to encourage a community focused on gaming and especially
strategy/wargaming. We don't like it when customers try to make other
customers feel unwelcome because of personal differences, but we do
not have any problem with customers telling us they don't like one of
our games or disagreeing with customers who do. We take such feedback
into account and try to improve our work. Seriously, although there
are fanboys on every forum, our forum is not about "fanboy building".
It's about building a gaming community and keeping things civil so
that people wandering in feel welcome.
> Thailand that says it's illegal to leave your residence without underwear:
> Strictly enforced by Erik. (But how does he always know ...)
I have connections with the gnomes...
Seriously though, I was no delighted to ban Ravinhood. I was
disappointed.
Regards,
- Erik
Frank E
<giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Consider AGSI. They only have the *one* product. HARPOON. They can't
>allow scathing criticisms of that, in hopes that we'll respect all their
>vaunted integrity and buy their new ADVANCED FULDA GAP LAND COMBAT game,
>because they have no intention of ever building anything except "new"
>versions of HARPOON and sucking more $50 bills from the credulous.
>
>They might as well just keep being charlatans.
That might make sense from the developer's POV but not from the
publisher's. Someone who got burned by AGSI is going to be less
likely to buy any games from Matrix in the future.
Rgds, Frank
eddys...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 05:13:11 -0700 (PDT), "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 17 apr, 13:42, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I'm the last one to support censorship, but the first rule this causes
> >> me to suggest with respect to product criticism on company forums is:
>
> >> "Vocal critics have to be like Caesar's wife; their conduct must be so
> >> rigorously exemplary that they afford absolutely no avenue to be banned
> >> for violating a rule that really exists."
>
> >All of this has me thinking : why on earth would anyone want his forum
> >to be a fanboy-only place where no criticism can be heard ?
>
> >I mean, I can understand how pleasing to the ego it is to have a
> >couple of fanboys ? the moderate kind ? for a while - but are
> >established wargame developers really the prima donnas who yearn this
> >kind of attention ?
>
> Yup. As evidence I'll offer up Battlefront, Harpoon 3, Storm Eagle
> and BC3K.
Hmmm - on second thought : you're right - percentage wise they make up
a good portion of the wargame developer group - more than average when
I compare it to the business software developers I know.
> I think
> game development attracts that type of a person since you are creating
> worlds; playing God to some extent.
Or to them fame is a substitute for money ? You can't get famous
writing business software, so those who crave recognition will go for
the more visible game developement career ? makes sense.
> Usenet seems to be a pretty good acid test in that regard.
> People with that type of a personality tend not to last long around
> here and end up leaving in a tizzy.
Norm Koger has become some sort of recluse - he rarely even posts on
"his" forum anymore - 10 years ago he was so talkative and
approachable that I keep wondering what happened.
> Personally, I can't stand having people that
> agree with me all the time, if nothing else, it's boring. <g>
I get suspicious :) - especially when my wife agrees with one of my
stupid and/or wild ideas :)
> I think that there's a natural tendency for any forum to devolve into
> a fanboy-only forum unless you actively take steps to prevent it. A
> majority of the posters will be fans of the game and odds are that the
> foum moderators will be some of the biggest fanboys. Someone shows up
> and criticizes the game, the fanboys respond, things get a bit heated
> and when the moderator jumps in he's probably going to side with the
> regulars who've been posting for months or years.
Yup, all pretty natural - that's why I like "general" forums more as
you can get a real discussion there instead of only hearing one side
of the story.
> I've never bothered to post
> there cuz I know I'd get banned within a couple of weeks. <g>
Yup, and they're *worse* off for it - as I said : it doesn't make good
business sense. You need guys who question what you do. @work we've
got one tester here who *really* knows how to dig deep - he can be
annoying at times, but he's invaluable.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:32:58 -0400, Giftzwerg
>
That's why some people gave the "Run Away" advice to Matrix when there
was talk of AGSI joining them ...
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Frank E
>That's why some people gave the "Run Away" advice to Matrix when there
>was talk of AGSI joining them ...
