Priest Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Fuerte: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Every once in a while a thread comes along that is so packed with ungreatful whining, insults, and rampent ungreatful sentiments that I feel I must come in and post. Obviously this is just such a thread Well! I had no idea that Battlefront feels insulted about this thread. And I had no idea that we are whiners. I thought that we are just making suggestions to an inperfect game... </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />...the current engine displays the previous turn and then you make moves for the next turn, so this explanation sounds poor.Nope, not poor at all. Your understanding of how the game functions is poor. The game engine has absolutely no way of handling this. Amateures with know knowledge of the code can denny this as much as they want, but their opinion has absolutely zero value. We looked into fixing this issue for CMBO and found it to be too much work to undo, then looked at it again for CMBB and estimated once again that the 2-3 months of code rewriting was simply not worth the effort. Therefore, after an honest attempt to fix this problem (and we have always admitted it is a problem) we decided it was in everybody's best interest to spend the time on other more important issues. Either that or we are purposefully ignoring a significant problem that has an easy solution simply I can have the joy of answering yet another winey post about this issue. Use a couple of those graycells and strain to figure out which is the most likely case. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Regarding AI changes, IIMU that there were not a lot of changes to the AI. Some of the changes between CMBB and CMBO may seem like an AI change, but are really secondary effects of another change, e.g. the MG model, or the introduction of the fitness model, or vehicle moral and command structures. All of which I would gladly have given up for the chance to have one less email per PBEM turn. Errr... wait a second... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuerte Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: Although I must admit that 2-3 months seems a little high to me. :confused: Agree. I would guess two weeks max. Here is a clarification to my explanation, I added (generates turn) texts: We have two players, a and b: a) plot #1 file contains game state #1, a#1 plot #1 (generates turn) file contains game state #2, movie #1 a) view #1 file contains game state #2, movie #1 view #1 + plot #2 file contains game state #2, b#2 a) plot #2 (generates turn) file contains game state #3, movie #2 view #2 file contains game state #3, movie #2 a) view #2 + plot #3 file contains game state #3, a#3 ... With the suggested system: a) plot #1 file contains game state #1, a#1 plot #1 (generates turn) file contains game state #2, movie #1 a) view #1 + plot #2 file contains game state #2, movie #1, a#2 view #1 + plot #2 (generates turn) file contains game state #3, movie #2 a) view #2 + plot #3 file contains game state #3, movie #2, a#3 ... So the difference does not seem very big. The first three phases are indentical. Suggested system is just simpler and faster. The file contains movie always except in the beginning. The difference is that the player never just views the movie, he always plots the next turn as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Fuerte: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: Although I must admit that 2-3 months seems a little high to me. :confused: Agree. I would guess two weeks max. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fuerte: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: Although I must admit that 2-3 months seems a little high to me. :confused: Agree. I would guess two weeks max. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Soddball: Pay no attention. It's just another "Let's band together and bitch about something we don't understand" thread instead of a sensible discussion on the virtues of altering the PBEM system. Oh, so that's what it is! There I was thinking someone tried to make informed criticism based on some 'acquaintance with reality.' Silly me. I go and eat worms now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersir Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 I would be happy to see a change with a trust system or whatnot in a future revision. If it is not reasonable to do now, fine with me but please do consider it in future engines. It would really speed things up especially when you have a demending work schedule and tries to play with friends with similar lifestyles and in different timezones to boot. That's all I wanted to add since the thread started with a simple request (and some not so simple demands) and I would like to raise a hand to support that reasonable request when it's feasible This flamewar where people have a go at each other digging up old grievances feels like an old relationship of mine.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Fuerte: ... With the suggested system: a) plot #1 file contains game state #1, a#1 plot #1 (generates turn) file contains game state #2, movie #1 a) view #1 + plot #2 file contains game state #2, movie #1, a#2 view #1 + plot #2 (generates turn) file contains game state #3, movie #2 a) view #2 + plot #3 file contains game state #3, movie #2, a#3 ... Just a small thing; with this system (wish btw has been mentioned on this forum several times), it is always the same machine/player doing the turn calculations. As far as I can remember, that has always been a "veto" condition in the development of CM pbem play system. As for myself, I like it as it is... I also can't see much room for the implementation of a "safer way" (expect maybe for the removal of small “thing” during the turn calculation on a pbem game). Don't get me wrong, I respect your "need" for a faster and less safe way of file exchange (although it is has been extensively explained why it wont make it into the game), it's just my practicality together with my lack of believing in a good and honest world that prevents it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 It is ill-thought through assertions (or to put it more bluntly, talking out of your rear-end) like that which lead to you being taken more or less serious by BFC and others. I concur with Andreas, Redwolf... though I don't have Andreas' peculiar fixations, so I'd have put it differently. Steve wrote: This is correct, but not completely accurate reflection of what you wrote. You mentioned philosophy and technical abilities only.You said "technical reasons." I took that to mean "workload" - which