So what did UBI get right?

[Nightmare]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

What did UBI get right... well not much really. I suppose the 'decision' to fund the 1.3 patch was good. Although it took a great deal of arm twisting.

Exactly! And the "Plead your case for a patch" was a new low for software/gaming development.

Back to topic: I agree with everything the OT said. I'd also like to add that the American TDC was done very well. The improved TC is a great improvement as well.

[clayton]

Originally Posted by wetwarev7

Your posts in this thread have been negative, argumentative, antagonistic and insulting, none of which are appropriate or welcome here.

I started this thread to discuss what we liked about SH4, not to discuss whether or not SH4 was a good game nor to debate it's bad points. You have done nothing but attempt to derail someone elses' discussion, and this antisocial behavior is unbecoming to say the least. Your misguided attempts to hurt others and ruin thier thread are completely uncalled for and you are no longer welcome here. If you do not leave this thread, I shall summon a moderator to spank you and make you leave.

Do you want me to take the fanboy on? Just kidding !:p

[XLjedi]

Originally Posted by joea

Crew management is visual? I would add, once the glitches are fixed and/modded out the damage control and modle is far better as well. The TDC is also more closely modelled to the actual US TDC than the SH3 TDC to the German one. There no eye-candy mentioned.

I can't say the crew management system is on my list of likes...

I mean maybe less micro-managing, is that what you like?

I sorta liked moving the guys around. I wish someone would tell me I'm just a dolt and I've clearly missed some important aspect that would suddenly make me appreciate the new system.

Is there a way to easily move crew between damage control and their normal shifts?

[wetwarev7]

Originally Posted by aaronblood

I can't say the crew management system is on my list of likes...

I mean maybe less micro-managing, is that what you like?

I sorta liked moving the guys around. I wish someone would tell me I'm just a dolt and I've clearly missed some important aspect that would suddenly make me appreciate the new system.

Is there a way to easily move crew between damage control and their normal shifts?

If you like moving the guys around, why would you want an easier way to move them between stations and damage control? :hmm:

I admit I would like it better if you assigned crew to damage control and they stayed at thier regular post till damage control teams were activated, but what I like about the SH4 crew management over SH3 is that you have 3 shifts now, and don't have to move them around to thier assigned workstations. I think this is better because I don't believe that it is the captain's responsibility to tell every one when it's bedtime. :p
Also the fact that the bridge watch officer goes to his station when we surface without me having to move him there is a big plus!

At this point, I've been cheating a bit by adding extra crew to the damage control stations before I leave port. I say cheating, but if I don't know any better(I've never been in the Navy or a sub) it's not really cheating, so no-one tell me otherwise.

[The General]

I think you're gonna find that this thread will naturally degenerate into an argument concerning SH4's many flaws, irrespective of my considerable influence. Besides, this thread peaked about 15 posts ago. So, I advise anybody who's thinking of making further posts in this ill-conceived thread to look elsewhere for their satisfaction.

[clayton]

Originally Posted by STEED

Never beat GWX. :p

A close second.

GWX??? Thats funny.

WarAce all the way!

[STEED]

Originally Posted by clayton

WarAce all the way!

Not on my PC sunshine.

[clayton]

Originally Posted by The General

I think you're gonna find that this thread will naturally degenerate into an argument concerning SH4's many flaws, irrespective of my considerable influence. Besides, this thread peaked about 15 posts ago. So, I advise anybody who's thinking of making further posts in this ill-conceived thread to look elsewhere for their satisfaction.

What a pu$k!

Didn't you start off with sabatoging this thread and now you recommend finishing it!

[wetwarev7]

Originally Posted by clayton

What a pu$k!

Didn't you start off with sabatoging this thread and now you recommend finishing it!

I appreciate it, but the moderators have allready been informed and will take care of this situation. If no-one quotes or responds to him, it'll be like it never happened.

[John Channing]

Originally Posted by Nightmare

Exactly! And the "Plead your case for a patch" was a new low for software/gaming development.

Back to topic: I agree with everything the OT said. I'd also like to add that the American TDC was done very well. The improved TC is a great improvement as well.

This is from an old post by me, but it seems it needs repeating...

If you read the various posts by UbiSoft community managers nowhere does it state that people had to beg for anything What it said was that the people who make the financial decisions had to be convinced that a 3rd patch was required.

Now how could this be? How could they not know?

Well, given the level of irresponsible, jeuvenile comments that flooded the UbiSoft site (and here) post 1.0 release it was almost impossible to sort out what was a real bug, what was someone expecting it to be the same as Sh3, what was someone whinning because they didn't get the feature they wanted and what was a minor issue that could easily be modded by the community. Several of us here at Subsim worked for days to sort out a real bug list for the developers for 1.2 and believe me, it wasn't easy sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

PLUS...

If you go to the bug list that was prepared from the posts by this community pre 1.2 you will find that almost all of the issues that were so vitally important back then were indeed addressed by 1.2

So given the above it is completely understanable that, if your responsibility is the bottom line, then you might truly wonder if 1.3 is really necessary. But instead of just saying "That's it... shut 'er down", Ubisoft comes back to the community with 2 requests...

