What's the real problem with CMC?... Money?

[Takinthebass]

I supposse so. Living is not for free and everybody needs some bucks sometimes (i.e. everyday)so it's easy to imagine why this project is in this moment as quiet as died...

Anyway, is suppossed we are a lot of people wanting the finished game, so... how much is to finish CMC Mr. Hunter?... and if we get an answer... are we ready to donate some bucks?

I am, of course.

[Takinthebass]

I mean, i am determined to pay a pre-order even in this moment if someone with authority says that they could finish the project with some money.

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

It's probably not money. I say the shift to the CMx2 engine for most of the CM fan base is taking precedence over any CMx1 related project.

Hence, if it wasn't fully dead before CMSF, it very likely is now.

[Takinthebass]

Well, maybe i am wrong, but I think CMC is not a product from BFC, but supported by BFC and made by an independent company named "HUNTING TANK SOFTWARE", where Hunter is. http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmc/index.html#top

I supposse BFC gave to them the code parts they needed to design CMC as a tool compatible with CMBB, but the works had to be done by HTS.

Has HTS halted the desing of CMC because they have ran out of funds?

If the answer is YES (anyway I think we deserve an answer about where the project is right now and what we could hope in the future about it) i suggest a pre-oreder to get funds (good price!!, we were betting on the CMC) and finish the work.

Anyway, more or less, BFC has done something similar selling CMSF in that sort of Beta state )...

[Lt Bull]

Coming up with a good game concept (what i think CMC is) and coding a CPU opponent to play it are two completely different and vastly independant issues faced by computer game developers. As I have said elsewhere, I really do think that HTS have underestimated the challenge of coding a CPU opponent for CMC. No ammount of money (short of employing a specialist AI programmer with the right skills) will give them anymore than what they probably already have developed as far as a CPU opponent for CMC goes, which I think is not very much at all as programming AI for a game like CMC is a VERY steep hill to climb especially for rookie game developers with no previous AI design experience.

I am sure there are a significant number of people who would, faced with a) seeing the CMC project die off completely or be released WITHOUT any multiplayer capability but just with a truley woeful CPU opponent for single player and seeing CMC released as a multiplayer game only with all the bells and whistles, providing an EXCELLENT basis for playing meta campaigns, would happily prefer over a).

[K.A. Miles]

Hear, hear, Lt. Bull!

I'll take !

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

I'd take B as well. In fact, I was only interested in this because of B.

[Micheal Wittman]

As ACDC says, stand up and be counted> I'd take B and only would use B !

[Takinthebass]

Yes, for me is good enough the second option too, but I think is not a valid option. It's very dificult that anybody goes to publish a wargame just for multiplayer purposes. We are used to play multiplayer games (it's hard for me to imagine playing againts the IA after taste how twisted and unpredictable could be a human opponent)but they are lot of people who don't plays often (or never)against human opponents. Anyway, even all of us have played against IA when we are familiarizing with the game (i.e. right now with CM:SF) so I think a sort of IA is needed.

But this is not the point of this thread. The point is what it's needed to finish the work?. Or where the project is right now, and why is not going ahead (probably is not dead at all, beacuse regularly someone write at the CMC resctricted forum).

[Cid250]

Multiplayer without IA, will be good for me.

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by Takinthebass:

It's very dificult that anybody goes to publish a wargame just for multiplayer purposes.... Anyway, even all of us have played against IA when we are familiarizing with the game (i.e. right now with CM:SF) so I think a sort of IA is needed.

Any game which isn't a computer game is a multiplayer game only by definition. It seems only with the advent of computers, people have come to think the heart of gaming is now the contest between the human player and the CPU opponent, as if the CPU opponent is some kind of super "man against machine" challenge. When we play against a CPU opponent, we try to convince ourselves that the CPU opponent is thinking like a human player. Surely if that's what we are trying to do shouldn't we just play a human player?

Yes, releasing a multiplayer only computer game is not the norm, however there are an increasingly growing number of games that are. In fact one of the most (if not the most) popular PC games around is a multiplayer only game. I doubt it would be the game it is to people who play it if the game designers were tasked with the burden of having to code a CPU opponent for it just so people could play the game as single player. They would either still be coding the CPU opponent or would of had to dumb down and simplify the rich complex layers of game features to a level that would make it easier for them to code a CPU opponent.

I wonder how many game developers that feel compelled to design a game with a CPU opponent have there own "expectations" for how good a CPU opoonent they think they can design for their game? Do they think, "I have a great idea for a game but I will have to simplify it because it would be too hard to code a CPU opponent in this form"? Do they think, "If I can't code a sufficiently competent CPU opponent for my concept of game I will abandon this otherwise fun game project?"

