Tarquelne
-
Posts
1,045 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tarquelne
-
-
I think the best argument against making such adjustments is: It's a big can of worms that BFC doesn't want to open. Even if you can get a solid majority of the players (75%?) saying the StuGIII needs to be adjust upwards.... how high? And, of course, the players still might be wrong. And then on to the next unit....I still hold to my opinion, that points cost should be changed according to player input. It was badly needed for CMBO and badly needed here.It'd certainly give the Forum a lot of material to discuss.
On the uberness of StuGs: What sort of maps (including weather and light) have you been seeing them on? In what sort of engagements. As others have mentioned before, the usefullness of a StuG vrs. a T-34 will vary quite a bit with the circumstances. (One major circumstance being the overall Rarity of StuG vrs. T-34... I don't have access to a copy of CMBB at the moment... how's the Rarity of the "uber" StuGs and the 76 T-34s compare over the war?) If you consistently play in environments friendly to the unit you'll consistently see the unit as being worth more than it's cost - just like many other units. Yeah, it'd be nice if all the unit costs in a QB dynamically adjusted themselves based on terrain, date, weather, and what your opponent is purchacing. Short of that, it's without doubt always infinitely easier (pushing my own buttons, Dr. A.) to have players negotiate these matters. Low tech, but resource friendly!
That being said, I think a more fruitfull line of approach - if you want to see some cost changes - would be to inquire about the formula used to calculate the points. Do vehicle costs have, for example, some sort of "sliding scale" adjustment taking into account the Rarity of weapons that can penetrate the vehicle's armor from various angles of attack? Or is there some other mechanism in place that accomplishes the same thing.
Hmm... I guess the key thing would be demonstrating just _why_ the StuG needs the adjustment, and how that adjustment could be applied to all other units in the game, in a fair and balanced manner. Improve BFCs formula rather than circumvent it.
[ October 22, 2002, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
Heh, I am not surprised that this comment came from you. My guess is that both you and I are having our buttons pushed at the moment.Originally posted by DrAlimantado:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tarqulene:
"Scientific modeling" I don't understand, though. How's it apply to the point system?
M</font>
-
Steve's said it's "IMPOSSIBLE" to create and apply a system that factors in all the different combinations of factors that make up a unit's combat value.That leaves us with our fair, unbiased, and scientific modeling that accounts for every single unit in the game no matter which of the millions of possible choices pops up.That's just not true. Give me a few hundred million dollars and 5 years and I _gaurantee_ I can make a system that, if not perfect, is better than CMBB's current system. Even if it doesn't make a difference in 90% of the QBs.
Go ahead, try me. I'm willing to put your money where my mouth is.
The point system? Fair - I see that. Unbiased - for players and nationalities, sure. Though I've always been curious about exactly how the point values are arrived at.fair, unbiased, and scientific modeling"Scientific modeling" I don't understand, though. How's it apply to the point system?
[ October 21, 2002, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
Kazaa PtP isn't exactly a paragon of user convience, but I like it better than Yahoo Groups (or bin. USENET), and I think it'd be easier than a host of small h or f-tp hosts.
For me, at least.
In a few weeks, and unless a better solution comes along first, I'll make all mods I can get ahold of avialble via Kazaa ~24/7. I'll post here then, and send the info to a CM website or two.
-
Wow. While I had some good things to say of the Staticplay review, I thought this one just sucked.
Will I give a well reasononed critique? No, I just want to say "It sucked."
Edited in: I turned to my wife to tell her about the review. She said she didn't want to hear more when I started making shaking/strangling gestures toward the monitor and saying (heatedly) "You idiot!"
There.... Doesn't exactly show me in the best light, but I wanted to call the reviewer an idiot, too.
[ October 19, 2002, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
Such things would be in addition to websites - the newsgroups/kazaa just supply the bandwidth.Originally posted by Panzer Leader:[QB]The problem with the newsgroups/kazaa type things is that it does not have the community feel that this game engenders.
-
If you want distributed hosting there's always Kazaa or another peer-to-peer network. The software I use (Kazaa-lite: spyware-free) is good about resuming downloads, so lage files/slow-ish connections shouldn't be a problem. A website could list the files turned loose on the network.
Grogs aren't normally the sort I'd expect to find haning around Kazaa-land... ('cause they'd demand that all the mp3s be faultless VBR 128-320 files, and argue about the quality settings and the codecs used) but after the that "Night of the Refresh Monkies" stuff I guess the bandwidth and demand can be quite high.
I have a computer that's on all the time, lots of hard drive space (this is something for those *&^%^ing IBM "Deathstar" drives to do) and a cable-modem connection, in a week or few I, at least, could host a Kazaa-based mod. "site."
-
So - those "foot elements", in real life, _wouldn't_ be able to fit in the vehicles they come with in CMBB?Originally posted by MrSpkr:[QB]No, the historical realism is that many of the German troops, particularly in the early war (as well as the mid and late war) either walked or rode horses.
-
That's all on the feature list for the engine rewrite.the AI... It doesn't drop out of games or sulk when it's losing, gloat when it's winning, argue over whether your tactics are gamey, stop playing for two weeks while it goes on vacation...It'll also occasionally suggest QB purchace rules with-intent-to-deceive and try to intimidate you by pointing out that it has a better record than you do in an online tournament.
[ October 18, 2002, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
How do you know the person was a twat? Maybe he was an idiot, or perhaps a dweeb?Originally posted by CaptPigglesbeThe3rd:[QB]I was in a shop and overheard some twat
saying that he didn't think it was any
good because it didn't have any good
"Cut scene's" like "Command&Conquer".
