husky65
-
Posts
240 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by husky65
-
-
Originally posted by Delta:
You offer no proof to support this, just keep stating it to be true and "I think I read it on a fansite.
"Whatever."
The throwaway line of the answerless.
" If you dont believe me than thats fine. You can just keep on believing your truth, and I will keep on believing mine."
You cant just make assertions and then think that faith is the same as proof.
Exactly which other games have Valve been writing?
"Hmmmm... I dont know..... Team Fortress II.... CounterStrike: Condition Zero... do they ring ANY bells? "
Cant say they do, but since they do pretty much what Mods have done its quite likely that the mods have cut into the market for these games.
Are you on your side of this argument or mine?
"Apparently you do not follow the industry or only follow the wargame part of the industry."
No, I dont follow the fatuous end of the FPS market
" Therefore you can not know how many people bought Half Life just for the mods. "
But I didn't claim to know, YOU did, now if you will just provide some numbers ands a credible source to back them?
" I just asked people in 5 games of defeat games and the total amount of people were 86. Out of that 86 people, 14 said they bought Half Life just to play the mods."
Correct me if I'm wrong but you asked people who were playing a mod if they bought the game to play it?
Are you trying to actually define statistically skewed sampling?
However in that group you have 72 people (the vast majority) who dont support your thesis, but have extended the usable life of the game for themselves (thereby depriving Valve of a potential sale of a newer game).
" Now, that may be a lot comparitively, but I think you can get the drift of the mod community from that. What I mean is, the percentage in that survey is high, but it may be higher or lower in the mod community - but you get the general flow of things."
That is a low percentage in a statistically skewed group and the sensible interpretation of those figures does not support your contention.
Good, then you admit that you have been posting nonsense, my work here is done.
"Good, then you can read Moons post and see that Hubert allows modding, and that all you have to do is ask first. Then maybe we can stop this argueing and get back to being friends
"If you read what I have been trying hammer into your head for the last eleventy squillion posts, Moon pointed out EXACTLY the same thing as I have been saying - it is THEIR choice, not the customers.
Yes, I can see why Hubert would want to shoot himself in the foot that badly.
"That was just an example dude."
And a very bad one...
Why do you keep trying to move this into discussion about approved mods? is it because you've done so badly discussing IP theft?
"No, actually MODS IS THE ISSUE I AM ARGUEING ABOUT. NOT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS"
Mods are an IP rights issue, there are two types of mods - approved ones and illegal ones.
"(Well, I was argueing about that before, but I read up on some laws like you suggested, and I was proved wrong in that aspect. At least I am man enough to admit when I am wrong.)"
Thank you.
RE: Figures and Market research
"I have personal experience with people I know online and offline that have said they bought Half Life because they wanted to play the mods. Some said the mods were just icing on the cake, but some said the mods were the cake, and that the single player game was icing."
As noted above your personal experience constitutes wildly skewed statistical sampling, your interpretation of the results was badly biased and returned an absurd 'result'.
Then you need to work on your reading comprehension.
"Uh, not really. The only thing I am argueing about is modding. That is what I am talking about here. Obviously this thread was originally about hacking and hags, but, in my mind, it turned into a thread about modding. Thats why I said its an offshoot issue."
OK, one last time and I'll type slowly - Modding without permission is illegal, from an IP rights perspective modding and hacking are the same.
"Yeah, but modding is going to be done either way. You MUST realize that! Just because its illigal doesnt mean its going to stop. Outlaw ice cream and people will still get it one way or another. "Son of XPAV!!!!! why does it always come back to 'people steal lots of things so its OK to steal'?
People steal cars, that does not mean that we should not prosecute car thieves at every opportunity.
" Now lets stop this silly argueing once and for all
"OK
-
It works fine in XP, I've played it pretty heavily and never had a problem.Originally posted by J Wagner:Hubert...Thanks.... I sent you a debug file that was created in the SC folder after the last runtime error crash...Hope it helps you in finding a solution....forgot to mention that I'm running Windows XP HE....Thanks
However, have you tried running it in compatibility mode?
-
There is no evidence at all to support this.Originally posted by mmtt:Just an addendum, in fact, Roosevelt was aware of the upcoming Japanese strike. He decided to let the carriers flee(the big targets went away) and leave the old WWI battleships at bay. The Japs went in the trap. They awake the big USA warmachine and didn't destroy the main Pacific Fleet. The rest is a job of years...
