Michael Emrys Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 ... and this is probably because the game is mostly sold to single-players, I presume. In the "I bought this to play against the computer" scenario, all these considerations are completely moot and a range of choices makes complete sense. So it's a complete waste of time to lament about whether or not this will adversely affect H2H players: we are a secondary concern: if the decision makes sense for vs AI, then that's how it will be. Bingo. All things being equal, I hope it will work out to the satisfaction of you multiplayer guys, simply because as a general principle I prefer to see people get what they want. They are a trifle less likely to riot and burn down houses that way. That said, you need to realize that you are probably a minority, or at least BFC has stated that they see you that way. So if you have to suffer a bit of unavoidable confusion and discomfort on behalf of the greater good, well you may just have to belt up and deal with it. But I suspect it isn't going to get that bad. What we have been hearing in this thread has mostly been worrying over the worst case scenario, and I am skeptical that that will come to pass. I really doubt that you are going to be thrown to the wolves. But if you are, better you than me. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 That said, you need to realize that you are probably a minority, or at least BFC has stated that they see you that way. From what he wrote I'm sure he understands that, just as you appear to understand that we as minorities can only do what minorities do when we feel our rights are being trampled upon: riot. Unfortunately it is my understanding that Steve lives in or next to a swamp, which is probably not very flammable. Good planning on his part. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 The moat surrounding his plantation is stocked with arctic 'gators, I hear. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJFHutch Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Sure, and I just came up with a purely hypothetical illustrative absolute nightmare where they release 437 modules and 256 packs! Oh noes! How will I ever find a game!?one!!11!?!@ I think you guys are jumping at shadows, and attempting to outdo each other with increasingly catastrophic imaginary scenarios. 437 modules? How did you get that number? Wouldn't that be 4 modules and 9 packs in my example? I don't really expect there to be 9 packs for a game (probably 4?), but it's not really that extreme. What would be extreme is trying to find a multiplayer match in that train sim with like 100+ DLC! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 What would be extreme is trying to find a multiplayer match in that train sim with like 100+ DLC! True ... but AIUI the main issue there is exclusivity that's enforced by the MP server(?). I somehow doubt that CM will be going down that path any time ever. In the meantime, just be glad that CM doesn't enforce a consistent set of mod files between players Although, I'm sure my PBEM partners would truly enjoy my SS_bondage_leather mod. Jon BTW&FWIW: I think 4 + 4 (base + four modules + four packs) is likely to be at the extreme upper end. Based on what I've seen, I'd say 3 + 1 or 3 + 2 is more likely to be the norm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Some help for the three debates here: CoPlay would be AWSOME to have as an option. It's why we started talking about it a long time ago. It's why it was in my original CMx2 design dating back from 2004. But then reality hit about how huge an effort it will be to pull off. You guys think it's as simple as having the exact same game as you have now, just more people playing it. Wish it were that easy. Sure, we could probably slap together a rudimentary system in a couple of months if we focused on it. But it would pretty much fall very short of expectations. Especially when someone leaves the game in the middle of a fight and his units just sit around doing nothing. Or one person's system is lagging so much that the game is cancelled due to synch errors. Etc. It's a big, big deal to add and we just don't see how practically useful it will be to the game as a whole when compared to all the sure fire hit features we could put in with the same amount of development effort. The list of features you guys want is super long and time is limited. Squandering a huge chunk of time on just one feature (any feature) would be a colossal mistake. So as I've said for many years now... I think the only practical way this will get in is if a military client pays for it to be developed. And since they don't want to pay for anything that they can't already touch and feel, and even then only if politics are in favor of it, I don't hold out much hope of that happening. Next... Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I too find it unlikely that there'd be more than one pack per title. I suppose there's no limits if BFC wanted to model stuff like military police platoons or all the different trucks used by Wehrmacht, but I doubt that. If the amount of 'stuff' in a pack is the same as in modules then one pack should cover up most of the wanted things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 DLC (Downloadable Content) isn't what I'd use to describe our Pack strategy. DLC tends to favor small purchases, like buying an expanded PzV family or something like that. We aren't doing that at all. A Pack will have a significant amount of new content and it will be logically chosen. Just not single themed. For example, you might get Stomach Battalions and the 21st Panzer Division's crazed assortment of French hybrid stuff and a bunch of other stuff. Think obscure FORMATIONS and not just equipment. We are not worried about customer fragmentation at all. First, the players who play the longest tend to be playing because they are buying the new stuff. Or looked at from the opposite perspective, the players least likely to buy new content are least likely to be looking for people to play against. Even when this is not the case (we don't expect everybody to buy everything) the game handles different content ownership extremely well. Any two people can play against each other provided they have the same version (v2.0 people can maintain a v1.x copy, no problem). The game figures out what each has in common and that's that. It's a little trickier when two people want to play a scenario that's got a mix of several different packages, but that has nothing to do with players being able to play against each other. They can, just not with some premade scenarios. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I too find it unlikely that there'd be more than one pack per title. I suppose there's no limits if BFC wanted to model stuff like military police platoons or all the different trucks used by Wehrmacht, but I doubt that. If the amount of 'stuff' in a pack is the same as in modules then one pack should cover up most of the wanted things. Quite The exception will most likely be found in the Eastern Front titles. There are soooooo many obscure formations, some of which were quite large for a brief amount of time, that I can see more than one Pack there. It might also might make sense to release Packs for Modern that consists of a particular nation. For example, Italy, France, Denmark, etc. Might be worth it to us to do the modeling and art, but not a full blown Module experience. The whole idea of Packs is to keep content availability more flexible than we could with Modules alone. As I stated above, I don't see this being a problem for customers once they really see this in action. The Shock Force people never complained, and trust me... there's a LOT more of them out there than you WW2 guys imagine. So it's not like we don't already have a pretty good sample size to draw conclusions from. