Roster War, ceasefire

[Guest Germanboy]

Chumbagoateechick, good to hear that. you may cower behind Mr.Peng's sofa until the day comes, if you can stand the stench, that is.

This thread is becoming surreal. Maybe we should start a thread dedicated to discussing the efficacy and appropriateness of flame-wars.

The natives are restless in Coventry tonight.

------------------

Andreas

[John]

Ok. In a post in the 'interface needs work' thread, I mentioned interfaces. You're talking about it here so I guess I'll just set the record straight by what I mean by a good, simple interface. Bear in mind that these are all just opinions!

Wether an game is simple or complicated to control is not so much decided by how many parts they have (although that is a factor), but more by how many things the player has to do to get the desired effect. Also, there is how many things the player has to remember about the interface.

So, a roster may make the interface more complicated, but overall, it will make the game simpler to control. This because without a roster, to use a unit (or find out anything about that unit) you first have to find it. A roster can do that for you.

CM does things a little differently to its closest counterpart, CC.

But now, lets get down to business. I never intended for this to become a big debate - I just think that games players have a sort of duty to let the designers know what they think. This makes it easier for designers to figure out what players want, and this gives us better games. So let's face up to what this has become - a battle between CC and CM.

I'm going to list in which areas each game wins out on the other. Note that, as I've only played the demo, I can't comment on the strategic side, so I won't comment on that in CC either, as this would be unfair. Note also that I may contradict myself. Just bear with me.

We'll start with CC:

-Roster. This gives quick and easy access to units, and unit info. A Good Thing.

-No need to match squads with command - apart from morale. This takes a load off your mind.

-Real-time, therefore tenser.

-Simpler unit controls. In CM the list of things a unit can do is quite daunting.

-Graphics are very, very detailed.

-Listen to what your troops say over the radio - you can get an idea of what's happening by this.

-Minimap

Now for CM:

-3D graphics, making it easier to judge height. Units are fairly detailed.

-Turn-based, so plenty of time to think.

-Better control of off-map support.

-More advanced unit controls - more things each unit can do, more control over each unit

-A new action can be set at each waypoint. You can have a unit creep upto a point, then run the rest of the way.

-The 'in command' thing is more realistic than in CC.

-Buildings have different floors. Doesn't sound much, it makes it more realistic in that units on the top floors take longer to exit the building, while units on the lower floors don't get much of a height bonus.

Things that both games could do with:

-Contour map overlays to help judging terrain.

-More interaction with off-map support, such as airstrikes, artillery and naval artillery.

-Units not walking through walls. An arrow where the visible doors are, and the units would have to use the the doors, or climb through the windows.

-Deformable terrain - large explosions maknig craters (CM has this, but could make more of it), tanks driving through flimsy walls and fences, etc. Obviously, this is dependent on technology.

Right, that's it for a while

John

[Tiger]

"Also, the argument against an OOB list is NOT on the basis of cost but more due to the fact that it would disturb the current balance between ideology, artistic vision, utilitarian necessity and disrupt the inter-relatedness of information sources in the game and as such would have FAR more effect on the manner in which the game is perceived and played than you seem to understand."

Amen Fionn.

An example of the better argued (by several people) anti-roster camp than the roster camp, who seem more content with brow-beating than discussing why the roster is a good idea in a rational sense. The roster camp refuses to even acknowledge that a no/low-level micro-management approach is what the designers envisioned. Simply argued that "most of us want it so put it in". Apparently the designers wanted you to be down on the battle field watching things develop, not commanding from a roster, though you can argue forever that's "but that's how I want to play". A toggable roster, workable for multi-player games as well, would be the only way it would get in. Frankly the numbers just don't justify the added extra workload investment required to implement this; addtionally it goes against the basic grain of the design.

Got a tickle from the guy who wants a hotkey to highlight the nearest anti-tank teams so he'll know which one to pick when a tank drives up. eheheh.