Its also worth noting that the USA did not have to allow a strike to be successful to get into the war, even if the strike had been massacred, the USA was still at war.
The whole rationale of the 'Roosevelt knew' argument is false - if he knew he could have had a serious CAP in place and all guns manned and ready, done serious damage to the Jap strike and still have been able to claim a dastardly sneak attack.
At the time the USN considered battleships to be the primary weapons of the fleet, if they were going to protect their big targets and leave some sacrificial ones, they'd have flown off the a/c to Hawaii and let the carriers get bombed, whilst preserving the BBs.
-
Its pretty simple, Hags has made available a game that is about 75-80% as good as the full version (estimate) for free by hacking the demo.Originally posted by waltero:Looks to me like everybody loves your game, even the hackers, Now you just declared war on them.
Now it is a matter of who can out compute who?
I am sure plnty of people will love your game and buy It.
A number of people are going to be satisfied with that rather than buy the game.
Now do you see why people are peeved? it has real world financial consequences.
-
Originally posted by Delta:
"Yes it did, it got people to buy the game. How many people bought Half Life because of Day of Defeat, TFC, or Counter Strike? WHO KNOWS! But it obviously attracted sales, because when CS got really popular, sales for Half Life went up (I forgot where I read that, I think it was Planet HalfLife, several months back)."
You offer no proof to support this, just keep stating it to be true and "I think I read it on a fansite".
"Whatever. They didnt write the mods, they didnt and couldnt because their resources were tied up in other games. So were Sierras."
Exactly which other games have Valve been writing?
Re IP Law
"Yes, I know that. It is their right."
Good, then you admit that you have been posting nonsense, my work here is done.
"The thing is, it really doesnt matter if its on the scale or not. People can do it, sure most people will follow the guidelines and rules regardless, but some people will do a mod anyway. Besides, whos to say that someone wont make a huge mod/total conversion and make a bigger map with more hexes? Hmmm? If Hubert allows it, than it could be on the scale."
Yes, I can see why Hubert would want to shoot himself in the foot that badly.
Why do you keep trying to move this into discussion about approved mods? is it because you've done so badly discussing IP theft?
"How can you have figures about what people bought the game because? Its not like surveys done by 1000 people are very accurate."Its called market research, there is an entire industry that does this, you have just admitted that you have absolutely no evidence for your assertion that people buy games to play mods.
" I thought the issue here was modding."
Then you need to work on your reading comprehension.
"And BTW, your argueing a moot point, because Moon just said that you can do mods, all you have to do is ask first."
Exactly what I have said a number of times, modding without permission is illegal.
" You can continue argueing with a rock, however, if you like. Seems like in some of your posts you spoke as though I had the intelligence of a rock."
Perceptive indeed.
-
Originally posted by Delta:
[QB]
"No they dont, they add to the fun, and it makes the mod long lasting."But not neccessarily make the game company long lasting (the whole point of writing a game), rather than sell a game later that does what the mod does the company has lost that sale already - the fact that people may be playing the same copy of half-life 3 years after buying it (because of mods) returns not one extra brass razoo to Valve (who wrote it).
" Many mods in other communities attract sales! What about Team Fortress? Day of Defeat? Counterstrike?"
Really? what about them?, they are all played on the one game (not sure about day of defeat) - valve did not get an extra sale out of it, had they written new games that did what those mods do they would have quite a larger income stream.
However, Valve CHOSE to authorise modding, it is THEIR right and nobody elses to choose to do that - don't argue the point with me, its the law - look it up.
" Tac Ops? See where Im going with this?"
Yes, nowhere.
You don't seem to understand IP law, I would suggest that you do some reading - it is up to the owner to choose if their product can be modded and to what extent it can be modded, they can choose to do this on a case by case basis or give guidelines, or simply say no.
" Many mods will just make the game fun, and add a bit more depth that the developers didnt have time to put in (like airborne units)"
It doesn't matter what they do, read up on the law.
BTW at this scale airborne units are not feasible - nobody had the airlift to move that many troops in one or two lifts and whilst some turns (Winter) last as long as a month, nobody had the airlift to supply a badly understrength unit of this size behind enemy lines, let alone do so AND reinforce it up to full strength.
" but some ACTUALLY GET MORE PEOPLE TO BUY THE GAME!!!"
Some actual figures to support this might be nice?
