Jump to content

Any modules coming?


Recommended Posts

BFC is a company and of course they need to make money. For that target you need customers. So it's always good to hear their opinions.

Indeed that happens a lot here. I am sure I have heard Steve say it is a huge source of ideas.

 

What they are doing with these opinions is another question, because only BFC (and the finance office :rolleyes:  ) knows the sales volume.

 

Yeah, and I am sure this is one of the biggest problems around here: people's expectations being disconnected from reality. Anyone person's most important list is not likely to match up exactly with many or any other peoples (my top three feature requests are in my sig see if they match your top three) :)).  Not to mention that this forum is only a small segment of people who play and not a statistical sample.

 

The price is not so important for me, but the value for money. A new main game with this content is very unattractive to me.

 

Hummm I don't get what you are saying here. If the same content comes as a module or as the initial release of a new family the value only changes by the price difference. And if money is not so important... We certainly have had some big differences in the amount of new content between the various modules so I am not sure if arguing for a module because it is guaranteed to have more value really has any traction.

 

I play only PBEM and maybe that's the reason I have another view than other members of this forum.

 

Actually I think there are quite a few of us that pretty much only play PBEM here on the forum.

 

I would have liked that BFC would have other priorities and changing the game system (e.g. no breaking FOW,

 

Humm are you talking about a specific bug here or the destroyed terrain limitation?  I know there is a bug logged for the problem of water ripples breaking FOW - it will get fixed.  Any other bugs here. 

 

a better spotting system,

 

Humm.  Lots of debate about spotting issues.  Most of the time those debates end up showing the complaint was not valid.  A truly insane situation does happen occasionally and I am sure more bugs will be discovered but the vast, vast majority of the time spotting seems well within the realm of possibility.  Note I mean in the "it could have happened the way it did" not in the "I expect perfection from my troops" kind of way.

 

usefully ATGs,

 

Ah changes have been made.  AT guns are much harder to spot in the latest patches.  Even at close ranges they are pretty hard to find until they have done damage.

 

the possibility of an ambush).

 

Not sure what you mean I ambush / get ambushed fairly regularly.

 

 

[EDIT] Of course with "Zombies" I don’t designate any person in this forum. It is just a metaphor :) 

Brains, I need brains :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would bet a lot we'll be seeing a significant amount of new material for the Ost Front eventually though I won't predict when. It is Steve's favorite theather, maybe others at Battlefront as well. Also I don't think one can lump CMBN and CMFI together and say there are two West Front games. From the post counts over the amount of time the games have been out it seems to me Red Thunder was a better success than Fortress Italy (also see Kohlenklau's thread/post count thread in the CMFI forum). Finally I think though it made sense devlopment-wise a June 1944-May 1945 game is probably the least popular year on the Ost Front for most players.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I doubt we'll ever see Barbarossa at this rate which makes me a bit disappointed.

 

Don't panic, it's much too soon for that.  ;) I think as long as BFC can recoup their costs with East Front games they will continue to make them. Even if they don't make huge profits directly, if they keep fans of the East Front happy, many of them will also buy other games in the zoo. So it's good PR at a minimum.

 

Michael

 

Edit: I meant to add that it is most likely that we will see a Barbarossa game because I expect that it would be the biggest seller of East Front titles.

Edited by Michael Emrys
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed that happens a lot here. I am sure I have heard Steve say it is a huge source of ideas.

 

 

Yeah, and I am sure this is one of the biggest problems around here: people's expectations being disconnected from reality. Anyone person's most important list is not likely to match up exactly with many or any other peoples (my top three feature requests are in my sig see if they match your top three) :)).  Not to mention that this forum is only a small segment of people who play and not a statistical sample.

 

 

Hummm I don't get what you are saying here. If the same content comes as a module or as the initial release of a new family the value only changes by the price difference. And if money is not so important... We certainly have had some big differences in the amount of new content between the various modules so I am not sure if arguing for a module because it is guaranteed to have more value really has any traction.

 

 

Actually I think there are quite a few of us that pretty much only play PBEM here on the forum.

 

 

Humm are you talking about a specific bug here or the destroyed terrain limitation?  I know there is a bug logged for the problem of water ripples breaking FOW - it will get fixed.  Any other bugs here. 

 

 

Humm.  Lots of debate about spotting issues.  Most of the time those debates end up showing the complaint was not valid.  A truly insane situation does happen occasionally and I am sure more bugs will be discovered but the vast, vast majority of the time spotting seems well within the realm of possibility.  Note I mean in the "it could have happened the way it did" not in the "I expect perfection from my troops" kind of way.

 

 

Ah changes have been made.  AT guns are much harder to spot in the latest patches.  Even at close ranges they are pretty hard to find until they have done damage.

 

 

Not sure what you mean I ambush / get ambushed fairly regularly.

 

 

Brains, I need brains :D

 

I like your top three also :) , but for me they are the second step. At first it's necessary (in my opinion) to fix the base game system.

