UberFunBunny

Your "caveat", does this support the single scenario download or the multiple scenario pack? You have completely contradicted yourself in two statements, so please outline which form of download you prefer -- and how this relates to your "caveat". The only thing I see mentioned by you in the other thread is download stats. Previously the discussion was about reviews -- remember, you thought that the single scenario download was the "entire point" of the Scenario Depot site, ostensibly to get people to read and write reviews. So really your only consistency is your inconsistency. On the subject of reviews, a good idea would be to include a shortcut to the actual review page for each scenario in the user’s multiple scenarios shopping basket. This way it would be easy for the user to go straight to the relevant review pages because the shortcut files would be downloaded to the same directory as the scenario files.

Michael Dorosh: You wrote in a previous thread: "[Admiral Keth wrote: it is designed is so that you HAVE to download each scenario seperately] That IS the entire point (duh) and I would suggest you are the one beyond help, since the reasoning for this has been stated several times over." And now you write that downloading multiple scenarios in a pack is an "excellent suggestion." Wonders never cease. Anyways, I look forward to increased functionality at the Scenario Depot. An excellent site may just get even better!

This is a real nice site! (tribes2maps.com) Is this great or what: =========================== Map of the Week Pack I've had a number of people ask me to make a map pack which includes every map we've awarded "Map of the Week" status to since the site launched. I thought this was a good idea, so here it is: Tribes2Maps.com-MapOfTheWeekPack.zip - This file is updated every week when we choose the new Map of the Week. Monthly Map Packs All maps submitted to Tribes2Maps.com are available in zip files, organizes by CTF/Non-CTF/Client Side/Server Side. These 4 zip files are created each month. To keep our bandwidth usage and charges low, please only download the ones you actually need! Click here for the list. ===========================

Yes I think it's known as "feature-creep". Good on you for halting development (apart from tweaks) on CMBB and instead working on the new engine. This makes a lot of sense. Speaking of the new engine - I'm hoping my idea is further up the list than powerups and smackdowns.

Eden: Thank you! Yes, I'll give it a go. It should work in some situations, but probably not in others.... A "hack", if you will. Moving into position so that the unit has LOS of an actual identified enemy would be better, but maybe in the new engine. Yes! This is exactly my angle on it! The UberFunBunnies from Springfield never did like the GunnyBunnies from Smallville. All that new money, no class (the GunnyBunnies that is).

Wow!

Steve, OK, I'll try and refine my point a little. Here goes! IMO, the "Move to Contact" order is a great asset to the game. Essentially what I am saying is that to make this order more effective (and realistic) would be to allow an enemy unit that has been spotted to be the "target" of this order. Here is an example: An enemy heavy MG has been spotted and is creating havoc. It is supported by a couple of infantry squads. These enemy infantry squads are closer to my men than the MG is, and are being suppressed by some of my units. I order a squad who doesn't have LOS to the enemy MG to move ahead 30 meters max into a clump of trees and to stop and engage the MG as soon as they have LOS. The current "Move to Contact" order would force my men to stop as they came into contact to the closer enemy units. I'm not saying that finding LOS is difficult. I'm saying that the situation above is quite common and making the "Move to Contact" command more powerful would be a good thing - and quite realistic as well. Of course, you may not agree! If this is the first call for such an order I am very honored! (Also, to assure, I have never posted to this forum under another name.) [ January 11, 2003, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]

But isn't that what a unit could be ordered to do? HQ: "Move ahead until contact unit x which I can see". Isn't this a real world order? Surely micromanagement is taking several turns ordering the troops into positions they could have gotten themselves into. [ January 10, 2003, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]

[Edit: double post] [ January 10, 2003, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]

The wonderful thing about Combat Mission is its attempt at realism, and the delegation of commands to the squads. Having a platoon commander to order rotates and back and forths is not as realistic as "Move ahead 20 meters and get into position so you can see that tank which our company HQ has spotted!" Your command would be "Move ahead 20 meters, then rotate a little, then go back 2 meters, then forward 1 meter, then rotate again. Can you see it yet? No? Ok move back 5 meters...." This example also shows that even though a squad may not have spotted the enemy, another squad in direct contact (with the friendly unit) may have. This allows for my idea to work in a "relative" spotting environment. I think what could be used instead of a "Seek LOS" command would be a "Move to Contact" order that could be *assigned* to an enemy unit that has been spotted. This would work under both global spotting and relative spotting as above. [ January 10, 2003, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]

