Cirrus
-
Posts
55 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Cirrus
-
-
Thank you both for doing this. Excellent read. This inspired me to read several other aar'as as well.
-
This is excellent AAR and real fun to read. I had to plow trough this thread as whole last night.
Thank you Bil and other contributors.
-
This is good news. It was even fun to educate oneself trough this info.
-
I really fail to see analysis of you competitors of any relevance here. Maybe your competitors are even more stupid. Or maybe you have killer idea, but flawed execution so that you could be still better. And like you later agree, you could be better.Of course it does! You say our attitude is "stupid" so I asked you to explain how a company with a "stupid" attitude could be around for 15 years with a market leading product. I then pointed out the obvious question, if we're so "stupid" then where is all the competition from the "smart" guys? I can tell you... not making wargames of any sort
Sure our games can always be better, which is why CMRT doesn't look like CMBO. The problem you seem to be having is thinking that your pet feature request would make the game better and get us more customers. I don't mind you having an opinion of what would make the game better for you personally, but you have no basis for forming an opinion beyond that. We do because a) this is what we do for a living and
we've got a track record of success that few game companies have.I have no such delusion and I do. Every single of my requests would make the game better for me. But like you also say that you cannot be everything for everyone. But if something is requested enough then it's different story and I did base my argument on that.
Talking about this specific feature you said that it requested rarely, so I definitely won't expect it in game.
This is bit funny. I am co-owner of company. I have three other partners. Not a software business though. And this really conforms to reality in many many types of business. You never ever treat customers as stupid.This does not conform to reality. Which is why I'm going to take a wild guess that you don't run your own company, nor that you take something from drawing table to market. Because otherwise you'd understand where this theory of yours breaks down.Sure, but catering to the wrong crowd by diverting resources and complicating the game can also cost customers.In this specific case of a feature we were talking about simplifying the game for some.
We do that already. WeGo and RealTime are totally different ways to play the game. We also try hard to make a game that is both detailed and historically accurate, yet also fun and visually exciting to play. But we can not be all things to all people all the time. So there are limits.Sure there is limits. You also could be simpler or anything else that enough of your customers want.
This is not a feature that we feel fits in with our philosophy so it's already in a losing war against other feature requests that are. The fact that there are technical challenges pretty much kills the idea. I suppose I could have just used the technical challenges as an excuse, but I have this really annoying habit of being honest and forthright with our customers. I think our customers deserve such treatment, but since you find our philosophy "stupid" in other ways perhaps you disagree with this too.Yes, but games that lose their focus lose their identity. Those that lose their identity do not survive. We can not be all things to all people. Trying to be that is a recipe for disaster. Which means, by definition, we have to pick and choose what we do and do not include very carefully. By definition there will be someone who disagrees. As long as we, the people putting our arses on the line, are comfortable with the results of our choices then all is about as good as good can be.
And this is basically the part I find your philosophy flawed. You seem to think your own opinions are the right ones always, not customers.
Regarding to your original answer you did not include the fact that it's rarely requested. On the contrary writing that it has been requested since 1999 made think that it could be much asked feature and gave me incentive to write an answer. First thing that came your mind (or actually in your post) is that it does not suit you, not the fact that it's not actually wanted. I would definitely answer other way around. First that customers do not want it so it's not viable use of resources then I could add that I don't want it either. I do not treat customers stupid.
Also I do not agree with the identity. Losing identity would mean something that you start remove something that bunch of your current fans like. Adding things that do not remove or prevent anything old is not such things.
P.S. I feel that there might not be anything more to gain here by arguing this matter. Feel free to reply, but I think I cannot add any more substance to the matter.
-
Rarely. VERY rarely in fact. If I were to rate this request in with all the requests I see on a regular basis this one wouldn't even be on the radar.
This is a reason for this specific feature that I think is very acceptable. No need to do it.
This attitude, as you put it, created CM, made it stand out from all wargames before it, has kept it going for 15 years, and has put it ahead of all others so far. If that's what "stupid" gets you, then where are all the "smart" developers?
This has actually nothing to do with anything. Your game could always be even better and get even more customers.
