Jump to content

Battlefront.com

Administrators
  • Content Count

    29,875
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Battlefront.com

  • Rank
    Administrator

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I suspect it's real, but a Forum a glitch. The other day I saw this message when I was trying to log into the Forum. First time I've seen it and a minute later I tried logging in and everything was fine. I know the Forum was patched and then quickly patched again last week. Might be related? We're in the process of applying the patch (might be applied already). If anybody else sees a message or an email like this, post here and we can compare notes. Until then, I suspect this came about due to some bug in the recent update Steve
  2. Thanks for the heads up. I sent a cease and desist letter to them. Because it's the same 8 models I was able to use the same letter I sent to Unity but with the links swapped around. Hoorah for less wasted time! Steve
  3. I looked at it KNOWING what the thread was about and I still didn't see a Swastika straight off. But people see things differently, which means in many cases there's no clear right and wrong way to look at things (though in my mind it is a fact that Jackson Pollock was a hack). Like my wife constantly saying that so-and-so looks a lot like so-and-so and I think she is daft for suggesting it. And when I say "daft", l mean it in a playful and harmless way. But like the image that started this off, my wife might have a different reaction Steve
  4. It is good practice to have weapons teams, of any sort, use some sort of method for restricting fire until you (the player) are ready for it to be used. There's tons of totally legitimate circumstances that can cause a weapons team to engage in a way that doesn't fit in with your (the palyer's) master plan. HIDE, tight Target Arcs, keeping them out of LOS, etc. each have their pros/cons, but for the most part they are complimentary when used wisely. Steve
  5. I'm still not sure about this one. What was the range? And if someone in the Jav team could see the exposed commander, why didn't the Javelin fire? It only takes one man so both shooting at the tank with their own weapons should be possible. Steve
  6. For the most part weapons teams will not engage with their small arms. That's SOP and at one point, long ago, it was followed like a fanatical religion. However, the battlefield laughs at straight forward logic and ridged rules, so pretty quickly the TacAI was modified to allow weapons teams to engage with their small arms in dire circumstances or if team weapon is not up to the task (damaged, range, reloading, no LOS, etc.). The closer the weapons team is to the target, the more likely they will use their small arms. I don't know what the circumstances were that prompted the Javelin team to use their small arms, but there must have been something that prompted that response. Steve
  7. Well, until this thread I didn't know this was still an issue! CM1 has about as much in common with CM2 as an Apple IIe has in common with the MacBook Pro I'm typing this message on. Yes, this is correct. The meter shows the degree a unit is Suppressed, which is a result of many factors and therefore relative. It is not the result of just incoming firepower and unit exposure. An excellent unit in poor positions might be less suppressed than a poor unit in good positions even if the incoming fire is identical. Good units also recover from suppression faster than poorer units. That said, the meter's rating itself is more-or-less absolute. An Elite unit with the meter full lit up is effectively as suppressed as a Conscript with the meter fully lit. The difference between the two units is how each got to that point and how each recovers from it. An Elite unit is harder to get fully suppressed, easier to get unsuppressed than the Conscript unit. As I think about it, there's very little behavior shown to the player that is "absolute". Even things like when does a unit using HUNT stop can be variable depending on the unit. Variety is the spice of life Steve
  8. Well, I issued the warning for the wrong post, but I think it's pretty clear why the warning was issued. Attacking people and using abusive language (in particular swearing) is usually an instant lifetime ban. However, in this case I gave OlafP a one week vacation from the Forum instead. This thread is a fairly typical one that comes up from time to time. Someone posts a legitimate question/complaint, engages in a lengthy discussion, doesn't like people questioning his findings/conclusions, and then things go down hill from there. Seen it more times than I can count. It seems to me that arguments over TacAI behavior make up a disproportional amount of such incidents. That isn't surprising. Combat Mission is not just an incredibly complex combat simulation, it is also a simulation of Human behavior. Anybody who thinks that can be done with absolute perfection must not get out of the house or onto the Internet very often As has been discussed here, there's almost always more than one justifiable