-Tiger

=D

[Joe Shaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you can not follow the clearly expressed and logically argued thoughts that deeply permeate all my posts<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You know, Germaneboy, there is something that permeates all of your posts, but it needn't do so if you would open the window every odd once in a while. And surreal is as surreal does, so there on that topic too Hah! I, after all, was not the one traipsing through the Bavarian hinterlands wearing lederhosen (no I DON'T care if it's spelled right) and dragging a black goat who was unclear about it's proper role in the evolutionary scheme of things, if you get my drift. And Saskatchewan's a nice place even if the sheep are a tad nervous, can't speak to Wales of course ... them being underwater most of the time ... no, damn it those are whales, my mistake.

And Eathan ... BUDDY ... are you sharing with friends these days?

Joe

[Guest Germanboy]

Joe Squaw, I thank you for bringing this thread back on topic in your usual well-considered, clear, lucid and concise manner. I do not understand why this Fionn person, and the others too numerous to mention always go OT here talking about issues irrelevant to me. Clearly, if they are irrelevant to me, they are not worth talking about. QED. Tsk, talk about manners. Clearly this thread is about the black goats coming home to roost, or the rost that never sleeps, or Lederhosen. We are fortunate enough that nobody has brought up hamsters yet, but methinks it can not be far off.

Don't think Ethan shares, he is a greedy thingie.

------------------

Andreas

[DanE]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John:

We'll start with CC:

-Real-time, therefore tenser.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely disagree with this statement. Real-time is more STRESSFUL, IMO, but that does not make it tenser.

When I play CM, everytime I watch the movie (which shows BOTH players' moves being executed AT THE SAME time) I am on the edge of my seat waiting for something to happen. Waiting to see if my AT team can knock out that tank. Waiting to see if my opponent is going to drop arty on my troops hiding in the trees. Waiting for whatever is in store for my forces.

When I play real-time games, the tension is replaced with stress because I know I need to click the fastest. I need to point the fastest. Forget plans, when the **** hits the fan, you need to be quick on the mouse. I find myself watching only the "hot spots" and ignoring everything else.

For me, the tension comes from having to watch as your troops carry out your orders with the knowledge that for the next 60 seconds you cannot help them. Not having to go scurrying around the map, hoping to click on my troops before my opponent. I'm not trying to put down real-time games, they can be fun and exciting.

Sorry to go on about this, but it gets me when I see people imply that CM could be better or is missing something because it is not "real-time".

------------------

Dan

[Joe Shaw]

Thus Spake Andreas <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>QED<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly so, I don't trust those QED bastards as far as I can throw them. Most of them are actually hamsters and smell of elderberries but you didn't hear that from me.

Joe

[Fionn]

fdiskboy,

"I have to be honest with you. I take everything you say with a grain of salt after your little flamewar with Mark Sterner over at cdmag.com. Boy, but that was fun to watch."

Ah and I have to be honest with you in return. Anyone who openly expresses enjoyment of the fact that someone going ballistic and threatening to sue me for libel simply because I told him that his methodology for drawing conclusions as regards his "tests" in a certain game will get very little credit for either good manners, good sense or humanity from me. Also, they'll likely get short shrift as regards answers.

"You said programming is never simple. Anytime you say never, you pretty much invalidate your argument. Never is a long time. Don't tell us why it's not simple, show us how."

Programming for a game as complex as CM is never simple. "Simple changes" have knock-on effects etc etc. I believe that in the context of my post it was obvious that I was referring to CM when I was stating that coding was never simple. Obviously coding a programme to add two numbers together is quite simple. However, for someone who has no idea of how CM is put together to come along and say that adding features to a complex piece of code like CM is "simple and quick" is pretty ludicrous.

And lastly, I'm sure you'd like me to go into detail as to how. Unfortunately, you forfeited the amount of goodwill it would take me to commit 20 or 30 minutes of my time to you after you admitted to having "good fun" when mark Sterner ( who is known here) started threatening to sue me, try to get me fired etc etc all for simply telling him that his methodology was all wrong.

In effect I told him that the results he provided on tests were invalid because he didn't take into account other variables and then he blew up.

This would be akin to Oscar's recent accusation that I or Steve sent him death threats. Frankly it is pathological behaviour, not to mention just a pack of lies, YET some people like you seem to "enjoy" seeing me be subject to it.