 

I would pay more than 50 or 60 dollars for a good game. That's what I meant with "the price is not so important for me". But I am not willing to pay 10 Dollars for a product, if I am of the opinion that the value is not worth it. That's what I meant with "value for money". A new main game with this content is the latter.

 

When I read a response like this: "Believe me, it will get fixed". I have the feeling of being in a Catholic forum  ;)   Do you know it or to you believe it? When it will be fixed? "Maybe", "sometimes" or "it is fixed till it's fixed" would be better answers :D

 

Here are some examples for breaking FOW:

  • The problem with destroyed objects (e.g. fences) they are visible for everybody.
  • Blasting something (e.g. Bocages) is also visible and hearable for everybody (same with mortar sounds).
  • The problem with the water splash effect.
  • Trenches and bunkers are changing the terrain and so the enemy will know where they are (not on every type of terrain).

I don’t want to write down all known bugs. They are known and if we start to discuss about single bugs in this thread the discussion will be endless :rolleyes:

 

You can correct me, but my state of knowledge is that the turn based system is limited by the real time system. With all the restriction that it entails. And yes, the spotting system is maybe doing what it should do, but the whole system needs to be optimizing for turn based. In contrast to this airplanes having the spotting ability of Superman.

 

ATGs are much harder to spot till the last patch? Which patch do you mean? CMRT? I didn’t read anything about it. Do you have a link?

 

My experience is that hidden units will not fire; even the enemy is inside the target arc. And unhidden units will spot too fast. That makes the possibility of ambushes much harder.

 

Another problem is that units that had LOS to a point in the setup phase, sometimes don’t have LOS to this point after the battle has started. Same with bunkers they are sinking a little into the ground and lost LOS (maybe it’s fixed now).

 

Based on my explanations I don’t use airplanes, trenches, bunkers, ATGs, maps with water etc. in battles and that's part of the reasons I am not happy with the gameplay system.

 

Finally, I want to underline that my last post has not the intention to criticize single bugs or issues. There are enough threads about them and I think that the problems are well known. My message to BFC is that they should change their development priorities. True to the motto: going back to the roots!  :cool:  I don’t need new vehicles, maps or graphic effects if the based gamesystem doesn't work correct. These new stuff will bring only new and more problems.

 

P.S.

I understand BFC's strategy. New stuff like this is better to sell and easier/faster to develop. Packaging beats content. That’s the way it goes …

 

P.P.S.

Sorry, but you can't have my brain. It's currently in maintenance and gets a 16Bit upgrade :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Here are some examples for breaking FOW:

  • The problem with destroyed objects (e.g. fences) they are visible for everybody.
  • Blasting something (e.g. Bocages) is also visible and hearable for everybody (same with mortar sounds).

Well those are never going to be 'fixed' because it is a limitation with the game code itself so if that is on your list you will forever be disappointed. 

 

The problem with the 'game improvements over content' discussion is that the two are completely divorced from each other from a development standpoint, yet they are inherently intertwined from a gameplay standpoint.  From a development standpoint there are only two coders working for BFC and they can only get so much done during any given span of time.  There is a list of things that they would like to do that is longer than what can be done so they have to prioritize what they concentrate their efforts on.  Some of the things that the 'game improvements' camp focus on are also subjective in nature.  For example spotting.  Some people dislike the spotting system so much that the game becomes impossible for them to play.  Others don't really see what the issue is and the spotting is 'good enough' for them to play the game.  Subjective things are difficult to tweak because what may be perfect for one player is not perfect for another.  I have watched some YouTube games that people have posted where they complain about the spotting but when I view their game all I see is complaints that their troops aren't mopping up the opposition the way they expect.  If they spot the enemy the game is working perfectly, but if the enemy spots them the game is broken.  In one series of videos the player literally spots and fires first upon several enemy tanks without taking any return fire and he celebrates.  He then takes fire from a few enemy tanks that spot him first and he complains that spotting is broken.  I only mention that because, once again, it is subjective, but at least in that video series the player's bias is unmistakable.

 

As far as the content goes, and here I'm talking about QB maps, TO&Es, Scenarios, and Campaigns, you can't actually 'play' the game if you have no content.  So you have to have content in order to play the game.  The two coders don't make any content.  The only interaction that the coders have with the content is to create the environment where the content can be added to the game.  Other than that they don't do anything with it, so 'features' and 'content' don't have any effect on the development process for either.  So if someone complains that they want features instead of content then what they are really saying is 'I can't enjoy the content because I don't like the game engine.'  If you don't like the game engine then you run up against the problem of there only being two coders and if your 'game breaking feature' isn't on or near the top of the priority list then .... I guess you are just out of luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I undertand BFC's strategy. New stuff like this is better to sell and easier/faster to develop. Packaging beats content. That’s the way it goes

No you don't. If you want the game to be perfect, be prepared to pay for the development team to keep working without releasing anything for another 5, 6 years or so, or just let the rest of us pay and come back when it's exactly how you like it. Content pays for new features by allowing releases that get money in to pay for Charles and Phil to stay in the niche programming role they've made their own for long enough to get the engine the next step towards perfect. And it will never be perfect. For many people it's "Good enough for now, especially given the premise that it will get better, and I'll be able to have me some of that candy when it does." Do you really think BFC could have kept going on sales of BN "vanilla" in the years between that release and the release of RT (which version3 had some large and looked-for new engine features and improvements, including the longed-for rectification of many bridge issues, which are more basic than any of your requests)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well those are never going to be 'fixed' because it is a limitation with the game code itself so if that is on your list you will forever be disappointed. 