Either way it has no effect on the law and isn't the case at issue here, at issue is one idiot who has probably deprived battlefront and hubert of well deserved sales - he has given an unknown number of people an ability to play the beta demo to 1946 or so, some of those people will no doubt settle for 80% of the game for free rather than pay full price for all of it.
" And even if that werent true (but it is), would it really matter if all it did was add more fun and depth to already paying customers? "
Yes it would, its a crime and it violates the IP rights of the owner and once again the point you are arguing has nothing to do with what actually happened.
-
Not trying to defend (as that implies that I am wrong, I'm not), I'm simply explaining the law.Originally posted by Delta:Husky I used to have respect for you but now your just trying to defend your previous statements. It isnt being a thief if you buy the game, and then mod it.
It is being a thief if you mod it unless the mods are allowed by the maker, you buy a licence to run the program - you don't buy a licence to change it to your liking.
Potentially such mods deprive the makers of further sales opportunities, it is up to the maker to allow or disallow such mods.
-
Originally posted by XPav:
[QB]
"So lets break this down and figure out exactly when I break the law. Do I get any fair use? Am I allowed to hack Battlefront's software in the comfort of my own home, or do I get in trouble only when I distribute something?"Ever hear of "Fair Use?"
Yes, but it doesn't apply - you admit uploading it for distribution and you don't have the right to interfere with someone elses IP anywhere.
You also don't have the right to fiddle with the code, hence the term 'fair use' rather than 'open slather'.
Try not to use legal terms if you don't undertstand them.
However if you want some detailed instruction in the way 'fair use' works why not hack MS Office, widely distribute the hack and then inform MS of it claiming 'fair use' or are you all mouth and not prepared to take on a company that is big enough to protect its rights vigorously?
"Did you miss the part when I said that I bought Rainbow Six, bought Combat Mission, and didn't download Hag's hack for Strategic Command?"No, I noted the bit where you said you hacked the demo and used it beyond the terms of the demo and then uploaded it for distribution - you know, the theft.
"I think you did, but you're having too much fun sticking people up on poles because they disagree with you and Battlefront on this"
Disagree with me, Battlefront and the law on this, try to be accurate if you can't be educated.
", so you chose to make things up. "
Oh, I apologise then - I take it you didn't actually hack the demo and then put the hack up for distribution - buying the game does not justify the earlier IP infringement and obeying the law later does not erase the earlier infringement.
If I steal your car and then buy your replacement car from you later I am not obeying the law.
"The remarkable thing about this discussion is that I'm usually biased towards the publishers and developers when it comes to user rights."
Except when you infringe others IP, then you are stealing - uploading the hack just compounds the problem and helps reduce sales.
" People should buy the games that they play, no ifs ands or buts."
Then why do you infringe IP rights?
"What's different about this situation? Its the idea of Battlefront (with the parroting of the people on this forum) that users and fans should in NO WAY ATTEMPT TO TAKE MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS. "
Delete "TAKE MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS" insert, "steal someone elses property".
Battlefront have supported a number of Mods, this is not a 'mod', this is a straightforward theft that deprives Battlefront of future sales.
"You guys are just the strangest, company-line following fans I've ever seen! Its amazing how everyone gets this new "IP Rights" phrase into their lexicon, too."
Perhaps if you had read something other than comics in the last decade or so you'd have heard of IP rights before?
But, yes it is amazing how some people have this strange idea that stealing someone elses property - intellectual or otherwise (let alone helping others to do it) is wrong.
"SO -- ANOTHER RECAP:"
Delete 'RECAP' insert 'self justifying rant by a self admitted thief in support of another thief'
-
Originally posted by XPav:
"I screw around with other people's software all the time. If you look around a bit, you'll see that many, many games have various unofficial hacks done by fans.
Examples:
Freespace 2:
Civilization 3:
etc"
So now the developmentally arrested XPav has moved from the 'its easy to steal so its OK to steal it' onto the 'lots of people steal stuff so its my right to steal too' justification.
As noted before, I expect that you will apply those ethics when your Car or VCR get lifted, simply shrug and say 'lots of stuff gets stolen, so its OK that my stuff got taken' and not call the police and waste their valuable time.
Or will you scream like a stuck pig and rant about those bastard thieves?
Guess which one I'm betting on?
