Some comments about QB point changes

[CavScout]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

But then again you're never wrong...

It would seem you and the other Jeff are in agreement.

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

"Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger

Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade

"When it comes to what the BTS forum has turned into over the last several months, it is very simple.

AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word.

When it comes to debating, Steve and his are pure as the driven snow. They have *never* flamed anyone, and all of their arguments are

completely reasoned, air-tight, and logically flawless. Everyone who disagrees with them is an ignorant peasant, prone to flaming, personal attacks, and a basic inability to put more than three words together cohesively.

The funny thing is, the reality is almost exactly the opposite. Steve makes a regular habit if turning once civil discussions into flame fests by accusing anyone who disagrees with him of being stupid, ignorant, ill-informed, or a closet Germanophile. In multiple

discussions he whips out the flamethrower, then complains when others respond in kind, and locks up the thread, but only after he gets in the last word. It is downright funny how often he will praise those who support him for their intelligence and reasonableness, then in the same breath bitterly attack, as a group, all of those who disagree with him. It is this really amazing coincidence that every brilliant person on the board agrees with Steve, and anyone who disagrees is a de-facto idiot.

The BTS forum is still a valuable tool for finding PBEM opponents, keeping up on the latest developments in the game, and the occasional distraction of arguing with the ankle-biters. But it has long since lost any utility it once had for having substantative discussions about the game itself. That has become sacrosant. The game is damn near perfection, and to suggest otherwise earns nothing but derision. And Steve actively encourages his flock to loudly shout down anyone who suggests otherwise.

And god forbid you suggest that any German anything was better than portrayed by the game."--Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]

[Bruno Weiss]

Steve drove this point home with me a while back ever so delicately. (I'm still trying to get the shoe polish off the seat of my pants.)

But you know what, he was right. No, I don't agree with Steve all the time, but when I've been civil with BTS, he has been civil with me. And I can't think of anything more civil than the BTS post at the beginning of this thread. So, my way of thinking is when I'm not civil with him, why should he remain civil with me. Yes, I've seen some of the moderators make some strange assertions, but hey, did I ever make a mistake, have I ever made a strange assertion?

I recognized what Steve said when he said it back then to be right and I recognize it now and he is right. BTS provides this forum, lives by the Manifesto, and does a good many things, "puts up with" a good many things that other game companies will never even understand, much less care to undertake to do because those companies lack the dedication and desire to quality, commitment, and customer satisfaction that has driven BTS. I knew and recognized that even while I was busy performing my jackass impersonation that brought about Steve's rebuke against me. And he was right to make it. I'm just mature enough to recognize it, admit it, and apologize for it (something that is a rare commodity on this forum). Thus, I don't think anyone can accuse me of schmoozing BTS or gratuitously assisting them.

But on this score, the fact is I've been buying games from companies who snatched my money and ran since '94' or '95', without so much as a rats behind worth of support in exchange. My way of thinking is Steve and BTS represent something quite unique and very novel in a dog eat dog competitive business world, all the while trying to do what the rest of the pack of companies forgot about a long time ago. To conduct business with principles, ideals, and commitment.

The very same reason that is put forth for the never ending diatribe of "gee why don't we have this, or when are we gonna have that, or how come this is not that, and that is not this", has been based upon as often stated, "our love of the game". I would submit that is probably the same reason Steve and BTS get passionate about CM and maybe even a little defensive when the hoards of Iwannamongers come rolling in. I dare say they've managed to do what the rest of the gaming world can't, have done it exceptionally well, have done it in conjunction with the customer, and have done it successfully. Now that in my opinion, gets them some credit in my eyes, and a little benefit of the doubt. "Even", when I don't agree with them on some detail or other of judgement they have made. So if they are guarded about leaping over to my way of thinking just because I popped on here with some bright idea, question, or off the cuff thought, then most assuredly in my opinion that is probably the best thing for us all. Because in the final analysis CM is one helluva game, and I didn't make the damn thing, "they" did!!!

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-23-2001).]

[jd]

Originally said By the Great Bald one We are not saying that you can't taunt and brag about your victories and defeats.... What we do want to see is a cap on the language and the more colorful metaphors.

Keep it in line with the normal forum rules and and in vain with the fact that people play this game to have fun.(emphasis added) Remember, due to the activity level here th[is thread - ed.] will also be near the top. We just don't want to see anything so over the top that it will discourage people from participating in the forums or worse in playing the game.

Move along folks, nothing to see here, keep it moving..........