What I TRULY don't understand is how on earth you could even possibly consider that I'd be willing to explain anything to you after you admit taking pleasure from watching me be libelled etc.

You and those others who cackle from the sidelines at times like that sicken me.

Now, Tiger said that there was a lot of evidence of the "most of us want it so put it in" school of thought here. Funny thing is that if these people had been listened to before CM shipped CM wouldn't be half the game it is now.

CM is what it is because a small group of people got together and coded it, offered suggestions and basically shared a vision. They held true to it despite the various "ooh, we want this and this and this" threads on the board. When it came out I think its quality AND cohesiveness strongly vindicated BTS' policy of not putting in things just because they were popular but of putting them in ONLY if BTS were convinced they added to gameplay.

Still, I doubt that any of these topics will ever stop. The more I see of usenet and fora the more I become dissapointed at the average calibre of the participants....

There are far too many people looking to either:

1. Prove themselves to themselves.

2. Playing to the gallery.

3. Looking on in rapt wonder at flamefests etc ( these are like the guys who hang out at car wrecks and are probably the lowest form of forum life IMO).

4. Pretend they know more than they do.

5 . Look for their own pet features and argue, harangue and harass ceaselessly until they get them.

IMO there are FAR too few people who are willing to:

1. Come on here and share their knowledge ( I'll note that a significant proportion of these guys get beaten away by some of the types listed above).

2. Admit they don't know something and just ask a polite, open question and listen to the answer.

I feel another break from the forum coming up. It's become an absolute cesspool recently.

[Fionn]

Dan E and the various other real-time vs CM or CM vs real-time posters here

It occured to me that most people are approaching this incorrectly.

CM IS real-time. It is NOT continuous-time.

CC IS continuous time.

The movie phases in CM are as tense ( and in fact tenser IMO) than any game in CC AND are in real-time ( just as CC is).

IMO the greatest difference between CM and CC ( except for realism terms and 3D of course) is the fact that in CC the game proceeds apace without stop ( I forget if there's a pause button.. even if there is my point still stands since there is no IMPOSED PAUSE every 60 seconds like there is in CM).

Cm, because of its larger scale and the fact that one can't plot strategy for an entire Bn in continuous, real time has such pauses.

BOTH games generate tension and stress by their representation of the results of one's orders in real time and in vivid graphics.

The prime difference time-wise is that one CAN be played continuously without pause whilst the other features imposed breaks in the flow of real-time every 60 seconds.

Comments?

[Jeff Heidman]

Fionn, as it regards your comments abut CM being real-time, I agree completely. Wow, I am agreeing with Fionn...

CM is called turn based, and hence gets compared to othe traditional IGOUGO systems often. While CM is turn based, the WEGO system is much more like real time than it is like a IGOUGO system.

Really, the only difference between the time modelled by CM and CC is that CM restricts the players ability to provide orders to a infinite slot of time that comes up at a finite interval. In CC, the players get to place orders continuously, but must do so while time is running.

This is fundamnetally different from IGOUGO, where each player gives orders that only apply during some arbitrary portion of the game time. I.E., in a strict IGOUGO, I only get to give orders that apply during 1/2 of the total game time.

So, it loks like this:

1. IGOUGO - Orders given that only apply some of the execution time, but you get all the timne you need to give the orders.

2. "Real" time - Orders can be given that apply for all the time, but you must give orders while time is passing.

3. WEGO - Orders given that apply for all of the execution time (like RT), but you are not restricted to giving orders while the clock is running (like IGOUGO).

WEGO is the best of both worlds.

Jeff Heidman

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Don't think Ethan shares, he is a greedy thingie.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jah Mercy, Geraniumboy, the words coming out of your mouth show clearly that you are part of the forces of Babylon. None of my harvest for you. Go to Amsterdam if you want to commune with the Thunder and Lightning Love of Jah. Yah, man. Joe Shaw can come share my harvest after my Yardies show his tourist men how to catch a fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We are fortunate enough that nobody has brought up hamsters yet, but methinks it can not be far off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We put the hamsters in the jerk pit, man. Then we eat them with akee and fried banana. Righteous. Respect, man.

