Jump to content

Editing characteristics of armor and ammunition


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, SgtHatred said:

Why would it be so terrible if people could mod stats?


(Purely from a user perspective, rather than speculating about business reasons, which gets complex and non-intuitive fast)

On some level it wouldn't - it would obviously allow people to use CM to model more things, and a wider selection of scenarios would become possible.

On the other hand, imagine trying to discuss anything without a firm frame of reference. "How do I do x?" (and by the way, I've changed Y to be more like Z and I "fixed" A and B to be more like C).

There's a chap who reviews a lot of wargames on BGG, but most of his reviews are for his own variants and "fixes". They might well be superior to the published material, but what use is that rating to anyone else?


It would be great to have more control over CM, and for some of the mechanisms to be less obtuse than they are. I don't really understand why I can't add a single Technical to an uncon force in CMSF, or have those technicals selectable with  a drop down for the different weapon types available. I think that kind of thing would be a strong net positive. Giving Uncons javelins might even be pretty interesting, for a weird scenario. Altering the stats of a recoilless rifle because I think I know better than Battlefront? That I'm less clear on being a positive force. I might, but there's some value in playing within the model as presented.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, domfluff said:


(Purely from a user perspective, rather than speculating about business reasons, which gets complex and non-intuitive fast)

On some level it wouldn't - it would obviously allow people to use CM to model more things, and a wider selection of scenarios would become possible.

On the other hand, imagine trying to discuss anything without a firm frame of reference. "How do I do x?" (and by the way, I've changed Y to be more like Z and I "fixed" A and B to be more like C).

There's a chap who reviews a lot of wargames on BGG, but most of his reviews are for his own variants and "fixes". They might well be superior to the published material, but what use is that rating to anyone else?


It would be great to have more control over CM, and for some of the mechanisms to be less obtuse than they are. I don't really understand why I can't add a single Technical to an uncon force in CMSF, or have those technicals selectable with  a drop down for the different weapon types available. I think that kind of thing would be a strong net positive. Giving Uncons javelins might even be pretty interesting, for a weird scenario. Altering the stats of a recoilless rifle because I think I know better than Battlefront? That I'm less clear on being a positive force. I might, but there's some value in playing within the model as presented.
 

This is some bizarre, authoritarian logic here. What if someone reviews a modded version of the game? Who cares. What if someone thinks they know more about recoilless rifles than Battlefront? Who cares. If someone wants their SPG-9s to have enough punch to knock the moon out of orbit that is their deal. Being thankful that someone can't enjoy something their own way is ****ed up, and worrying about how a modded version of the game might somehow impact the game's reputation is dumb.

 

Worrying about how other people enjoy stuff is pointless. I don't think Battlefront should put the effort into scenarios that they do, because I think that the scenarios are the worst part in Combat Mission. Set piece battles against the AI? That's not fun, that's lame as hell, might as well play minesweeper as far as I am concerned, but you don't see me advocating for their removal because I don't think others should be allowed to enjoy them. That would be silly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the number one reason is not having to deal with constant requests for support related to problems introduced by mods.  If a texture or sound mod introduces a problem, it is usually readily apparent what is going on.  Much less so if the data under the hood is being mucked with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:

This is some bizarre, authoritarian logic here. What if someone reviews a modded version of the game? Who cares. What if someone thinks they know more about recoilless rifles than Battlefront? Who cares. If someone wants their SPG-9s to have enough punch to knock the moon out of orbit that is their deal. Being thankful that someone can't enjoy something their own way is ****ed up, and worrying about how a modded version of the game might somehow impact the game's reputation is dumb.

I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth, that's really not cool.

In particular, I don't think I mentioned anything that would "impact the game's reputation" or anything similar.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, akd said:

Probably the number one reason is not having to deal with constant requests for support related to problems introduced by mods.  If a texture or sound mod introduces a problem, it is usually readily apparent what is going on.  Much less so if the data under the hood is being mucked with.

So you make it clear that you can't support mods, like every other developer in history.

 

1 hour ago, domfluff said:

I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth, that's really not cool.

In particular, I don't think I mentioned anything that would "impact the game's reputation" or anything similar.

 

Is that not what you meant by this?

 

12 hours ago, domfluff said:


There's a chap who reviews a lot of wargames on BGG, but most of his reviews are for his own variants and "fixes". They might well be superior to the published material, but what use is that rating to anyone else?
 

 

What did you mean by this? He reviews games after he does his own mods to them. Reviews impact the reputation of the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SgtHatred said:

So you make it clear that you can't support mods, like every other developer in history.