This is an absolutely horrible justification for making a game feature. Customers are, often, totally wrong about what makes a game good and what features are needed to get the game to that point. Because if all it took was playing a game to know how to design one, don't you think you'd have better games to choose from than the ones you do?I feel that this is treating people as really stupid. If you add something, but do not in reality take something away for other customers. More people would get what they want.
Firstly, because every single feature we put into the game takes time to add, test, debug, retest, and support once it's in customers' hands. We've literally had thousands of requests for game changes. How do we prioritize which ones we spend time on vs. the ones we don't? Simple... we pick the ones that work within the overall philosophy of the game and are viable from a technical standpoint.These are again hard facts. Time is limited and you have to prioritize. However your philosophy might be costing you customers. And your game could have several of philosophies. If some change does not take anything away and original philosophy can be followed like always, then customers are always right. Not one customer of course, but bunch
Secondly, because what you request isn't even valuable. We could make a basic LOS "highlight" that showed you roughly, in abstract, what you MIGHT be able to see. You'd then have to use the Target tool to figure out what you can actually see. Which is, oddly enough, the same as what you have right now.Third, there would be a major (i.e. noticeable) speed hit to such a feature. Not terrible for WeGoers, perhaps, but still rather unpleasant if you're trying to issue Commands quickly.
I am not speaking specifically of this feature. It was your reply style that made me write an answer. If the reply would have technical difficulty or feature not requested enough or lines like that, I would not have paid any attention.
And yet there's no game company on Earth that makes games using this philosophy. Not even the ones who spend $50m on a single game do this. Why do you think that might be?I feel that you are wrong. There is game companies that do not swear for one philosophy. They let players decide what kind of philosophy to follow inside the game. One example would be in game "cheats" like unlimited ammo and in game feature toggles. You yourself have difficulty levels that modify the game.
-
You didn't read my post, did you? It's #5 in this thread. Who's stupid now?
Michael
I don't know, but it seems that you missed my point a mile. But let's clarify.
1. I was not speaking specifically this feature. So your number 5 reply does not apply.
2. Even if I would have spoken this specific feature, I do not know you, so I don't consider you as any kind of coding expert of this game. So I would have just ignored it.
-
This has been requested of CM since 1999. It will never, ever, ever be a feature in the game. Ever. Players have too much precise information at their fingertips without working hard for it. If one wants absolutely ridiculously precise and exact information then we want them to work so hard at it that they get annoyed and stop. CM never has been, and never will be, a game tailored to those who feel that level of detail is required to play.
Steve
P.S. Never, ever. Just in case you missed the first part
Can't say that how much this feature is asked, but in general if some feature is asked much I find your attitude quite stupid.
Decision like this has caused for example me to stop playing single player games with CM. If I know game interface and mechanics allow me to do something and I want to do it, but game by accident or like in CM's case on purpose makes it too difficult, I will get bored.
I can't see the harm of giving tools for different playstyles if game mechanics inherently can't prevent it anyways. If someone doesn't want to be HC simulationist why should she?
Every person can decide if she uses "aids" or not.
-
It's an unavoidable conflict caused between legitimate needs and illegitimate leveraging of Player as God advantages. This is generally called "gamey" behavior, where you the player are not breaking any rules, but are leveraging them for an unrealistic result. "Cheating" is when you find a way to break the rules through the exploitation of a bug or design deficiency. Fine line between the two, but a good example of "cheating" would be hacking a file with a hex editor and changing your Stuart to have the characteristics of a King Tiger.
There's not many "gamey" issues, thankfully, but there are some. Various issues having to do with map edges is common one. Reassigning assets on-the-fly based on tiny tactical situations that never would, realistically, cause assets to be diverted/reassigned. Pounding the hell out of the most likely assembly area in a QB using pre-game prep fire. Stuff like that.
This I understand perfectly. However I don't see any reason to "mess with ui" there.
SteveP did a good job with this, but I can do one better
It's more like Government saying that won't pay for x amount of unemployment if you don't look for a job. But there is no foolproof method for assessing this and some have made a career out of making it appear that they are looking so that they can get their checks without working. The citizenry as a whole agree such behavior is not acceptable.Agree?