Now I'm gonna roll me a big spliff...

------------------

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[This message has been edited by Hakko Ichiu (edited 08-09-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:

Respect, man.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Respect, yo Dude...

Geraniumtoy

[Guest Germanboy]

Uh Ethan, man, Joe Squaw and me, we have removed ourselves to the other place, you know man, where Peng and the others, sort of, chill, dude. this is getting too much like Babylon, you know, man, dude, thingy...

yo da man

Germancube

[Oldgamer]

I mentioned earlier not to sweat the flames (sorry for the pun), but my personal line is drawn at open hostility. While I understand Fionn’s response, most of it directed at a specific individual would probably make more sense via email. Just my opinion.

Also, I believe that I’ve done a reasonable job of explaining why I’d like the convenience of a list (which by some players’ definition is really a “pet feature”). Throughout the debate though, my request for a game tool has been linked to some dreaded part of CC. This is clear by the fact that the CC game is mentioned at least every few posts. I’ve played CC, and what I’d like to see has nothing to do with CC. However, I’ve also admitted that feature creep can be a problem with this type of addition.

As many others have stated, I too will continue to play this version and most probably future versions, regardless of whether any new features are implemented. This is due in no small part to the very considerate response I’ve received from the programmers, who clearly paid great attention to testers feedback during the early stages of development. Oddly though, some of those involved in that early development period seem to believe that “that was then, this is now”, but from the perspective of a new player (2 months in my case) I feel that I’m now involved with the early design process for the next version. As part of that next version design process, I feel almost obligated to pitch for my “pet feature”, and imagine that that is exactly what the early testers did those long (2?) years ago. So, I believe I’ll continue to “whine” about what some feel is old news in an effort to improve what I believe is already a superb program. I am confident that Steve and Charles are listening to thoughtful debate, and at least considering the merits of ideas put forth, even if some of those ideas were previously debated way back when (before my time).

Now back to your regularly scheduled “cesspool”. I believe I too need a break from this one.

[killmore]

OK Fionn:

I guess I would not mind continuous time. By the way I cannot give orders continuosly in CM version of realTime.

I am also a programmer and I did not write that roster would be easy to add. Why? Because I don't know! CM already has "Windows" for unit description so there is a precedent for "window" on the screen. Other than that I might be time consuming to do roster BUT without it CM2 will not get 90% in reviews!

Actually I see a lot of things that reviewers will not look upon kindly in CM2.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killmore:

Actually I see a lot of things that reviewers will not look upon kindly in CM2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, you can see the future!! I was all wrong, not Ethan, yo da man!!!!!

Kidding, honestly!!!!!!!

------------------

Andreas

[Fionn]

Oldgamer,

If it is said on the forum the response occurs on the forum. Simple rule to live by. I definitely frown on shifting to private email after some bad experiences with a couple of forum members who didn't know when to stop stalking etc.

As for you comparing yourself to beta testers... No offence but you're not a beta tester.. Beta testers don't have a monopoly on good ideas etc BUT one huge problem with games in general is that once it is released everyone, including people who have no idea about inner workings or the realities of the situation, starts imagining they are qualified beta testers/developers and starts mouthing off about their pet features. You all then start arguing for these pet features almost irrespective of feasability or package cohesion and get far too attached to them.

Testers HAVE to bear feasability ( in terms of graphics ability, CPU hit, coding and internal consistency) in mind at all times. Package cohesion ( as distinct from internal cohesion although related to it) also is something they have to bear in mind. And lastly, while we do have our running in-jokes about rifle grenades and the T28 and a particular tester who obsesses about them that tester and all others know when to quit pursuing something they think is interesting and would add to the game.

Hell, a lot of my ideas and requests are shot down and vanish until; such time as I can get more evidence or experiential results to back up the need for a change.

Being a beta tester generally means NOT having pet features since you can't afford that sort of clouding of the mind when it comes to rendering an opinion about something.

