Update on Engine 4 patches

[A Canadian Cat]

3 hours ago, slysniper said:

I am not sure I understand where this bad rep is on the web.

From what browsing I do when it comes to gaming, I normally see some pretty good comments about BF games when I find them out there on other sites.

Here are a few examples:

Top to posts on this Reddit thread:

Second and third on this Reddit thread:

This omnibus thread on Grog Heads:

http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=22382.0

Note: plenty of familiar faces there shedding light on the BS that pops up there.

and finally nearly ever post at gamesquad. That this guy basically bitches and moans to himself and gets corrected by @Elvis every now and then. I have no idea why he bothers - whatever you do don't bother responding to his **** since no one else is reading it anyway   Well other than @Elvis  

http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/index.php?threads/patches-im-depending-on-ya-son.146442/

 

3 hours ago, slysniper said:

The only thing I notice is how non-existent they are as to some sites

(But that is because of their decision as to marketing their game more than anything else).

Yep.

[sburke]

Dang that guy needs to go outside and make some friends. Kinda sad really when you look at it. This forum for me is a space to enjoy a past time with mostly like minded individuals not an alternative for social interaction.  I spend a lot of time just strolling out to talk to my neighbors on just about anything on a very frequent basis. At least daily. Helps that my favorite neighbor is about 20 feet away. I couldn’t even fit a CM action spot between our houses. Lol. 

[slysniper]

Well, I see this is why I don't trust much of what I read on the web.

from the one site I would have to assume BF is out of business by now and I will not be seeing any of those games that they are releasing in 2019.

people can be so negative about things  ( especially when they have no real knowledge on something and are making assumptions) well  I am glad to see they were all wrong and proving only their own ignorance.

What I did find interesting was the list of weaknesses the game has as to being a good military simulator. (that was insightful, also does make me wonder what BF have done with the efforts they have done with their military contract)

[IICptMillerII]

I have to say, that gamesquad link gave me quite a laugh. Some people really do like to hear themselves talk. To each their own I suppose. 

As to the perceived negative reputation of BFC abroad, I think that’s partly due to the niche nature of the market to begin with. 1 angry voice in 1000 is a lot louder than 1 in 100000. As to the anger, at a certain point you’ll always have a group of people opposed to whatever it is, be it a video game, simulator, or Nirvana itself. (The heavenly one, not the band. Though the analogy still holds true for the band too )

I certainly don’t have a solution on how to change people’s mind and reverse negative PR, but I do think that merits tend to speak for themselves. CM does a lot of things really well, and people who appreciate those things will see throug the fluff and anger. People who care more about being able to run the game at 120 FPS with all kinds of lighting/graphics effects wouldn’t care about the things that CM does right anyways. Not that visuals aren’t important, it’s just a difference in priorities. 

[A Canadian Cat]

Yep - fun /s

2 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

I do think that merits tend to speak for themselves.

I agree there.

[Mord]

But isn't it funny, CM2 sucks so bad that 12 years later they are still playing and b****ing about it? Some of them even create scenarios and mods. When a normal human dislikes something they usually ignore it.

The solitary dude whistling in the empty room is Lewis, he's been banned more times than a taco in Karen Carpenter's kitchen.

 

Mord.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Mord

[Thewood1]

If you actually read those threads, most people like the game.  The majority of the complaints seem to about figuring out the upgrade/patch/DRM process.  It appears that people close to BFC and are long time players way too easily dismiss legit complaints.

[Mord]

14 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

It appears that people close to BFC and are long time players way too easily dismiss legit complaints.

Try really reading some of the threads. Go back a few years. There was a cottage industry of guys (especially on Gamesquad) that all they did was slag Steve, the boards, and the people on them and circle-jerk about the demise of Battlefront. There's a huge difference between "legit complaint" and the complete @**hollery that they participated in. There are plenty of guys out there that get off on being negative and toxic.

 

Mord.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Mord

[absolutmauser]

The guy who has been writing about CMSF2 on the Wargamer has been snarky about BF a little bit, but overall has been pretty good. I don't know if that is what people might be referring to. 

[slysniper]

1 hour ago, Mord said:

But isn't it funny, CM2 sucks so bad that 12 years later they are still playing and b****ing about it? Some of them even create scenarios and mods. When a normal human dislikes something they usually ignore it.

You nailed that on the head, most of these jerks are playing the game and just have toxic attitudes because somewhere along the line the game company did not do something that they the player thought was all important in the design. But like the rest of us, its the only game that truly gives us a fix to the addiction we have. Why they think attacking the company will ever help their cause I do not know, but they do, all the while playing the game just like the rest of us.

[LukeFF]

13 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

IL-2 charges insane amount for planes and expansions -- even on sale!

No, not really. Just like with Combat Mission, modern flight sim titles are not cheap to develop. If you want to see insane prices, go look at DCS.