Just as you can "easily" seek your own hull-down position or "easily" move to contact with the enemy. In other words, if the "Seek Hull-down" command did not exist and I had suggested a need for it, you would have written the same thing. [ January 10, 2003, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]

Actually, he sounds a lot like Voxman, I wouldn't be surprised if the two were the same person, despite the different locations given in the profiles. Notice the plea to BTS for attention in the thread titles, for example.</font>

Michael, now you're starting to talk some sense!

Dirtweasle: Being patronizing doesn't either. Um, no it isn't.... I have been playing these games for longer than "a while". I guess you were against the "Seek Hull-down" and "Move to Contact" orders too right? You preferred to micromanage every inch of the battlefield didn't you. A "Seek LOS" command would greatly enhance the realism of the game IMO as I outlined in my example: "The order from the officer would be for the squad to move into LOS of the unit. It would not be to spend one minute walking towards it, see it at 30 seconds but continue walking, then stay out of LOS, then walk back etc etc."

I find a lot of my orders are like that....

Yes this is possible, but I'm talking about an ACTUAL target that has already been spotted. In other words, the target should be able to be selected so the friendly unit can get to within LOS of it.

Are you related to the infamous Weasle Moron? I think it is completely unrealistic. The order from the officer would be for the squad to move into LOS of the unit. It would not be to spend one minute walking towards it, see it at 30 seconds but continue walking, then stay out of LOS, then walk back etc etc.

Here's a common situation: My tank can't target an opponent's tank unless I move my tank a few meters in either direction. I spend 3 or 4 turns moving my tank back and forth to try and get LOS. By the time I get LOS, many minutes have been wasted in unrealistic micromanagement. How about a "Seek LOS" command for units, much like the "Seek Hull-down" command? (This new command could be used by ALL units not just tanks.) [ January 10, 2003, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]

This is a great idea, but hopefully with the new engine. Not "we can squeeze one more game out of it before the rewrite".... I'm sick of routed troops with no memories etc! Did I mention Full Movie Replay?

Czechoslovakia 1938/39? How about Full Movie Replay? Can I put that in here?!

Seanachai: I find that trolls tend to attack the person and not provide any rational discussion. Hence your post. The point I was making was that from a legal point of view the independent scenario designers don't appear to have a leg to stand on when it comes to controlling the redistribution of their work. Instead of a personal attack, why don't you attempt to add something to this important issue of copyright?

Page 2 of the manual states (thanks murpes) that: "User-created scenarios may be distributed free of charge, but may not be sold or licensed ... without prior written consent from Battlefront.com." This says to me that what El Cid_Cagi did was OK (from a legal point of view) because the scenarios cannot be licensed by their authors (without permission from Battlefront).

Michael Dorosh: If that is the case, please answer my 5 questions in a previous post. TIA.

If we can get past the question on my mind (Why should anyone help such a rude bunch of people? :confused: ) then multiple downloads can be looked at. The first thing to remember is these files (scenarios) are SMALL. For most connections to the internet they can actually be downloaded at the same time (say 5 for dialup, 20 for cable/DSL). No need to make into one file. I don't see why this should be such an insurmountable problem! Really it's just a "shopping basket" of files. I'm sure you could find some code for that on the web.... [ January 07, 2003, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]

I am intrigued with your rationale to hinder the potential search and automated download of categorized multiple scenarios. 1) Statistically, what is the current ratio of downloads to reviews posted? 2) Statistically, what is the current ratio of downloads to reviews read? 3) With your explanation linking the importance of reviews to the single download, what is your statistical proof that people actually read a review and then download a single scenario and then post a review? 4) Do you think it impossible for a person to download, say, a pack of 5 "highly-rated, short, tcp/ip" scenarios as a multiple download and THEN review each one? 5) Or, simply put, what in God's name does the single download have to do with reviews?