Feature Request: Point Line-of-Site

[iggi]

oops

[This message has been edited by iggi (edited 09-03-2000).]

[Jaded]

David: I promise to keep this one shorter, since its pretty clear we'll never enjoy a meeting of minds.

You said:

>...(2) Is it crucial to gameplay? The flying camera fits squarely in the second bracket. An LOS tool would fit into neither.

I disagree. I proposed removing the 2-4 camera views, and limiting the 1 camera view to being attached to a friendly unit. The game could certainly be played using the 5-8 views and the limited (in my model) 1 view.

(skipping around a bit)

We said:

>> My boys have had time to set up target reference points, erect pillboxes and dig-in tanks, but they haven't had time to take a walk over to see what the lay of the land is like?

>You have this information, it's just not completely accurate - what's unrealistic about that?

Why wouldn't it be completely accurate? We're setting up defenses, and I take young Private Udell aside and say "Scurry on up to that copse of trees on the hilltop and tell me if you can draw a bead on the crossroads from there."

(Actually, this is a good argument for the unlimited LOS during set-up, at least for the player on defense.)

You said:

> Your analogy is completely different from mine. The change you suggest would be entirely logical and practical, and would in no way compromise the design of the car.

The Universal LOS Tool might not be logical, but it would be practical. Is "No FOW" logical? No. But is it practical as an option for newer or more casual gamers? Certainly. Same here (in my opinion). It would have to be toggle option so that grognards seeking the most realistic game experience could disable it.

You said:

>BTS have designed Combat Mission entirely with a niche market in mind. They do not want to make populist, catch-all games which they can mass-market through global publishers - they want to make realistic simulations which are true to their own vision, and will sell to people who will really appreciate their principles and attention to detail.

Have I missed something? Are you an officer with the company? You seem quite comfortable speaking for them. Here is a quote from Mr. Moylan from a Gamespot article (the fact that the article appeared in Gamespot alone tells me that they hope for a wider audience than you suggest... Gamespot is not exactly Grognard Central):

"But in the end, we've created what we think is a game that you'll really want to play if you have any interest in strategy or combat games, 3D graphics, or military history."

(emphasis mine... the entire article is at http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/features/pc/postgame_wrapup/index.html )

That doesn't describe a niche market to me, and -how- they sell the game (ie, not going through the traditional distribution channels) is a separate issue.

You said:

> If they don't want to buy CM, they don't have to. If they must have a roster, CM is probably not their kind of game.

So now you read minds, too? Ever consider that not everyone has the same kind of life? For some folks, gaming time is very limited, and they appreciate UI tools that let them spend more time playing and less time manipulating the interface. The primary friend I have in mind was of the opinion that if you can get a certain piece of information by viewing replays multiple times and examing the details of each unit, then you should be able to access that same information in an easier-to-use format.

Now, getting back to an earlier point and trying to honestly explore the issue a bit more:

You said:

>As I've said already, CM is not currently photorealistic. Looking at the map, you do not get completely accurate information - the reason why you're asking for an LOS tool.

Right. And though you are, I think, of the mind that the 3D rendition is deliberately obfuscated to add realism, it is my understanding, from reading the manual, that it isn't 100% accurate because of the limitations of todays hardware.

So I wonder if there'd be a way to add a 'full render of this frame' option? You'd get the camera pointed at where you want it point, then hit a hotkey and the scene will be redrawn, accurate to the game's internal model of the battlefield? It'd probably take a while, but you wouldn't need to use it often.

David, I know you'll howl at this because of the realism aspects. The idea is more for the designers to kick around and knock down.

Of course, just because you, the player, can see through a copse of trees doesn't mean your men will. It depends on where their attention is focused and such.

Another option that'd help me is to be able to toggle contour lines on the overhead views, or maybe shade the overhead views according to terrain height. That's information that a commander should be able to get from a map, and its information I could get by popping around in 1 view, but from a playability standpoint it be nice to see, at a glance, the lay of the land (this wouldn't take into account buildings, trees or smoke blocking los, though).

Well, it was supposed to be shorter this time... heh.