 

The problem with the 'game improvements over content' discussion is that the two are completely divorced from each other from a development standpoint, yet they are inherently intertwined from a gameplay standpoint.  From a development standpoint there are only two coders working for BFC and they can only get so much done during any given span of time.  There is a list of things that they would like to do that is longer than what can be done so they have to prioritize what they concentrate their efforts on.  Some of the things that the 'game improvements' camp focus on are also subjective in nature.  For example spotting.  Some people dislike the spotting system so much that the game becomes impossible for them to play.  Others don't really see what the issue is and the spotting is 'good enough' for them to play the game.  Subjective things are difficult to tweak because what may be perfect for one player is not perfect for another.  I have watched some YouTube games that people have posted where they complain about the spotting but when I view their game all I see is complaints that their troops aren't mopping up the opposition the way they expect.  If they spot the enemy the game is working perfectly, but if the enemy spots them the game is broken.  In one series of videos the player literally spots and fires first upon several enemy tanks without taking any return fire and he celebrates.  He then takes fire from a few enemy tanks that spot him first and he complains that spotting is broken.  I only mention that because, once again, it is subjective, but at least in that video series the player's bias is unmistakable.

 

As far as the content goes, and here I'm talking about QB maps, TO&Es, Scenarios, and Campaigns, you can't actually 'play' the game if you have no content.  So you have to have content in order to play the game.  The two coders don't make any content.  The only interaction that the coders have with the content is to create the environment where the content can be added to the game.  Other than that they don't do anything with it, so 'features' and 'content' don't have any effect on the development process for either.  So if someone complains that they want features instead of content then what they are really saying is 'I can't enjoy the content because I don't like the game engine.'  If you don't like the game engine then you run up against the problem of there only being two coders and if your 'game breaking feature' isn't on or near the top of the priority list then .... I guess you are just out of luck.

 

At First: I only wrote down my point of view. Just a single customer voice in the darkness :)

And that’s why I don’t want to start discussions about single examples of my post.

 

I have only two questions:

  1. You wrote that my examples for breaking FOW will never be fixed. "Never" is very final  ;)  May I ask you how do you know this?
  2. Is the spotting system limited by the real time system and could it be better with a higher trigger?

Of course my personal priorities are not the same, that’s the reason of my last posts  :)  And I don’t think that I am out of luck because of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you don't. If you want the game to be perfect, be prepared to pay for the development team to keep working without releasing anything for another 5, 6 years or so, or just let the rest of us pay and come back when it's exactly how you like it. Content pays for new features by allowing releases that get money in to pay for Charles and Phil to stay in the niche programming role they've made their own for long enough to get the engine the next step towards perfect. And it will never be perfect. For many people it's "Good enough for now, especially given the premise that it will get better, and I'll be able to have me some of that candy when it does." Do you really think BFC could have kept going on sales of BN "vanilla" in the years between that release and the release of RT (which version3 had some large and looked-for new engine features and improvements, including the longed-for rectification of many bridge issues, which are more basic than any of your requests)?

 

I think we have the same understanding of BFC’s strategy. We described it only with other words. My description wasn’t meant negative. That’s business …

 

And please not this kind of black and white view  ;)  I never wrote that BFC didn’t fixed anything and if you are completely lucky with the game it’s fine :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At First: I only wrote down my point of view. Just a single customer voice in the darkness :)

And that’s why I don’t want to start discussions about single examples of my post.

 

I have only two questions:

    • You wrote that my examples for breaking FOW will never be fixed. "Never" is very final  ;)  May I ask you how do you know this?

They very likely (to be mathematically approaching never) won't be fixed in CMx2 because they are basic elements of the architecture of the game engine. The "terrain mesh" that defines the topological surface of the ground is inviolable. All the dynamic things that appear to breach the terrain mesh (trenches, foxholes) are "workarounds" that have inherent weaknesses. Never is, perhaps, too strong, but "never in CMx2" probably isn't, and CMx3 will be a different game with a different set of imperfections, hopefully to the same degree of positive improvement that CMx2 is over CMx1. If they build it.

    • Is the spotting system limited by the realtime system and could it be better with a higher trigger?

No, it's limited by the backward compatibility with peoples' computers (and some inherent lacks in its own technical architecture like single processor use in multicore systems).

Of course my personal priorities are not the same, that’s the reason of my last posts  :)  And I don’t think that I am out of luck because of this.

