Michael Dorosh
-
Posts
13,938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Michael Dorosh
-
-
Are you willing to hold your breath until I reveal all about that evening in a Melbourne hotel? </font>Originally posted by Mace:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
I get the feeling that there's something going on in this leg wrestling business that we haven't been told.
-
To be fair, the Germans discovered that in May 1940, much to the consternation of the Matilda crews.Originally posted by Webs:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
[QB]Sometimes it worked out better than anticipated. The British found the 25-pounder made a good anti-tank gun; the Germans found the FlaK 88 made an even better one.
P.S. That's me who just friended you on FB. </font>
-
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=004065;p=1#000014Originally posted by Combatintman:Steve has invited Dorosh to debate his opinions
Read sentence one.
Not much of an invitation.Unlike Dorosh, who is convinced that there is only one way to look at the world (i.e. his),
As much fun as it would be for you, Combatintman, to see Steve and I swinging our purses at each other, I recommend you get your jollies someplace else. You can accuse me of chucking grenades - by leaving - whatever sense that makes - but your own comments seem more provocative than mine at this point.Me: It would by hypocritical if anyone was making that argument. Um. They're not.Steve: Yes, you are.
It really doesn't matter; Steve and I have been back and forth on the same topic in a few threads at any event and I think it has all been said. You're new here so I don't blame you for not knowing that. I do blame you for judging people without knowing the whole story. Settle back and enjoy a few more threads and learn the lay of the land. Maybe read the Peng Thread and challenge a couple of the lads to a friendly game or two. Introduce yourself with a friendly hello, they like meeting strangers. (Steve is right about one thing; gamers can be vicious bastards when the mood strikes.
) -
Me either, though I don't come into the CMSF forum much. He makes excellent points I happen to agree with a lot of the time. </font>Originally posted by Herr Kruger:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by thewood:
Unless I missed a post somewhere, I haven't seen Dorosh post anything I would call "bannable". I have seen some of BFC's testers post more confrontational stuff than Dorosh, and I don't even think that was bannable.
-
http://dosomefink.com/phpbb2/index.php?topic=2851.0Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Oh, and to answer BigAlMoho's question about where this "other place" is, here's a link:
It's 45 pages of mostly bitching between people who are all of a like mind. There are some fair posts mixed in with the calls for me to suck dick and questioning my sanity, but I'd say the mix is decidedly not favorable to me
Mostly it is a few people reinforcing their own convictions and expressing hostility to anybody who doesn't think exactly like them. Warning to you people that actually like CM:SF... you're generally thought of as empty headed fanboys. The funniest thing about this thread is there were IDENTICAL threads on the Steel Panthers and CC3 forums when CMBO was fresh. The only difference is that the ones who used to be labeled fanboys are labeling others instead.
As the old saying goes, same stuff, different day
Steve
-
Guess he didn't read your sigline.Originally posted by Normal Dude:Apparently a SEAL is going to awarded the MOH for jumping on a grenade in 2006. He did not survive.
-
Well, that's the way the way the cookie crumbles every time. You're on the team, anyway. We now have half-a-dozen know-it-alls in primo position to make the most advanced 3-D level, squad-based, company-level tactical turn-based wargame EVER that will oustrip Combat Mission, Steel Panthers, Close Combat, Muzzle Velocity, Operation Flashpoint and Panzer Command COMBINED and the only thing stopping us is the fact we don't know how to code it, market it, make the models, advertise it or deliver it to the consumer.Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:MD
Thanks for the all the job offers, Ill just take the texturing job
And we might have argued a little bit about what colour the uniforms should be, but only because dalem is a tight ass about such things AND TOTALLY DOESN'T OWN HIS OWN MANNEQUIN EITHER I MIGHT ADD.
But aside from all that, we're golden.
The only competition we have to worry about is...well, everyone who posts to this forum, really, since they're in about the same place as us.
But we have a great logo picked out for the business cards. So we're a step ahead.
