Rocky Balboa Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Its not about buyers remorse its about having a great game that actually has a community and developers who continue working on their product. Why wouldnt you want to continue to make it better is what frustrates me I'll tell you what must be frustrating. It must be frustrating for BF to support their product and add features that their customers have asked for (Like enhanced online RT play and movable waypoints and many other features) and still have people show up and rant and rave that they are not doing enough ... That's got to be frustrating .... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I'm in it and I have found one guy I play with regularly and it gets a bit tedious having to go through 145 people just trying to find a game. What bothers me is the AI is horrid boring and predictable and I would like real time players. Not I'm 65 years old and need to put on my bi focal's to see the keyboard PBEM. You say you want more RT opponents but arent able to find them. Do you think that's because their isnt some formal lobby and thats why you can't find anyone to play with? Have you stopped to think that maybe their just isnt enough people who want to play RT online? I know I don't play RT online... PBEM is more my style, I'm sorry but that's the way I pefer to play MP but to be honest most of the time I play single player. Is any of this BF's fault? Of course not, they have done an admirable job of catering the game to multiple play styles. BF is a small company they have to be very careful what they spend their time on because time equates to $ in their world. Maybe a young guy like you doesn't understand that yet but its a fact of life, BF is a business that must make a profit or they go out of business. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Patches, as I understand it, will be FREE. However, patches will not be produced in perpetuity. Once BF.C determines that the biggest bugs are squashed and that most concerns are addressed and that a NEW game/engine is available for the same combat simulation time/space, then the patches will come to an end for that game. (As I understand it.) So, your CMBN will always work. It just won't keep getting better and better. I know this is essentially what Steve posted some days ago, but I have to wonder if it is exactly what he meant. That is, suppose bugs are discovered in the upgraded version of an old game. I'm betting that BFC would indeed release a free patch to correct those bugs. What I would not expect is for them to undertake continued patching for pre-upgrade versions of the same game. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I would have paid money to have the CMAK changes back-ported to CMBB. And have all the correct vehicle models put in. And have the fortifications scoring bug fixed. For all that I'd have paid 5 or 10 bucks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I'm in it and I have found one guy I play with regularly and it gets a bit tedious having to go through 145 people just trying to find a game. What bothers me is the AI is horrid boring and predictable and I would like real time players. Not I'm 65 years old and need to put on my bi focal's to see the keyboard PBEM. Watch it there buddy, I'm not 65, but I do need the reading glasses. I wouldn't say the AI is totally horrid. I have seen some pretty cool stuff done by scenario designers and they are getting better all the time. However I agree, it isn't the same as human to human. The AI will sit still so you can mortar them. I wish my human opponents would do the same LOL Maybe im just a whiney little brat. I just find it hard to believe that no one else wants a lobby where you could have live chat etc. I think i just need to let it go, cause people are just gonna be like oh no we dont need that back to the cellar with you. The wine is in the cellar, it is actually a cool place to hang out, but watch that other door to the cesspool, you DO NOT want to go there. I don't think anyone is opposed to having some kind of live chat set up, I just am not sure we need to have BF provide that. Surely in this day and age there has to be plenty of options. I hate facebook, but for those who like it can't you have a facebook community? Just curious, you say having to go through 145 people. I don't understand the mechanics there not being in the steam group. Are you looking for opponents you prefer, opponents who are actually online, ones who are online but aren't actually available? What is the functional issue that isn't working for you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 What really gets me is you guys dont mind going out to a bar and paying 4 times as much for a beer that you could just sit at home and drink on the couch in your underwear. But BFC says, look guys, we really think we deserve money for our continued work and some of you act like they told your momma shes fat and wears combat boots. Just think if one day BFC figures out they are the only company that produces good cross platform wargames how much they will be able to charge........ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shocker28 Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Honestly a lot of these so called new features are already in the most basic and even older games. Movable way points? Grouped selections that you can hit a number to zoom to? Visually being able to assign keystrokes? Oh and the one single thing that applies to real time the pause button. All of these New Wonderful Innovations are the most basic controls in any standard RTS... but wait somethings missing oh yeah a multiplayer lobby. Maybe a decade from now they'll figure out that people dont want it... they would only expect it to already be in the game. So don't expect me to be impressed with these new "features" they've already been done before. The one thing i will be impressed with and expect is the optimization of the game, performance, and new units. Like i said, the only innovative thing done multi player wise was green as jade's H2HH. Oh and guess what battlefront is frustrated right to the bank cause i still buy their product. Which i feel allows me to RESPECTFULLY disagree with your or anyone's else's opinion that oh its not needed. Guess what opinions are like??? And the multi plyaer lobby wouldnt be for just real time. It would be for all styles of play every week theres someone looking for a game in the forum... why