You're out of luck because your personal priorites cannot be accommodated by the current engine and the current technical programming staff. It's not because they're your opinions or desires, or because you express them, it's just not technically feasible to give you everything you want, when you want it. So you are, indeed, SOL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They very likely (to be mathematically approaching never) won't be fixed in CMx2 because they are basic elements of the architecture of the game engine. The "terrain mesh" that defines the topological surface of the ground is inviolable. All the dynamic things that appear to breach the terrain mesh (trenches, foxholes) are "workarounds" that have inherent weaknesses. Never is, perhaps, too strong, but "never in CMx2" probably isn't, and CMx3 will be a different game with a different set of imperfections, hopefully to the same degree of positive improvement that CMx2 is over CMx1. If they build it.

No, it's limited by the backward compatibility with peoples' computers (and some inherent lacks in its own technical architecture like single processor use in multicore systems).

You're out of luck because your personal priorites cannot be accommodated by the current engine and the current technical programming staff. It's not because they're your opinions or desires, or because you express them, it's just not technically feasible to give you everything you want, when you want it. So you are, indeed, SOL.

 

Yes, and the backward compatibility with peoples' computers is because of the real time system, isn’t it? If we would have only a turn based system there would be much more time for calculations between the turns or I am wrong?

 

What means SOL? Senior OnLine? :)

 

[EDIT]

 

Well, you came to the wrong place for that. A discussion is almost inevitable on here. :)

Actually, the framework of the spotting system has been one of the aspects of the game's systems that Steve has taken some pains to explain, because it is such a core component of the game. So some of us have at least a foggy understanding of what's going on under the hood. 

 

RealTime play. That is calculated on-the-fly, and so all game subsystems have to be capable of keeping up. As the baseline rig that the game is meant to run on gets better, BFC will be able to tune the frequency of spotting calculations up, but they do tend to be conservative in their demands for the hardware you must have to play the game, so, as the lifetime of a tolerable gaming rig extends, the rate at which they can increase the frequency of spotting checks goes down.

 

 

Thanks for the explanation!

 

So the trigger frequency is limited by the real time system? Puh! Another reason I don’t like RTS’  ;)  and it explains why in CMx2 typical RTS tactics work more than in CMx1.

 

 

Edited by Toblakai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Ramping up the spotting frequency would just as likely break the game in WeGo as it would in RealTime for a machine that couldn't cope with the increased sampling rate in RealTime. You still have to store all the results, and then render them in realtime, which is the hard part. Perhaps the sluggardly machine could calculate the turn, but turning it into on-screen replay would choke it.

SOL: [scatalogicaly] Outta ("out of") Luck.

And even if sampling rates increased, there would still be gaps, and it still wouldn't be perfect. The game already dynamically increases the sampling rate for units that are aware of other units, and the specific sample rate for the pairs of sensor-object that might be critical. There's probably some room for improvement in that algorithm. But most of the time it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference to the outcome. And indeed in some cases it might even make the player's "God's eye view" even more gamey than it already is: imagine, nowadays, it's possible to kill a unit before its player knows you're there, so they can't easily direct "speculative" fire on your exact location, whereas if sampling was doubled, there'd be times when the unit spots you, but can't have done anything about it before you destroy it, but the unit's owner will now have an exact spot on the shooter's location, which they simply shouldn't have. Sometimes, it's wise to be careful what you wish for, when there are more limitations than one on the enviroment in which you are trying to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At First: I only wrote down my point of view. Just a single customer voice in the darkness :)

And that’s why I don’t want to start discussions about single examples of my post.

 

I have only two questions:

  1. You wrote that my examples for breaking FOW will never be fixed. "Never" is very final  ;)  May I ask you how do you know this?
  2. Is the spotting system limited by the real time system and could it be better with a higher trigger?

Of course my personal priorities are not the same, that’s the reason of my last posts  :)  And I don’t think that I am out of luck because of this.

Steve has stated publicly that those two items will never be affected by fog of war.  There were more discussions about this than I can count, but mostly they came up in discussions about foxholes and trenches (probably on the CMSF forums but I can't remember for certain - just do a search for fog of war terrain in the CMSF forums and you should get more posts than you can read in a single sitting).  You may recall that CMSF trenches were part of the terrain mesh and could not be deployed by the player.  Only the scenario designer could place trenches and once placed everyone could see them.  Once the current version of foxholes and trenches were implemented the constant beating of the dead horse of fog of war terrain seems to have passed.  Players were hoping for Fog of War terrain where the entire map was blacked out until the player could see it with a unit - that's how extreme people were asking for on Fog of War.  So yes, Never is the correct characterization of how Steve described it because things that affect the terrain mesh have to be visible to both players.  Could that change in the future with an entirely new game engine?  Maybe, maybe not, but if you are going to wait that long for FOW broken fences then ...... :huh:, I'm not really sure what you are doing here quite honestly. 

Edited by ASL Veteran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your top three also :) , but for me they are the second step. At first it's necessary (in my opinion) to fix the base game system.

 

I would pay more than 50 or 60 dollars for a good game. That's what I meant with "the price is not so important for me". But I am not willing to pay 10 Dollars for a product, if I am of the opinion that the value is not worth it. That's what I meant with "value for money". A new main game with this content is the latter.