>
... and one has to wonder whether they're kicking themselves for not
listening. <g>
Rgds, Frank
Rick
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6454782c-0a36-49d1...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > he never showed up.
>
> I wouldn't be so sure he isn't already here.
>
> After reading this:
>
> >"Now you will find out who I really am."
>
> It leads me to believe he is already here under a different moniker.
> Jim
Reading through the posted threads at Matrix, Ravinhood reminds me of
our friend who's current incarnation in River Rat Cemetary, in a
couple of ways, but it it is probably just a similarity in
personality. Of course, that guy is killfiled by so many that the
similarity may not jump out to most here.
Rick
RobP
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0a0ee0ea-7854-47e5...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 17 apr, 09:51, "Mike Kreuzer" <m...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com> wrote:
>
>> Erik "there'll be no more banning" Rutins doing the banning.
>
> What options where there left after this ?
>
>
> If you knew the guy from before the only question you'd have is "why
> did it take so long ?" - that guy once posted that he didn't like HTTR
> because "you had to move too many units each turn" - that's why I
> didn't even bother to read his review of PC:Kharkov - it would be
> worthless if he hadn't been banned and now it's untrustworthy on top
> of that.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
Lol! When I'm lazy, I've played HTTR battles where I only put in one move in
for the top level formation and just let it unfold. Maybe he is getting it
confused with Panzer Campaigns?
RobP
HermanH
Frank E's depiction of a God-complex is probably the most accurate for
AGSI. That has been Harpoon's entire history. Sadly, this attitude
has infected most sites and fora that allow discussion of the game,
including AGSI's own corporate forum along with Matrix. The good news
is that it has really come back to bite them in the "lower backside".
It's been said that nothing speaks louder than code and their bugs are
simply screaming. Well, that's what happens when bug reporters gets
pushed out the back door.
I have little doubt that if my ban is ever lifted from Matrix that I
would soon receive a new one after another liberal interpretation of
some dubious transgression of #5.
"No Trolling. Trolling is whenever someone is clearly, deliberately
posting in a manner for the purpose of angering and/or insulting the
other participants of the message board. Trolling could be directed
towards one user or a group of users."
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/register.asp
That's what happened the first time. Why change something that works?
HermanH
wrote:
> In article <b36a23ba-fb18-45c1-b411-94fed6fae7dd@
> 2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...
I think that there can be exceptions to the rule. Even if a developer
only has one title and it originally releases as a dog, it can be
fixed if the attitude is good. This seems to be happening for Point
of Attack 2.
http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74024
These guys seem to have managed to turn the software around because
they took their criticism like men and worked to fix THEIR problems as
opposed to making their critics disappear.
I've skimmed through the manual and was amazed at the level of
detail. Didn't pick it up after hearing of all the bugginess, but
might give her a second look after reading this latest report.
So, it is possible learn from mistakes and still succeed. One can
only wonder if AGSI and Harpoon will survive long enough to learn from
theirs.
HermanH
> 2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...
Giftzwerg
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> >Consider AGSI. They only have the *one* product. HARPOON. They can't
> >allow scathing criticisms of that, in hopes that we'll respect all their
> >vaunted integrity and buy their new ADVANCED FULDA GAP LAND COMBAT game,
> >because they have no intention of ever building anything except "new"
> >versions of HARPOON and sucking more $50 bills from the credulous.
> >
> >They might as well just keep being charlatans.
>
> That might make sense from the developer's POV but not from the
> publisher's. Someone who got burned by AGSI is going to be less
> likely to buy any games from Matrix in the future.
<shrug>
I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one who warned Matrix of exactly this
issue, so you're kinda preaching to the choir here. To the extent that
Matrix allowed / allows AGSI to get away with squelching critics, I
think they're being foolish.
RobP
"HermanH" <herm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1593bd49-f31f-4549...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74024
POA2 has been very good for a while. I've played all the scenarios to death,
many of my most memorable battles have been with this game. That said when
it came out I was fuming. I had paid for a premium title (apparently used by
the US Military - god knows how) and discovered it crashed pretty much every
move. Even when it didn't crash, the other bugs made it completely
unplayable. This is in the past now and the game is now very good.