-
Well, when JasonC, dalem, dirtweasel, Cpl Steiner and I start to work on the BEST GAME EVER, you are hereby invited to join the Beta Team. You can even be on the Alpha Team.Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:No, never did
And even if I had been offered it, I doubt many things would have changed at the time of release. Seems like meeting the deadline was the priority to releasing a top-notch product In fact, you can write it for us, because I don't think any of us know thing one about coding.
And if you know anything about 3D modelling, we'll need some help with that, too.
And if you know any girls, bring them along.
You'll also have to tend the bar, proofread the manual, and snake the toilets on occasion.
But you don't get to name it. That's the one part we've got. In fact, we have 325 "perfect titles" ready for debate.
We might let you vote.
-
Huh? There is no "fight" and nothing "between us". I just wanted to know who wished that Steve was dead. I never read any such thing on this forum and was a bit surprised to see reference being made to such a thing. If the inference is being made that I suggested such a thing, it's false.Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:I think it's best if everybody backs off this topic, no matter which "side" you're on. As I mentioned above, this is between MD and Steve, and even that's probably something that doesn't need to be happening, not in this thread, anyway. Let's get back to discussing the game.
Anyway, as per the topic at hand, suffice to say JasonC stated very well what would have taken me five times as many words to sputter out without getting across half the meaning, so I'm content to leave it there.
Webwing - speaking in general, if a game doesn't appeal to you, why would you buy it? You don't need to own a Smart Car to realize that they don't deliver a family of four complete with groceries from point A to point B, so do you really need to own one before you can criticize it for being poorly designed for that purpose?
-
Even if you had anything at all to do with it, Steve would never admit it.Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:I am the guy who begged and begged for them to bring back the right-click menu, untill they did (in some way). Your welcome
You're welcome. PS - did you ever get that beta team slot you so stated that you so richly deserve? *wink*
-
/yawnOriginally posted by Battlefront.com:Thank you for the vote of confidence. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly 10 years of good will can be chucked out the window by some. Instead of saying "OK, I don't like this one, so I'll take a pass on it" some thought they should go right to wishing us to drop dead on the spot.
Now that all your hysterical ranting about me is over, name one person who feels that way and has expressed same. Just one, Steve. One person who has told you to "drop dead on the spot."
You can't do it.
And even if so, it certainly wasn't in this thread, so why bring it up? Emotional blackmail? Can't win a fair fight?
/yawn
-
Bingo, Ken. It's like viewing an actor's face close-up on a HD digital screen instead of one derived from an analog source; the blemishes, wrinkles and razor burns really stick out. Pitiless, but there's the dilemma. </font>Originally posted by Childress:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by c3k:
A more detailed design requires higher fidelity modelling. The points where it fails to achieve that higher fidelity are more obvious.
-
Poisoned, dirty water guaranteed to make you sick in a city that's water and sewage lines have been bombed. Great thinking.Originally posted by wawa:oh well use your imagination they have water with them dont you see the bottles and also they take water from the houses lol its also imagination while playing games;)
How about cheat codes so you not only have unlimited time to make up for your limited tactical abilities, but an "instant win" button too? And an end screen that gives you the Medal of Honor after every scenario?
-
Sounds like a Conspicuous Gallantry Cross to me. More likely a Military Cross, if that.
The press are always quick to jump on any rumour of a VC being awarded. Not to say it couldn't happen, but the standard being applied recently seems to require death in action or prolonged/multiple instances of bravery or exposure to danger.
Not to diminish his actions, but the press have erroneously reported on VCs in a couple of cases with regards to Canadian servicemen in Afghanistan also. No such awards appeared and possibly no recommendations had ever been made. It's really irresponsible of the press to report on such things in my opinion. The guy did it to save the lives of his comrades - not "win" a medal, or for that matter, have some jackass like me judge him in absentia with regards to his relative level of worthiness. At least those comrades who are buying his beer for him know what he did and what it all means; they may be the only ones. The reporter who scribbled that story likely doesn't any more than I do.
-
There will be no "CM:BB revisited"; it will be small battle-oriented modules, just as the other CMX2 modules will be.