My advice is to simply forget this notion of your suggestions being analogous to what testers do. There's a huge difference especially in respect of objectivity. Once you argue for a "pet feature" you're more of a hindrance to progress than a help to be honest as logical, reasoned, objective debate generally goes straight out the window the instant people start arguing for a "pet feature"... Suddenly anyone who doesn't want it is an enemy or a fascist or a nazi elitist swine. I've seen people backing pet features make ALL these accusations on this very forum. Reasoned debate is impossible once someone is pushing for a "pet feature" UNLESS the person has some experience in the industry or in similar developmental roles and thus can maintain both their boundaries and their role parameters.

My simple point is that you ARE correct that Steve, Charles and others ( mostly testers) are listening to these debates and that ANY worthwhile points brought up in the course of these debates is discussed in private.

However, due to the "pet feature, I'm a great tester/developer/coder/wargame guru" sydnromes 95% of what is mentioned during these threads is worthless. It#s merely the pushing of an opinion as opposed to a thoughtful debate about what would REALLY be best.

Killmore,

My thoughts on the roster and real-time were more general thoughts out loud except where I specifically referedd to floppydickboy and whoever the other fellow was.

Certainly not everyone asking for a roster is coming up with bad reasons for it. My point was chiefly that MOST were saying things like "it's simple to add" and "it won't affect gameplay at all" etc etc. Things which simply aren't within their purview of their experiential or formal learning ( for most of them).

And as for your comments about the reviews etc... Don't fall into the trap of making definite statements based on opinion. E.g. We both know that, logically and experientially you can't offer any proof as to the 90% reference.

Not having a roster in CM2 won't hurt CM2 any more than it hurt CM1 ( unless the scale of the average battle increases hugely). Those are the real facts.

[killmore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Wow, you can see the future!! I was all wrong, not Ethan, yo da man!!!!!

Kidding, honestly!!!!!!!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point is that they are willing to overlook it right now because CM is so ground breaking. But IMHO they will substract points from their review for CM2 if certain things are not improved to their liking.

[killmore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn:

And as for your comments about the reviews etc... Don't fall into the trap of making definite statements based on opinion. E.g. We both know that, logically and experientially you can't offer any proof as to the 90% reference.

Not having a roster in CM2 won't hurt CM2 any more than it hurt CM1 ( unless the scale of the average battle increases hugely). Those are the real facts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you just fell into your own trap here. You made a statement based on your opinion here: (I think but I am not sure you called your opinion fact)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn:

Not having a roster in CM2 won't hurt CM2 any more than it hurt CM1 ( unless the scale of the average battle increases hugely). Those are the real facts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Oldgamer]

Fionn,

Thanks for the lengthy response. No offense taken, as I realize I am not a beta tester for CM. I assume that's what you meant, since we don't know each other so you couldn't know that I'm not a beta tester for another app. All that I am is a consumer, and in the future will direct my consumer requests directly to feedback@battlefront.com, as I agree that trying to debate them here can get truly ugly.

I do still believe that in most situations, perhaps not this one, if a large enough group of consumers request an adjustment to a given product that adjustment may just occur. This can happen whether the requests come from articulate experts using careful research, or just plain old idiots like me (average Joe consumer). That is not meant to be self-depricating (sp?), but I truly know I'm not your equal in this debate. Unfortunately, that doesn't lessen my desire to express my opinion on making a product better. I don't know jack about cars, but that's not going to stop me from asking for a drink tray hanging from the roof if I think that would be cool.

Just curious (newbie question) - are you an employee of BTS?

Regards, Aaron

PS Point well taken on the email thing, I have seen that get nasty before.

[ASL Veteran]

Roster war Ceasefire? I think this thread was more like Roster War Open Fire!!

[Fionn]

LOL Killmore,

Believe it or not I spotted that error after posting the message and then decided to leave it to see how long it would take to get spotted. Congragulations.. OTOH I had predicted you'd be the one to spot it so I'll give myself a little pat on the back for judging you right .

Oldgamer,

Trust me, no offence was intended and , yes I was limiting my comments to you not being a tester for CM.