Unfortunately, recovering from the initial bad reputation might be
insurmountable - a lesson that Battlefront might be learning right now...
I wish there were more released scenarios for it, but making the maps is a
real bitch, so I guess this is why it never happened.
There is a WWII version in the works, or so I've heard. I will definitely
buy it, but I would ask the developers to investigate creating a map system
that is easier to mod.
RobP
HermanH
>
> In short, this is a customer that turned on a dime from eagerly
> anticipating Panzer Command to spending all his free time going around
> the net "reviewing" it negatively, simply because he was banned for
> two weeks for behaving very poorly to other customers in our General
> Discussion forum. If that's the kind of person you want to support,
> it's your choice.
>
> Regards,
>
> - Erik
He was probably thinking of the '1 week ban' I received 72 weeks ago
and inferring that a 2 week ban for him would be at least 144 weeks
(if not more).
Giftzwerg
roberta...@hotmail.com says...
> > Consider AGSI. They only have the *one* product. HARPOON. They can't
> > allow scathing criticisms of that, in hopes that we'll respect all their
> > vaunted integrity and buy their new ADVANCED FULDA GAP LAND COMBAT game,
> > because they have no intention of ever building anything except "new"
> > versions of HARPOON and sucking more $50 bills from the credulous.
> I think that there can be exceptions to the rule. Even if a developer
> only has one title and it originally releases as a dog, it can be
> fixed if the attitude is good. This seems to be happening for Point
> of Attack 2.
Where I would disagree with you is whether HPS / Scott Hamilton "only
has one title." I'd say HPS has tens of dozens of titles, and Hamilton
- he's still president of the company, yes? - has a clear and obvious
investment in the future. Fairly, I think we might argue that HPS is
almost Eddy's poster-boy for sticking with their customers.
Shit, I'd say that HPS, while not one of my personal favorites,
obviously, has a pretty good record in terms of support, fixes,
patching, and ongoing not-for-pay interests in their customers'
happiness.
Overall, I'd argue for a very, very small parallel between HPS and AGSI.
> These guys seem to have managed to turn the software around because
> they took their criticism like men and worked to fix THEIR problems as
> opposed to making their critics disappear.
Agreed. Even the partisans of the original POA make a fairly good case
these days that the product is a serious one - and HPS has not, IIRC,
*charged* these customers for ongoing releases of the original POA
product. In my book, that's "fixing the product we bought" instead of
"releasing a 'NEW' product."
> So, it is possible learn from mistakes and still succeed. One can
> only wonder if AGSI and Harpoon will survive long enough to learn from
> theirs.
<shrug>
People have been hacking away at HARPOON 2 for fourteen friggin' years
now. At some point, the old saw about enough monkeys and enough
typewriters and enough time yielding a classic has pretty much got to
kick in.
> POA2 has been very good for a while. I've played all the scenarios to death,
> many of my most memorable battles have been with this game. That said when
> it came out I was fuming. I had paid for a premium title (apparently used by
> the US Military - god knows how) and discovered it crashed pretty much every
> move. Even when it didn't crash, the other bugs made it completely
> unplayable. This is in the past now and the game is now very good.
> Unfortunately, recovering from the initial bad reputation might be
> insurmountable - a lesson that Battlefront might be learning right now...
Agreed.
ERutins
> He was probably thinking of the '1 week ban' I received 72 weeks ago
> and inferring that a 2 week ban for him would be at least 144 weeks
> (if not more).
No, I don't tend to forget about people I've banned. You slipped
through the cracks, but I wasn't the one who banned you.
Regards,
- Erik
Giftzwerg
@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, herm...@gmail.com says...
> > In short, this is a customer that turned on a dime from eagerly
> > anticipating Panzer Command to spending all his free time going around
> > the net "reviewing" it negatively, simply because he was banned for
> > two weeks for behaving very poorly to other customers in our General
> > Discussion forum. If that's the kind of person you want to support,
> > it's your choice.
> He was probably thinking of the '1 week ban' I received 72 weeks ago
> and inferring that a 2 week ban for him would be at least 144 weeks
> (if not more).