Even CM: Normandy won't be, really. It will feature US and German forces and that's all - maybe even just Heer, not Heer, Luftwaffe and Waffen SS. Less is more; that is to say, Less Content is More Money.
For the eastern front, who knows? Panzer Command seems to be starting with the arcane subjects - Winter Storm, Kharkov, Mtzensk so would CM really duplicate that effort?
CM is tank heavy so Kursk would be the prime consideration for CMX2's eastern front debut, given that, say, Stalingrad seems unsuited to the CMX2 engine at present with its focus on infantry. July 1943 is a time of rough parity as far as tanks go. But if I was a betting man, I would have lost my shirt betting on "Winter Storm" for PC and "Syria" for CMX2...
-
Ah, so it's just an attempt to cash in on the brand name then. Thanks for confirming that. I knew that the CM in CMSF stood for something, I just wasn't sure what.Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:CMSF is not really a sequel. It's set in modern era, and uses a brand new engine
Sorry, what slot do you fill at BF.C Inc. again?
-
No, not at all. If it is well designed it may very well be possible. BF.C is essentially a one man operation and may not be the company to expect to do it. And I know you can look at the staff roster and insist there are more than one person there, but really, you have one idea man, one coder, one 3-D modeller, one sound man, what looks like two skinners if Dan is still performing double duty, one business end/writer and one scenario lead. That's one dude for every major facet. Not that there are huge corporations pouring tons of money and manpower into wargames out there; other than Matrix and Panzer Command I'm not aware of anyone else working on tactical level 3-D turn based stuff, but I have no inside knowledge of how they do business either.Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:The crux of this debate seems to be about whether or not problems with CMx2 are due to poor design or poor implementation. The view of Michael Dorosh and his supporters is that it is due to poor design. They argue that any attempt to produce an immersive wargame without abstraction being at its core is doomed to failure.
Oh, I don't have followers, just opinions like everyone else. I think I agree with JasonC and Cpl Steiner on some points, definitely with dalem on a lot of points, but as you can see, those opinions get met with hostility in some quarters which is why dalem doesn't post anymore, and you can see some of the personal attacks on Jason in past posts. Those kinds of attacks only highlight the weakness of the position of anyone making them.
I think everyone would like to see CMX2 become a winner, but at present, I think the reasons that many feel it isn't are easily explained. You make some good points. What happens from here is anyone's guess.Well to examine these arguments I played a quick game of CM:SF today, specifically the "Rock Around the Block" scenario. During the game, I noticed a number of problems, as follows:
1) There seems to be a point a couple of metres in front of all doorways that acts as a kind of rallying point and this causes lots of problems. If a vehicle is parked near it, the men have trouble getting into the building without making really wide detours, as if they have to get to this rallying point and the presence of the vehicle interferes with their movement. This looks like a coding issue rather than a fundamental design problem.
2) Half-way through the scenario a fireteam got stuck, such that one soldier kept hopping over a wall one way and then back over in a continuous loop. At this point I quit the game. Again, this looks like a coding issue rather than a fundamental design problem.
3) The graphics still look kind of bland and uninteresting, and various graphical glitches seem to show themselves every few seconds, such as trees and bushes doing strange zoom-like transformations, shadows dancing in ugly ways, etc. CMx1 had much less of this. It was simpler looking that CMx2, granted, but it was also much smoother and gentler on the eye. In CMx2 we seem to be plagued by weird shimmerings and blurrings at every turn. Again, this looks like a coding issue rather than anything else.
4) The "snap to grid" aspect of CMx2 is still very disconcerting. Sometimes I will want a vehicle to just edge forward a few feet but clicking there results in no waypoint being put down. I have to click much further ahead and then the tank will start moving, even though I can then halt it's movement at the point I wanted to pick in the first place. Similarly with area fire, the grid rears it's ugly head. I feel this is just down to coding again. There is no reason why the screen couldn't display target and movement lines with more fidelity even though, under the hood, the grid is involved.