Edited January 10, 2019 by LukeFF

[Thewood1]

IL-2 is actually on par with CM2 in pricing.  And they have periodic sales that significantly lowers the barrier to entry.  A full game like BoM costs $70.  And each game is part of a larger game that combines as a huge environment of maps, planes, and other content.  You can also buy a few individual planes and campaigns.  Its just like the BFC game and module system.  In fact, its exactly like it.  The main difference is that with CM2, the games can never interact.  In IL-2, the games all share the common engine in real-time and can all planes, scenarios,  and maps can operate together when purchased.  Another key part is that patches add significant features and functions.  And they are all backward compatible.  New content comes out almost monthly.  I have always hoped that CM2 would be more like IL-2.

This is the kind of comment that makes me realize that people on this forum don't really look around at how other games operate and what is really available out there.  Its a pretty insular world on this forum.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Thewood1

[rocketman]

11 hours ago, absolutmauser said:

The guy who has been writing about CMSF2 on the Wargamer has been snarky about BF a little bit, but overall has been pretty good. I don't know if that is what people might be referring to. 

And they don't do the games justice with the kind of screenshots they post, like in the FB review. 

[Erwin]

3 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

I have always hoped that CM2 would be more like IL-2

When CM2 was announced that was certainly my dream and am sure that others were hoping for that same interactivity so that eventually the game system would function more like CMBB or CMAK with the entire war being playable from 39 (or 41) till 45.  The only difference would be that BF would earn a decent amount of money.

Now am hoping that CM3 may be more along those lines.

[A Canadian Cat]

13 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

The majority of the complaints seem to about figuring out the upgrade/patch/DRM process.  It appears that people close to BFC and are long time players way too easily dismiss legit complaints.

See I disagree with you here. Sure register legit complaints as you suggest. Make suggestions. That's all good.

But BFC's DRM process is no worse than any other. DRM just sucks for customers, period. After all they are meant to stop the game from running   BFC has made lots of improvements from CMSF1 days onward. I have had one DRM activation not work out in all my years (not counting a few bugs during development). Support had me fixed up really fast.

Patches: oh come on what's hard about them. You download them and install them you are done. Just because people are hard of reading does not mean there is a problem. Perhaps they mean not getting frequent enough patches. Yeah OK there is some merit there for issues that have taking a long time to get the fix out for. I'll agree with that part.

Upgrades: OMG no one else does this (yes, I am sure you can find XYZ that does but come one it is not standard practice). No one should be complaining about that - f'ing ever! Every other game just leaves the old version languishing and moves on. All the paid patch discussion are utterly tosh. If BFC didn't do upgrades for older games we would just loose out. Period.

My problem is that while running into a problem is one thing but then extrapolating that into a mountain is ridiculous. This kind of thing is not limited to BFC. We are literally being silly if we think that BFC is some how unique here.

Edit. I'm not trying to target @Thewood1 with my rant. Just supporting my disagreement with his assertion that we dismiss legit complains by bringing in my response to other way more extreme comments from the linked forums. Not trying to attack @Thewood1 personally but I'm OK with attacking some of the unreasonable ideas I'm calling out - none of which @Thewood1 made in this thread.

Edited January 10, 2019 by IanL
clarifying

[absolutmauser]

2 hours ago, IanL said:

See I disagree with you here. Sure register legit complaints as you suggest. Make suggestions. That's all good.

But BFC's DRM process is no worse than any other. DRM just sucks for customers, period. After all they are meant to stop the game from running   BFC has made lots of improvements from CMSF1 days onward. I have had one DRM activation not work out in all my years (not counting a few bugs during development). Support had me fixed up really fast.

Patches: oh come on what's hard about them. You download them and install them you are done. Just because people are hard of reading does not mean there is a problem. Perhaps they mean not getting frequent enough patches. Yeah OK there is some merit there for issues that have taking a long time to get the fix out for. I'll agree with that part.

Upgrades: OMG no one else does this (yes, I am sure you can find XYZ that does but come one it is not standard practice). No one should be complaining about that - f'ing ever! Every other game just leaves the old version languishing and moves on. All the paid patch discussion are utterly tosh. If BFC didn't do upgrades for older games we would just loose out. Period.

My problem is that while running into a problem is one thing but then extrapolating that into a mountain is ridiculous. This kind of thing is not limited to BFC. We are literally being silly if we think that BFC is some how unique here.

Edit. I'm not trying to target @Thewood1 with my rant. Just supporting my disagreement with his assertion that we dismiss legit complains by bringing in my response to other way more extreme comments from the linked forums. Not trying to attack @Thewood1 personally but I'm OK with attacking some of the unreasonable ideas I'm calling out - none of which @Thewood1 made in this thread.