Well, let's give him the benefit of the doubt, no? Clearly, whatever
water has passed under the bridge, Mr. Rutins is trying to be part of
the solution. He's doing his part - despite no small amount of (at
least implied) crow-eating - to get the various parties back in the
community.
Keep focus. AGSI is the enemy. Matrix is (at worst) their reluctant
ally.
Yah. I'm drawing a distinction here. I thought the ban of Mr. Hum was
a transparent exercise in silencing a thoughtful (if occasionally
irritating) critic. The ban on this "ravinhood" douchebag was
practically a no-brainer.
In other words, I think it would be a huge stretch for someone at Matrix
to quote a Hermann Hum post and cite the longstanding rule that you
violated. Ravinhood was stupid enough to step over a line that even I
would draw. Somewhere, at least.
Andy Brown
>
> game here, and it doesn't add a lot of credibility to Erik's claims about
> a
> free & fair discussion on the Harpoon forum. From now on. <cough, cough>
> As
> circumstances permit. <mumble, mumble> In the fullness of time ...
For fuck's sake, Mike.
An "annoying SOB", who usually posted loudly and often on a wargames forum
about anything other than wargames, got banned for some bad-taste personal
abuse of another forum member.
That's hardly a blow against free and fair discusion of Matrix wargames!
Andy Brown
HermanH
Sorry, that theory doesn't hold water.
Mr. Heath was notified of the expiration: November 29, 2006 3:53 PM
via e-mail.
He has since been notified by the AGSI representative: Thu Mar 01
08:21:23 2007 via telephone.
That 'crack' is a convenient myth and nothing more.
Giftzwerg
@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, er...@matrixgames.com says...
> > Erik, I'm supporting his right to say stupid things, not the things he's
> > saying. The more I disagree with what he says the more I'll support his
> > right to say them.
>
> I don't disagree with his right to say stupid things. I do disagree
> with his right to insult other customers on our forums. He was not
> banned for saying stupid things, but for insulting other customers.
> Basic civility is what we expect, not fanboys.
With respect to logic and rhetoric, it's always illustrative to engage
in a construction of *reductio ad absurdum*. Consider, with respect to
the question of "who should be banned from a company-controlled web-
forum," a couple of examples:
(1) Someone posts a link to a warez copy of the company's software.
Is there anyone in this newsgroup who believes that this poster
shouldn't be immediately banned, and his post instantly deleted? Not
me. And I'm practically the poster-kid for "vicious, reflexive,
unthinking opposition to censorship."
(2) Someone who says, "This game is just shit. It sucks. Don't buy
it."
I'd argue that any responsible game company is almost *required* to
retain this post, if only to prove their dedication to free speech.
Indeed, their duty here is to *refute* this post ... point by point,
with logic, evidence, and detail. Such arguments always cause the
trolls to (a) flee, or (b) look like asshats.
(3) Someone who says, "This game is shit. PS: I hope forum member XZY,
who likes this awful crap, dies of the very glutinous cancer that he
proposes he's afflicted with. And soon."
A gray area? Yeah. I guess so. I'd let it slip through. But I'm not
running a commercial website that has to cater to the sensibilities of
dozens of people with (relatives) with glutinous cancer. Or some other
affliction.
Ban #1, leave #2, thing about #3.
Giftzwerg
> > No, I don't tend to forget about people I've banned. You slipped
> > through the cracks, but I wasn't the one who banned you.
> Sorry, that theory doesn't hold water.
>
> Mr. Heath was notified of the expiration: November 29, 2006 3:53 PM
> via e-mail.
> He has since been notified by the AGSI representative: Thu Mar 01
> 08:21:23 2007 via telephone.
>
> That 'crack' is a convenient myth and nothing more.
Dude. Quit while you're ahead. Rutins is *agreeing* with you.
Keep focus. AGSI is the enemy.
--
Giftzwerg
<applause>
Well said.
The alternative - which I hope not to ever be on the side of - is to
make "ravindickhead" our official poster-kid for "unjustly banned
posters".
Gee. Thanks. Let's make Don Maddox's point for him.