That’s clearly not true, and yes it is very difficult for a small dev team relying on volunteer testers to support unlimited code editing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, akd said:

That’s clearly not true, and yes it is very difficult for a small dev team relying on volunteer testers to support unlimited code editing.

First, the amount of testing doesn't apply because again, modded games aren't supported by developers. Why do you think otherwise?

 

Secondly, modifying game attributes doesn't really qualify as "code editing". If changing a unit's attributes requires changing game code you have made a serious error in design.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you all right? No need to go full sergeant Hartman on Domfluff because he has a different view on mods. 

To the point I agree with him, because while in theory it could be great I think that in practice it wouldn't work out good for this game and the community. This is a simulation of 'realistic' tactical warfare, not a sandbox create your own simulation.

Edited by Lethaface
Link to post
Share on other sites

I get why BFC does not allow it because it is a simulator “as is.”

 

But....... I think they would draw in more customers, including a younger than us old crusty vets crowd. Which would be good for growing CM games.  Not to mention I could personally adjust how artillery impacts buildings and not start threads about it being not very effective lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the times I wished my riflemen could shoot bullets that penetrate tank armor and explode like small tactical nukes. Really, my martial prowess would be unstoppable with troops like that.

And when I use them in a QB against an opponent? Lolz. I would crush his very soul. (Of course, I would also mod my men so their lightweight cotton uniforms could stop the depleted uranium penetrator fired by an Abrams. Duh!) And, I'd modify it so anything that would kill anyone else, even with the armored cotton (155mm to the head?) would only result in yellow icon, light wound. Yeah, I would reign over the battlefield.

Is that what you meant?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I ve never tried it with combat mission but in theory memory scannig/code injection tools should get you the adresses (mostly by emprical exploration) of otherwise unaccesable game variables and let you modify program states and to some degree also program behaviour. Throw the whole thing into a script for reproducability and there you have your weapons mod. This probably requires considerable technical skill and effort though, but it would be an interesting project.

Edited by agusto
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, c3k said:

Oh, the times I wished my riflemen could shoot bullets that penetrate tank armor and explode like small tactical nukes. Really, my martial prowess would be unstoppable with troops like that.

And when I use them in a QB against an opponent? Lolz. I would crush his very soul. (Of course, I would also mod my men so their lightweight cotton uniforms could stop the depleted uranium penetrator fired by an Abrams. Duh!) And, I'd modify it so anything that would kill anyone else, even with the armored cotton (155mm to the head?) would only result in yellow icon, light wound. Yeah, I would reign over the battlefield.

Is that what you meant?

Lol have you never pbem'ed any other war game? In many other war games you can create mini nukes if you wish but if you pbem with an opponent it will default to vanilla settings. HOI series of games make switching between having mods on and off really easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Are you all right? No need to go full sergeant Hartman on Domfluff because he has a different view on mods. 

Bad arguments make my brain itch. I wasn't mean about it.

9 hours ago, Lethaface said:

To the point I agree with him, because while in theory it could be great I think that in practice it wouldn't work out good for this game and the community. This is a simulation of 'realistic' tactical warfare, not a sandbox create your own simulation.

I really dislike this idea that somehow a player playing the game in their own way is somehow going to be "bad" for the game and the community. Very KGB.

7 hours ago, c3k said:

And when I use them in a QB against an opponent? Lolz. I would crush his very soul. (Of course, I would also mod my men so their lightweight cotton uniforms could stop the depleted uranium penetrator fired by an Abrams. Duh!) And, I'd modify it so anything that would kill anyone else, even with the armored cotton (155mm to the head?) would only result in yellow icon, light wound. Yeah, I would reign over the battlefield.

Is that what you meant?

Playing against someone you don't know in a Combat Mission quickbattle seems like a bad idea given how easy it is to break the game at the selection screen. 5000 pts of rocket artillery coming up!

Combat Mission is, obviously, not a competitive game in that regard, you can't treat it like Starcraft. Also, it would be child's play for the game to confirm that both players are using the same stats. Even the least capable developer could accomplish such a feat with minutes of effort.

 

 

C'mon fellas. Obviously Battlefront is not interested in doing this and that's fine, but being happy about people being prevented from playing the game the way they want to play it because somehow it would be harmful to the game or the community is pretty lame. The other arguments aren't even rational.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SgtHatred said:

Bad arguments make my brain itch. I wasn't mean about it.

I really dislike this idea that somehow a player playing the game in their own way is somehow going to be "bad" for the game and the community. Very KGB.

Playing against someone you don't know in a Combat Mission quickbattle seems like a bad idea given how easy it is to break the game at the selection screen. 5000 pts of rocket artillery coming up!

