Rocky Balboa
-
Posts
783 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rocky Balboa
-
-
As I think has been mentioned before, to my understanding anyway, scenarios and campaigns, even going back to the CMx1 days, that were created after the release of the main game were always free and available to the community on several different websites.
Sometimes the only requirement to obtain really good quality human designed battles and campaigns was to join a ladder club or a wargaming website.
Players designed and made available to the community, hundreds of battles free of charge. I don't see that trend changing much, unless the desire to design and produce CMx2 battles and campaigns dries up.
Nothing has or will changed in this respect. Those designers that have the time to make free content will continue to do so. BF selling content would not prevent or hamper that effort any more than it does today when they release scenarios / campaigns with a module or base game.
-
Question, for those who be would be willing to pay for well done scenario/Campaign pack, how many scenarios/campaigns would you want to see in such a pack and how much would you be willing to pay for it?
Why Rocky, I'm glad you posed such a thought provoking question, I'll start off by saying ....
I would pay $15 to $20 for a well done scenario/campaign pack that had roughly the same amount of content as a module does. That would be 15 - 20 well made scenarios and 1-2 campaigns. Throw in some additional quick battle maps and $20.00 is a no brainer.
That's less that $1 per piece of content and who could quibble with that?
-
Not necessarily, no response could mean they are evaluating the idea and not ready to respond yet. If they were flat out opposed to the notion then I can assure you Steve has no problem saying so. Bottom line, BF is a business and if there is money to be made then they might do it.
Question, for those who be would be willing to pay for well done scenario/Campaign pack, how many scenarios/campaigns would you want to see in such a pack and how much would you be willing to pay for it?
-
One of the things I noticed in Ian's pics, and this has always been something that really bothers me, is the way the targeting tool always originates from the units position.
If I want to see if a unit can target something from a way-point then the target line should originate from the way-point, not the position of the unit.
The way targeting works now is just very confusing ...
-
I'm not sure what you mean here. CMBN came with four campaigns (two of them basically training), and The Commonwealth Module added a couple more. But I have a dozen extra campaigns in my game folder, all of them available at the Repository.
Aside from the camps created by FMB, I think I have "The outlaws" as well, I don't know of many others.
Please list the campaigns your talking about ... maybe I missed them or the repository is just not very easy to find stuff like that.
-
The OP isn't saying that he wants something for free. He is merely saying that he is willing to pay for someone to make some good campaign content. Not everyone has the time or the talent to create good content. Campaigns in particular require more time and effort to make them enjoyable.
The EULA prohibits anyone from selling the content that they create with the BF tools. If BF would license some of the better scenario/Campaign designers and be willing to produce their completed content, I think players would defiantly buy a scenario/campaign pack if it were priced right.
Of course the biggest issue with doing something like this would be copyrighting and preventing thieves from stealing content that they didn't pay for ...
-
If i can not or do not understand something, the only reasonable action would IMO be not to just accept it but to question why i cant or dont understand it. Just accepting things as given without questioning them is IMO the worst thing one can do.
Questioning is good and appropriate but questioning doesn’t always result in understanding and in the absence of understanding what do you have left?
We discount faith as being a frivolous exercise yet we all engage in it to some degree. Truth is not relative, it is absolute but it is our own ability or inability to understand the truth that’s relative.
There is no such thing as "complete evidence" outside of mathematics. And logic plus $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks (the logic being superfluous, as usual).Minds assess, reach conclusions, and act. The conclusions are not certain they are conclusions. Certainty happens in math and nowhere else in the universe. Not acting is not superior to acting on the best assessment you can make; the goal is not to avoid error, but to act intelligently. And not acting is not intelligent - rocks can do it.
Unless one assumes to understand completely the physical properties of the universe then even “math” is at some point is devoid of complete evidence. There is nothing wrong with acting based on conclusion/faith, indeed we have no other choice but to do so however, to assume an action is intelligent is open to interpretation.
-
With some screenshots, I hope?
