GPQ - It it possible to switch to the old interface?

[Konrad_Novak]

Is it possible to switch to the old interface? Yes, the new one is highly beneficial for people with 2+ monitors, who can devote a whole monitor to all informational windows. But I've found myself overburdened with small (and non-resizable which is an issue in itself) windows that clutter the game area. The only way to battle this is to manually turn off unneeded window and turn on the necessary one, and this job was automatically handled by the old interface.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

I'm afraid Konrad the short answer to this is "No". We started the changes to the UI with the intention of retaining the old way as an option. But alas we ran into too many obstacles and had to ditch that.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

I will add this that we do intend to evolve and refine this user interface (UI). One of the options I want to implement is the ability to resize the dialogs, minimise them and snap them to other dialogs. I believe that once we add these you should be able to configure things how you would like. One of the problems with the older sidebar interface was the inability to compare data of forces and tasks You also could have force data, task data and side data open concurrently. So there are real benefits with the new GUI and some disadvantages.

 

[Konrad_Novak]

Thanks for a swift reply, Dave. The benefits are there and I understand them perfectly. But the new UI system seriously slows the gameflow and, in my opinion, not very ergonomic. I will try to explore the new GUI, organize my thoughts and post them somewhere in the "Feature request" section.

 

[Renato]

Thanks for a swift reply, Dave. The benefits are there and I understand them perfectly. But the new UI system seriously slows the gameflow and, in my opinion, not very ergonomic. I will try to explore the new GUI, organize my thoughts and post them somewhere in the "Feature request" section.

I concur.

 

[perif]

I concur.

Same here. Although the old interface does not allow to compare forces data it was far more user friendly than the new one. It refrained me to buy the commander pack while having already all the CO1 ones.

 

[blond_knight]

Normally Id think it was crazy to re-buy all the content again, except that having played this since the original Red Devils over Arnhem this is this best AI Ive ever seen. The things that have me concerned though and reluctant to buy is the new UI and the updates. We know how Matrix handled updates, many of us were and still are Matrix beta testers. But LnL is an unknown animal as far as their QA/testing is concerned. And I want to know more about the "paying for updates" plan.

 

[David Heath]

Normally Id think it was crazy to re-buy all the content again, except that having played this since the original Red Devils over Arnhem this is this best AI Ive ever seen. The things that have me concerned though and reluctant to buy is the new UI and the updates. We know how Matrix handled updates, many of us were and still are Matrix beta testers. But LnL is an unknown animal as far as their QA/testing is concerned. And I want to know more about the "paying for updates" plan.

Hello Blond Knight

I was the founder and CEO of Matrix Games for over ten years. I am now the owner of LnL Publishing so I think you are good hands. We have many good computer games and board games on the way. The design and development has always been in the hands of the development team. We made the core game and two scenarios free so everyone can download and try the game with no strings. No half feature demos its the full game. We are charging for content. You buy the content you want. Now updates are free and will upgrade all content you have to the most current version. Now no other final decisions have been made and we like to see how this does. I hope that clears up any worries you may have.

David

 

[map66]

Hello Blond Knight

Now updates are free and will upgrade all content you have to the most current version. Now no other final decisions have been made and we like to see how this does. I hope that clears up any worries you may have.

David

Just to clarify David, does that mean that the proposed fee for upgrading data packs as the engine itself is upgraded is no longer happening, i.e. the capped $50 fee for the bi-annual upgrades? If so, that makes me very happy and the Commander Pack becomes an instant purchase for me.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Just to clarify David, does that mean that the proposed fee for upgrading data packs as the engine itself is upgraded is no longer happening, i.e. the capped $50 fee for the bi-annual upgrades? If so, that makes me very happy and the Commander Pack becomes an instant purchase for me.

I will get back to you tomorrow on this after I have ironed out a clear and concise Pricing Policy Statement with LNL

 

[map66]

I will get back to you tomorrow on this after I have ironed out a clear and concise Pricing Policy Statement with LNL

Sounds good----- keep in mind that I (and various other people who have expressed opinions on other forums on the web in the last couple days), have been holding of on purchasing due to that issue. It's just not a model I'm comfortable with, as I've stated before, and no need to rehash the arguments.

Also, if you haven't yet, I hope you have contacted Tim Stone over on Rock Paper Shotgun on the the new release--- he has been a huge proponent of the CO system in the past, and recently dealt with it very favorably in his coverage of Bulge games through the decades (AKA the best out there). I imagine his Flare Path column over there must be the single most read feature on war games by the non-core audience, and coverage in his column would get a lot of great publicity for the system.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Thanks for the feedback map66.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

I have released our pricing policy here:
http://forums.lnlpublishing.com/threads/co2-pricing-policy.1295/

 

[map66]

Thanks--- again, I'm not comfortable with the model, and it is delaying my purchase, but I am thinking about it, especially as I both understand (well maybe really I have no clue... ) the economics of the war-games industry, and do want to support such a great system.

One question. So one buys the Commander Edition and gets the 5 scenario packs. Then however much time down the road, the East Front scenario pack is released, which is the one I'm really anticipating. If I buy the East Front pack then, will I be able to still play the original 5 scenarios packs in the same install without paying to upgrade them--- obviously with new features disabled? Alternatively, if I don't pay for the upgrade to the data packs, would I have to have multiple versions of CO installed to play both the new East Front pack and the old scenarios? If it's the later case, given that multiple installs of the same program are notorious for generating bugs, will squelching such bugs be a priority?

But again, my general discomfort with the model is enough that I think it's gonna delay a purchase through a few patch cycles just to see how everything plays out. I guess all I can do is vote with my wallet, which makes me sad as it is a great system

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Thanks--- again, I'm not comfortable with the model, and it is delaying my purchase, but I am thinking about it, especially as I both understand (well maybe really I have no clue... ) the economics of the war-games industry, and do want to support such a great system.

One question. So one buys the Commander Edition and gets the 5 scenario packs. Then however much time down the road, the East Front scenario pack is released, which is the one I'm really anticipating. If I buy the East Front pack then, will I be able to still play the original 5 scenarios packs in the same install without paying to upgrade them--- obviously with new features disabled? Alternatively, if I don't pay for the upgrade to the data packs, would I have to have multiple versions of CO installed to play both the new East Front pack and the old scenarios? If it's the later case, given that multiple installs of the same program are notorious for generating bugs, will squelching such bugs be a priority?

But again, my general discomfort with the model is enough that I think it's gonna delay a purchase through a few patch cycles just to see how everything plays out. I guess all I can do is vote with my wallet, which makes me sad as it is a great system

Good question. My intent was to have multiple installs - eg Command Ops 2, Command Ops 3 etc. The reason for this is that it will take a lot more development time to preserve the old way of doing things when we implement new features. In some cases it's not possible at all. The aim of this new business model is to reduce the amount of developer time between releasing new product. If we can't do that then we will go out of business.

As to your second question, I think we have a pretty good rep for fixing bugs and any bug that prevents a player from playing always gets priority.

 

[map66]

Thanks for the reply--- and again, I have no issue with your history--- I know how much (basically unpaid) work you put into squelching so many bugs (such as various order delays) in the original CO.

Again, I am thinking about the model, though still sticking with delaying investing in it (with the right to change my mind, it is a tempting initial offer... )

One thing though I would strongly recommend is directly mentioning the pricing/ upgrade policy on the store purchase page on the LnL site. Not everyone going in will read these forums, and I can't even imagine the crap storm that would hit on the first engine upgrade for people who didn't know about it in in advance.... Trust me, I may be annoying, but it would be nothing in comparison.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Good recommendation re mentioning pricing policy on product page. Thanks.