Of, and for the record, Steve and the rest of the folks at BTS, I'm a huge fan of CM. My out-loud thinking of different features is just that, out-loud thinking. Sorta like you and Charles did in that bar back in the early days...

[elementalwarre]

2 weeks ago i suggested much the same in http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/009289.html

i changed my mind. note it's not in my last summary in that thread. IMHO arbitrary LOS should -not- be in CM, not even in scenario creation

no, i'm not assimilated. yes, i mulled over the very same realism vs playability being discussed here. no, i'm not a grognard. until 5 weeks ago i'd tried a few wargames but for each one stopped within a week

one point of CM is realism -whenever possible-. that -whenever possible- constraint means we get overhead map view for practical unit control, an abstracted command/control mechanism, etc. for some gamey factors, you can limit yourself or agree to limit them when playing others. for others, when BTS aims at a more powerful baseline computer they may change them. despite trying for the last month, i have yet to find factors that arguably don't fall in these 2 areas

note: it's already not realistic to have precise visibility data -even from where a unit is-. it can be -hard- to see camo through brush, and/or the sun's in your eyes, and/or you blinked...

given that, it's certainly realistic to not know exactly what someone can see/be seen by at a point they're not at

lacking precise visibility data goes along with troops that may crack under MG fire or charge the MG. mortars may slaughter those halftracks or fire short, vaporizing your sniper

it's simply another -real- factor. for people who want realism, it helps playability. they see confluence, not opposition

note: you can use LOS from a unit's current position to gauge visibility-affected factors elsewhere, once you know how ground cover limits vision/targeting/command and control/etc. finding out those ranges is just something else to learn, same as learning which squads are more effective at a given range. with that condition, the map is WYSIWYG -enough-, like the rest of the graphics. it's arguably already -easier- than real life since the graphics are largely -functional- not photorealistic aka cluttered

as for varying LOS due to terrain changes, i've always been able to see all dips/rises in the ground. that factor is IMHO precisely modeled and thus entirely viewable

if you play vs the AI - well, when the operational AI gets even better, perhaps it could be limited to a view 1 LOS, with some fudge factor. until then, i -like- how the AI's perfect LOS makes it a tougher opponent

[This message has been edited by elementalwarre (edited 09-03-2000).]

[David Aitken]

Jaded wrote:

> "But in the end, we've created what we think is a game that you'll really want to play if you have any interest in strategy or combat games, 3D graphics, or military history."

> That doesn't describe a niche market to me

That is a sales pitch, designed to get as many people as possible to take a look at the game. 3D graphics? You could say that everybody who plays computer games is interested in 3D graphics. That doesn't mean they'll be interested in Combat Mission. CM is a niche product, and that's a fact.

> > If they don't want to buy CM, they don't have to. If they must have a roster, CM is probably not their kind of game.

> So now you read minds, too? Ever consider that not everyone has the same kind of life? For some folks, gaming time is very limited, and they appreciate UI tools that let them spend moretime playing and less time manipulating the interface.

This is getting into the Roster Debate. If someone dismisses CM because it lacks a roster, it is entirely fair to say it's not their kind of game. The omission of Close Combat-style micromanagment tools is part of CM's design concept.

> I proposed removing the 2-4 camera views, and limiting the 1 camera view to being attached to a friendly unit. The game could certainly be played using the 5-8 views and the limited (in my model) 1 view.

> I wonder if there'd be a way to add a 'full render of this frame' option?

> Another option that'd help me is to be able to toggle contour lines on the overhead views, or maybe shade the overhead views according to terrain height.

You're really confusing the argument with a lot of different ideas. The fact is, you can pick up on any slightly unrealistic aspect of Combat Mission, and then argue that another unrealistic feature should be added - or you can argue that it should be put in to please customers. It's all been done before. But the facts here are plain and simple - the unrealistic aspects of Combat Mission (principally the camera) are there for purposes of gameplay. Within that framework, everything else is as realistic and logical as possible. Nothing unrealistic which would not significantly improve the game, within BTS's vision, will be included.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Dr Dan]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Nothing unrealistic which would not significantly improve the game, within BTS's vision, will be included.

David

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(Emphasis added by me)

This is really the crux of the matter, IMO.