 

I see, makes sense.

 

When I read a response like this: "Believe me, it will get fixed". I have the feeling of being in a Catholic forum  ;)   Do you know it or to you believe it? When it will be fixed? "Maybe", "sometimes" or "it is fixed till it's fixed" would be better answers :D

 

LOL Catholic - I am pretty sure the Pope would not be welcoming me.  Back to on topic: Testers are not allowed to make comments about fixes schedules etc.  So, even if I had an idea of when I could not say.  The only thing I can say is it has been logged.  It was not rejected as something that will not be fixed.  I trust them to fix it.  At some point.

 

Here are some examples for breaking FOW:

  • The problem with destroyed objects (e.g. fences) they are visible for everybody.
 

Yep, and that has been acknowledged as a limitation in the current game engine (aka there is no intention to fix it as a bug and we have no idea where it might or might not be on BFC's list of features to work on).  So, here is one thing that could go on a list of "game play stuff that @Toblakai would like to see changed". 

 

  • Blasting something (e.g. Bocages) is also visible and hearable for everybody (same with mortar sounds).

 

 Yep, same as above.

 

  • The problem with the water splash effect.

 

A bug that can be fixed.

 

  • Trenches and bunkers are changing the terrain and so the enemy will know where they are (not on every type of terrain).

 

Yeah, similar I am not sure if this fits as perfectly into the bucket of "game play stuff that @Toblakai would like to see changed" but given my faulty memory lets put it there.

 

I don’t want to write down all known bugs. They are known and if we start to discuss about single bugs in this thread the discussion will be endless :rolleyes:

 

So, this is a real problem.  What you call a known bug is not the same as what BFC thinks of as a real bug.  Here is what I mean.  If you don't have a message form Steve or Phil saying - that says something like "that's not right we will fix it" or a tester saying "yuck that seems wrong I'll log that", then it is *not* a known bug.  This is really important: There is no chance (other than providence) that something that you (or anyone else) thinks is a bug will be fixed if it has not been acknowledged as a bug.  None.

 

Here is an example from my own experience: the problem of plotting way points around bridges.  It was one of the first defects I ran into.  It was annoying.  It was not possible to place way points around bridges. Things like putting way points near river banks was insane they would show up in the oddest places.  I posted about it and eventually found a workaround thanks to some kind soul on the fourm (put the camera directly above and look down).  I figured it would get looked at.  Patches came and went.  No fix.  Finally, newly annoyed, I posted again and one of the testers said "I cannot reproduce that, I have never seen it before".  "Arrrg" I though how is this possible. Well no one ever acknowledged the problem was real and therefore no one looked at it.  Obviously.  As soon as myself and this tester realized that we looked into it more closely and discovered the problem and it was acknowledged as a problem and fixed in the vary next patch.  In fact the fix was in the product all along I just had to flip an option that was no longer needed because ATI had fixed a graphics driver bug the option was meant to work around.

 

I'll say it again if you do not have a message where Steve or Phil say "yep it is a bug" or at least one where a tester says "I logged it" it is not a known bug and probably never going to be looked at.  What this means is if you think something needs to be changed you need to sell it or live with it.  Just wandering around say it's broke has zero value.

 

I am not trying to be mean or cruel but our expectations need adjusting.  What I mean is if there are game play issues that people think need to be addressed and you do not engage in discussion and get some kind of statement about their merit we cannot have an expectation that they will be addressed.  There are many things that BFC (and my others BTW) think play just fine or good enough and do not have plans to change.  All of us just sitting here hoping for something to be "fixed" need to consider that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The board did not like the number of quotes I used continuing...

 

You can correct me, but my state of knowledge is that the turn based system is limited by the real time system. With all the restriction that it entails. And yes, the spotting system is maybe doing what it should do, but the whole system needs to be optimizing for turn based. In contrast to this airplanes having the spotting ability of Superman.

I, personally, do not get the impression that WEGO is being actively shunned. I guess you could argue the problem of not being able to area target building faces in some situations because of the way the 8m action squares are handled could fall into this category. If you offered me to drop Real Time play so units in city streets could target building faces that they can clearly see I guess I personally would say yes please. I do not really expect that overall that trade off would really be a good one for the game because lots of people really like Real Time play and I only run into the problem of targeting buildings in a bit under half my games. I have head it said that the resource constraints on RT mean that there is a spotting cycle and that is bad but honestly the vast, vast majority of issues with spotting are not problems at all but people expecting "perfect troops"tm (see above about what known issue really means).

 

ATGs are much harder to spot till the last patch? Which patch do you mean? CMRT? I didn’t read anything about it. Do you have a link?

Well I went looking and found nothing but my faulty memory. There is an anecdotal discussion about AT guns being harder to spot here:

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/113864-rt-anti-tank-guns/?p=1513576

After rereading that thread my opinion is the reduction in spotting abilities by tanks is probably what changed.

 

My experience is that hidden units will not fire; even the enemy is inside the target arc. And unhidden units will spot too fast. That makes the possibility of ambushes much harder.