Are you sure? The good, the bad and the ugly ... Think about it ...
-
There is no lobby and its fine to post here looking for a game although that may change at some point. Also there are several gaming clubs around where you can find opponents. Just do a search, as they are not hard to find.
-
"the common practice of being selective in which part of an ancient text you follow"
Um, sorry, but that is the only rational way to use any printed object imaginable.
The mind is a machine for coming to conclusions, not a 4 inch sewer pipe.
I personally don’t agree with JK's views on things but we all have our deities that we choose to honor. Even “science” or pseudo science will make what it believes to be reasonable conclusion or theory without complete evidence. Faith means accepting things you do not or can not understand even when logic tells you otherwise.
Yes, you are right. It's just that I am biased against texts which contradict themselves.Excellent point though, we all filter information all the time.
No I am not a scientist. My attempt at 'dry' humour.
Good thread though. I should not have been callous towards his physical well being, however much I disagree with his opinions. I regret my ad hominem remark.
Ignorance can create a seeming contradiction and if we are selective or filter what we choose to believe then contradiction becomes subjective. What one sees as a seeming contradiction another can view as truth.
-
I’m really not sure why the big discussion on this. If the game tracks the flight of each round as we have been told and we know that live prone soldiers can be hit then it makes sense that prone dead soldiers could also be hit. The only question that remains to be answered is if rounds will pass through human bodies, it should make no difference if the bodies are live or dead.
-
I get pretty good performance with my setup once everything gets loaded up when running CMBN 2.01.
Win 7 64-bit / Intel Q6600 4GB Mem / Nvidia 9800GT 1GB mem; Set to highest setting with shaders and shadows on
-
Would be interesting to know where the thrower was. A throw like that would be difficult to get it up and over the wall so that it lands close enough on the other side to KO the squad.
The closer the thrower is to the wall the easier it would be and the farther away he is the more likely it is that the grenade would sail over the wall and the heads of doggies. I would think the proper placement of that grenade would require more of an underhand lob rather than an overhand throw.
Of course timing the proper amount of cook off could have the grenade detonate over the heads of the poor sods as well. Is cook off even modeled? ... wait don't answer that ...
-
Theoretically the code should work the same. If bullet deflection or pass through is modeled on live soldiers I would expect the same treatment with dead bodies as well. All other factors being equal, a prone dead body = prone live body.
Even when abstracted, if 4 prone dead bodies and 1 prone live body exists in an AS receiving area fire then there should be a chance that some rounds would strike the prone dead bodies.
-
See this is what happens when BF doesn't give us new toys to play with, we start making our own.
-
Ok fine, you can still direct your attention to that list you quoted.
You would be hard pressed to find anyone on that list that guarantees in writing that you can download their software free forever.
My final word ... The $5 charge is simply a way for BF to cover the cost of bandwidth. If you buy a CD you have to pay for shipping, If you download software someone has to pay for the bandwidth to deliver it, there are costs associated with everything in business.
-
So you want me to list digital distributors who dont charge additional fees, but I can't list any digital distributors? Uh, whatever. Here's a list of a bunch of small companies who distribute their games digitally, and who let you download for free, forever just off the top of my head:
Indie Royale
GreenHouse (lets you download executables without even buying the game)
Cryptic Comet
Bay12Games (operated solely through donations, still provides unlimited free downloads)
Spiderweb software
Enormous Elk
I remember when taleworlds was still tiny and making mount and blade, that had unliimted free downloads. You guys will probably say their too big to be comparable now, but back then they werent.
Runic Games
Fractal Softworks
Goldhawk Interactive
No I asked you to list a publisher that guarantees in writing that you can download free forever .... BF is not a digital distribution service they contract with 3rd party's to digitally distribute their products for a certain period of time ...
-
For like the tenth time, the opposite of this is true. This policy is unprecedented. No other digital distributor charges a fee to access the game after a certain period has passed.It's not as unreasonable as you're trying to make it seem, considering that much smaller developers do exactly that.