Anyways, I may have come across a bit to strident there but that whole "sitting on the sideline and cackling" thing from floppydiskboy just annoyed me ( kinda carried over into my message to you though. Sorry about that.)

As for the OOB debate.. Believe it or not I went from being a stallwart " Hell no! No OOB! " to agreeing that an OOB during setup would be good in CM and that if battles get larger in CM2 ( as I expect) then OOBs should be included so, I'm actually a conditional member of the OOB club AND got that way by listening to about the 5% of reasoned posts asking for OOBs and ignoring the 95% which are unrealistic etc etc.

I guess my biggest beef is just that people use things like "simple" etc . Once they make good reasoned points THEN people listen and opinions are changed ( like mine was).

And, for the record, your posts would be among those which I would say were among the more reasoned 5%.. You just got involved at a bad time in the discussion unfortunately .

Biggest problems with an OOB:

1. Feature creep. Some people want a simple list, others want it to be customizable, to be linked to highlighting specific units etc etc etc.

2. Cohesiveness of the experience. An OOB is a major change and EXACTLY how much of an OOB you get is a FAR more important question than whether or not one is provided. Most people seem to be missing that.

3. Care also needs to be taken in ensuring that addition of an OOB doesn't destroy the "spirit" of the game.

I think all the above can be accomplished but I don't think rancorous fights on the forum are going to help much in accomplishing them except insofar as those fights peg out he limits of what people envision being possible.

As for employment . LOL, no. I'm just a tester. I have, however, had the game since last June when it was in alpha and so have a pretty good idea of how things fit together and came to be. Not as good as Steve or Charles of course but better than most anyone else.

Ps. What other games have you betad? We might even share a couple of contacts or games. ( if you prefer to reply by email that's cool.)

[David Aitken]

ASL Veteran wrote:

> I think this thread was more like Roster War Open Fire!!

I think Mr DI FOLCO has a way with gasoline and matches.

[ducks]

David

Oh, and that reminds me of my favourite quote from A Bridge Too Far:

"Open fiah... fiah!!"

- Colonel Frost / Anthony Hopkins

mod... keep forgetting less than / greater than signs are taken for HTML...

[This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 08-09-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, probably time to lock this one up So folks, what have we learned from this and other threads?

1. The lack of an OOB in CM 1 was an intentional design decision. Because of that, there are reasons for not having one. We do not expect everyone to agree with them, but we DO expect people to understand that it wasn't blind oversight.

2. Since most everybody appears to agree that we have pushed wargaming into an entire new arena, we therefore must know what we are donig. Great games of detail are not made by some sort of freak accident. Therefore, agree or not with our decision, we deserve a decent level of respect for it. Enlightened people can respectfully disagree.

3. Yes, many people have asked for OOBs. Many people also asked that we make CM 2D instead of 3D, use sprites instead of poligional figures, have continous time as the heart of the game, etc. So simple head count does NOT mean the feature is either good or necessary. We are the keeper of the vision, and it damn well better stay that way or future CMs will get muddled.

4. Large numbers of requests does mean we need to listen to the well reasoned arguments to see if we should do something differently. Perhaps not exactly what those users are directly asking for.

5. Whining and abusing us doesn't count for anything in our books If anything it INCREASES our desire to keep things as is. Best to state your case clearly and rationally, debate it in the same way, and then leave it be at least for a time.

6. The lack of an OOB has not hurt our review ratings OR our sales. Nearly all reviews have put us over the 90% mark, which is damned impressive.

7. An OOB feature, even if rather simplistic, would be a significant investment of programming time. If the feature is worth the investment, then it would certainly go in. But this is debate

And finally...

We have stated in the past that we are keeping in mind a PURE OOB feature for future CMs. This would be something that would allow you to see little more than the unit's name, type, and command structure relationship. You would also be able to "jump" to a particular unit by double clicking (or something) on the entry in the OOB. We have no firm design in mind, but this is one thing we have kicked around as a possible compromise.

The time to debate this is really over for the moment. Try again in about 6 months when we know better what we might or might not do

Steve