1:1 Representation in CMx2 (Part II)

[v42below]

Wow there fellas, lets slow this down, shall we? I for one do not want to miss out on bones just because a small group of people got Steve all riled up over this.

I would just like to note that PBEM is what makes the multiplayer game so accessible for me (I simply don't have time to TCP/IP). I mostly play multiplayer. I would be very disapointed if the feature did not make it into CMx2. I do realise though that making a game like this is not easy and that trade offs have to be made. In my view the developers are the best people to make those tradeoffs, having done their best to listen to their customers and considered what was said.

If Battlefront tells me that it was more important to tradeoff PBEM for some other features at this point, I'll take it on trust. If when I play the demo I realise that I don't agree with that judement - I will not buy the game.

That's just my 2 NZ cents.

[Guest BigAlMoho]

"Obviously we don't want to lose PBEM, but you're insane if you think that this ONE feature is the most important thing in the world." -STEVE

Call me insane, but PBEM IS the single most important feature... No matter how great the game, it is still just a vehicle to compete head-to-head with other human beings... I have played some marginal games just because they allowed PBEM...

Al

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I myself think PBEM is great, as do the rest of BF.C crew... but it pales in comparision to the other stuff we are doing. And if that stuff kills PBEM for some reason (which is NOT known yet) then so be it. The trade off will be more than worth it.

A great game that I can't play isn't that great.

[Lee]

Perhaps there are some people that are sort of hinting that changes be made

in CMII for the sake of PBEM. I am definitely *not* one of those people.

I want CMII to be made with the full level of detail, realism and

general coolness that Steve and Charles have planned for it.

I don't see the two things as related at all. Make CMII a great wargame.

And however large the PBEM files need to be to handle 1:1 troops, detailed terrain

or any other feature the game will have then *so be it*. I don't care how

big the files are, I'm still going to play PBEM. It's up to me and other PBEM

players to figure out how to handle the transfer of large files. No one else

should even give it a second thought, let us worry about that. We will handle it,

one way or another. But the size of the PBEM files should have nothing

to do with CMII having PBEM as a gameplay option in the first place.

If large files are needed for CMII, then it just goes with the territory

of playing CMII PBEM. I don't have any problem with that at all.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Lee:

Perhaps there are some people that are sort of hinting that changes be made

in CMII for the sake of PBEM.

<font size=8> OH MY GOD!!!! I HAVEN'T BEEN FOLLOWING THIS THREAD THAT CLOSELY BUT PLEASE TELL ME THAT FEATURES WON'T BE SACRIFICED IN CMX2 SOLELY FOR PBEM!!!!</FONT>

It's been at least two weeks since I told someone in a CMX2 Thread to shutupshutupshutup!!!!! :mad:

HI MOM!

[Panzer76]

Chill.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by v42below:

Wow there fellas, lets slow this down, shall we? I for one do not want to miss out on bones just because a small group of people got Steve all riled up over this.

That's just my 2 NZ cents.

You got that Right !!

Don't bite the hand that is tossing the bones!!!! :mad:

I think this thread needs a few more positive waves and a little less hyperbole.

kick back and relax and let this thing grow and evolve ..... and lets hope Steve will keep the bones comin' our way...

-tom w

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

Chill.

ACKNOWLEDGE THE IRONY, PUNY HUMAN!! :mad:

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Admiral Kahn:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:

Chill.

ACKNOWLEDGE THE IRONY, PUNY HUMAN!! :mad: </font>

[Mord]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

So, since the ONLY thing that would kill off PBEM is some horrible file size the likes of which most people would find impossible to email (bandwidth is only part of the issue), but yet we don't know if that is the case, it is absolutely pointless to have this discussion at this point. I'll say no more about it and would recommend that you do the same since it is an absolute and utter waste of everybody's time to discuss this any more at this point in time.

Steve

Just like old times. Ignore what he says and keep on going....If I just pester him long enough maybe he'll change his mind......

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lee:

Perhaps there are some people that are sort of hinting that changes be made

in CMII for the sake of PBEM.

<font size=8> OH MY GOD!!!! I HAVEN'T BEEN FOLLOWING THIS THREAD THAT CLOSELY BUT PLEASE TELL ME THAT FEATURES WON'T BE SACRIFICED IN CMX2 SOLELY FOR PBEM!!!!</FONT>

It's been at least two weeks since I told someone in a CMX2 Thread to shutupshutupshutup!!!!! :mad:

</font>

[Battlefront.com]

A great game that I can't play isn't that great.

Correction... "a great game that you won't play isn't that great to you". Last time I checked, a game that can be played single player, multi-player via TCP/IP, and eventually Co-Op play is a game that CAN be played.