wouldnt you just have it in the game. Theres 5 differnt sites with ladders etc... why not just keep our own records on the lobby arrrgggghhhhhhhh!!! I feel like im talking to my 4 year old 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I feel like im talking to my 4 year old Sigh so do I. I am trying to work with you man. Yes CM doesn't have some features other RTS games do. On the other hand it has far more features they don't. So calm down a little and just keep it square - you'd like some kind of live online chat community. Fair enough. I honestly agree there are other folks undoubtedly who'd like that. But again why does it have to be in the game? Surely there must be something along those lines already freely available. Folks help me out here- there has to already exist something like this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Maybe im just a whiney little brat. I just find it hard to believe that no one else wants a lobby where you could have live chat etc. Despite what you've written, and the tone, I prefer to label you "passionate" rather than "whiney". The problem with passion is it is inherently emotional and that means logic can have a hard time cracking through. Facts get distorted by perception and then perception becomes reality. It's a bad road to go down, but passionate people do it all the time. What I ask for you to do is pull back a bit and look at this more logically. Let's say we have 100 customers. 100 of them want new features numbering in the dozens. There's a couple thousand feature requests with quite a large chunk being reasonably similar to each other. Some requests are 10 minute fixes, others are 10 months of hard work. Some are actually bad for the game, others extremely good. Most fit somewhere in the middle. OK, so here we are... little company, relatively small audience. Realistically we can only implement x number of things in y time because we can only expect z compensation. In other words, going out and hiring 10 programmers to get through all the user requests isn't an option. Which means we have to prioritize where we spend our resources. What is prioritization? Focusing on those things which will benefit the most number of customers. It is about sometimes not doing a particular suggestion because it would mean not doing a dozen others. Sometimes it means not doing a dozen suggestions because one big one is what will make people happier. It's an art and that means someone is always going to disagree with our choices. Back to the 100 people thing... OK, so we look at our limited time and massive stack of suggestions. We have one suggestion that will make 5 people happy but will take 2 months to do. It might be the best suggestion since the dawn of time, but it's not a good use of time. On the contrary, we have a feature suggestion that takes 2 months to do and will make 90 people happy... well, it's worth considering. The problem with multiplayer improvements is that they tend to be "expensive" (i.e. time consuming) to make and test. They also tend to appeal to a much smaller segment of our customer base than other features which take less time to produce. Which means multiplayer stuff tends to be seen as inappropriate choices for high priority. Not just by us, the developers, but the customer base as a whole. It's not about arrogance. It's not about stubbornness. It's about having to make the best choices in an imperfect world. Do I want to see a MP Loby for Combat Mission? Hell yes. It would be a great addition to the multiplayer portion of the game. But it isn't easy to create and a minority of customers would ever use it. Which means it is on the list of things to put into the game, but for now it isn't the wisest use of our time. If one looks at the list of new features for Version 2.0 one can see a number of things which multiplayer customers will enjoy. The two obvious ones that come to mind is RT pause and command key unit grouping. Though the latter is also useable in single player mode, in head to head combat it should be extra useful. Bottom line...we do care about MP customers. We are adding features to improve the MP experience. But we would be doing a disservice to the bulk of our customers if we gave MP features development priority disproportional to the demand. That's just the way things work in the real world. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Oh and guess what battlefront is frustrated right to the bank cause i still buy their product. Which i feel allows me to RESPECTFULLY disagree with your or anyone's else's opinion that oh its not needed. Guess what opinions are like??? Exactly. Which is why you shouldn't get so bothered by people disagreeing with your opinion. In fact, I don't think anybody is disagreeing with your desire for certain features, or that those features would be good for the game (I know I am not doing that). The problem is limited development resources means choices have to be made. I know nobody likes to hear their pet feature requests haven't made the cut, but given the thousands of requests and few dozen we can put in at any one time... people need to be reasonable. Otherwise they will come off sounding whiney. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Contrary to how people spin what I said this is what I said is the way to go. Selling new stuff for old games is the value added sale that I explicitly mentioned. Yup! And it has been a consistent customer request since CMBB was announced to have new features. It's taken us a while to make it feasible on our end, but we're finally giving you guys what you've asked for. There are some details here, though, that make the line a bit fuzzy and might irritate customers: You should reread the first post in this thread: Upgrades Q&A Many answers in just that first post, more in the ensuing discussion. To quickly answer your questions: [*]Does the upgrade come, in addition to new code, with new stuff? No. Upgrades contain new features, never new content. [*]Does the code upgrade also fix technical bugs, such as incompatibilities with certain OS and driver releases? If they are needed, yes they will be in the Upgrade. However, technical fixes such as these will also be available as Patches (for free) for the previous Version. We will not support games that are two Versions old or older. [*] Does the upgrade change the licensing scheme? This is a no-no, too. No. An Upgrade enhances whatever you already have license to use. So far I don't