There are many of us who would like to see certain features (such as point LOS) added because, to us, gameplay WOULD BE significantly enhanced without a detrimental effect on CM's world. Maybe we are novices, maybe we lack time to develop an in-depth appreciation for the finer aspects of CM play. Perhaps, we feel that adding anywhere LOS is really no different than having the God-view camera, or as in my case, are simply frustrated by the discrepancy between the "seen" world and the internal "real" one. Given one of these viewpoints, this type of feature does markedly improve gameplay, realistic or not.

Does this matter? Only a little. Its BTS's game, their design vision, and certainly, their right to choose what features might be added in the interest of improved play. And, IMHO, most of us accept that right without much concern -- after all, CM is a fantastic game already. Further, the general openness shown by BTS to new/different ideas, which by all accounts HAS led to a better game, is a model for the software industry as a whole. I only hope, and I think this is part of Jaded's point, is their receptiveness not be drowned out by the "choir."

So, go forth, enjoy the work of Charles and Steve (and others), and look forward to the next surprise!

Dan

[This message has been edited by Dr Dan (edited 09-04-2000).]

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

How dare they disagree with me! This vexes me greatly and inspires me to take potshots at them!!

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

Life is tough...Its even tougher if you're stupid...

[:USERNAME:]

Theres kind of a LOS "tool". You can put down a move command to a point and then go to that point and get down to ground level and stretch a command from there. The second string will contour to the earth and such and you can eyeball the situation.

Its kludgey but it kind of works. I personally believe that the LOS tool should only be available to be used from positions you could attain in 60 seconds. I also think that if you check from a position, then you cant take back. seems fair?

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 09-03-2000).]

[Jaded]

David:

You said:

>That is a sales pitch, designed to get as many people as possible to take a look at the game. 3D graphics?

Exactly. Clearly they want to get as much notice (and presumably, sales) as possible, and not just from the niche (ie, hardcore wargamers) market...

And I think they should. I am not (obviously) a hardcore wargamer, and I love the game. BTS has come up with a brillaint design: one that satisfies (most) grognards yet is also a very fun game for more casual gamers to play. So why shouldn't they want to expand their customer base?

DrDan said:

>Further, the general openness shown by BTS to new/different ideas, which by all accounts HAS led to a better game, is a model for the software industry as a whole. I only hope, and I think this is part of Jaded's point, is their receptiveness not be drowned out by the "choir."

Yup, that's a lot more my point that any particular feature.

New players come into this forum every day, and David trying to swat them away with "That's already been discussed." isn't exactly sending a positive message. New customers deserve to be heard just as much as folks who've been playing since day 1 of the beta.

Username: I didn't know about that. Thanks. I'll check it out. I can deal with kludgy until someone writes a hack to give us the LOS we're asking for.

Of course, once someone DOES write that hack, it won't be a toggle thing, and so you won't be able to control the use of it in a PBEM game. That'll be a shame...

Anyway, 'nuff said. Next time I have a feature suggestion I'll just email it to BTS rather than getting into a brawl here.

[David Aitken]

Jaded wrote:

> New players come into this forum every day, and David trying to swat them away with "That's already been discussed." isn't exactly sending a positive message.

What is your problem? That is by far the most sensible and useful thing to tell someone who brings up a subject that's already been discussed. They should go and read what's already been said, and if they have anything really new to add (rather than just dragging up the subject for the sake of it), then they are free to speak their mind. And I can assure you, if it weren't me, it would be any number of other people, including Steve, telling you the same thing.

> Anyway, 'nuff said. Next time I have a feature suggestion I'll just email it to BTS rather than getting into a brawl here.

A brawl... what a joke.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Dr Dan]

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

I personally believe that the LOS tool should only be available to be used from positions you could attain in 60 seconds. I also think that if you check from a position, then you cant take back. seems fair?

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 09-03-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like a promising idea. Being able to have a look around but limited to the context of the next turn might be a reasonable way "seeing" the real map without gaining too much information. A couple of questions:

1. How would you determine the "60 sec" radius? Fastest unit? Slowest?

2. What do you mean "can't take back?" Do you have to move something there? Are you limiting the player to a single look?

Dan