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

If frogs had uzi's, snakes woudn't mess with them so much. - Hiram

[Tanklover MD]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Boy oh boy -- that is a great way to end it. The childish retort at the end of a comment seems to be the standard when no good argument can be given. When I send my neice to bed she calls me a poophead.

Jeff, you are a childish poophead. Nyahhhh. So there.

Steve "Never Wrong" Jackson

I think Slapdragon that feeding the trolls is a mistake, even though everyone recognizes you are making a joke, the troll probably wont.

When ever I see a childish parthian shot that is not part of the argument I chalk it up to exactly that, a troll trying to degrade the discussion. But I also shiver when the troll is responded to, because usually that are capable of far worse.

Bruno, your post is excellent.

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Jeff wrote:

Well, in this case is very much correct. People are welcomed to present requests for change. But some of the emotional and abusive ways these requests are presented are not welcomed here because they are not helpful in any way shape or form. Requests for changes that aren't based on solid logic and research are also not welcomed, at least until logic and research are introduced into the discussion.

So unless you are saying that we should listen to, and in fact encourage, a bunch of jerks with off the wall requests just because they come out in record numbers... you and Slapdragon agree completely. If you think that we should treat such feedback as nugets of gold from our paying customers, then you and Slapdragon do in fact disagree. But not as strongly as I would disagree with you

Steve

A number of years ago I was a television director working with commercial production of various sorts. Every video, just like every game, has a target audience. The target audience is the people you intend to reach with the product.

A target audience member is not simple, like saying we want to read 18 year old lion tamers. It is a complex group of varied people that span a range of characteristics. Research on these audiences always produces some sort of bell curve, skewed or not, with a lot of people falling into the middle, and a few at the edges. The few at the edges are often called the fringe or incidental audience.

CM is targeted to people who liked squad leader, own computers, want a strategy game, and like history. That is what starts your bell curve, but people fall in all parts. Some of those people what photorealistic rendering and do not mind buying a 16 processor Linux box with a render farm to get it, which is way out in the fringe. Others want the game to be played on a black and white 486 with two floppy drives, out on the other. No matter how much the fringe pulls and pushes, there is no chance BTS will be able to respond positively to either condition.

One of the problems is that BTS has inherited the bell curve from other games, and BTS on purpose set out to create a game with a certain historical integrity. The center of its "Bell Curve" would be the grog extreme of Close Combat, and way off the chart of Diablo or other twitch and jerk games. They cannot compete with the big guys of the game industry in terms of glitz, so they compete in terms of going after a very lucrative historical market, and in the process have drawn in other people.

Now the problem with Jeff's thesis is that is assumes a company has all the money in the world to make endless changes to a product to meet even the smallest demands. It assumes that the changes asked for would be liked when gotten, and it assumes that you can even make all these changes and still make a profit for a profit.

With product placement research, you soon find out that customers ask for lots of things, then don't really want them in the first place. New Coke is an example of this. Research, conducted by asking people how they wanted coke changed, led to the new formulation -- essentially diet coke with caffiene and sugar. People hated it even though they said they had wanted exactly that.

Next, you can listen to customers and find out that they want something that flat out cannot be delivered with current technology at a price that customers can afford. People were asked in the 1970s if they would like a roaming phone that they could travel with. They said hell yes, but without a set of technical restrictions that included knowing what band you needed to set the phone to and dialing a set of activation codes in your area. So a start up, trying to get around the AT&T monopoly, rigged a Satphone that used Telstar. No major hassles, but it costs 25,000 dollars a month, and customers would only pay a couple hundred for it.

Finally you have the things that just plain old violate the concept of what you want to do, and while it may make a lot of people happy now, it will piss off more in the long run. When I was a director many product companies did tests that showed soft core pornography included in a product message made selling the product easier. Ad agencies would universally say to avoid anything that was too in left field, because even though it might spark purient interest and in the short run make people buy, in the long run it would open the company to ridicule and make their products less saleble.

So, like any other company, BTS does not have the people, the resources, or the technology to please everyone. They need not give the level of support they already give, but they do (and they take flack from people for not going farther still). And, they need to keep their eye on the ball, programming for the largest audience without killing their core market or ideals.

[Simon Fox]

I don't think you can classify jshandorf as a troll. If you call people "poopheads" I think you can expect a humourous response. It's not exactly a viscious retort is it hehe.

As I have told you in countless emails

Simon, you are an Australian. As such, how can I take you seriously? I mean... gosh, look at all those funny animals you have around.

Oh, that's nice, that's gratitude for you. After all the times I've told you what you should have in your game, now you tell me you've been ignoring me the whole time. Sniggering behind my back. Well at least our funny animals are marsupials and not homo sapiens.