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 The fictional Modern Warfare setting of NATO vs. Russia is set a few years from now in a temperate environment. Initially the forces will be US Army vs. Russian Army. Like Shock Force 1 we will be focusing our efforts on bringing other NATO countries into the game since they have unique hardware whereas anybody Russian allied would be using most of the same gear already seen in the game. Point of fact... the Modern setting of NATO vs. Russia couldn't be Cold War, since Russia didn't exist as a nation state during the Cold War Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 The most negative way to look at this (fragmentation) is that "It will be what it will be because it makes sense for the sales of CMxx. There might be some hassles, we just have to deal with them". The most positive way I can look at it is "BFC have experience this before (as Steve just said) and have thought about it (which they didn't even have to do, much, from the H2H perspective) and think it's probably going to be OK. So ... it's probably going to be OK. GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I thought of another thing: fragmentation in the H2H community works in BFC's favour. For example, when a CMBN tourney starts up, except it's CMFI, then the CMBN people have to think "damn, if I want to play, I have to buy that game now". Same with a CMBN tourney thats going to be on Upgrade 2.0... if you're playing the community, you pretty much have to buy. This is a force the the direction of "there won't be a fragmentation problem" ... in fact, keen people will just buy. GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 If the mentality of CM players is akin to the folks who buy every new iPad/iPod/App phone gadget etc. and must have the newest/latest one at any cost so they can flaunt em then BF will have no problems. The reduction of the number of gadget boxes (increasing the size of those remaining) in the interface is clearly to help iPod players with their small screens, as it is a retrograde step for the average PC player with a decent sized monitor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 The way I see the different CM Families for multiplayer is similar to FPS games. "Hey, I want to play Battlefield!" "I want to play Halo!" "I want to play Meddle of Honor!". The fact that these games are all made by different companies is irrelevant since players aren't saying "I want to play an EA game" "I want to play a THQ game". Etc. There is no MP experience out there that should set a standard of "I want to play anybody on the planet with the games I own regardless if they own them or not". Just isn't done for obvious reasons. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Quite The exception will most likely be found in the Eastern Front titles. There are soooooo many obscure formations, some of which were quite large for a brief amount of time, that I can see more than one Pack there. It might also might make sense to release Packs for Modern that consists of a particular nation. For example, Italy, France, Denmark, etc. Might be worth it to us to do the modeling and art, but not a full blown Module experience. The whole idea of Packs is to keep content availability more flexible than we could with Modules alone. As I stated above, I don't see this being a problem for customers once they really see this in action. The Shock Force people never complained, and trust me... there's a LOT more of them out there than you WW2 guys imagine. So it's not like we don't already have a pretty good sample size to draw conclusions from. Steve You can pack me to death! Bring them on. The more toys the better. And I love that single nation pack idea...That could also be the back door way you could update CMSF. I think I mentioned something similar to that in another thread. Port all the Syria stuff and Terrain into a pack! And we could plug it into the new game. Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJFHutch Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 It would be cool if one player could join another player before choosing the settings. That way the players could talk in-game about the settings but also you could then only display content owned by both players to streamline the selection process 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerryCMBB Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Might have missed it. Are there going to be Scenario Packs? Good missions and more of them are just as important as gizmos for me at least. Gerry 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Scenarios alone? No, no plans for that. Those are available for free in the Repository and elsewhere. The talk is about units and what not that don't fit neatly into a single theme like Modules do. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowMotion Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Do you plan to change Repository so that scenarios that you can download will show which modules and packs are used? I mean that you can see this info before downloading. Now this info is not there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 The way I see the different CM Families for multiplayer is similar to FPS games. "Hey, I want to play Battlefield!" "I want to play Halo!" "I want to play Meddle of Honor!". The fact that these games are all made by different companies is irrelevant since players aren't saying "I want to play an EA game" "I want to play a THQ game". Etc. There is no MP experience out there that should set a standard of "I want to play anybody on the planet with the games I own regardless if they own them or not". Just isn't done for obvious reasons. It's taking "us" (people who think like me I guess ) time to get used to the fact that games called Combat Mission <something> set in WWII are different games GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nachinus Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Regarding Eastern Front: In the interview you say that the first title will be Bagration to End of War, future titles '43-'44. Does that mean no Barbarossa nor Stalingrado? Did I miss something? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 YES! Look here, all the East Front Goodness you could want; http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1380311&postcount=214 Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 It is interesting to look at CM:SF mods as an indicator of how played with it might be compared to CM:BN. In both the Repository and CMMODS the tale seems to be that WW2 is much more played with: CMMODS CMSF mods 223 released June 2007 CMBN mods 208 released May 2011 Repository CMSF 486 CMBN 544 So whilst I hear the phrase "You would be surprised how many people play CM:SF" it does not fill me with wonder any more. You note how I said CMBN appeared more "played with" as I am not claiming necessarily more games are played based on the mods numbers but it does seem to indicate that more people are getting involved. CMBN has over half the number of threads 6877 and posts 115063 that CMSF 11235/205103 accrued in in 5 years so there appears to be more evidence of WW2 being a more interesting arena to players. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Point of fact... the Modern setting of NATO vs. Russia couldn't be Cold War, since Russia didn't exist as a nation state during the Cold War I call red herring. There was definitely a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that was fully a state and that had an army poised to go to war with NATO all through the Cold War. Explain, if you will, why we can't have a game about that, hmmm? :confused: Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 ...there appears to be more evidence of WW2 being a more interesting arena to players. According to the sources I have read over the last 40 years, that has always been the case hobby wide. Michael 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.