Right I know there are discussions about ambushes and many people have trouble getting them to work and my people have found the magic sauce and shared them on the forum. Hiding has a specific meaning and it is not appropriate for ambushing. Again hiding is not going to be fixed because it is not acknowledge as being broken. There might be some thoughts about improvements that can be made to make ambushes easier I cannot remember what Steve has said on the subject. Given my memory about the above me not saying anything that might embarrass me is a good thing.

 

Another problem is that units that had LOS to a point in the setup phase, sometimes don’t have LOS to this point after the battle has started. Same with bunkers they are sinking a little into the ground and lost LOS (maybe it’s fixed now).

Another example of possibly a legit concern on the list of "game play stuff that @Toblakai would like to see fixed".

 

Based on my explanations I don’t use airplanes, trenches, bunkers, ATGs, maps with water etc. in battles and that's part of the reasons I am not happy with the gameplay system.

Finally, I want to underline that my last post has not the intention to criticize single bugs or issues. There are enough threads about them and I think that the problems are well known. My message to BFC is that they should change their development priorities. True to the motto: going back to the roots! :cool: I don’t need new vehicles, maps or graphic effects if the based gamesystem doesn't work correct. These new stuff will bring only new and more problems.

P.S.

I understand BFC's strategy. New stuff like this is better to sell and easier/faster to develop. Packaging beats content. That’s the way it goes …

Right, well summarized. Your priorities are not matching well with BFC's priorities. Not much that can be said other than hopefully as they work on engine features from time to time you see things you like. The only issue I have is that I do not believe that "the based gamesystem doesn't work correct" is fair. And this is my main point: BFC thinks the game play ranges from damn good to good enough. They have said they have a list of stuff they want to improve but overall they are happy with the way the game plays. They don't think it is not working correctly. Therefore the stuff that you don't like is not going to change. Therefore if we want changes in those areas we have to pitch solutions and ask for changes.

 

P.P.S.

Sorry, but you can't have my brain. It's currently in maintenance and gets a 16Bit upgrade :D

LOL thankfully I am a 64 bit zombie so I'll stay away from your brains :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear I should apologize to @Toblakai. I singled him out for my "if it ain't acknowledged as a defect it ain't really a defect" preaching but I mean to address everyone of us - including me. So thanks for the opportunity for a concrete example @Toblakai and please don't feel like it only applies to you :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And even if sampling rates increased, there would still be gaps, and it still wouldn't be perfect.

The problem I have with that statement is: what good would a more frequent sample rate really do? OK sure some "a tank drove over my infantry in the dark and under a smoke screen and they never saw it" could be fixed and that infantry unit would see the tank for the 3s as it drove over them and would then be lost in the smoke again.  But that is about it.  If we find cases where there is a consistent and repeatable spotting problem they should get looked at and a fix made - whatever that fix should be. 

 

We should not be trying to simulate some player's idea of "perfect pixeltroops"tm that would hurt game play.  Yes, I am saying that units that fail to see stuff that we think they should is a good thing (as long as it is part of the random and reasonable way soldiers in combat might actually notice things).  Yeah you read that right it is good that our units do not spot perfectly.  Humans do not, soldiers do not, it is a fact of life.

 

The game already dynamically increases the sampling rate for units that are aware of nearby other units,

Fixed that for ya.  The change was for increased spotting cycles locally for units that are near each other - they do not need to be aware of each other - the engine does and that is enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the replies!

 

The opinions and views were exchanged, that should be enough.

 

But of course, how could it be otherwise, I still have something :)

@ IanL
@ ASL Veteran
@ womble
May I ask, if you are official voices of BFC?

 

@ IanL
Hey Ian, to say a known bug, issue, suggestion for improvement or however you will call it is only known, if BFC are ready to solve it, sounds a little strange. Please remember the Catholic forum ;)

 

The main reason of my post was because of BFC's strategy and not about single bugs or issues. There are more than enough other threads about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I have with that statement is: what good would a more frequent sample rate really do? OK sure some "a tank drove over my infantry in the dark and under a smoke screen and they never saw it" could be fixed and that infantry unit would see the tank for the 3s as it drove over them and would then be lost in the smoke again.  But that is about it.  If we find cases where there is a consistent and repeatable spotting problem they should get looked at and a fix made - whatever that fix should be.

Yeah. That was my point, too.

We should not be trying to simulate some player's idea of "perfect pixeltroops"tm that would hurt game play.  Yes, I am saying that units that fail to see stuff that we think they should is a good thing (as long as it is part of the random and reasonable way soldiers in combat might actually notice things).  Yeah you read that right it is good that our units do not spot perfectly.  Humans do not, soldiers do not, it is a fact of life.

And that. If the spotting algorithm were, somehow, able to run at the "speed of perception" for every set of eyeballs and every object in the game, the system would have to include more "rolls" for whether an observer noticed a new spottable thing on any given "tick" of the algorithm. So you'd generate 50 times as many "chances to see", but have to give each only a 5% chance of actually seeing, which does seem particularly profligate of CPU and memory resources.