C'mon. Even I would prefer another standard-bearer. *Any* other
standard-bearer.
ERutins
> Mr. Heath was notified of the expiration: November 29, 2006 3:53 PM
> via e-mail.
> He has since been notified by the AGSI representative: Thu Mar 01
> 08:21:23 2007 via telephone.
> That 'crack' is a convenient myth and nothing more.
You're free to believe what you want, but I spoke with Dave about this
last week and he had completey misremembered virtually all of the
events relating to the one week ban.
Regards,
- Erik
Mike Kreuzer
news:b0b3dac2-d228-48a0...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Regards,
- Erik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough.
(And apologies for the lack of '>'s, mail has just decided to stop
commenting replies to posts from Google accounts, I don't know why ...).
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Mike Kreuzer
news:MPG.22717f2262fb6ca9899a9@localhost...
<applause>
Well said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have to go to war with the army you have, not the army you want. <weak
grin>
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Fairly, I think we might argue that HPS is
> almost Eddy's poster-boy for sticking with their customers.
Yup - everyone who buys a HPS Battlegr^H^^H^Panzer Campaigns game
knows exactly what he's getting and is a-priori pleased. There is an
audience out there who loves boardgames on a computer and has no urge
(or time) to learn new engines, so is pretty pleased when a new, well
researched and tested scenario pack is released for their favourite
engine.
The may not be games for me, but there's no faulting their business
plan.
> Shit, I'd say that HPS, while not one of my personal favorites,
> obviously, has a pretty good record in terms of support, fixes,
> patching, and ongoing not-for-pay interests in their customers'
> happiness.
Uh, yeah, what he says.
> Agreed. Even the partisans of the original POA make a fairly good case
> these days that the product is a serious one - and HPS has not, IIRC,
> *charged* these customers for ongoing releases of the original POA
> product. In my book, that's "fixing the product we bought" instead of
> "releasing a 'NEW' product."
There is talk of a POA 3 - POA 2 brought to WWII - that's when I'll
jump in :)
> > Unfortunately, recovering from the initial bad reputation might be
> > insurmountable - a lesson that Battlefront might be learning right now...
+1
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> (3) Someone who says, "This game is shit. PS: I hope forum member XZY,
> who likes this awful crap, dies of the very glutinous cancer that he
> proposes he's afflicted with. And soon."
>
> A gray area? Yeah. I guess so. I'd let it slip through. But I'm not
> running a commercial website that has to cater to the sensibilities of
> dozens of people with (relatives) with glutinous cancer. Or some other
> affliction.
Well, for me it's not a grey area - that guy would move to Bansville
in a sec - I kinda like The Wargamer's approach where they have a
cesspit called the R(eligion) & (P)olitics forum and you have to ask
for access to it so no innocent onlookers get inadvertendly kicked in
their most sensitive areas.
Basically their rule is : if you want to argue R&P, or fling manure at
people - which is what most discussions on R&P are anyway - ask for
the key to that dungeon and then you're on your own - you've been
warned.
I've never bothered to ask for that key, but I've participated in more
than one thread which got kicked to R&P while it would still be
qualified as "civil" in here so I know there's a low tolerance
threshold for such things on commercial websites.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Ray O'Hara
In article <jMFNj.1$sI...@newsfe05.lga>, jburn...@yahoo.com says...
> After reading this:
>
> >"Now you will find out who I really am."
>
> It leads me to believe he is already here under a different moniker. If so
> he's a typical coward as most who hide behind monikers are.
>Hey, Jimbo (If that really is your name); roughly half of the posters
>right here in this group are using a "moniker."
>Which ones are you calling "cowards," exactly?
i'd say he's flushed one
Vincenzo Beretta
> game here, and it doesn't add a lot of credibility to Erik's claims about
> a
> free & fair discussion on the Harpoon forum.
I think that we are comparing apples with oranges here. In the promise of
"No more bans" I take that it is implicit how it is about the freedom to
debate and discuss *wargames* and adiacent fields. So a ban because someone
says that Harpoon ANW has "some bugs" would mean that Erik didn't kept his
word.