There are three possible responses:
1. Make the standards stricter. But doing this usually makes the honest citizen feel like a "criminal", or at the very least increases the costs of the system substantially while probably not doing much to reduce fraud.
2. Give up and have no standards at all. If you get fired you can just collect unemployment and never show that you're really trying to get back to work.
3. Accept that no system is perfect and that people prone to fraud will always find a way to defeat the controls, therefore leave it "as is" or maybe tweak it a little.
We choose #3.
No I do not agree. I turned the logic upside down in your analogy and that why it is not relevant in situation like this. I try to give mathematical explanation:
The premises:
in game:
Feature exists no matter what
you goverment example:
Feature exists with condition
Games are all about the rules. Without them there can be no game. A simulation requires even more rules, and stricter ones, because by definition a simulation requires behavior to be within certain norms. More importantly, it sets the standards which all players must conform to so that there is a shared, common experience.
Yes, definitely. This standard is created by the game mechanics, the ruleset which game runs. Not by the user interface.
A couple of people "insisting" on something doesn't impress us. We've got tens of thousands of people "insisting" we do things their way, which is often contrary to what someone else wants done. We would still be working on CMBO now if we did things based on what individuals "insisted" we put into the game.I was not talking about this. I was refering to the people who are trying to twist the facts. IE comparing UI to game mechanics.
But yes, I am insisting too. I am challenging your logic, because I can't find it.
I'm sure most people here would agree that often it is the customer that behaves like a child. A piece of advice... if you think of something don't assume it's gold. It could be a turd of an idea. We'll be as polite and delicate as we possibly can be, but we're not here to do what you want us to do. You didn't buy that right when you purchased the game. You bought the right to play what we give you. It's a privilege to discuss changes with the people who make games, not a right. Your only right is to buy or not buy.
Of course. And like you already mentioned earlier, it's the ruleset in play that binds all players. The way you have chosen to do it. There is no logic whatsoever to deny and argue things that exists already. You can not brush it under carpet. Aknowledge it and turn it to your advantage.
As it so happens, the suggestion made where you click on an enemy unit and you get to see what Spotters can draw LOS to that unit, is far more workable and positive than what you suggested... yet I think it would largely give you what you want without the unintended side effects you refuse to acknowledge exist. Most players would make horrific game designers, at least for their first project, so don't take it so hard.
Steve
What side effects are you talking about? All side effects are already in the game. The rule set is defined. I am not asking you to change any rules. I definetely refuse to see any side effects since zero game mechanics changes are needed and zero new side effects is generated. Seeing those things follows no logic. This is not matter of opinion. This can be verified any time.
It seems to me that you are hung up to your idea of right and wrong too much to see clearly. This discussion seems to turned from logical analysis of how things work to their fullest to some idealogical discussion. I have no interest in such discussions. Everybody is right in such matters. It suprises me however that you fail to see that you have nothing to loose here. Any "cheating" or "gameying" can be done now already and that's what I do. No game play style would be lost, but only one would be made easier. And still people could choose to play as they did before the change. And that's a fact.
-
No, I think the proper analogy is that what you want is like the government sending benefit checks to someone who has not applied for them, because the government "knows" the person is unemployed. You, as commander, may "know" there is something in that location, but most of the time IRL there is no practical way to communicate that exact location to a unit that has no intelligence about that enemy itself. You can't even use map coordinates because that is not available to all the units (and maybe to none of them). There is reason why there is a delay in the "receiving" phase for indirect fire, because of the time required to communicate target location instructions to a firing unit. But you want to be able to communicate that type of instruction to any unit instantly for an area fire order. The game doesn't prevent you from doing that, but the designers have no reason to make it easy for you to do that.
Your analogy fails badly. I do not want anything like that. I don't need to. The thing is already in the game. Analogy would hit the target if I was the one requesting game mechanics change like that.
All I wan't that they don't hide it. And why, because there is nothing to loose. Only to gain. Easier you would help me, but would not prevent your playstyle either. Developers have no reason (except personal preference) not to make it like that if we exclude time constraints thinking from this equation. Time and money can of course play role in any case, but that's totally different discussion then.