response to a specific set of circumstances in a battle. Some of them are "correct" (makes sense), some of them are "incorrect" (does not make sense). If Combat Mission's TacAI wasn't exceptionally good, the game would not be playable, therefore it's pretty obvious that the overwhelming majority of the soldier by soldier, millisecond by millisecond decisions you all see when playing battle after battle are "correct". If we had one thread complimenting the TacAI for everything time the TacAI did something correctly this would be a very busy Forum (and incredibly boring!). Of the exceptions which are highlighted as "incorrect" we usually see them boil down into one of three categories: 1. Only superficially incorrect. When things are looked at in greater detail, it's clear that there's something the original poster failed to take into consideration. After closer examination the behavior starts to look more "correct" than "incorrect". 2. Not ideal, but understandable. Human Beings make mistakes. Lots and lots and lots and lots of mistakes! Especially when under pressure and with only split seconds to respond. Combat Mission is intentionally designed to allow these mistakes to happen. Especially in circumstances where there are no good choices for the TacAI to select from. CM's Pixeltruppen should reflect Human behavior until we are replaced by our eventual AI robotic overlords. Which means sometimes a technically "incorrect" behavior is often "correct" from a realism standpoint. 3. Truly incorrect. Very rarely a soldier or whole unit exhibits a behavior which can not be explained as "correct" either because of a flawed analysis or realistic bad choice by the simulated soldier/unit. Most often these sorts of examples are difficult to repeat because they rely upon too many fine points coming together in a wrong way. There's no way to fix these sorts of issues and we have to live with them. Most people chalk them up to "crap happens" and move on. Sometimes the conditions can be reproduced, at least to some extent, and a fix is legitimately asked for. Sometimes we can implement a fix (or at least making it happen less frequently), sometimes we can not. Threads like this most often go off the tracks because the original poster insists that his initial assessment of the "incorrect" behavior is a bug/flaw no matter how many people in how many ways demonstrate that it is probably "correct" because of a flawed analysis or an expectation of perfect Human behavior. Hopefully this long winded summary of the history of TacAI bashing is a useful perspective for folks Steve
  9. Yup, closing this down. For one reason, to have this thread here at all is dumb. John, if I have to shut down and/or move yet another one of your threads I'm going to have to put you on a Forum vacation. Stop it. As for the history of far right, neo-Nazi/fascist involvement in the Ukrainian conflict, there's plenty of information out there about that topic. Most of it is one sided, biased, crap. Any source that talks about fascism in the Ukrainian forces which fails to include that fact that Russian neo-Nazi organizations were the backbone of the "Ukrainian" separatist political and military hierarchy should be discarded as propaganda. The early days of the conflict definitely brought the nut jobs out of the woodwork on both sides. Steve
  10. Can you guys imagine how much mischief we could cause if we did have the AI cheat? "Hmm. So the Human just called in 3 batteries of 155 artillery on my rifle platoon that is out in the open, eh? Well, let's see how well that works if we kill the FO unit seconds before it makes the fire for effect call". Yeah, that sounds like it could be fun Update on the patches. We're still fixing things. Found out yesterday that MacOS Mojave treats some of the installer stuff a little differently so that had to be addressed to avoid people double clicking and getting a blank screen. At the moment we're doing some last minute TO&E fixes. While making Rome to Victory I got into some retro revisions which had a ripple effect. Almost done with it. These last minute fixes do delay things, but worth it IMHO. I'm still thinking that we can have them out before March (yes, of 2019). Steve
  11. Yes. Recoding the game engine to be 64-bit is not on the menu. You should run some system diagnostic tools to check that theory. If it does seem to be that CM is trying to use more than 4GB of RAM you can possibly help your situation by removing Mods and, IIRC, downgrading Model Quality. Thanks! And as always, you guys push our games waaaaaay beyond what they were intended to do. It's never ceased to amaze/amuse us how much stuff can be jammed onto the screen! Steve
  12. Testing of the patches is going very well. Er, now it is at least. We had some difficulty getting CMFI and CMRT prepped because the TO&E was already set for the two Modules that are in the works. The coding wasn't set up for going backwards so it took a little while to work through cutting everything out. And no, the thought of just giving you all that stuff in a patch did not occur to us, though it did occur to us that someone would likely make that suggestion We're going to give the testers a little more time to beat on them and out the door they go. Steve