"Moon, I think you missed my entire point. I am *NOT* condoning piracy, but the stance that "ALL FILE EDITING IS THE WORK OF EVIL PIRATES" is way off-base and completely unique to Battlefront. "
You are trying to generalise away from the specific instance, this little prat was happily distributing his 'hack' as a way of punishing Battlefront for not telling him an exact release date, he knew that his hack removed a specific protection of the demo, the consequences were clear.
"Once again, do I deserve to be sued by Red Storm for deleting 4 lines from a text file and removing a time limit on the demo mission on Rainbow Six? "
Yes you do, you interfered with someone elses IP rights.
Given that you are also a thief (by your own admission above), it is not hard to see why you agree with the other thieves is it?
"Lets say that I purchase Strategic Command, and hack the EXE to say, add in the Netherlands as a playable country. (Yes, that's a bit of a silly example, since it wouldn't change much.)"
That depends on if you have permission to do it or not.
"Overall, I think you guys at Battlefront have got to loosen up a bit when it comes to users playing with your toys."
Of course you do, you are a self admitted thief!
Your opinion on this is as valid as the collective opinions of the population of long bay jail on the socially damaging effects of door locks.
"Yes, Hags was stupid for crowing about his time-limit hack on this forum, but you folks made a mistake when you didn't catch that in the first place, and then you overreacted"
Once again, when your stuff gets stolen I really doubt that you will take this line.
-
My question is did they run riot at night historically? Even today with significantly improved technology night actions tend to be rare and small in scale. I don't think it fits the scope of this game either, and certainly not with the effects suggested.Originally posted by David Brown: -
Self justifying drivel snipped, 'Mrs Fletcher has not taken one too many tiles' - Mrs Fletcher stole the board and then started telling other people how to steal boards too, Mrs Fletcher then came into the clubhouse and started crowing about having stolen the board, and blaming the club secretary and treasurer for the theft, suggesting that if they had set the games up sooner she would never have needed to steal.Originally posted by XPav:"The Community" is stupid for treating this guy like the reincarnation of Benedict Arnold. Its like the scrabble club ordering a hit on poor Mrs Fletcher because she took one too many tiles from the box.
I can only assume that you have the moral development of a 10 year old if you think what he has done is justifiable.
-
Nope, Germany was still done for, even if Germany had got Russian factories into production quickly it would not have mattered, they would have faced too many possible attacks from too many directions and Russian production had topped out, US production could have increased a lot more.Originally posted by Straha:Some more bungling on the side of the Soviets, and some less on the side of the Germans could have toppled the balance in 41 and even still in 42. The longer we wait, the less this plays a role, so the logistics factor gets ever more dominant later on. In 43, everything is pretty much decided already (even if Kursk would have gone the other way, the Axis would not have won).
Edit: the war was won/lost in Russia. That is I assume that if the USSR would have surrendered somewhere in 41/42, then the US/UK would not have tried to stage an invasion and there would have been a de facto truce.
Look at axis plus Russian Oil production V allied production as well.
Consider German factories (inc those in a captured Russia) being bombed from England, Africa, India and Japan/China - using B17s, B24s and B29s plus Lancasters and later Lincolns.
Throw in a steady stream of atomic bombs and the Germans will not fare well.
-
When it releases I'm ordering it (if I could pre order it, I would have).
I can't give advice on how to mitigate the damage that Hags idiot has done, I'm not a programmer.
However I would consider a damages claim against him, if not that at least an e-mail to his ISP requesting that they withdraw his service given that on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical he was offering to e-mail instructions on how to hack the demo to anyone who asked.
Clearly illegal and almost certainly in violation of his terms of service with his ISP, with a bit of luck he might get some idea of what hes done if they yank his access.
I would ignore the little turds apology (except to use it as an admission of guilt in a damages action), given that he has written a self righteous 'semi-apology' on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical I think we can see that he is not actually sorry for what he has done.
For the rest of us, why not drop in on the newsgroup and make your opinions of Hags known in response to his 'apology'.
[ July 05, 2002, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: husky65 ]
-
The problem is that you are comparing Gun, Armour etc (as do most people), this fails to factor in the optics, the radios, the commanders cupola, the massive efficiency gain of a 3 man turret over a two man turret (in a 2 man turret usually the tank commander loads the guns, this means that he has little idea as to what is happening outside the tank in battle).Originally posted by mclong:i think we are discussing different terms....
if you compare the tanks in an 1 on 1 combat, the german tanks (especially in the early days of war) are worst than the russian or allied tanks....
but....
the leadership and the organisation of the germans made the german tanks nearly unbeatable...