is a better word, I think. Steve obviously took that to mean "abilities", which is indeed something of a slur. Why would Steve take it that way? It could easily be because he's been deluged with - as he so fittingly puts it - bitching over the years. In his experience I'm sure if something looks like it _might_ be bitching it almost certainly is bitching. (Apart from this "Steve's horrible mental scars" theory, there's another reason given below.) And, unfortunatly, the more you posted the more it looked like bitching. IIRC Steve also described your assertations as "confused." It was indeed hard to see how they hung together, just how they supported your thesis rather than being a collection of dredged-up-out-of-an-unkind-past "bitches." You said "I think" quite a bit. Which is good! But would I "I'd prefer" have been a more suitible opening? And looking over your messages I think you mixed design-philosophy criticisms in with things left out due to workload-constraints. Making it very likely for someone to read "technical" as "technical ability". Given recent threads if what you write smells like bitching, even if it isn't, it'll be almost certainly taken as bitching. Most esp. if you accidently mix some bitching in with the argument. Extremely tenacious bitching, as a matter of fact. I suspect it's really tenacious arguing, which is something I'm certainly not going to write against. But while argument _might_ be recieved well bitching never will be. I might be wrong about most of the above, and maybe you really are just bitching. If so: Be put in a cauldron of lead and usurer's grease, amongst a whole million of cutpurses, and there boil like a gammon of bacon that will never be enough. But hopefully I'm not wrong, and it'll never come to that. http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/Shaker/index.html? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fuerte: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: Although I must admit that 2-3 months seems a little high to me. :confused: Agree. I would guess two weeks max. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fuerte: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: Although I must admit that 2-3 months seems a little high to me. :confused: Agree. I would guess two weeks max. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 I think the problem was that although you described a probable resolution you then went on to say (without being able to back up your statements) that the coder's assessment of how much time it would take to put into practice was wrong. I'm all for new ideas when they are well laid out and developed, but telling the coders how long it will take them to code something is the wrong way to motivate them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thin Red Line Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Tanaka: with this system (wish btw has been mentioned on this forum several times), it is always the same machine/player doing the turn calculations. As far as I can remember, that has always been a "veto" condition in the development of CM pbem play system.Just out of curiosity, why this veto ? Would a computer favour its owner's side or what ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Soddball: I think the problem was that although you described a probable resolution you then went on to say (without being able to back up your statements) that the coder's assessment of how much time it would take to put into practice was wrong. I'm all for new ideas when they are well laid out and developed, but telling the coders how long it will take them to code something is the wrong way to motivate them. That's what I mean with quoting out of context. The sentence immediately before that was "If Charles has looked at it and concluded that it is too much work I don't want to question the decision to not implement this". Would it have been better to say "From my perspective I can't see how Charles arrived at his 2-3 months figure"? Keep in mind that English is not my native language, so it's quite possible that some people will read things between the lines that I had never thought of while typing. Dschugaschwili 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Thin Red Line: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tanaka: with this system (wish btw has been mentioned on this forum several times), it is always the same machine/player doing the turn calculations. As far as I can remember, that has always been a "veto" condition in the development of CM pbem play system.Just out of curiosity, why this veto ? Would a computer favour its owner's side or what ? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuerte Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by karch: my good freind and I had a great "TRUST MODE" that let us fly through games. We gave each other our password.. We got 1 full game turn per email and never cheated. here's how it goes.. I'll skip setup. 1) I move, computer turn save doc 2) I open file with HIS password, cover the screen and fast forward to the end of the movie and save the doc 3) I open it with my password, watch the movie and then make my next turn and save the doc. 4) I then send him the files from turn 1 and 3 This way we turned arount 1 full turn per email.. you sent 2 files to each other. 1 movie file and 1 file with your moves pre-plotted. It was very fast, and I trust my good friends to play like this. If you're concerned about cheaters, then don't play this way. Just a thought. We like it.. or liked it back when he played. I am wondering if PBEM Helper could do this automatically. Everything else seems possible but how to cover the screen?? Perhaps it could change the screen or DirectX settings that the display is very dark (black). :confused: Or minimize the window. Anyway, I don't like the idea of sharing the passwords, trust or not. Another fear that I have now is that Battlefront gets mad about this PBEM speedup thing (how it is easy or trivial to fix it) and they decide that they never improve it! And all that I want is a way to play CMBB faster, i.e. more... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karch Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Hey, if you don't trust someone with your password, then how would any of you trust someone with another system that relies on trusting a player not to create movies and watch them and rerunning them? I've only played PBEMs with people I trust.. not that I get to play much anymore... And what makes you think BFC is as petty as you whiners and would withhold a game improvement just to spite you. Trust me, they won't. And for 2 reasons. 