-
If you can't find a suitable Spotter, then you're screwed
The only option left to you is "cheating" by having your completely unaware Mortar conduct a Direct Lay Area Fire mission on the spot. And we have no interest in making that any easier than it already is.Steve
This is quite strange way of thinking. You allow it, but don't allow it and want to call it cheating? I understand the realism issues. I have no concerns about realism in any games. I would not play anything otherwise. I obey the rules of game mechanics.
Your approach is bit like government promising to pay unemployment benefits to all unemployed people if they apply for it, but then they would try to hide all the application forms because is bit like "cheating" not to get job for yourself.
Please treat us like adults and let me or any other person to decide ourselves what is cheating and what is not. Concentrate improving or modifying game mechanics to your likings and make the UI best and easiest possible to do anything game mechanics allows.
This way you support the widest audience. UI should not reflect anyones personal taste in such case that it can do things equally good for everyone.
And once again because people are insisting it. UI behaviour change has nothing to do with spotting changes or game mechanics changes. No matter how hard you keep insisting simple mouse click behaviour change has nothing to do with those things.
But this is the wrong way around. You shouldn't be saying to yourself "I have a mortar team doing nothing, let's see what it can shoot at". You should be saying "I have a problem over here and some mortar fire would be nice. Do I have a spotter here, or can I get one into action?"
Steve
I just quoted a little piece, but answering more broadly.
Why do you want to decide for the gamer what is wrong way around to do things? If you game mechanic allows a set of things, would it be nicer for all that those who want to think "wrong way" and those who think "right way" can do same things? Why does the UI have to place restrictions? I find this kind of thinking bit offensive even. You treat us quite like child. The freedom of selecting own play style that is actually left in game mechanics (either intentionally or because restrictions are impossible to make or any reason) is then hidden under clumsy UI. I can see very little intelligent logic behind this.
-
You had spotted enemy icons that were "greyed-out" when you had one of your own units selected? Doesn't this only happen in scenario author test mode?
I am pretty sure I did now use that mode any of my test games. BUT I used the lowest normal difficulty level yes if that has something to do with anything.
-
I think I might understand the point. Maybe.
In order to "shoot indirectly," the CMBN indirect fire interface requires that you select a valid spotter, first. That spotter must have LOS to the "position where" the enemy unit is and have a communication line to the indirect shooter.
I think that Cirrus is suggesting that these steps would be better handled by the engine in the background. So, rather than first selecting the spotter, the player would just select the indirect fire weapon. Enemy icons that are visible to some valid spotter (in command) would remain on the map, either in bright color (direct fire, visible to the unit) or dark (indirect fire, visible to a valid spotter). Enemy units that were not visible directly by the unit or indirectly by a valid spotter would not be visible on the map.
Did I summarize that correctly, Cirrus? If so, this isn't "gamey," nor "borg spotting." This is simply a user interface issue.
I'm not sure how off-map resources would be handled. I guess they could be called upon using the current interface or an adaptation of the above (i.e., select the resource from the list, then enemy icons would remain on the map or not depending on valid spotter. Note there would only be "dark" colored units since by definition off-map resources don't have direct LOS).
Is that close, Cirrus?
Something along lines of that. In my situation (or when I came across this, too bad I did not save scenario) I did not even care who actually was spotting the at-gun or the ground where it was sitting. But what I believe the situation was that the mortar unit ITSELF could see the area, but could not spot the at-gun.
About the behavior of ui: If I remember correctly when I selected the mortar unit the AT-gun was still visible (but dark grey). BUT if i move mouse towards it, the indicator icon vanishes.
My actions and results: I could set the mortar target to the ground at-gun and shoot the ground too by zooming the map and placing the target carefully to the spot where at-gun is sitting. (We call shooting mortars with arc always indirect fire in our language, but in game terms this is area fire?)
I can not understand why I can't do this faster when I am really zoomed out by clicking the unit icon. End result would be same as in the above. I shoot (area fire?) to the ground spot under at unit.
This has absolutely nothing to do with game mechanics, borg spotting or anything. It just UI change. It would enable me to do what I already could do in that situation, just faster.