1) Convince us that there are real problems that need to be fixed and...

2) Give us a list of the top 10 remaining issues.

But insead of embracing this as an opportunity to really fix this game once and for all, the "community" does exactly what it always does... it went APE***T.

Boycottts, threats of lawsuits, stupid immature polls, name calling... all of the foolishness that caused UbiSoft to question whether 1.3 was really needed in the first place.

If it wasn't for Neal's efforts here and a few people on the UbiSoft site, I doubt that we would have seen a 1.3

So let's can the "made us beg" nonsense, and recognize that UbiSoft did exactly what we all want them to do... interact with the community, listen to the community and respond to our requests.

JCC

[clayton]

OK!

BTW, good topic.

[John Channing]

The General and Clayton...

Please check your pms.

JCC

[The General]

Originally Posted by John Channing

This is from an old post by me, but it seems it needs repeating...

If you read the various posts by UbiSoft community managers nowhere does it state that people had to beg for anything What it said was that the people who make the financial decisions had to be convinced that a 3rd patch was required.

Now how could this be? How could they not know?

Well, given the level of irresponsible, jeuvenile comments that flooded the UbiSoft site (and here) post 1.0 release it was almost impossible to sort out what was a real bug, what was someone expecting it to be the same as Sh3, what was someone whinning because they didn't get the feature they wanted and what was a minor issue that could easily be modded by the community. Several of us here at Subsim worked for days to sort out a real bug list for the developers for 1.2 and believe me, it wasn't easy sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

PLUS...

If you go to the bug list that was prepared from the posts by this community pre 1.2 you will find that almost all of the issues that were so vitally important back then were indeed addressed by 1.2

So given the above it is completely understanable that, if your responsibility is the bottom line, then you might truly wonder if 1.3 is really necessary. But instead of just saying "That's it... shut 'er down", Ubisoft comes back to the community with 2 requests...

1) Convince us that there are real problems that need to be fixed and...

2) Give us a list of the top 10 remaining issues.

But insead of embracing this as an opportunity to really fix this game once and for all, the "community" does exactly what it always does... it went APE***T.

Boycottts, threats of lawsuits, stupid immature polls, name calling... all of the foolishness that caused UbiSoft to question whether 1.3 was really needed in the first place.

If it wasn't for Neal's efforts here and a few people on the UbiSoft site, I doubt that we would have seen a 1.3

So let's can the "made us beg" nonsense, and recognize that UbiSoft did exactly what we all want them to do... interact with the community, listen to the community and respond to our requests.

JCC

Hey John, there shouldn't have ever been a need for a 1.3 Patch. Besides, no patch is gonna fix what's wrong with SH4.

[XLjedi]

Originally Posted by wetwarev7

If you like moving the guys around, why would you want an easier way to move them between stations and damage control? :hmm:

Itsa fair question... I guess what I mean is, I liked how I could easily click stations, send some guys over to damage control and move folks around who were tired. I'd have to say the introduction of shifts was a plus. The loss of being able to bulk move folks quickly from station to station was a minus. I think there's also something in there that allows crew to become more proficient with specific tasks, which was a great idea... just no easy way to see that progression or take advantage of it that I can see.

Originally Posted by wetwarev7

I admit I would like it better if you assigned crew to damage control and they stayed at thier regular post till damage control teams were activated, but what I like about the SH4 crew management over SH3 is that you have 3 shifts now, and don't have to move them around to thier assigned workstations. I think this is better because I don't believe that it is the captain's responsibility to tell every one when it's bedtime. :p

True, true... yeah, what I was hoping for was some sorta right-click feature to put folks back in their shifts without me having to do it. It's like they did away with some of the micro-mgmt and introduced some new.

I'd also argue that (thankfully) the SH series is not intended to model sub ops strictly from a captains perspective.

Originally Posted by wetwarev7

Also the fact that the bridge watch officer goes to his station when we surface without me having to move him there is a big plus!

At this point, I've been cheating a bit by adding extra crew to the damage control stations before I leave port. I say cheating, but if I don't know any better(I've never been in the Navy or a sub) it's not really cheating, so no-one tell me otherwise.

You might be on to something there... Extra crew sounds like a good workaround to me. And they can put themselves to bed now soooo... :hmm: or wait a minute, does the crew assigned to DC sleep on their own?

[kikn79]

I almost forgot!! I love how easy this game is to mod. (Thanks in no small part to the creator of JSGME and the Mini-Tweaker) You can create your experience however you want. From "Quake of the Pacific" to "RFB" it is definately a keeper!!

Also, *most* of the community here and at the UBI forums where we can engage in some intelligent conversation and give and receive help. Heck, if it wasn't for the whine boxes around here, (Maybe Neal should get some cheese to go along with it. :hmm: ) it would be absolute perfect!!!

Chuck