Please name a publisher that puts this kind of guarantee in writing and don't say steam or any other digital distribution service because they are a totally different animal.
-
I agree, which is why I find the decision to alienate customers with this policy in an effort to make 5 bucks pretty confusing. Personally I have dissuaded 6 people from ever buying any battlefront products again, and apologized for recommending this game to them in the first place. That is probably 100s of dollars lost in exchange for a chance to make a quick 5 bucks.
let me see if I understand this ... and I'm really trying here ....
A. If BF charges $5 to download the game after 365 days you are unhappy.
B. If BF makes you pay full price for the game after 365 days you are unhappy.
C. The only way you are happy is if BF lets you download as many times as you want from date of purchase until when exactly? Infinity? Forever? .... How long should BF reasonably allow you to download the game for free after purchase?
-
Saying "the download link expires" does not imply that "you will no longer be allowed to download the installer without paying an additional fee". They are very different things first of all, as I have illustrated many times in this thread. Second of all, there is no reason you would jump to that conclusion since that type of policy is unprecedented amongst digital distribution services.
I wish you guys would stop complaining about this and just pay the $5. I'm afraid BF might start taking seriously what they posted in the TOS and just say tough luck. Sorry your backup failed, pay full price for another copy.
As others have mentioned, that's what would happen with any other Dev/publisher ....
-
Adding only new units and terrain of the game does not go ahead. In the next module should be some new features (I dream of fire in buildings or land), it will be an additional motive for buying the game. Because only new units and maps will soon get bored of it.
Ok so if we all took this attitude then we would have to wait until the end of this year when CMx2 v3.0 is released before we would have any new content at all.
With the modules you get new stuff to play with while you wait and I much prefer it that way. If you want to wait to the end of the year and buy it all at the same time then that's you choice.
What BF has done is make this a very flexible system that keeps new content flowing and most customers happy while they have time to develop more. I think its brilliant ... :cool:
-
If you find new TO&E, Units, Terrain, and more Scenario/Campaigns boring then you don't have to buy the modules right now. If new game features excite you then wait until BF releases a new version upgrade and you can buy in at that time. Version 3.0 should be out by the end of the year.
The great thing about the version upgrades is that they are backward compatible so when 3.0 comes out you will be able to purchase and apply that upgrade to all your previous purchases for a very modest sum.
-
I was looking at this from the point of view of RL rather than a game.
In a current game my oppo and I are, in the last minutes, fielding a small number of broken units and crew, trying to take VLs. Most, if not all are not in C&C and I think a stuation like that is somewhat unrealistic as they would simply not be able to co-ordinate with each other.
I would like to see broken units and crew, who are not in C&C, taken out of player control in the same fashion as panicked troops, making the above scenario impossible.
While we all want a good 'game', there does come a point when you realise that what is being enacted would simply not be possible.
Panicked troops can recover to broken state ... but allowing broken troops to not move when not in C2 would be a good option for the higher difficulty settings.
I would also like to see the scenario designer be given the ability to set a casualty threshold for each side (example: 60% casualties) which when played at the higher difficulty settings would automatically issue a cease fire. To eliminate any surprises, because its hard to gauge what your casualty percentage is especially with a med to large size force, it would be necessary to have a visual cue in the UI to tell the player when they are nearing or at the threshold.
This feature would shorten games and keep players from continuing beyond what would normally be considered realistic...
-
Never thought to check this out and I don't recall ever trying this but, what happens if you combine a broken/shaken team with a team that is still good condition?
Battlefront Campaign pack
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
To make it worth the designers and the publishers(BF) time it would need to be profitable for both parties. Lets assume a scenario/campaign pack was sold for $20.00 with 50% of proceeds going to the designers(s). I'm just throwing out numbers here because my numbers may have no basis in reality or what is economically feasible for either party.
However, if 1000 copies were sold, would that be enough to compensate the designer(s) for their time?
I personally would pay $20 for good quality content and of course if that content wasn't what I determined to be good quality then I might not buy the next pack.