In summary then, I find CMx1 a more pleasant gaming experience in many ways that CMx2 but I don't think this is due to fundamental design problems with CMx2. It is just a simpler game, which has been refined over many years, and consequently has less coding problems as a result. Hopefully, with more refinement, CMx2 will become as enjoyable a gaming experience as CMx1 was and still is.
Sequels have historically failed to capitalize on the success of games that have gone before, usually by an attempt to add complexity or make use of technology. Again, this is nothing new. In a perfect world, the vendor wouldn't have to chase wider audiences but unfortunately, that isn't the reality.
-
I completely agree.Originally posted by JasonC:It is perfectly reasonable to try to push the envelope. It is not reasonable to confuse the value of making the attempt with its success.
At present, CMx2 is not more realistic nor more intuitive as a game than CMx1, for the reasons explained by the poster and previously by Mike and others in a similar vein. CMBB is a high bar to clear, you all set it. Your having set it does not mean your later attempts to clear it, actually do so. So far, CMx2 has not.
So wishing you all the success in the world, I continue to play CMBB, and not CMSF. I don't play games to help other men push envelopes. I play them to have fun.
Design for effect abstraction remains the secret of every game that has ever succeeded in grabbing and keeping my attention for years. Every attempt to replace it with greater engineering "realism" ever tried, to date, has failed. The idea recurs continually, despite it simply never having worked.
One can quibble endlessly about where to design for effect, about which abstraction to make, about how to mark the effects to realism slash playability and the trade off between them. But the continual attempt to substitute blind engineering literalism for game design in this area, has wrecked about as much human effort as the US air force.
I for one continue to hope someone, somewhere, sometime, actually notices and learns that lesson. But I'm not holding my breath.
Over at gamesquad, they are talking about Microprose coming back to life. At consimworld, James Werbaneth is talking about wargames - the board variety - and I ventured the opinion that sequels rarely live up to the originals because technology usually gets in the way. I don't think technology is at fault so much as expectations on the part of the audience for the developers to use it - or perhaps those are simply perceived expectations on the developers part. Whatever. It's not my money or ass on the line so I can spout off all I want. It's quite liberating. But I never enjoyed M-1 Tank Platoon II half or even a tenth as much as the original, so the CM experience is nothing unique. Even in the realm of boardgames, cramming all those rules into ASL didn't necessarily make the game more "fun". AH's FIREPOWER vs. SNIPER. There are dozens of examples in PCs and boardgames one can illustrate this with. CMX2 v. CMX1 is nothing new. The earth still turns.
-
Actually, I am a supporter of the President, and feel that the US military has been doing a hard job in Iraq well. Guess I got lost in my own rhetoric. Maybe I was just picturing Steve in one of his camouflaged jumpsuits. Many critics never realized that the President actually qualified to wear a flight suit by doing his military training and becoming a fighter pilot. You were right to take offence; I offer my apologies for the unintentional slur on the President of the United States and the United States armed forces.Originally posted by meade95:Dorosh - I agree with much of your comments regarding CMSF (the game) - However, your above comment is completely ignorant - Plain and simple (though such ignorance cleary affects much more than only one or two of ya...outside these States).
That banner was hung by the Military itself - Not by POTUS or his staff - Those words were never mentioned by POTUS on said day - That banner was hung for those on that ship who's mission WAS accomplished and done so, damn well -
-
Not true, at all.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Unlike Dorosh, who is convinced that there is only one way to look at the world (i.e. his),
It would by hypocritical if anyone was making that argument. Um. They're not.I don't fault people for saying "I like the more abstracted CMx1 system better than the less abstracted system of CMx2" no more than I faulted the Steel Panthers and ASL guys for rejecting CMBO for the same exact reasons. What I do feel justified in doing, however, is pointing out the hypocritical nature of the argument that CMx2 is somehow flawed because it isn't a perfect representation of the real world.
It's also possible to dislike something because it is flawed or poorly designed.That's just an intellectually pathetic excuse to justify not liking something, rather than being a valid line of reasoning.
CMX1 was a success because of its simplicity. For one, it didn't have a hotkey array where "J" stands for "clear" and "M" stands for "reverse", but I digress...By the same reasoning CMx1 was a mistake, as was everything else that wasn't as simplistic and abstract as something like Chess.