And I must repeat again those who are insisting somehing else. Pure UI behavior change has nothing to do with game mechanics, borg spotting or anything.
Yeah, Cirrus appears to be using "direct" to mean "firing at a spotted target" and "indirect" to mean "area firing".If you want, you can just put a little piece of tape on your screen where the AT gun is, then switch to the mortar and target the piece of tape. That's what I do. It might be a bit "gamey", but I've found it's an acceptable workaround.
You are correct. I mixed up the terminology.
-
If I am correct what Cirrus is asking for is, in effect, a return to borg spotting. It has nothing to do with the User Interface.
You are not correct. My mortar CAN fire the position definitely. I just zoom my map to the tree where the gun is. Press target and click mouse next to the tree. And voila, I have indirect target under the tree. I just want easier way to set the same target.
It has everything to do with the user interface.
Asked, answered.To your other point -- if you want game interfaces built to your design specs, I guess you had better start making games.
Answer like that does not actually answer anything.
Is there a actually reason not make interfaces as easy use as they could be for every purpose? It is now and it would would be after the change up to the user to use it or not.
I find it bit odd that "we want to discourage the use" reason affects the UI smartness. But what was discovered in this thread is that definitely it was known decision to make it like this.
-
Cirrus,
Relative Spotting means that each unit sees only the units it sees. Enemy units a unit can't see are not shown. This is major feature which the game is built around. When you select a unit that can't see something, why should that unit be able to target it in the first place? Or put in terms specific to your situation here:
If your mortar can't see the AT Gun, how would it know (if this were real life) to fire at it at that specific location? In fact, how would it even know there is an AT Gun to target at all? The answer... it wouldn't.
So what you are doing, in effect, is "cheating" (or "gamey") by putting Area Fire down on an exact point which the mortar would have no realistic way of knowing to aim for. We can't actually prevent unrealistic Area Fire, but we can obviously discourage it. Which is why we do not make it easy for players to do this.
If Relative Spotting isn't something you're comfortable with, then play at the Basic Training level of play for a while. This basically transforms the spotting system, and resulting behavior, to Absolute Spotting (which is the norm for wargames, including CMx1). In your situation the icon of the AT Gun will remain visible and you can target it with either direct or Area Fire without difficulty.
Steve
Explained already in previous post a bit. Now more carefully. I do not care if the mortar sees the target or not. I just want to use the real target as quick guide to shoot ground under it.
Game mechanics stays exactly same. It is not for the UI to discourage things. You need to make game mechanics such that it can't be done. Using UI to mask things actually very possible by game mechanics, is in my opinion quite stupid. Problems need to be solved at game mechanics level and UI must be easiest possible to do ALL things that game mechanics allow.
-
Well, your mortars can't see the ATG? And you do not have a HQ, that can direct the mortar's fire?
Then your mortar units simply don't know where they would be firing - they wouldn't even be able to area-fire in reality.
IMO that's one of the huge improvements of CMx2 over CMx1 - no more Borg-spotting and the mortars need an observer that directs their fire - either aimed at a unit or area fire. It get's more difficult, but it get's way more realistic, too. It only takes some time until you will get used to it and adapt the tactics accordingly. You will love it.
Wrong again. My mortars can shoot there. Both of them. I can't just easily set the indirect target for them. I am not suggesting any change to spotting or anything else like that. I just want to set the target easy way and not hard way like now. It's user interface issue, not game mechanics one.
-
Cirrus,
If you could click on the enemy AT-Gun icon and target the icon, that translates to targeting the unit. What if the AT-Gun moved? Or, if it hid? If the icon disappeared, your mortar would stop firing.
Ken
No. In this situation I can not directly target the at-gun. Game engine "knows" it. Hence it vanishes as target when I try to click it. Instead vanishing it could snap indirect target on the ground under the at-gun unit.
This is the way the old games worked.
-
I haven't had time to test game that much yet, but still I managed to run across incredibly annoying "feature":
I am viewing my map high up. Enemy at-gun is shooting my tanks. I have mortars at position and at-gun is within their range. Now I want to assign mortars to shoot indirectly at the position where at-gun is. I select mortar, press 'target' and try to move my mouse over the at-gun. And what happens is that the AT-gun icon vanishes, because my mortar does not directly see the unit. Aargh. I have to zoom the map very close to the ground and place the indirect firing spot next to the gun (which is actually drawn, but the crew is not visible). And again for the next mortar.