1) You aren't worth it. Don't flatter yourselves into thinking so. 2) Within their abilities (time and money constraints) they will make the game the best it can be. As for questioning how long it would take to make the changes. I don't doubt it for a second. I'm a database programmer, and this is far more complex than I develop, but I understand the situation. We could make every aspect of our applications more scaleable, modular, expandable and everything else, but that makes them initially FAR more complex to develop. Complex and time comsuming. And if you aren't assured your application will make all your money back, or even have enough money coming in to support you because you just doubled your development time preparing for every little possibility that might arise further down the road. Heck, you don't even know if it will sell at all. You have to make hard feature and development concept decisions. It's the way it works. For all of you that are criticizing how much time they have said (many many times) it would have taken, what do you do for a living? Do you develop software? For a large corporatioin or a small company? Do you have budgets and schedules? I seriously doubt any of you work for a small privately held company and are software developers. If I am wrong, I apologize for you may be a far better programmer than I assume, otherwise I think you have no idea of what you are talking about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karch Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Fuerte: Another fear that I have now is that Battlefront gets mad about this PBEM speedup thing (how it is easy or trivial to fix it) and they decide that they never improve it! [/QB]i missed the cheap shot about a fundamental change to the program being trivial. please explain to us how you know this to be trivial. and, yes, in case you didn't realize it, you are a whiner. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Hankey Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 I haven't posted or even visited this board in a seriously long time. Good to see things haven't changed a bit. Nice to see entire flamewars started over the idle blather of a couple of idiots who probably had a 2000 series programming course at some community college (if that much) and can now reprogram the entire CMBB engine in a couple of weeks. Or at least a module of it. Oh. That's right. CMBB isn't properly modularized. That was the word, correct? Truly, truly pathethic people. The behavior I see displayed here is the same type of behavior that made your mother send you to your room: Not listening, whining, just being a general pain in the ass. Sad thing about people who are a pain in the ass. Even when people TELL them they are a pain in the ass, they STILL never shutup. Guess that's what makes them a pain in the ass..Hmmm.... Annnyyyway... To the people who know who you are: Engage your genius and write us a game worthy of your phenominal programming ability, and then we'll talk. Think of it... Can't you just see the bowing? Hear the scraping as the lesser mortals chant - "We're not worthy, we're not worthy..."? Kinda gives you a woody don't it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CeeBod Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Hi All - 1st post on the forum, so bear with me! Having lurked for a while, this is the first time I've had the urge to post. I like CMBB - a lot! But I'm also under no ilusion that it's perfect - every game has flaws and imperfections, and the fact that people get wound up about small details, usually means that all the big things are done well enough to have hooked poeople's interest in the first place. That being said, why the fanatical devotion to defending every aspect of the game, that i see on threads like this one? - Several people posted that there were a few things they wish were improved, and instantly, high calibre artillery is being shot at them from all sides! :eek: Flaming, abuse, and a "if you don't like it you should **** off from these boards!" :eek: :eek: Lighten up people! It's enuff to scare a newbie into not coming back here (and when I need all the help I can get in terms of tactics, how to create good scenarios, etc, etc - that's not good!!!) Now I got to get in cover to avoid the incoming! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Fuerte: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: Although I must admit that 2-3 months seems a little high to me. :confused: Agree. I would guess two weeks max. Here is a clarification to my explanation, I added (generates turn) texts: </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPS Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 With all due respect to everyone involved (Charles & Steve most of all) based on the link in Fuerte's sig he does seem have to have at least a tiny clue on programming. Moreover, it seems that he has personally done a bit of programming to make the CM community a better place for everyone (with no financial benefit to himself). Caveat: I have not used Fuerte's PBEM helper so maybe it is or is not useful at all. Maybe his expert judgements are not worthy of attention. Then again, when e.g. Rexford or J.D.S. provide suggestions on various obscure truly groggy issues they are taken worth their word; as far as I see Fuerte has made his contribution in his own area. Oh well: IMHO quick email play is way more important than e.g. multi-multi-player support. If it is not feasible with reasonable coding effort, so be it. Then again, no need to bash those that propose some suggestions to improve the issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manchildstein (ii) Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by redwolf: No, if you trust your opponent you can do two moves per email pair (one email for each opponent). This is what TacOps does. This model does the same number of moves with 1/3rd of the emails compared to the current CM model. and it has been mentioned that a game using the current engine of cm 'cannot exist in two turns at the same time'... my solution takes this into account while yours is a feature request for the next engine design... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manchildstein (ii) Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 edit... oops .... i did not know that the 'trusted' thing was such a major recode... i suppose it should have been plain, given that this customer idea goes back to cmbo... so.. nevermind... keep up the good work... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberFunBunny Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 CeeBod: Nice post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.