Doing well there Bruno

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

Muddying the waters as usual.

[Guest AbnAirCav]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Some of those people what photorealistic rendering and do not mind buying a 16 processor Linux box with a render farm to get it ...

I searched for the threads discussing this, but was unsuccessful ... I would love to join these guys!

Seriously, I love the game and enjoy the discussions, but if I could change one thing it would be the flame wars going on. It'll start in one thread and then pollute almost every other thread where these folks post. And the tag teams from hell and "shouting down" other posters with numerous posts is not a valid debate technique, IMHO.

I don't know how BTS stands it ... life's too short and if it was my board I'd kick off those who can't be more mature ...

One man's opinion,

--Keith

[Tanklover MD]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

I don't think you can classify jshandorf as a troll. If you call people "poopheads" I think you can expect a humourous response. It's not exactly a viscious retort is it hehe.

Oh, that's nice, that's gratitude for you. After all the times I've told you what you should have in your game, now you tell me you've been ignoring me the whole time. Sniggering behind my back. Well at least our funny animals are marsupials and not homo sapiens.

Doing well there Bruno

You think its funny, I think it is funny, and I am sure it was meant as a joke, but Mr. Shandorf, in my mostly silent reading of this thread, seems oddly torked off by it. I do not think he will react well to making fun of him, and then we will devolve right back down after some informative and some humorous posts that I have quite enjoyed.

On another thread, a guy just said shut the hell up to everyone unless they were veterans, and killed a good conversation. I don't want all the good ones closed in one night!

[Bruno Weiss]

Yeah Tanklover, it happens all too often. Like I've said before, most of the time, not always, an argument on this here internet is not unlike a passionately contested division of opinions in a stadium of drunken fans over a soccer match. Usually with a similar outcome. By the time the issue is settled with fact, everyone's asleep.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-23-2001).]

[Tanklover MD]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Yeah Tanklover, it happens all too often. Like I've said before, most of the time, not always, an argument on this here internet is not unlike a passionately contested division of opinions in a stadium of drunken fans over a soccer match. Usually with a similar outcome. By the time the issue is settled with fact, everyone's asleep.

As someone who mostly like to read these things in my limited spare time, I wish that BTS had a net etiquette FAQ that more people would adhere to. I enjoyed what Slapdragon was saying, but people were telling him to go to hell, that he was stupid, that he was elitest, all without trying to come up with some interesting counter arguments. He had good points about proof and making an argument, and it made people CRAZY like I have never seen before. (I would love it if someone had a reason). Then BTS came up and essentially said Slapdragon was on the mark all along, and I laughed my rear end off.

So, maybe bystanders like I, or people who are not in the middle of the arguments, should do more to point out when net etiquette is being violated. It would have, in fact, benefited the side who did not like the 1.1 change, since their argument was hurt, as you sort of hinted at, by the people who started troll, and people like Phillistine and Vanir were shouted out by Shandorf and Heidman, to all of our losses because I was enjoying the more erudite arguments against Slapdragon et al immensely.

[This message has been edited by Tanklover MD (edited 01-23-2001).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Yes, let's keep this thread nice and happy, the way all threads should be

Bruno, for what it is worth your voluntary public display of your tail between your legs was quite admirable. Your bringing it up in the post above is probably the most humble thing I have ever seen in two years on this BBS. I can do nothing more than commend you for seeing the really important thing we are trying to do here - making Combat Mission a better game - and adopting the best method to achieve that - rational and respectfull discussion.

Some people like to think of this as some test of wills, or an ego stroking marathon of epic proportions for me. No. Trust me. If I thought I had all the right answers I would not be hanging out here on this BBS. You would all be beneath me, so no need to continually bother myself with your lame existance On the contrary, I am here to learn and discuss. While a few might accuse me of being here to beat people up and have a bunch of YESMEN, I think the record is very clear that this is not the case. User inspired suggestions have made CM a MUCH better game, both in terms of playability and realism. A simple look at the features addressed in each patch, and a Search of this BBS, will confirm this beyond any doubt.

While I might have strong opinions, and don't mind expressing and defending them, pretty much anybody here can convince me that I am wrong if they can make the case. And that sits just fine with my ego However, as stated... I don't roll over and surrender if someone tries to bully me into changing my view of the world. And that REALLY pisses some people off, especially the ones that lack debating skills. If they can't win through discussion, they want to win by abuse. And that does Combat Mission no good at all.

And a final note to Simon... I didn't ignore your emails. I printed them out and used them for the bottom of the cats' litterbox. Hey, you are from the land down under, so it is kinda fitting

Steve

P.S. If anybody doubts that I am just kidding with Simon, wait until you see him having to comment as a Beta Tester for CM2. As has been said, we only listen to bootlickers, and Simon is one of the best out there!

