1:1 Representation in CMx2 (Part II)

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Most people don't play any multiplayer at all, so you're just waaaaaaaaaaaay off your rockers if you think we're going to sacrifice our future simply to support a single, optional for most feature.

What is your source for this?

<font color=tan><font size=0>...says the Grog (-:</font></font>

[Battlefront.com]

Standard rule of thumb... anything a grog says is critical the majority of gamer probably wouldn't miss if removed

Seriously though, there is no way to get anything more than a feel for this. The majority of CM customers do NOT post here, and that means any kind of survey here is going to be inherently skewed towards certain types of players (grogs, mostly). But whenever I've seen a survey, by a games magazine (which is also skewed), the results are still showing primary play is solo. That is changing more and more every year, and of course doesn't apply to online only games, but the simple fact is that if we had to choose between single player and multiplayer, we'd side with single player.

Fortunately, we don't have to make that choice. CMx2 will actually be MORE multiplayer than CMx1. But whether PBEM can be a part of that or not is unknown. We'll just have to see what happens since there is nothing we can do to influence the outcome.

Steve

[Redwolf]

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)[...]

Steve

All I ask is that you don't remove the PBEM option no matter how large the files.

As Sergei remarked, obviously they have to be in the same ballpark as TCP transfer anyway.

People will find a way to transfer PBEM moves, and if it is by ftp or bittorrent, and then bandwidth is the only consideration, the rest of the email junk isn't.

From feature drops in the past I figure you sometimes have a knee-jerk approach to dropping things and would maybe cut it off at some arbitary file size.

[Le Tondu]

Wow, stop reading for a day or two and....

I cannot believe that there is a possibility that PBEM will go down the toilet just to allow 1:1. I cannot believe that would even be considered. Now I understand the silence about this game. If you do it, you guys will be shooting yourself in the foot.

I play PBEM ALL of the time. In the past, I've bought two CMBOs, two CMBBs, and two CMAKs. Drop PBEM and I will be forced to seriously consider not purchasing this game. This is especially true when one has to consider spending hundreds if not a thousand dollars on a new computer just to buy this game.

You see, I'm one who prefers to play TCP/IP, but playing a large or huge scenario that way is counter-productive when you consider life outside of CM. Finding an opponent with that much time is hard. PBEM is the only way.

[kgsan]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

All I ask is that you don't remove the PBEM option no matter how large the files.

As Sergei remarked, obviously they have to be in the same ballpark as TCP transfer anyway.

People will find a way to transfer PBEM moves, and if it is by ftp or bittorrent, and then bandwidth is the only consideration, the rest of the email junk isn't.

From feature drops in the past I figure you sometimes have a knee-jerk approach to dropping things and would maybe cut it off at some arbitary file size.

What Redwolf said. Unlike some posters here, I agree with BFC that the majority of CM players (as opposed to the posters on the forums) still play solo for most of their games. However, if the PBEM capability is included, fans will likely find a way to make it work, no matter how awkward it is. In addition, with ever increasing bandwidth and storage capabilities it seems likely that what may not appear practicable now might be doable 12-18 months hence.

Of course including a component which does not work flawlessly always risks negative comments, especially from reviewers who often only give the game and materials a fairly cursory glance. But perhaps a clear statement in the manual and other materials that PBEM functionality is simply being provided as a bonus for those who want to go to the trouble would nip any bad press in the bud (Perhaps something along the lines of the notices now included on irons warning consumers that they should not try to iron clothes while wearing them, etc.)

[Lee]

Steve: I think you are misunderstanding what the CM players here are saying.

The players aren't saying that you should take features out of CMII

or somehow strip it down to make the PBEM file sizes smaller.

What they are saying (and I agree 100% with them on this) is to leave in

PBEM *no matter how large the file sizes need to be for CMII PBEM*.

Let *us* worry about how we are going to transfer 15MB (or whatever) files

for large PBEM battles back and forth between ourselves. We will find a way,

and that's all that matters. You could, for example, pay your ISP

more for a higher limit on e-mail attachment sizes, or you could

use a free program like ICQ to do direct transfers of files to your

opponent (which has no file size limits). I have done this with ICQ before

and it works perfectly.

If some people with really slow connections don't want to take the time

to download large PBEM files, then that is their choice, but don't take

away the ability for everyone else with fast connections (or who are

willing to wait for a dial-up connection to download the file) to be able

to play PBEM if they wish.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Now, one of the main reasons you've been playing these games for so long is because... well... it's taken us too long to produce more games. This is one of the major things CMx2's new code is supposed to fix. 6-10 months between titles, not 1-2 years.

Ah. Well given that PBEMs of particularly large scens/ops, and something like ROW, can easily stretch to more than 6 months it makes sense that you'd want to prevent people from wanting to play the games for an extended period.

Commercially, of course.

[aka_tom_w]

WOW

I guess this PBEM issue is sort of like touching a RAW nerve here!