He was looking at some board games.
I suggested "Tiddl'ywinks" and "Ludo".
The Sims, Ars Magica, a slot machine, football, football, and CM are all considered "games"... the significant common factor is entertainment. For some people cut scenes are, apparenetly, an essential part of that entertainment. C&C is a game from which many people derive a great deal of enjoyment.
We should show some more respect for alternate forms of entertainment here. Given that, I suggest we focus our efforts on ridiculing the people who play other, lesser games, trade impressions of stupid sounds they make ("No no, they go "Buh duh buh!"), and speculate about the origins of their myriad moral, psychological, and physical defects.
Wouldn't that be more constructive?
-
OfT, but I'd like to mention something used in my LAN group: Bidding on the number of QB turns.
Kinda like, what's that gameshow, "Name that tune."?
Player 1: "I can win a 2500 pt. Moderate Trees, Hilly 1942 QB as Soviet attacker in.... 35 turns."
Player 2: "I can win in 25 turns."
P1: "I can win in 20 turns, in '43."
P2: "You're on!"
...type o'fing.
The same can be said of scenarios, though. Give the attacker more time and it balances towards his favor (up to a point).</font>Originally posted by CMplayer:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John O'Reilly:
Sorry CMPlayer,
I should have been more specific. I am thinking of scenarios such as "Directive Number 3" and "Cemetary Hill",
-
Just for future reference: Whenever this topic, or mortars, comes up, add a mental "Me too." or "I agree." from Tarquelne after each of redwolf's posts, OK? Thanks, it'll save me some effort.Originally posted by redwolf:Same issue with the 80mm Pz IV in CMBO (and now in CMBB). The turret is smaller than usual (in comparision to the hull) and the game should increase the chance to hit the hull (or lower the hit change when hulldown).
-
I think the review is actually pretty good - in that you can rather easily figure out what the reviewers point of view is (hardcore RTSer). The hardcore RTSers I know (and avoid) _don't_ like CM. The non RTSer gamers I know either do "love" CM (as the review predicts), or have other obvious mental deficiencies, too, not to mention and poor genetics and unfortunate personal hygeine practices.
Heck, in general I value negative reviews far more than positive reviews. Unless they're exhaustive (as grog reviews often are) positive reviews tend to all sound the same. Many negative reviews are negative because they reviewer didn't understand the game, sure. But discounting those, I've found that if I can read a negative review and think "The game's bad points don't sound bad to me!" I'll probably will like the game.
-
Thanks for sharing.Originally posted by Nippy:[QB]AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
I made the mistake of looking at other reviews:
SNIP
And it's sold in Germany! Shock!hardened SS fans -
Tsk tsk. Poor guy, I thought the statement "hybrid turn-based/realtime 3D simulation" quite clearly explained what to look for in CM." Combat Mission II is a different take on the RTS genre and it almost pulls it off.IMHO, CMBB is without question a must-have for any hybrid turn-based/realtime 3D similation fan!
-
-
Yes! What's that saying?... Sometimes you get the StuG, sometimes the StuG gets you.Perhaps playing variable rarity would help there.BTW:
An informal rule I want to try for VR QBs is that each side is only allowed to buy AFVs being offered at a "discount", maybe a sizable one.
A QB set-up I used in CMBO that was fun, and should work even better in CMBB, is to allow only one side a few AFVs. If the attacker has the AFVs make the QB shorter, if it's the defender make the QB longer.
-
Are the "Two man turret" penalties the same for all TMT tanks?
-
Because Windows makes the monitor emit harmful radiation. First you forget that rebooting will fix most problems, then you think MS is the bee's knees.Originally posted by Michael emrys:[QB]After I woke up today an idea came to me, so I tried the program again after a restart. Sure enough, the problem had gone away. Don't know why I didn't think of this earlier...
If you have a Mac, your mental disabilities are your own fault.
-
I would say "He needs a hobby," but clearly that wouldn't help.
Daffodills? The above is the most delicate bit of euphanism I've seen in awhile.These men saw the new Europe in the form of three great components; central Europe as the powerhouse of Europe, western Europe as the cultural heart of Europe, and eastern Europe as the potential of Europe.1/15 AND 1/16? Clearly a sicko.
-
My feelings exactly.Please get out of other people’s faces and take your pseudo-intellectual-superiority-attitude somewhere else. -
Guys, assuming that all-caps "ANY" is really the focal point of his statement, he saying pretty much the same thing Steve did at the top of page 3.In my mind, true play balance is by definition a contest in which matched players of ANY equal skill will have a 50-50% chance to win a game.My impression is that CMBB does not pass the above test.
So two "newbie" players in a scenario where one side needs to use a "more difficult to master" skill aren't going to be playing a "balanced" scenario, in that the odds shouldn't be computed as 50-50.These battles *are* balanced, or at least can be just as much as CMBO. The difference is that the skills required to win in certain battles might be unbalanced and more difficult to master.
Ok, so that means, by B'sP.'s definition, CMBB doesn't have "true" balance on a scenario by scenario basis. Live with it.
-
Damn Grisha, that is almost worthy of being put in to a signature!The latter is interested in seeing a contest that guarantees equality of resources so as to determine the outcome, based on a singular definition of 'skill.' -
[QUTOE]The risk is... that grognards took over... this will eventually alienate the loyal community of players who love stragetgy games but... play also stuff like half-life...etc.
The Great (but not über) Finnish Thread II
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
What would it take for this thread to become an "uber" Finnish thread? Or is this whole "uber" Finnish thread thing just a myth?