Fixed that for ya.  The change was for increased spotting cycles locally for units that are near each other - they do not need to be aware of each other - the engine does and that is enough.

I thought Steve said that the cycle time was decreased for both parties once one had a spot, and for parties that were in "tentative" contact, too... As well as for proximity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

@ IanL

@ ASL Veteran

@ womble

May I ask, if you are official voices of BFC?

 

 

The only 'official' voices of BFC who would post in this forum would be Steve himself, Chris ND, Phil, and or any of the other actual BFC employees.  I'm not sure what relevance that has to the discussion though.  Just because we aren't speaking on behalf of BFC in an official capacity doesn't mean that our responses to your posts are invalid.  I already mentioned in my post to you that I was referencing previous posts that Steve has made in the past (and which you can locate using the search function), so the fact that I'm referencing past posts by Steve should be treated in the same manner that you would treat a new post by Steve in this thread because nothing that he discussed in the past has changed in any way since he made those posts.

 

I am aware of the attitude that people have about 'Beta Testers' and 'Fanbois' and as far as Beta testers go people get a very skewed view based upon their perceptions of how individuals act in the public forums.  Keep in mind that Beta Testers interact directly with the official staff of BFC and with each other in special beta forums that are not accessible to the public at large.  Why is that important?  That is important to understand because there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a Beta Tester to come onto the public forums and put forth their complaints about the game and how it is not working the way they want it to.  Why would any Beta Tester do that?  It would be pointless because a Beta Tester can discuss various issues directly with the official BFC staff if they want to.  Coming to the public forum to complain about something the game does or doesn't do is almost disrespectful to BFC as well as being pointless because individuals who don't have access to the Beta Forums (in other words, people like you) aren't going to solve or fix an issue with the game.  All you can do is say 'yes I agree' and if BFC can't or won't fix it that hasn't accomplished anything but stir up a storm on the forums and annoy the BFC staff. 

 

Beta testers complain on our own forums, so just because you don't see a Beta out here pushing issues with how broken the game is doesn't mean that all Beta's think the game is perfect in every way.  The only difference here is that you don't get the opportunity to view and participate in the discussions on the Beta Forums.  Beta Testers have also all signed Non Disclosure Agreements and we are under a contractual obligation not to discuss publicly what is discussed on the Beta Forums.  However, that doesn't mean that we can't have an 'informed' opinion about something because we know first hand what it takes to get something into the game or fixed.  We know that because we have to interact with the BFC staff directly and we know first hand what is required to get something fixed or altered.  So when we come out to the public forum and say 'you need X' or 'that's a feature not a bug' then we are saying that through experience and first hand knowledge.  We also have general knowledge of how things work internally at BFC, although there is still a lot that is hidden even from us because the actual staff obviously communicate directly with each other. 

 

So I guess I'll wrap this rambling post up by saying this; no I don't speak for BFC but that's entirely irrelevant because the information that I am providing you with is the most recent answer to your inquiry that has been publicly outlined by Steve himself (and he speaks for BFC in an official capacity).  So while you are free to assume that fog of war will eventually be applied to fences and hedgerows if you just complain about it long enough and loud enough, all you are doing is living in a world of your own construction that is divorced from the reality of what is possible and what isn't possible in the game as it is currently structured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the replies!

 

The opinions and views were exchanged, that should be enough.

 

Indeed always valuable.

 

But of course, how could it be otherwise, I still have something :)

@ IanL

@ ASL Veteran

@ womble

May I ask, if you are official voices of BFC?

 

ASL already answered but I will add simply that if you look at my post history of bringing up game issues you can see that the stopped.  That is directly because I bring them up on internal forums now or just log them if no discussion is necessary.

 

@ IanL

Hey Ian, to say a known bug, issue, suggestion for improvement or however you will call it is only known, if BFC are ready to solve it, sounds a little strange. Please remember the Catholic forum ;)

I do like the Catholic analogy although some Catholics might take offences lumping me in with them and I might take offence at being compared to a Catholic but I won't :)  I get it you are basically saying watch out you don't want to drink the cool aid with out thinking first.  I am saying I have direct empirical evidence day in day out that shows me that if BFC say they will fix a bug they will.  Period. I also have direct empirical evidence not to hold my breath because it may take a while. :D  It is just how it is when you have a small team and a ton of work.

 

The main reason of my post was because of BFC's strategy and not about single bugs or issues. There are more than enough other threads about them.

 

OK I see you are trying to use a plethora of defects to argue you don't like the direction.  What I am trying to say is the if people have a list in their own head of a bunch of super important bugs the they feel need to be fixed and the get more and more upset when they are not they are at best setting them selves up for disappointment and at worst deluding them selves.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only 'official' voices of BFC who would post in this forum would be Steve himself, Chris ND, Phil, and or any of the other actual BFC employees.  I'm not sure what relevance that has to the discussion though.  Just because we aren't speaking on behalf of BFC in an official capacity doesn't mean that our responses to your posts are invalid.  I already mentioned in my post to you that I was referencing previous posts that Steve has made in the past (and which you can locate using the search function), so the fact that I'm referencing past posts by Steve should be treated in the same manner that you would treat a new post by Steve in this thread because nothing that he discussed in the past has changed in any way since he made those posts.