However, this is not the case here. In Ravinhood case we are talking about
*personally* insulting another forum members - to the point that he didn't
even even respected an ailing forum member or his aliment. This is TOTALLY
another ballcourt. I would have done exactly what Erik did, on the basis of
the second issue alone.
HermanH
So, we should be fairly confident that acts of slander and defamation
and perssonal attacks such as:
"3) Ruthlessly weed out all plagiarised scenarios offered for use with
PDB, except those where the original scenario author has given
permission for them to be used by PDB.
If Herman behaves like a responsible, mature adult, then it is more
likely he will be treated as such."
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1776006
Will be dealt with in a ruthless fashion by the new Matrix moderation?
Vincenzo Beretta
> and perssonal attacks such as:
>
> "3) Ruthlessly weed out all plagiarised scenarios offered for use with
> PDB, except those where the original scenario author has given
> permission for them to be used by PDB.
>
> If Herman behaves like a responsible, mature adult, then it is more
> likely he will be treated as such."
>
> http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1776006
>
> Will be dealt with in a ruthless fashion by the new Matrix moderation?
Well, he didn't attacked directly your OCD syndrome, so - no, I think that
this will stay up =)
Did you got unbanned BTW?
HermanH
Not yet, but I've been asked to be patient with the process. :-D
Vincenzo Beretta
>
> Not yet, but I've been asked to be patient with the process. :-D
We could organize a round of bet. I bet that they will close Guantanamo
first :o)
CaligulasHorse
>
> So, we should be fairly confident that acts of slander and defamation
> and perssonal attacks such as:
>
> "3) Ruthlessly weed out all plagiarised scenarios offered for use with
> PDB, except those where the original scenario author has given
> permission for them to be used by PDB.
>
> If Herman behaves like a responsible, mature adult, then it is more
> likely he will be treated as such."
>
> http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1776006
>
> Will be dealt with in a ruthless fashion by the new Matrix moderation?
The message as a whole is worse than that quote. The guy actively
defames HH, calling him a plagiariser etc etc etc. Whether or not HH
is in fact a plagiariser - I have no idea. But it's just wrong to
allow this kind of defamation of somebody who is unable to respond.
.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> But it's just wrong to
> allow this kind of defamation of somebody who is unable to respond.
>
Some days I wonder why I make the effort to run away from everything
Harpoon related, and then I get a timely reminder as to the why.
And I don't think I'm alone with this active shunning reflex.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Vincenzo Beretta
>> allow this kind of defamation of somebody who is unable to respond.
>>
>
> Some days I wonder why I make the effort to run away from everything
> Harpoon related, and then I get a timely reminder as to the why.
>
> And I don't think I'm alone with this active shunning reflex.
In my case what keeps me on the fence is the hope that they will get their
act together once for all and produce the game "Harpoon ANW" could be (just
look at Harpoon Classic Commander Edition as a real, tangible proof that an
"Harpoon" game can be developed to its full potential - if you can obtain a
copy of HCCE my suggestion is just "try it"). Beside, hope doesn't require
any money, and I can play from "Birth of America" to "Sins of a Solar
Empire" while I wait ;^)
However, what baffles (and intrigues) me is the ability of "Harpoon ANW" to
obfuscate and mess up even with normally remarkable people - like if a curse
lingers on the game. Herman is still banned on Matrix's forums, even if the
reason why is still "out there" ("but there must be one, honest"); and even
if they are still using ***his*** buglist to finally do a serious effort to
fix problems (of course "such buglist is surely a quack one, let's swept
under the rug the fact the the compiler cannot answer while we are using and
commenting his work"). Maybe the seed for why ANW is in its current state
can be found somewhere in all of this...
HermanH
The professionalism of the Harpoon Classic Commander Edition is really
all the evidence one needs to know that quality is attainable (even by
AGSI). Unfortunately, the folks behind the success of HCCE are pretty
much mutually exclusive of the group involved with ANW. That, in and
of itself, should speak volumes.