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Yes, let's keep this thread nice and happy, the way all threads should be

Bruno, for what it is worth your voluntary public display of your tail between your legs was quite admirable. Your bringing it up in the post above is probably the most humble thing I have ever seen in two years on this BBS. I can do nothing more than commend you for seeing the really important thing we are trying to do here - making Combat Mission a better game - and adopting the best method to achieve that - rational and respectfull discussion.

Some people like to think of this as some test of wills, or an ego stroking marathon of epic proportions for me. No. Trust me. If I thought I had all the right answers I would not be hanging out here on this BBS. You would all be beneath me, so no need to continually bother myself with your lame existance On the contrary, I am here to learn and discuss. While a few might accuse me of being here to beat people up and have a bunch of YESMEN, I think the record is very clear that this is not the case. User inspired suggestions have made CM a MUCH better game, both in terms of playability and realism. A simple look at the features addressed in each patch, and a Search of this BBS, will confirm this beyond any doubt.

While I might have strong opinions, and don't mind expressing and defending them, pretty much anybody here can convince me that I am wrong if they can make the case. And that sits just fine with my ego However, as stated... I don't roll over and surrender if someone tries to bully me into changing my view of the world. And that REALLY pisses some people off, especially the ones that lack debating skills. If they can't win through discussion, they want to win by abuse. And that does Combat Mission no good at all.

And a final note to Simon... I didn't ignore your emails. I printed them out and used them for the bottom of the cats' litterbox. Hey, you are from the land down under, so it is kinda fitting

Steve

P.S. If anybody doubts that I am just kidding with Simon, wait until you see him having to comment as a Beta Tester for CM2. As has been said, we only listen to bootlickers, and Simon is one of the best out there!

lick lick lick. Uh, were do I sign? lick lick lick Uh, forget about those posts last month were I disagreed with you about a scripting system for mods in CM2, lick lick lick.

[Tanklover MD]

sorry, wrong button

[This message has been edited by Tanklover MD (edited 01-23-2001).]

[Bruno Weiss]

Ah garsh Steve, schmooooche! Ya big lug. Is this the scene where we kiss and make up? Well I'll say this for ya, you ain't nothing if not a sparklin persona. Hehe, sure as hell know how to liven up a Tuesday night!

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Boy oh boy -- that is a great way to end it. The childish retort at the end of a comment seems to be the standard when no good argument can be given. When I send my neice to bed she calls me a poophead.

Jeff, you are a childish poophead. Nyahhhh. So there.

Steve "Never Wrong" Jackson

Hmmm... Seems to me that I gave quiet good arguments as to why I questioned the point change to begin with. It was your inability, or lack of want, to refute them.

The reasons Steve gave for the change sounded much more reasonable and thought out then any reason you proposed (even though I still disagree somewhat), but then again you never directly addressed my arguments. You only made excuses or avoided all together any semblance or a rational response. Hmmm.. You're not a politician are you? If not, you should be.

Therefore you were right for all the wrong reasons, and I am not sure if that is better then being wrong.

Jeff

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

First of all, David, you stupid sot, if names were meant to be descriptive, everyone would have the, culturally appropriate, name of, "Ugly little purple person that cries and wets itself." -Meeks.

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

So unless you are saying that we should listen to, and in fact encourage, a bunch of jerks with off the wall requests just because they come out in record numbers... you and Slapdragon agree completely. If you think that we should treat such feedback as nugets of gold from our paying customers, then you and Slapdragon do in fact disagree. But not as strongly as I would disagree with you

Steve

I would think that you and Charles have been around on this board long enough to know the difference between "off the wall requests" and "nuggets of gold", that is for sure.

If I recall when the original thread started most people were only asking for a decent reason why it was changed since taking points away from the German armored area seemed to be unbalancing to that particular match up.

I would of been happy with stating my personal query and laying out my reasons and waiting for a response, but when "some" people come into a thread, and do nothing to offer a rational excuse or reason for them telling you that you are wrong, it does nothing but start to piss a lot of people off. Especially when it is delivered with such a pompous and "know it all" attitude.

At no time did I command or order BTS to change the points back. I only questioned the changed and wanted to know why it had been changed in the first place. It was only until people came along and began to question my asking, as if I had no right to begin with, that things got heated up.

Jeff

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

First of all, David, you stupid sot, if names were meant to be descriptive, everyone would have the, culturally appropriate, name of, "Ugly little purple person that cries and wets itself." -Meeks.