 

I am aware of the attitude that people have about 'Beta Testers' and 'Fanbois' and as far as Beta testers go people get a very skewed view based upon their perceptions of how individuals act in the public forums.  Keep in mind that Beta Testers interact directly with the official staff of BFC and with each other in special beta forums that are not accessible to the public at large.  Why is that important?  That is important to understand because there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a Beta Tester to come onto the public forums and put forth their complaints about the game and how it is not working the way they want it to.  Why would any Beta Tester do that?  It would be pointless because a Beta Tester can discuss various issues directly with the official BFC staff if they want to.  Coming to the public forum to complain about something the game does or doesn't do is almost disrespectful to BFC as well as being pointless because individuals who don't have access to the Beta Forums (in other words, people like you) aren't going to solve or fix an issue with the game.  All you can do is say 'yes I agree' and if BFC can't or won't fix it that hasn't accomplished anything but stir up a storm on the forums and annoy the BFC staff. 

 

Beta testers complain on our own forums, so just because you don't see a Beta out here pushing issues with how broken the game is doesn't mean that all Beta's think the game is perfect in every way.  The only difference here is that you don't get the opportunity to view and participate in the discussions on the Beta Forums.  Beta Testers have also all signed Non Disclosure Agreements and we are under a contractual obligation not to discuss publicly what is discussed on the Beta Forums.  However, that doesn't mean that we can't have an 'informed' opinion about something because we know first hand what it takes to get something into the game or fixed.  We know that because we have to interact with the BFC staff directly and we know first hand what is required to get something fixed or altered.  So when we come out to the public forum and say 'you need X' or 'that's a feature not a bug' then we are saying that through experience and first hand knowledge.  We also have general knowledge of how things work internally at BFC, although there is still a lot that is hidden even from us because the actual staff obviously communicate directly with each other. 

 

So I guess I'll wrap this rambling post up by saying this; no I don't speak for BFC but that's entirely irrelevant because the information that I am providing you with is the most recent answer to your inquiry that has been publicly outlined by Steve himself (and he speaks for BFC in an official capacity).  So while you are free to assume that fog of war will eventually be applied to fences and hedgerows if you just complain about it long enough and loud enough, all you are doing is living in a world of your own construction that is divorced from the reality of what is possible and what isn't possible in the game as it is currently structured.

 

Relax and come down, mate. It was just a question :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Indeed always valuable.

 

 

ASL already answered but I will add simply that if you look at my post history of bringing up game issues you can see that the stopped.  That is directly because I bring them up on internal forums now or just log them if no discussion is necessary.

 

I do like the Catholic analogy although some Catholics might take offences lumping me in with them and I might take offence at being compared to a Catholic but I won't :)  I get it you are basically saying watch out you don't want to drink the cool aid with out thinking first.  I am saying I have direct empirical evidence day in day out that shows me that if BFC say they will fix a bug they will.  Period. I also have direct empirical evidence not to hold my breath because it may take a while. :D  It is just how it is when you have a small team and a ton of work.

 

 

OK I see you are trying to use a plethora of defects to argue you don't like the direction.  What I am trying to say is the if people have a list in their own head of a bunch of super important bugs the they feel need to be fixed and the get more and more upset when they are not they are at best setting them selves up for disappointment and at worst deluding them selves.

 

 

Ian, I didn’t ask it because I don’t believe you. But for making an own opinion you need information as much as possible. Some people less, some more ;)

"Believe nothing you hear, half of what you see and only one fourth of what you know to be true"

The problem is which percentage is true? Just a joke! :)

 

Okay, so, you are going to be a little holy  B)  I just wanted to say, that there can be different views about bugs etc. and the “pope” doesn’t have the solely word

 

I just wrote down my opinion, nothing more. I am old enough, that I don’t sit miffed in the corner because I didn’t get my will or there are people with other opinions around me. And I wonder a little that I didn’t get answers like this: “Hey mate, sounds god, but I don’t think that your wishes will come true because of this or that. Maybe in the next engine generation. Stay tuned, hope dies last!" :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so, you are going to be a little holy  B)  I just wanted to say, that there can be different views about bugs etc.

Oh, I never meant to :)

  

I just wrote down my opinion, nothing more. I am old enough, that I don’t sit miffed in the corner because I didn’t get my will or there are people with other opinions around me.

Absolutely!

 

And I wonder a little that I didn’t get answers like this: “Hey mate, sounds god, but I don’t think that your wishes will come true because of this or that. Maybe in the next engine generation. Stay tuned, hope dies last!" :D

Yeah, we do not see much of that kind of statement but it never bothered me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enough about bugs and more talks about modules please.

 

What would you like to see? What vehicles/tanks are currently missing?

I think we need ss and german themed buildings so we can have Seelow-Berlin.

I doubt we'll be seeing snow so that means no Vistula - Oder offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...