I am told that bugs originally posted to the list are now being re-
reported to AGSI's internal tracking system (without attribution) and
that some of them are actually being solved. Overall, that's good
news. I'm pretty sure that the various folks who initially discovered
them are just happy that bugs **are** being fixed and don't give a
damn who gets 'credit' for it. Evidently, the only people who
consider 'bug credits' important are already employed by AGSI and we
can all see how well that personality trait is helping them improve
the game.
> Herman is still banned on Matrix's forums, even if the reason why is still "out there"
That sounds like a promotional sound bite for the upcoming X-Files
movie release. :-)
The Truth is Out there....
Vincenzo Beretta
> reported to AGSI's internal tracking system (without attribution) and
> that some of them are actually being solved. Overall, that's good
> news. I'm pretty sure that the various folks who initially discovered
> them are just happy that bugs **are** being fixed and don't give a
> damn who gets 'credit' for it. Evidently, the only people who
> consider 'bug credits' important are already employed by AGSI and we
> can all see how well that personality trait is helping them improve
> the game.
Well, I can sympathise. When I worked with my old editor I often said:
"Well, let not do this: there is no reason to shoot our own balls just like
that", becoming, of course, "the cretin" among the writers. Now that I do
work for another editor, I noticed how the first one actually started to
implement my suggestions. So, out of sheer curiosity, one day I went out of
lunch with a secretary who is also a friend of mine and I asked if I was
still (according to the old editor) "the cretin". "Well, of course", she
said.
My explanation when something like this happens is that you are a cretin, no
matter what - after all you disagreed with the "established power": only a
cretin would do that! After the tenth time or so that they shot their own
balls, however, and the pain is becoming a serious issue, then it is
grudgingly recognized that "you were right" - of course the way a cretin can
be right: i.e by sheer luck. This doesn't change that in their eyes you are
still a cretin. ^^
In practical terms: is there anyone seriously convinced that, should one day
SE drop DRM they will recognize that we were right?
>> Herman is still banned on Matrix's forums, even if the reason why is
>> still "out there"
>
> That sounds like a promotional sound bite for the upcoming X-Files
> movie release. :-)
>
> The Truth is Out there....
Yup. The difference is that, IMHO, UFOs have a better chance to be real
things.
Frank E
As someone who doesn't have a monetary or emotional investment in H3,
I find the whole thing hilarious. AGSI seems to spend more time and
energy trying to explain why those aren't bugs than it would take them
to just fix the shit.
In this one thread, I learned that:
- They've never heard of Herman's bug list before. Hasn't it been a
topic of discussion here for years?
- The bug list was posted in the wrong forum so it's worthless.
- Even if you post it in the right forum, it's still worthless since
it isn't in their approved bug reporting format.
- They want feedback from the creator of the bug list, but not enough
to unban him.
- They aren't REALLY bugs, just database errors on the part of the
users. After all, everyone should know that you have to set the min
and max ranges of anti-aircraft guns to zero to get them to work.
- 'Dumb' bombs don't even work in the current release, but you're
welcome to change them to rockets in the database to fix that.
- HermanH is an evil, plagarising person who's hated by almost
everyone.
- You have to do a lot of sucking up to the developers, telling them
how great they are to get them to even look at a bug.
... all that in a 2 page thread! WHat's not to love? <g>
Rgds, Frank
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> In practical terms: is there anyone seriously convinced that, should one day
> SE drop DRM they will recognize that we were right?
>
The cynic in me is predicting that they'll say that circumstances have
changed, that the current market isn't the same as 2-3 years ago and
that they're adapting their business plan accordingly. In other
words : they'll claim to have been correct back then and that they are
correct right now and will be totally correct in the future :)
The real cynic in me is predicting that since normal business rules
(make some money) don't apply to SES it's anyone's guess what they're
going to do.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> As someone who doesn't have a monetary or emotional investment in H3,
> I find the whole thing hilarious. AGSI seems to spend more time and
> energy trying to explain why those aren't bugs than it would take them
> to just fix the shit.
It gets harder and harder these days to find programmers who can code in
Microsoft COBOL.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Obama has staked everything on his verbal acuity. When that fails,
he has no safety net. He cannot point to tough campaigns or great
legislative achievements to assure his base that he s been through
worse. So it all comes down to sustaining the balloon of excitement and
novelty he has created."