People have gotten used to the Steam process where games are kept up to date automagically and you don't have to go download stuff from someplace. They don't remember the times of yore when you had "read" or "make a tiny effort" to update software. Or if you didn't have good internet, you might have to wait for your favorite game magazine to put the patches you need on a CD (or, gasp, a floppy disk!) that you could buy at the supermarket. BFC may not be as slick as Steam, but it's still much better than the old days.

[sburke]

7 hours ago, absolutmauser said:

BFC may not be as slick as Steam, but it's still much better than the old days.

Combat Mission is so slick you'll frequently see your pixeltruppen sliding into position...  

[Dynaman216]

On 1/10/2019 at 8:34 PM, sburke said:

Combat Mission is so slick you'll frequently see your pixeltruppen sliding into position...  

I yell GUMBY! every time I see that (well, often anyway)

[Thewood1]

"But BFC's DRM process is no worse than any other. DRM just sucks for customers, period. After all they are meant to stop the game from running   BFC has made lots of improvements from CMSF1 days onward. I have had one DRM activation not work out in all my years (not counting a few bugs during development). Support had me fixed up really fast."

Again, take a look at the complaints in detail.  The DRM is much easier now that in the past.  But that legacy doesn't just disappear when its fixed.  The DRM issues with false flags and registry cleaner tools is what most people remember.  It caused some people to stop buying and playing.  Note that when someeon shows up in those forums to complain, one of the first questions asked is if BFC is still using that problematic DRM system. 

For people who are here every day,  It seems so straight forward.  But when 80% of the games out there are using a system like Steam where the DRM is hidden and almost unseen, its a stark contrast to trying install the full CMBN family with 5-6 separate activations and IIRC a patch in there somewhere as well.  Its all well and good and seems so seamless for people who live and breathe BFC and CM is one of a limmited number of games.  But for someone that comes back to CM once every few months.  Its not easy.

In the end, its BFC's decision to cater to its limited core customers if it wants.  But this type of conversation is the result.

[luigim]

Slowly I will buy all current Combat Mission titles ( currently I own CMSF1&2, CMBS, CMFB) because I like the gameplay and the historical accuracy, but a new game engine is badly needed. The most annoying thing is the lack of multicore support ( slow loadings), second thing is slow graphics on fast hardware. 

[37mm]

2 hours ago, luigim said:

Slowly I will buy all current Combat Mission titles ( currently I own CMSF1&2, CMBS, CMFB) because I like the gameplay and the historical accuracy, but a new game engine is badly needed. The most annoying thing is the lack of multicore support ( slow loadings), second thing is slow graphics on fast hardware. 

Apparently the "lack of multi-core support" is another of those "bad rep" meme's that has gotten around...

Key quote: Still, if CM2 were written over from scratch today there would be more use of other processors.  Not a ton more, but more than what we added into Engine 3.

 

[absolutmauser]

12 hours ago, 37mm said:

Apparently the "lack of multi-core support" is another of those "bad rep" meme's that has gotten around...

Key quote: Still, if CM2 were written over from scratch today there would be more use of other processors.  Not a ton more, but more than what we added into Engine 3.

 

"Slow loading"? I'm not sure what multicore would do for that. All my machines have SSDs and all the CM games load pretty quick these days!  

EDIT: Referring to what 37mm quoted, not what he said. 

Edited January 14, 2019 by absolutmauser

[Michael Emrys]

4 hours ago, absolutmauser said:

All my machines have SSDs and all the CM games load pretty quick these days!

Same here. I noticed after I moved up to an SSD that loading times had been reduced by about 30%. Sometimes more.

Michael

[Bulletpoint]

8 hours ago, absolutmauser said:

"Slow loading"? I'm not sure what multicore would do for that.

I think the game "compiles" LOS data when you load the scenario in the game. Basically checking every square's LOS against all the other squares. The editor doesn't do that when loading/saving map data (advantage being that loading/saving in the editor is extremely quick). Checking LOS should be a task that hugely benefits from multiple cores, because there's a finite workload that can be split up independently between threads.

You won't get 4x loading speed from 4x cores though, as the loading process also does other things that happen in sequence and depend on data load speeds.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Bulletpoint

[DerKommissar]

On 1/10/2019 at 12:56 AM, LukeFF said:

No, not really. Just like with Combat Mission, modern flight sim titles are not cheap to develop. If you want to see insane prices, go look at DCS.

DCS took the first slot on my list of worst offenders. xD

On 1/13/2019 at 7:40 AM, luigim said:

Slowly I will buy all current Combat Mission titles ( currently I own CMSF1&2, CMBS, CMFB) because I like the gameplay and the historical accuracy, but a new game engine is badly needed. The most annoying thing is the lack of multicore support ( slow loadings), second thing is slow graphics on fast hardware. 

Yeah, completely agreed.