Why can't the at-gun icon stay dark grey and I could click it and the indirect mortar fire would focus ground under the unit? That way the operation would take 15 seconds and now it takes 5 minutes.
-
My play style consist about 50% from upper view and 50% from level 1 view. I scout the situation from bird view and use tools to identify terrain I am planning to use. Then when I give any move orders I switch to level 1 view to possibly identify good positions to move and to get a idea what route I should possibly take. LOS tool was very important tool for me to identify the terrain components, and possible trenches, holes etc in them.
Target command serves as poor mans LOS-tool. It doesn't explain anything about the terrain nor the height.
I do not like to switch to google or to manual to gain some kind of basic idea of units capabilites. (Task switching with this game is pain in the ass btw) I think it even strengthens my point if the information is readily available. Then it shouldn't even be a major task to include some of that information inside the game itself. In the days of internet I still can appreciate good collection of information in one single place relevant to situation you are facing (Game encyclopedia)
-
Now I've managed to start playing new CM. It's interesting game, but it didn't feel like home.
I only play turn based, so my comments are only from it.
1) Where is LOS-tool?
My default tool has gone away. With low end graphics cards with poor details it's hard to see terrain types etc. I really need this back.
2) What happened to firing lines?
Why in earth there are no more firing lines. You can get information who shot who out from videos if you work enough, but why in the earth it is not showing anymore on map screen?
3) Encylopedia.
These types of games most definetely need a decent encylopedia accessible within the game. It is part of the fun to discover and learn about equipement while playing. Information given out of equipement is too poor.
4. Terrain.
This is hard to explain, but for me it's lot more difficult to get grip of the terrain and the height differences. Absence of LOS-tool makes this even harder.
These are the few first toughts about the game. Well any case I will be playing it...
-
Mainly this conserns russian ot-series tanks, but I have always wondered that does the game consider flame tanks more vulnerable to explode or easier to destroy because they are carrying flame equipement? As far as I have observed things, ot-34 seems to be as hard to destroy as normal t-34. If this is the case I don't have to use them more carefully than normal t-34 tanks.
-
About the profiling of CM gamers in that other thread linked above. Has there been some kind of gallup where those playtypes has been profiled (solo/internet/pbem)? I can say that since I've purchased these games I have played zero solo plays. I would have betted that solo playing in CM is not very popular...Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:And the fact that Battlefront is considering internet play more important that pbem play is fact that I can't understand. I have played few sessions that way, but they usually take 2-4 hours atleast. I tend to think my moves long time since I am not that good gamer... And it's rare occasion where I have to to sit down for that long session of CM.
-
Same problems here also. My opponent was asked my password. I guess only thing to do is rollback to 1.01. And if it makes any diffrence our games are CDV versions.
-
If CDV wants their logos back maybe they will release own patch, since BF version patch removes all CDV splash screens and refenrences to CDVOriginally posted by Schrullenhaft:Since the Anthology was the only version to have no copy protection and the patch wasn't released specifically for CDV - it's just one of those trade-offs - you get the patch without having to wait for CDV to release it (and they may not release one - I don't honestly know).
-
CDV's Combat Mission: Antholgy triple pack don't require CD's in drive. This is very good since for example I run around with my laptop playing TCP/IP games. I really dislike carrying my game cds with me. But this changed with patch 1.02 to CM:AK. Why now there is CD check altough we have come this far without needing any checks?
we've got a track record of success that few game companies have.
It's more like Government saying that won't pay for x amount of unemployment if you don't look for a job. But there is no foolproof method for assessing this and some have made a career out of making it appear that they are looking so that they can get their checks without working. The citizenry as a whole agree such behavior is not acceptable.
I got it! I got it! Guess What I'm Downloading NOW!
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
Basic CMBN engine v1 $35
http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage_bfc&product_id=279&category_id=36&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26
Engine v2 update $10
http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage_bfc&product_id=339&category_id=36&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26