The funny thing is that I bet that even with PBEM there will be a fair number of you that will hate CMx2. Well, at least until you stop sulking about this or that aspect and start actually playing it. Then quietly, like so many Steel Panthers, Close Combat, and SL/ASL Grogs before... orders will be placed, games played, and much enjoyment had.

Sorry if I can't take the threats and tantrums here as seriously as some would like. Seen too many hollow threats and eaten words in the 7 years I've been working on CM to think otherwise.

Since we want PBEM is something we want to have in the game, I'm really not sure what more there is to say. If it winds up not being there, well, there will be more than a few good reasons for it. And those reasons will probably gain us 100 customers for every one we lose and have the rest of our base cheering. Can't please all the people all the time!

Obviously I'll not be losing any sleep over this

Steve

[Rick]

What is up with the wargaming crowd that we can't be grateful for the games we're given. Photography is my main thing and it's an activity I love more than most can imagine. Yet, I am grateful for the cameras that exist, despite having some fairly serious complaints - I can still do what I intend. Granted I will give my advice, but don't consider ignoring one of my suggestions sacrilege.

As that applies to this situation, I will say that PBEM is the most utilitarian way to play multiplayer that I have found and playing against humans is definitely more enjoyable. Thus I am a little nervous about the possibility of losing it, but I am willing to wait and see what will be without raising a fuss. I figure odds are that BFC will deliver a game that I will enjoy.

Admittedly, there are games that I play now that either PBEM is impossible or impractical. I am definitely quite dissapointed that PBEM just doesn't happen with these games, but you know, they're damn fun - so I suck it up and play against the computer.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />A great game that I can't play isn't that great.

Correction... "a great game that you won't play isn't that great to you". Last time I checked, a game that can be played single player, multi-player via TCP/IP, and eventually Co-Op play is a game that CAN be played.</font>

[aka_tom_w]

Slow down Jon....

please chill out

like.... don't harass that hand that feeds the bones OK?

I need more CMx2 bones or the withdrawl symptoms start to set in..... sorry but I am now hooked on bones and can't be happy without as least ONE good juicy one per day!

please

.... please don't cut me off...

-tom w

[JonS]

you forgot to quote my entire post, and the one preceeding it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

you forgot to quote my entire post, and the one preceeding it.

:eek:

I must say, the "maybe no PBEM" bone was the most entertaining - how about a few more that no one wants to hear and maybe we can go back to talking about Bren tripods.

"No printed manual and no pdf manual - you have to print off a 3 page user's guide in .doc format, and buy the Companion if you want in-game data or instructions on how to use the map editor."

"There is no map editor."

"There will be no maps."

"David Pentland is unavailable for the box art, so we're using a picture of a Panther done from lots of @@@@ symbols."

"

[dalem]

Originally posted by Noiseman:

OK, let's all take a collective breath, and try to keep things in perspective.

A common trap in considering CMx2 (I know I've often fallen into it) is to think of it as just being CMx1 with major enhancements. In other words, most of us probably conceive it to be nearly the exact same game but better looking. Most of us are probably thinking arithmetical rather than geometrical progression. My impression from reading Steve's comments, is that though it will be similar in concept, it will, in fact, be a new game. Another way to put it is that BFC are not trying to teach an old dog (CMx1) new tricks, they are working with a new puppy (CMx2), having learned lessons in teaching the first dog.

Yup. I agree with what Noiseman is saying. I think I am going to be surprised by CMx2, and I think I am going to be more surprised than I think I am going to be. Surprised.

By CMx2.

-dalem

[Battlefront.com]

Jon... I wasn't aware that all my comments you quoted above were directed at you personally to the exclusion of all others. What an odd thing to think. I made most of my statements for the general group of those who are overreacting. Now, if you consider yourself one of those who is overreacting, then I suppose I was talking to you.

Now, here are some comments directly back at you...

I'm glad you want it in there, but it makes me wonder what you see as non-negotiable if one of the primary modes of play isn't.

On a feature by feature basis NOTHING is sacred. This is the difference between starting fresh and rehashing the old. We are not spending 2 years working on an engine we hope to last 4-6 years just to repeat what we did over the last 7 years. Seems to be pretty suicidal to me, not to mention boring as all Hell.

That, of course, remains to be seen. If you see your future base as fanbois for waving trees and moving stars you're no-doubt correct.

The persumption here is... what? That we are making a nice looking game that purposefully is out to kill off PBEM? Whoops! Now I have given away our whole strategy. Dang you and your mind reading abilities!

Nope, but it's mighty easy to piss off large chunks of them quickly with poorly chosen comments backed up by insults.