The soldier drones in CMX2 are more abstracted than in CMX1. Because they represent individual soldiers, you expect more of them, and yet they do less. They all look identical, they have a library of what - a couple dozen motions - walk, run, throw grenade, get wounded, hit the dirt, reload their weapon - and they tend to do everything as if they were underwater (i.e. very slowly). They don't look lifelike, they don't look realistic, and far more importantly, their group behaviour is positively herd-like. They don't look around corners (latest generation FPS have the ability to "lean" around corners, on the other hand), go through windows, they have no ability to throw grenades over walls, say, close assault tanks, take prisoners, send a guy back for ammo (not even in an abstract way), and if you want to get sublime, they don't use hand signals, talk, or in any way visibly communicate with each other. Oh, but don't worry, because that can all be dismissed by saying that there are "abstractions." That's great up to the point the abstractions ruin the fidelity of the modeling.Now, the counter argument to the notion that CMx2 is more frustrating because it is less abstract is quite simple. And that is less abstraction makes for a more engaging game. Sure, your little pixelated men sometimes don't do what you think they should be doing visually, however in CMx1 they never did when held to the same standards of expectations. Moe, Larry, and Curley would march in lockstep and show absolutely no individuality nor variance. They were, in all senses of the word, graphically insignificant. More engaging than a 2D "chit", perhaps, but in terms of comparison with the real world equally irrelevant. While CMx2 is certainly not perfect, it is undeniably more relevant. And if relevance is what you're really after, then CMx2 has it in spades compared to CMx1. There is nothing "empty" about it.
The argument isn't that you took a wrong turn with CMX2 so much as weren't able to implement the new direction correctly. Taking a new turn is fine as long as you can get to the destination with a minimum of problems. As was posted before, CMX2 players currently do business in an informational vacuum - the informational relay and user interface is poor compared to CMX1, and it would appear these aspects were sacrificed at the expense of development of under-the-hood elements that no one sees (notice the comments above about invisible or inaccessible firepower ratings, for example).Again, I am not saying that my point of view is the only way to look at CMx2. Those that do see it the way I do will find the overall experience richer and more rewarding than CMx1's. Those who do not will not, by choice, share that opinion. Since it is a choice then there should be no harm no foul for not seeing eye to eye on this matter. Those who refuse to acknowledge that their narrow point of view is no more, or less, valid than someone else's will never be satisfied with CMx2 and therefore should cease wasting their time and seek something else that is aiming for their style of play. We're not returning to a CMx1 style game system so it really is absolutely pointless to keep harping about the Days of Yor as seen through rose colored glasses.Steve
I can only guess that that is what explains the backtracking to retroactively fit gameplay features since release. And it wasn't about my singular vision, it was about your customer's vision. If that wasn't the case, then you tell me why we now have the spacebar activated menu in the game.
Oh, I'm sure everyone will be happy once the trip is over (I sense another car analogy), but you have to put the car in the driveway before you can announce "Mission Accomplished". Though I know there are one or two of ya in the States who like to hang the banner on the deck of the carrier a little bit early.
But you still have dudes milling about the streets and all the goofy things killing immersion that the first poster has discussed - and you can talk about "superior" engines all you want, the fact remains, saying it till you're blue in the face is only a matter of semantics and it remains only an opinion.
The silly thing is that if you didn't agree with me, you wouldn't insist that you're working on these kinds of things for future releases.
-
I would say misemployed, or rather, creatively employed, rather than misnamed.Originally posted by SteveP:So Jason, were the MG bns misnamed to some extent, but were really equipped more like regular motor inf -- except perhaps with additional LMGs? Or were they MG Bns in fact, using their MGs as assault weapons?
I'm also curious about how these units compared to similarly named units in WWI.
The problem with North Africa was that no one wanted to send enough troops there. Certainly Hitler didn't; he had a war in Russia he was planning for in early 1941, when he wasn't bailing the Italians out of Greece and Yugoslavia, and was none too happy to bail the Italians out of North Africa as well. So he sent as little as he could to Africa.