see any fuzzy areas or places to be concerned about legitimate customer complaint. A solution in line with a true "value-added" model would be to offer two version of the patch, one that is bugfixes (for free) and one that also has new stuff (for money) but of course that is out for QA reasons. Fortunately for our customers, you're not the one making this call Another problem is that customers who would be happy to spend more cannot. A traditional problem which has, unfortunately, been recently accentuated thanks to the 5 years of world wide recession. All we can do is make sure we do our best to keep our costs down and charge a reasonable amount for what we sell. Since we can't get people the raises or jobs they would like, this is the best we can do. I know this is essentially what Steve posted some days ago, but I have to wonder if it is exactly what he meant. That is, suppose bugs are discovered in the upgraded version of an old game. I'm betting that BFC would indeed release a free patch to correct those bugs. What I would not expect is for them to undertake continued patching for pre-upgrade versions of the same game. Sorta correct and I hope the above helped clarify. But let me use some hypothetical Version numbers to further explain how things work. Currently CMBN is at v1.10. We will soon offer two things for you guys: v1.11 Patch for free (contains bug fixes and minor gameplay tweaks) v2.00 Upgrade for a cost (contains new features as well as fixes to v1.10) 3 months go by and we find there is a technical problem that needs fixing. We release the following: v1.12 Patch for free (contains bug fixes and minor gameplay tweaks) v2.01 Patch for free (contains bug fixes and minor gameplay tweaks) Obviously someone with v1.11 can not use the v2.01 Patch, just like a person using v2.00 won't need the v1.12 Patch. A year later we release Version 3.0. Let's assume we also fixed some technical problems. We put out the following: v2.02 Patch for free (contains bug fixes and minor gameplay tweaks) v3.00 Upgrade for a cost (contains new features as well as fixes to v2.02) Notice we do not put out v1.13. At this point Version 1.x is unsupported. That make things clearer? Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerryCMBB Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Thanks. That is very helpful. "We will not support games that are two Versions old or older." I had not heard this part before but it could be me. This practice is standard in the software industry I think. Gerry 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Honestly a lot of these so called new features are already in the most basic and even older games. And how many of those other games have even half the accuracy and detail of CMBO, let alone CMBN? And how many of them are by outfits as teensy as BFC operating independently of large publishers? Movable way points? All of these New Wonderful Innovations are the most basic controls in any standard RTS... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chocice Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 That make things clearer? Clear as mud!! ;-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 There's an old CM joke that the game is 'fundamentally flawed' because there are no health crystals hidden under waterfalls. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Please MD, some of these blokes are confused enough already ... Now you'll have them actually looking for health crystals and waterfalls in 2.0 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 If they are needed, yes they will be in the Upgrade. However, technical fixes such as these will also be available as Patches (for free) for the previous Version. We will not support games that are two Versions old or older. [...] No. An Upgrade enhances whatever you already have license to use. So far I don't see any fuzzy areas or places to be concerned about legitimate customer complaint. Well, if that is how you see the future then that's good. You have to understand that some people are jumpy about it because you did both of this before. The Vista patches for CMx1 did fix technical problems and not only did you charge for them, for those customers who were still using CD copy protection check or no copy protection (euro release or whatever it was) it did introduce eLicense. You did change the license on games previously released (and patched) under a different license. And it was charging for technical (OS/driver) fixes. Phil didn't even backport the fortifications victory count bugfix you had in CMAK to CMBB which IMHO was the worst of the whole affair, even the least little bit of value added missing. Not that I ever ran Vista. If you plan not to do that again that would go a long way to making people feel more comfortable with your plans. [about possibly having two patches, one for technical fixes and a more expensive one for enhanced functionality] Fortunately for our customers, you're not the one making this call Well it's the right thing to do if it comes to it. If something is screwed up for "technical" reasons offer both a free patch for just this problem to keep people running and a value added patch for money. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Do I want to see a MP Loby for Combat Mission? Hell yes. It would be a great addition to the multiplayer portion of the game. But it isn't easy to create and a minority of customers would ever use it. Which means it is on the list of things to put into the game, but for now it isn't the wisest use of our time. Well but you also categorically deny any way to call the game from the outside. If you would add the ability to call the CM binary with a commandline specifying a host and port to connect to then outsiders could roll the opponent finder website any way they liked and they simply call the game with the result. Even better if you wrote the results to disk and the tool picks them up. Same issue as with map data XML im/export to support external tools to help with map making. It isn't just that you don't have the resources to do fancy tools yourself. You deny even the smallest bit of interface so that others can do it. And other games have demonstrated that this works. Both of these things could be implemented (and sometimes did) with keyboard/mouse emulation but that is what I rate as a dysfunctional customer/business relationship. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chek Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 ...there have been quite a few things they said we wouldn't get that ended up happening, so...you never know. Mord. True dat, didn't even bother asking for an Italian series just assumed it would never happen.Counted myself lucky to get it the first time around and here I am posting in the Fortress Italy forum. CM just keeps getting better and better for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 There's valid opinions on both sides of (almost) any argument but go re-read the OP....it was not a statement of opinion for discussion....the tone of the OP set the tone for any of the responses that you're objecting to....the OP was not looking for meaningful discussion. The trolling happened with the OP, not the responses. Since when had the OP any relevance in a thread on here? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shocker28 Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Honestly a lot of these so called new features are already in the most basic and even older games. And how many of those other games have even half the accuracy and detail of CMBO, let alone CMBN? And how many of them are by outfits as teensy as BFC operating independently of large publishers? Please, anyone and everyone will tell you that the controls for the game are clunky at best. I will give them the fact that its becoming a lot more stream line. I'm sorry if I'm not impressed with control actions, and a menu where you can assign your keystrokes. These options have been standard in all games for years. Regardless of how big your development team the basics could have been thought out better. All of these New Wonderful Innovations are the most basic controls in any standard RTS... ORLY? Not something I've come across, that. Oh, and CMBN isn't an RTS. It's a tactical simulator that you can play in RT. There's no strategy level. Wow really grab a thesaurus, because your obviously and idiot. No strategy in tactics, no tactics in strategy? That's like saying there's no milk in dairy, no beef in meat. Your attempt to be clever leaves nothing to say. FAIL! Ah. So because something's been done before, it must be sneered at? I see where you're coming from now. Why don't you go back there, and think about reality before coming back here and trying IL!again? And in your final attempt at brilliance you completely proved my point. All I want is a basic component found in almost every online game thats been done before. So if, when, they finally implement an online match making system; I guess Ill just have to be happy sneering about that too. And you want to talk about reality? The reality is that if you go buy an online multi player 99.9% of the time it will have a match making lobby. THAT IS REALITY. And there's probably a good amount of customers that don't buy the game. Because like me they read the games forum or as questions; find out there's no online match up system and do not buy the game. Like really, 65 dollars for a game with no match up system? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Well but you also categorically deny any way to call the game from the outside. If you would add the ability to call the CM binary with a commandline specifying a host and port to connect to then outsiders could roll the opponent finder website any way they liked and they simply call the game with the result. Even better if you wrote the results to disk and the tool picks them up. Same issue as with map data XML im/export to support external tools to help with map making. It isn't just that you don't have the resources to do fancy tools yourself. You deny even the smallest bit of interface so that others can do it. And other games have demonstrated that this works. Both of these things could be implemented (and sometimes did) with keyboard/mouse emulation but that is what I rate as a dysfunctional customer/business relationship. Maybe this stuff flies over at GS, but you really do need to establish a little street cred here. It does get real old you constantly harping on the obvious stuff Charles, Phil, etal keep missing and yet they have a successful company and you have what? A covey of groupies at GS? (what exactly is a group of groupies called?) What seems apparent to me is you do NOT know how to run a business. So you spend your time trying to tell others how to run theirs. Worse you even start interfering with their customer base on how to manage issues with the game. Part of me feels, why should I say anything? These guys are perfectly capable of responding if they felt you were worth the effort. Problem is this is a public forum, not a private message to BF and there are a lot of folks on here who might actually think you know squat. Then they go off and implement something you told them would work. If it breaks their game then who has to fix it - not you of course. No it's the guys who should be working on stuff to enhance the game because that's the kind of folks BF is made of. Geez thanks a lot from all of us waiting for the next release. If it were me, I'd tell them to sign on over at GS and get some more stellar advice from you there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 "There's a Robert Browning quote "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" Unfortunately, though, here in the Boston area we recently had an object lesson in what happens when a game developer's reach exceeds his grasp. Its okay to dream of BFC producing the ultimate end-all perfect computergame product. But be happy their reach as not exceeded their grasp and they've produced what they have without crashing and burning in the process. A 'pyrrihc victory' is more pyrricc than it is victory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 "There's a Robert Browning quote "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" Unfortunately, though, here in the Boston area we recently had an object lesson in what happens when a game developer's reach exceeds his grasp. Its okay to dream of BFC producing the ultimate end-all perfect computergame product. But be happy their reach as not exceeded their grasp and they've produced what they have without crashing and burning in the process. A 'pyrrihc victory' is more pyrricc than it is victory. Excellent closing point. And on that note isn't it about time to lock this thread? Please.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 All I want is... We're hearing a lot of that lately. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.