With a good cupola, good optics and a specialist loader to let the tank commander get on with commanding the tank, the actual efficiency gains are huge, this was an actual hardware issue not a doctrine/training issue.
IIRC it was the KV-1 that was so poorly designed that it had a 3 man turret, but the 3rd man handled a rear turret mg and so the tank was as inefficient as if it had only had a 2 man turret (internal arrangements prevented the crew from ignoring the mg and letting the comd just do his job).
-
The problem is that you are comparing Gun, Armour etc (as do most people), this fails to factor in the optics, the radios, the commanders cupola, the massive efficiency gain of a 3 man turret over a two man turret (in a 2 man turret usually the tank commander loads the guns, this means that he has little idea as to what is happening outside the tank in battle).Originally posted by mclong:i think we are discussing different terms....
if you compare the tanks in an 1 on 1 combat, the german tanks (especially in the early days of war) are worst than the russian or allied tanks....
but....
the leadership and the organisation of the germans made the german tanks nearly unbeatable...
With a good cupola, good optics and a specialist loader to let the tank commander get on with commanding the tank, the actual efficiency gains are huge, this was an actual hardware issue not a doctrine/training issue.
IIRC it was the KV-1 that was so poorly designed that it had a 3 man turret, but the 3rd man handled a rear turret mg and so the tank was as inefficient as if it had only had a 2 man turret (internal arrangements prevented the crew from ignoring the mg and letting the comd just do his job).
-
The Germans had AFV night vision towards the end of the war, at this scale it would make your units rather more effective (perhaps 10% - 20% more effective) because they could run riot on dark nights.Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:All of those make sense but the night vision enhancement, thatjust doesnt fit into a game like this
-
Two main ones,Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:Heres some books you all should check out at your local library or go out and buy before the big day:
Albert Speer 'inside the third riech' (the first half is all about architecture, but the second half will show why the Germans would have lost even if they had the logistics).
John Ellis 'Brute Force' Will tell you all about the logistics involved and why the axis was never going to win.
-
If you read some of the reports of the early T-34s in combat, you will see that they are refered to in such terms as 'blundering about the battlefield, with no idea as to what was happening around them'.Originally posted by mclong:when i asked veterans, they allways told me, that the tank-crews were more than happy, when they could drive a captured t34 for example...
The 2 man turret and lack of cupola turned an excellent basic design into a fairly incapable combat vehicle, the lack of radios just made it worse.
-
If you read some of the reports of the early T-34s in combat, you will see that they are refered to in such terms as 'blundering about the battlefield, with no idea as to what was happening around them'.Originally posted by mclong:when i asked veterans, they allways told me, that the tank-crews were more than happy, when they could drive a captured t34 for example...
The 2 man turret and lack of cupola turned an excellent basic design into a fairly incapable combat vehicle, the lack of radios just made it worse.
-
Originally posted by mclong:
@commi 18
"the german tanks , especially in the early days of war, were even worst than the tanks of other armies!!"
This is not strictly true, it is believed because people tend to compare armour/gun/speed as if they are the only factors.
German tanks had radios, much better cupolas, internal intercoms and far better layouts for the crew (including 3 man turrets).
This means that the tanks were far better than the usual specs would indicate.
-
Originally posted by mclong:
@commi 18
"the german tanks , especially in the early days of war, were even worst than the tanks of other armies!!"
This is not strictly true, it is believed because people tend to compare armour/gun/speed as if they are the only factors.
German tanks had radios, much better cupolas, internal intercoms and far better layouts for the crew (including 3 man turrets).
This means that the tanks were far better than the usual specs would indicate.
-
Yes, you are playing the demo, early war strat bombing IRL was ineffectual, wait till the tech ratchets up later.Originally posted by Russ Bensing:Am I missing something?
RB
The other thing to remember is that if enough damage is done to your ports, you can't embark units for operation sea lion (the proposed invasion of England).
-
Originally posted by Tellu:
You are using 'fog of war' aren't you? -
Originally posted by Hubert Cater:
"I think the problem for the most part has been that as you've said, you have played the demo a bazillion times and have found many of the exploitable weaknesses that could be found"
I agree and the answer is to release an updated demo, followed by the full game.
(its worth a shot).
"
Gamey Strategies
in Strategic Command 1
Posted