It would be a pity if they do comprimise the game features to make the task of coding a CPU opponent easier but still end up delivering a crappy CPU oppoonent anyways. I am sure MANY games fall ino thtis category. I think a game like CMC would fall into this category. I think ther are many examples where a computer game has been released, where the CPU opponent just blows, but the games appeal was saved by it's facility to play multiplayer to a point where the multiplayer aspect of the game now has become the focus of the game. Had the game developer known this would end up being the case, it is interesting to ask just how differently the game could have been designed if the game WAS made just a multiplayer game.

And this is what I think is of concerned with what might be going on with CMC. HTS have probably got some great game concept ideas they want to included in CMC but when faced with the burden of coding a CPU opponent, they find themselves ommitted many of these great features for the sake of making it easier for them to code a CPU opponent, completely robbing multiplayer gamers of the opportunity to enjoy these great ideas. But, as they are not experts at CPU opponent design, they not only end up delivereing a dumbded down version of their original game concept, but one that has a crappy CPU oponent any ways. Single player gamers will whinge about both the crappy CPU opponent and the lack of game depth/complexity, while the multiplayer gamers who couldn't give a toss about no stupid CPU opponent will wonder if comprimising the game developement/design/complexity for the sake of coding a CPU opponent was a worthwhile exercise in the first place, as they can easily see how much better the game could have been if it had a bunch of other features if the game focus WAS primarily multiplayer.

Yes I too agree "some kind" of CPU opponent is good in a game so people can at least "familairise" themselves with the game, but I would be very disappointed if a game design/concept was comprimised in any way simply because the game would have otherwise been "too hard to code a CPU opponent for". This is what I mean by the "burden of coding a CPU opponent".

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

To me lack of professionalism is the keyword here.

Not even a post from BFC or the devs in what ? 3, 5 months ?

[kevinkins]

Look ... BFC and the "devs" owe the public nothing at this point related CMC. Concider yourself lucky to be able to rant and rave for free at this site. Go find a game and play it ... I used to rant and rave too but you are just wasting valuable time.

Kevin

[Sardaukar]

Well...if they want to sell, they better not be silent. It seems the project got nowhere to me.

CMC would be just what many CM players wished..campaign play for CM. If BFC thinks it's not worth it, it's their decision. But I'd rather have straight answer than just having "vaporware".

[Steiner14]

edit: double post

[ September 27, 2007, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Steiner14]

Damn, why must developers always overshoot, instead to break up into smaller, reachable targets?!

Instead to make an early release of CMC with no AI, but giving the Meta-campaign players what they need, they decided to code an AI for single-player, too with the result, that it will much too late, or maybe never see the light.

Reminds me about the 1:1 representation in CMx2 that is taking place on gridded 8mx8m action spots .

One step forward, three steps back.

[Lt Bull]

Steiner14,

My thoughts exactly, however although we can not of course be 100% sure of the true nature of troubles with the development, as I have explained why here and elsewhere, I do strongly believe that AI coding has been a real killer for them.

The problem is the actual "concept" of making a multiplayer "only" (or at least "centric") game is too radical an idea/notion for many game designers/devlopeers who are 1) too transfixed on delivering a single-player gaming experience and 2) just simply refuse to acknowledge that delivering a game targetted at the multiplayer market segment (small it might be now, but will only get bigger with time) might be a more profitable option as the lower cost of development and getting the game to the market might still make selling a lower volume of games (to the currently smaller MP market) economically viable.

Unfortunately, based on comments form BFC, they seem all too oblivious and dismissive of such concepts and I unfortunately doubt they would ever entertain such a thing with CMC. They are sticking to what I think is a terribly self limiting (potentially project ending) and short sighted philosophy of "If it hasn't got a CPU opponent it isn't a game/doesn't desrve to see the light of day!"

Go tell that to ASL players or any other boardgamers, or anyone who enjoys CM via PBEM, or all those people who have run/played in a CM meta campaign or anyone who has played any of the MP only FPS like or any of the MMOG (have you seen how pouplar (and great) some of those FREE web based/browser based MMOG are getting!!)

The winds of change are steadily becoming more than a breeze. Soon, the true benefits and creative potential of developing MP centric computer games will be realised.

[Philippe]

While I certainly would prefer a multi-player version to no version at all, I suspect that many developers feel that there simply aren't enough multi-player-only buyers out there to justify the investment in time and money. Multiplayer-only is a really small subset of an already small market segment. Economies of scale are working against it.