- Jennifer Rubin
Vincenzo Beretta
> changed, that the current market isn't the same as 2-3 years ago and
> that they're adapting their business plan accordingly. In other
> words : they'll claim to have been correct back then and that they are
> correct right now and will be totally correct in the future :)
Hey! I'll forward this to my old editor - he could find it useful! ^__^
eddys...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> The real cynic in me is predicting that since normal business rules
> (make some money) don't apply to SES it's anyone's guess what they're
> going to do.
It seems Battlefront is at least looking at alternatives
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=004164;p=1#000010
"And this really points at what the key problem is to third-party
solutions such as Steamworks or Impulse for us:
we'd be totally dependent on these third party solutions.
This would mean loss of control over key areas of what we do
(regardless of what pretty brochures say)
as well as - eventually - loss of identity of Battlefront as
independent publisher. "
-
It's kinda ironic that they claim "loss of control" as the key
obstacle - kinda mirrors the feeling their customers must have :)
It gets even better when they talk about DRM
"some (many? most?) DRM systems that are out there are extremely
restrictive
(e.g. allowing you to run a game on one computer only)"
Yeah, they're soooo much better by allowing you 2 (two)
installations :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Mike Kreuzer
news:3b54837b-c4fe-4574...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> On 21 apr, 14:45, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The real cynic in me is predicting that since normal business rules
>> (make some money) don't apply to SES it's anyone's guess what they're
>> going to do.
>
> It seems Battlefront is at least looking at alternatives
>
> http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=004164;p=1#000010
>
> "And this really points at what the key problem is to third-party
> solutions such as Steamworks or Impulse for us:
> we'd be totally dependent on these third party solutions.
> This would mean loss of control over key areas of what we do
> (regardless of what pretty brochures say)
> as well as - eventually - loss of identity of Battlefront as
> independent publisher. "
>
> -
>
> It's kinda ironic that they claim "loss of control" as the key
> obstacle - kinda mirrors the feeling their customers must have :)
>
Well, I kinda see where they're coming from with that first part. It's an
emotional thing. They develop games, and if they're not really handling
distribution too then at best they're more of a production assistant to
other developers, or at worst just another developer. Not a publisher any
more. Sure someone like Matrix successfully farms out sales to digital
river & others, but Matrix don't develop the games themselves, so it
wouldn't ever have been an emotional issue for them. Identity's
important to people.
But ...
> It gets even better when they talk about DRM
>
LOL, yep, here they've gone and slipped completely into newspeak ...
> "some (many? most?) DRM systems that are out there are extremely
> restrictive
> (e.g. allowing you to run a game on one computer only)"
>
> Yeah, they're soooo much better by allowing you 2 (two)
> installations :)
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
Two plus two equals ... how many numbers do you want me to say?
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> Well, I kinda see where they're coming from with that first part.
Me too, but the thing I found funny is they don't realize people have
the same kind of reaction when they buy software - people want to own
the stuff they buy and use it wherever and whenever they want, and not
be dependant on someone else's permission to use it.
Correction : they do realize it - that's why it's a total no-no to
point this out on their forums - they just hope to cover it up a bit
so potential customers won't realize it until it's too late.
Then again, if you're in such a position the smart option is to not
start blabbering about DRM yourself.
But you're correct - it's an emotional thing - if they farm out the
distribution to Stardock, Steam, Direct2Drive or Digital River they
become a developer, not a publisher.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
2c6961...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > Well, I kinda see where they're coming from with that first part.
>
> Me too, but the thing I found funny is they don't realize people have
> the same kind of reaction when they buy software - people want to own
> the stuff they buy and use it wherever and whenever they want, and not
> be dependant on someone else's permission to use it.
In other words, they want their software to work *the way everything
else works*. I don't have to ring up Toyota and ask permission for my
wife to borrow my car, or beg them to let me un-license it so I can sell
it, or re-license it because I installed an aftermarket CD player...
...and then hear, "Oh, so sorry, maximum licenses exceeded; we're
bricking your $30,000 automobile."