  13. And with that, I'm finally closing this thread. I've spent a lot of time on this topic already and there's nothing new to be learned from it. Note that I did not say that I wasted a lot of time on this topic. Making sure that your experience with our store is not putting you at financial risk is a responsibility we take very seriously. Checking all the angles and allowing you guys time to introduce new information is the right thing to do. But after doing all the right things, more than once, it's time to move on. For any of you hesitant to place an order on our website, you might as well cut up your credit cards and throw them away. Every single time you use it you're at risk of it being compromised. That's just the way it is. Those of you who have pointed out that a more secure way to make Internet payments is through PayPal are correct. I have also been switching over to PayPal for my Internet purchases over the past couple of years. It's not vulnerable in the same way as credit cards, though even that is not assured secure in other ways. Sadly, the bad people out there have no shortage of ways to steal from us. Steve
  14. If anybody is inclined to post REAL information to threads like the one on Matrix, here's the summary of where we're at: 1. A tiny fraction of customers who placed orders in the past 2 months have chimed in here to say their credit cards had fraudulent charges placed in the beginning of January. This includes my own card which, one would be correct to assume, was never used to purchase anything from Battlefront.com. Which means some sort of group compromise happened AND that it includes people that have not placed an order with Battlefront.com. 2. Battlefront never has, and never will, collect customer credit card information. Instead, credit card information goes direct from a customer's browser to our payment processor (PayPal/PayFlow). All Battlefront gets is a report from the processor which gives the transaction a thumbs up or thumbs down along with some transaction codes. Since someone can't steal what we don't have, there's absolutely no chance in a billion years that credit card information was taken from our server. 3. While it is theoretically possible to hack our website and change the order processing script to have the customer's browser hijack credit card info, this has already been checked by our webstore host and there have been no changes to our scripts. They checked twice, in fact, because I asked them to. 4. If anybody thinks they are immune from massive data breaches like these, think again. It must be remembered that nearly a billion online accounts were documented to have been breached in 2018. Most of us have had a credit or bank card compromised more than once (I had an ATM card physically skimmed, including PIN). Even those who think they haven't had a card compromised have probably received a replacement credit card out of the blue. That means the card company thinks your card has likely been compromised and is proactively replacing it. 5. Some think that the tiny fraction of customers who had a credit card compromised AND placed an order for CMSF2 couldn't be a coincidence. Which is wrong on so many levels. First, most of the people reporting in say they bought a CMSF2 product, which isn't surprising since that's the biggest selling group of products in the time period covered. Obvious coincidence. Second, my credit card was also hit with fraud charges at the very same time in a very similar way as the others noted here, but I've never used it to purchase items from Battlefront.com. Obvious coincidence. Third, timing of a specific purchase and a fraud charge inherently means nothing because a card used years ago, and stored somewhere, is just as vulnerable as a card used 5 seconds ago. Trying to tie a specific transaction to a specific breach is, therefore, not straight forward and is prone to being coincidental. Fact is, Humans are thoroughly documented to be very poor evaluators of cause/effect and extremely prone to incorrectly finding meaning in something that has none. Be it religion, "lucky" lottery numbers, bad things happen after a black cat crosses ones' path, two people in a room of 30 having the same birthday is noteworthy, etc. With that said, because the world is a very complex and nasty place when it comes to cyber security, I can not 100% rule out someone somehow got a hold of a tiny slice of customer payment data one time for a limited time. Nor can I rule out winning the lottery if I pick up a discarded ticket on the sidewalk. Which is why I will always check into the possibility of a customer breach just as I will always pick up a discarded lottery ticket. Steve
  15. I'll check with our provider to see if that's an option, but I suspect not. From my experience most web stores do not use hosted pages from their payment processor (PayPal or otherwise). I expect that will change over time. Steve
×
×
  • Create New...