GreenAsJade

Hah - funny! I haven't seen that before, and all I can say is that it doesn't reflect the spirit of the argument for having signon in the discussions that I was around for. In any case, the motivation is not to disuade prolific writers - that hardly needs to be said. As I experienced it, the motivation for the current implementation was to make the majority of the users of the site happy with the way it worked (it's not my site, by the way!). Adm Keth conducted extensive discussions in this forum about the way it should be. The most vocal group at the time were the scenario designers, and since TSD wouldn't exist without them I imagine their voice was also listened to with some priority. The two things I recall most clearly are that: 1) Scenario designers wanted to see sign-in. I don't know how clear it was at the time to them that there might be a significant body of genuine reviewers that this would exclude. 2) Scenario designers did not want a numeric rating system for the scenarios, especially in a way where the scenario scores could be compared with others. As a person who goes to TSD to find reliably good scenarios to play double blind, if I could have one of these two things changed, it would be the latter. While not as prolific as some, I do have a policy of reviewing every scenario I play. My input at TSD has gone down because I'm getting scnearios from there less often these days... because they have become harder to find there... (gets back down off the "bring back the rating system" soap box ) Regards, GaJ.

The adobe manual contains heaps of information. If you click on the hotkeys button you will see in that list the key sequence for adding craters. You should put infantry into different reinforcement groups than armour, so they arrive grouped sensibly. You should read everything here and here GaJ.

I'm waiting for last-minute panic to set in...

I agree that BT is not an uncontributing whinger. Neither am I one to generally slander people, or even get cross too easily. Possibly I should withdraw the "mob of freakin whingers", but I certainly do not withdraw the sentiment that the heckling in this thread is uncalled for and unwelcome. GaJ.

"not the reason for it according to those running the site" ... oh? Can you point to a different quoted reason? I was involved in the discussions that led to TSD V2.0, and it is to these that I refer. What I remember is that scenario designers strongly wanted their scenarios reviewed by people willing to say who they were. Scenario designers were the ones actively concerned that "other people's friends were giving their friend's scenarios a good rap all the time" or that "particualr people always slag scenarios of a particular type". They want to be able to identify/track/respond to/filter out those people. So while you say that "CM fans are not notoriously ill behaved." 1) The scenario designers thought that there was enough evidence to the contrary. 2) This thread itself contains evidence to the contrary. I would also observe that 1) maybe the people who state that signins dramatically reduce input are usually those minority of people who don't like them 2) the communities that I participate in where you do have to sign in contain people who at least cared enough to bother signing in, and this seems to improve the quality of that community. Hence, while I've never seen "unconstructive" reviewing at TSD, nonetheless I support contributors being asked to identify themselves. GaJ. [ May 04, 2005, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

On a different topic, the purpose of having registration at TSD is so that people can't (effortlessly) anonymously slang off at or ridulously praise scenarios. "Accountability for what you say". I for one fully support that. GaJ.

No, I won't "take a pill". Sometimes someone need to tell it how it is. Sergei posted a request for a review. 1 person responded here almost immediately. (I note two others at TSD now... not contributed by the whingers). And for their trouble they get heckled about whether they choose to put the review into TSD! That's just not on, chaps, and I think someone has to say so. It's not about whether JC can defend himself. It's about whether he should even have to. GaJ.

You guys beating up on someone who kindly responded to a request for a review need to pull your head in. Do you have your money where you mouth is? Are _your_ reviews up there? Even if they are, so what if a prolific writer prefers to type here than there? I too find the current SD offputting, and put less energy into going there and writing reviews these days. 500 char limit is just silly, for a start. Since when does JC or anyone _owe_ you reviews on the SD. Sheesh! For cryingout loud already. What a mob of freekin whingers! GaJ.

"ETO" is?

Who's SPAM mod are you using?

I completely agree that moving CM to the "standard" 3D navigation conventions would be a Very Good Thing. GaJ.

yeah - best of luck with that job & commercials! we'll still be here bickering over what the features should be when you're ready to think about it Cheers, GaJ.

The usual answer is www.cmmods.com. Fantastic site. Unfortunately it's down at the moment, because the maintainer's wife is having a lung transplant so he's kinda distract from fixing it. Although there are spiderwebs all over, you will fnd something to whet your appetite at www.combatmission.com GaJ

Good on y'all who joined the club...

I wondered what my troops stumbled over out in front of the building!

I thought this thread was going to be about "what do you exect from the CMx2 engine?". I mean - if you've been reading all the discussions where BFC have given clues, what should we actually be expecting? Is there anything to actually be excited about, or really look forward to? Why will CMx2 be better than CMx? GaJ

Wah - I can't get these. When I click on the pictures above, I arrive at zimorodok.org. When I click on the picture there I get this message: The requested URL /tempMods/Gurra_JpzIV_L70_CMAK.zip was not found on this server. Obviously other people are having success: what am I doing wrong? Ta! GaJ.

I wonder whether TPG will/could/should/might become the "in" place to find scenarios. If Gary made a place where "finished" scenarios were put, and included a numeric rating system it would be awesome. I know where I'd be looking... GaJ.

The scenario designers didn't like having numeric scores for their scenarios. They felt that this gave bad reviews an unwelcome chance to mark down their scenario. Each bad number they receive obviously hurts them badly, and they didn't like that. What they failed to realise is that without those, the people looking for their scenarios have a much harder time. All I can say is "I told 'em so". Everything you are saying is everything I already said. I wish you were there backing me up at the time... GaJ.

These are points I have made as well. I don't think they will necessarily be ignored: Adm was very good at listening to input. The issue has been that scenario _designers_ spoke strongly on the topics and this resulted in things being how they are. I believe the results have shown that scenario_user_'s input might have been lost to some detriment in the overal use of SD.

And yet someone showed not that long ago that you get the _score_ for those TC kills, right?

Anyone know how COG & his wife are doing?

Good on ya mate!

Slooowly slooowly the CM world comes to bits... first spider webs, then rust, then collapse....

Has anyone had much success with pushing imobilised tanks? I haven't been able to predict the direction that they will move when you bump into them :-(