Combat Mission is, obviously, not a competitive game in that regard, you can't treat it like Starcraft. Also, it would be child's play for the game to confirm that both players are using the same stats. Even the least capable developer could accomplish such a feat with minutes of effort.

 

 

C'mon fellas. Obviously Battlefront is not interested in doing this and that's fine, but being happy about people being prevented from playing the game the way they want to play it because somehow it would be harmful to the game or the community is pretty lame. The other arguments aren't even rational.

Well I'm not against people having fun in their own bubble. If it would be no effort for BFC to let people change all simulation parameters by themselves, without the risk of many bugreports coming forth from these and a way to easily verify and reset to default settings: by all means, knock yourself out. 

But IMO that will require quite some effort, which I would rather see spend elsewhere.

I think it is mostly your imagination that people are frothing around the mouth and getting KGB anxieties because you want to have some fun changing the simulation parameters. People just don't agree it is a wise idea, nothing more, nothing less.

5 hours ago, SgtHatred said:

Also, it would be child's play for the game to confirm that both players are using the same stats. Even the least capable developer could accomplish such a feat with minutes of effort.

Minutes of effort is obviously a gross understatement, perhaps tongue in cheeck?
One would need to make a hashing algorithm of all the data involved and implement an interface plus a routine to check whether people are using the same stats. This would need to be regression tested every new release. And who knows if the code architecture actually allows this in a manner which doesn't require redesign/refactoring; also you wouldn't want to have to implement a different interface or routine for TCP/IP, PBEM, etc.

In a few minutes people get a coffee, not design, write, compile, test and deploy software.

What is your work?

Edited by Lethaface
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Well I'm not against people having fun in their own bubble. If it would be no effort for BFC to let people change all simulation parameters by themselves, without the risk of many bugreports coming forth from these and a way to easily verify and reset to default settings: by all means, knock yourself out. 

But IMO that will require quite some effort, which I would rather see spend elsewhere.

Yes, it would likely be a huge effort based on what I know about Combat Mission and how they've likely done things. I'm not arguing that they make the change, just that it wouldn't be bad if it was possible.

 

2 hours ago, Lethaface said:

I think it is mostly your imagination that people are frothing around the mouth and getting KGB anxieties because you want to have some fun changing the simulation parameters. People just don't agree it is a wise idea, nothing more, nothing less.

When you disagree by saying it would harm the community or the game it makes my brain itch. The only explanation I can think of for an opinion like that is that some people are bothered that others might enjoy the game differently.

 

2 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Minutes of effort is obviously a gross understatement, perhaps tongue in cheeck?
One would need to make a hashing algorithm of all the data involved and implement an interface plus a routine to check whether people are using the same stats. This would need to be regression tested every new release. And who knows if the code architecture actually allows this in a manner which doesn't require redesign/refactoring; also you wouldn't want to have to implement a different interface or routine for TCP/IP, PBEM, etc.

In a few minutes people get a coffee, not design, write, compile, test and deploy software.

It's a basic hash of a few data files. If player A and player B get different results you pop up the big red dialog when versions are different, but with different text in it. If it takes someone more than an hour to implement, they should probably move away from small studio game development and join one of those medium sized software development studios that revel in incompetence. (I'm being a little harsh here, but it's not a lot of work). Testing this shouldn't be a big deal.

 

3 hours ago, Lethaface said:

What is your work?

 Software developer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SgtHatred said:

 Software developer.

Ok, so you should know.
While I agree that in theory it's not a very complex feature, without knowing their actual architecture etc I'd say it's not possible to accurately guesstimate it's that easy to do and maintain. 
Anyway, I think we both agree that the workload for this feature is not the main reason it won't happen. I just thought that your 5 minutes is a gross overstatement of how easy it is to do and, besides, an assumption ;-).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

Ok, so you should know.
While I agree that in theory it's not a very complex feature, without knowing their actual architecture etc I'd say it's not possible to accurately guesstimate it's that easy to do and maintain. 
Anyway, I think we both agree that the workload for this feature is not the main reason it won't happen. I just thought that your 5 minutes is a gross overstatement of how easy it is to do and, besides, an assumption ;-).

The whole thing is theory. In the alternate dimension where specs for units are stored in text files in the Data folder writing a check would be simple. I understand that some problems are deceptive but this is just not one of those.

 

Battlefront doesn't want to and that's fine, it's their thing. People cheering that fact for bad reasons make my brain itch.

 

9 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

Not a cartoon character then? 😉

You sayin' I can't be both? That's discrimination!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care one way or the other but to be fair, it is likely to be simply a business decision. A short-sighted one it might be argued if you look at the popularity of games that allow modding. The other reasons offered in this thread are secondary considerations at best imo.

Link to post
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
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...