My comments were not poorly chosen. The reactionary element of the Grog crowd is their own worst enemy. They seek to undermine, ridicule, abuse, and do pretty much everything they can to STOP PROGRESS (unless it is on the their list of Top 10 Nit Picks). Then when they are ignored, they get rowdy. When they get called out for their behavior, they get insulting (like you). And in our case when we delivered the exact opposite of what they said they wanted... whadda know... 5 years later and they are still playing the vile thing. And yet we still have problem with getting propper respect from them. How much fun can one developer have?

If you doubt me... I invite you to go back into the oldest archieves and peruse some of the crap we had to put up with. Too bad the previous two BBSes we had didn't survive because the stuff back in 1998 and early 1999 was the best.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I must say, the "maybe no PBEM" bone was the most entertaining

Not quite as entertaining as when we told people there would be no Hexes in CMBO... but who knows... we're only on Page 8 of this thread

Dalem... yes, I am sure there will be a lot of surprise. And I am sure that initially more than a few of you will see it as BAD surprises. Equal and opposite reactions, if you will. Meaning, the more we change stuff, the more flak we are going to get. But we expect that after all the name calling dies down that MOST of the core CMers will see the potential for what we are doing. Then after playing it, they will be reminded of their first CMBO experience and how different it was from everything before. Then after some time passes they will wonder what all the fuss was about. Though after all is said and done, played and replayed, I expect some CMers will be move on to something else.

This is the dilema of a developer who isn't interested in sitting still for a decade. We are like the shark... gotta keep moving or we will die. For most developers that means changing genres, but for us it means improving the genre we are already in. The old CMx1 code was like a straight jacket for us... there is SO MUCH MORE we can do, but not all tied up like that. Fresh slate, just like CMBO was fresh slate from everything that came before it.

This SHOULD be a good thing... but some people don't want good things... they want familiar things. Not always possible to have both.

Steve

[Alsatian]

Even if it's a repeat question from earlier in the thread, maybe it can move the thread along...

Any chance the system requirements to handle CMX2 will be put out in advance of the game? My machine is almost 5 years old. It would be nice if I can hold off on a new machine until I know what CMX2 will need.

PS--please put hexes in CMX2

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We are not spending 2 years working on an engine we hope to last 4-6 years just to repeat what we did over the last 7 years. Seems to be pretty suicidal to me, not to mention boring as all Hell.

That response is off tangent. I realise CMx2 is going to be different. I don't expect a clone CMx1 in pretty colours. But surely you got somethings right, and you think 'yep, that needs to be in x2'. Stuff like WeGo, for instance.

The persumption here is... what?

Since you asked, there's no presumption. Just bafflement at demonstrated priorities. Moving stars are in. PBEM might not be. Bafflement.

My comments were not poorly chosen. The reactionary element of the Grog crowd is their own worst enemy. They seek to undermine, ridicule, abuse, and do pretty much everything they can to STOP PROGRESS (unless it is on the their list of Top 10 Nit Picks). Then when they are ignored, they get rowdy. When they get called out for their behavior, they get insulting (like you). And in our case when we delivered the exact opposite of what they said they wanted... whadda know... 5 years later and they are still playing the vile thing. And yet we still have problem with getting propper respect from them.

Since you addressed me directly I'll go way out on a limb, and assume your including me in the rest of your laundry list. You're wrong.

[GreenAsJade]

It's funny that all this could have been so dfferent if Steve had _first_ said "we consider PBEM to be really important, and will try to fit it in" before saying "we can't guarantee it - it's not an absolute given".

Steve _did_ say "we consider PBEM to be important", even though he prefaced that with other qualifiers.

I'm just going to add "me too" to the list of people that said "include it, even if the files are huge".

GaJ.

[Mace]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Slow down Jon....

please chill out

Jon's about the most chilled guy I know....must be that NZ climate.

Mace

[jim crowley]

http://www.wargamer.com/articles/groping_new_paradigm_2/

[Mace]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

This is the dilema of a developer who isn't interested in sitting still for a decade. We are like the shark... gotta keep moving or we will die.

The one thing that's always happened with post CMBO releases is that something I've never expected has been included that adds to the gaming experience.

For example, the allocation of more polygons to the 3D models. I thought the models in CMBO were great...until I saw the models for CMBB and CMAK!

You could have sat on the laurels of CMBO and just revised the TOEs for each subsequent release without the tweaks, but no you've continued to improve various facets of the game with each release.

So, I personally applaud Battlefront.com for the continuing improvement that you guys have made with each release...hell I might even shout you guys a beer.

Mace

PS suck, ain't I?