Troops in theatre had to make do with what they had. Sometimes it worked out better than anticipated. The British found the 25-pounder made a good anti-tank gun; the Germans found the FlaK 88 made an even better one.
The terrain in Africa also required that all units employed there have mechanical transport - i.e. they were all "motorized" in more than just name. German trucks, particularly early in the war, were ill-suited for the desert (lacking oil and fuel filters, notably) and captured trucks were often preferred. I don't believe this is reflected in CM:AK.
So it is no surprise that machine gun units may have been employed in an assault role - anti-aircraft units were employed as anti-tank artillery (on purpose by the Germans, unintentionally by the British IIRC), armoured divisions were extremely tank-heavy and would bear little resemblance to the more balanced tank-infantry formations that eventually did balance in,say, NW Europe in 1944-45.
I don't think it was a case of misnaming anything. Doctrine was evolving throughout the desert experience, trying, as had been the case in the First World War, to catch up to the technology. The British started out with Infantry and Cruiser tanks that lumbered forth at walking pace with 2-pounder cannon and ended the campaign with Sherman tanks racing about at 23 mph and lumbering Churchills impervious to the guns of the PzKpfw III and "Mark III Specials" with high-velocity 50mm guns; the Germans began the campaign with handfuls of PzKpfw III and IV as their main battle tanks and managed to field Tigers in Tunisia two years later. Technology and doctrine chased each other's tail for two years, and shaped the way battle would be joined on the Continent.
British infantry sections were increased officially by two men over the course of the North African experience, the rifle battalion was reorganized to remove anti-aircraft assets and include a "Support Company" under command. Everyone was kind of making things up as they found out what worked and what didn't.
[ March 29, 2008, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
Yep, the thread was called "the The Uncanny Valley." I obviously agree with c3k, and he's articulately identified what quite a few people are experiencing with the new game.
Steve wonders why we want levels of detail in the game, but until such time as there are great levels of detail, the promise of 1:1 rep simply doesn't pay off in any meaningful way. It's an empty promise - sort of like empty calories. All the reams of firepower and ROF stats built in under the hood don't mean anything if, for example, there are only two stock animations for guys running into buildings, and frustrated players see them just standing around doing stupid things a lot of the time.
[ March 29, 2008, 05:17 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
Peter would have obliged, but his dates don't let him take pictures of them. Too creepy to take piccies on the first date - and Peter doesn't get to the 2nd...Originally posted by SlapHappy:Wow....
In that 4th picture, it looked like there shoulda been some Hobbits staggering around down there.....
-
Don't count on it. :mad:Originally posted by abneo3sierra:Still pretty new here, and suddenly realized what you were talking about..damn, this has been going on for years ? I just saw the combat mission campaigns thread dated 2005. Wow, and everyone is being so patient.. Good group of guys you all are.
)
And even if I had been offered it, I doubt many things would have changed at the time of release. Seems like meeting the deadline was the priority to releasing a top-notch product 
The forum complaints thread.
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
By an incredible amount, but I'm still towards the top of the list. However, the Members List is disabled so you can't see the comparative "scoring". It's just as well; number of posts means little compared to quality of posts, and I think I've contributed over the years at least as much as some, less than others as far as constructive contributions to the "on-topic" areas.
wbs was asking just recently about my absence. Since I didn't get to give a proper "farewell" let me just say that I truly respected Steve's principled stand on adhering to his own forum rules. I thought the reasoning behind dropping the hammer in my particular instance was murky, but in the end I didn't feel hard done by. For those curious, it was more a personal matter between Steve and myself, and a personal contract between us I felt obligated to break for reasons that he did not accept. I am grateful the matter has not been discussed beyond that. I found it hard to argue with his logic.
I don't imagine the fact my ban has slipped through the cracks is some sort of backdoor clemency so I will leave you in peace with this reminder to the gatekeeper to flip the switch on my account. I enjoyed my time here a great deal, and I wish the new forum good luck, success and long life. I'll see some of you over at Gyrene's.