(ouch!) :eek:

Steve tells us to relax because they simply don't know yet how the game will be coded or how big the PBEM files will be....and just to recap, some folks here are HIGHLY alarmed that PBEM could potentially be on the chopping block. :eek: :eek:

I am sure if we sit back and think about this for a minute it will become clear that Steve is wise and correct when he tells us this:

"Our prioirty must be to make the best GAME possible, not to make a practical PBEM file size......

In case I didn't make myself very clear about prioritization... PBEM support can not be a priority because the only thing that influences whether it is practical or not is the game system's feature set.

AND

"The only thing I am saying is that we are in no way, shape, or form going to purposefully hobble CMx2 for the SOLE purpose of supporting PBEM play. That is what I am hearing here and it has got to be one of the stupidest, reactionary, backwards thinking I have seen in a very long time.

Yes, I understand that PBEM is important. 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."

Just give us the PBEM with the large or huge file size and let us deal with "practicality" of the actual file size.

I am sure everything will work out.

I am glad Steve said this:

"Our prioirty must be to make the best GAME possible, not to make a practical PBEM file size......"

That sounds good to me!

I have faith they will make the BEST game possible.....

-tom w

[ February 10, 2005, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Right ON!!! Lee

Great Post!

-tom w

Originally posted by Lee:

Steve: I think you are misunderstanding what the CM players here are saying.

The players aren't saying that you should take features out of CMII

or somehow strip it down to make the PBEM file sizes smaller.

What they are saying (and I agree 100% with them on this) is to leave in

PBEM *no matter how large the file sizes need to be for CMII PBEM*.

Let *us* worry about how we are going to transfer 15MB (or whatever) files

for large PBEM battles back and forth between ourselves. We will find a way,

and that's all that matters. You could, for example, pay your ISP

more for a higher limit on e-mail attachment sizes, or you could

use a free program like ICQ to do direct transfers of files to your

opponent (which has no file size limits). I have done this with ICQ before

and it works perfectly.

If some people with really slow connections don't want to take the time

to download large PBEM files, then that is their choice, but don't take

away the ability for everyone else with fast connections (or who are

willing to wait for a dial-up connection to download the file) to be able

to play PBEM if they wish.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Steve tells us to relax because they simply don't know yet

and just to recap some folks here are HIGHLY alarmed that PBEM could potentially be on the chopping block. :eek: :eek:

Very obviously, complaining later cannot possibly have an effect.

The thing that threatens PBEM and is discussed in this thread is the data amount coming from the fine-grading of sub-squad functionality.

The tradeoff decisions what will be modeled at what level are made right at the beginning.

Once coding has started there will not be much to be done about the data amount, the initial design will dictate it. Keep in mind there is only one programmer at BFC. Once the design is fired up it is a solid-fuel rocket ride until it's done. There is no team member whom you could pass the task "uh, try to figure out how to collapse that squad data, will ya".

There is no way that Steve will later say anything than "now it's too late to do anything that will reduce the data" - and he will be right.

The thing that probably (but not certainly) will save our asses is that TCP play also requires data proportional or exponential to the level of detail, so that might put a stop on it. However, since TCP can have more turnarounds it might not automatically save PBEM.

[Battlefront.com]

There is no way that Steve will later say anything than "now it's too late to do anything that will reduce the data" - and he will be right.

But there is also NO WAY that Steve is going to say "yes, we will scale back the design, hobbling progress and catering the next 4-6 years of games because a reactionary minority is throwing a tantrum"

The thing that probably (but not certainly) will save our asses is that TCP play also requires data proportional or exponential to the level of detail, so that might put a stop on it.

Stop what? Progress? Features that you guys next year will be wondering why you were arguing against this year? Pushing wargaming to a new, higher level that will make CMx1 seem like a primative wargame? Sheesh... you guys are something else.

We like hearing suggestions and concerns form you guys, but you are absolutely the worst bunch (collectively) to listen to in terms of strategic vision. The irony that the things you are arguing for today are the same things you were arguing AGAINST yesterday. Grogs have a proven, long established track record for getting it wrong by losing the big picture view because of narrow minded singular pursuits of nitty-gritty features. The reaction I am seeing here is just more evidence of this grog trend. Thankfully, for the sake of us and the vast majority of our customers, we fully understand this

We are not doing anything to purposefully shorten the appeal of a CMx2 game over time. My previous comments were simply a reaction to someone who said that PBEM is critical for making the game playable from year to year. Since we never have, and never will, think of the games we make as a multi-year experience any arguments to support this or that feature so they can be will fall on deaf ears.

Again, you guys are cracking me up... PBEM will be practical or not depending on the game system we develop. Behaving like spoiled children now won't influence it either way. What it does influnece is my enthusiasm for talking to you guys about stuff so early on. Apparently some of you guys have the imagination of a gant and the patience of tsunami.

Steve

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We like hearing suggestions and concerns form you guys, but you are absolutely the worst bunch (collectively) to listen to in terms of strategic vision.

Well, it would improve our communication if you would give any indication that you at least have seen the more subtle points. Very often you just brush over things, putting things into one basket that don't belong there, or plain reducing a poster's comment to an essense that isn't at all based on his post.

In this case, for example, there is no indication you even absorbed that people ask you to keep the PBEM feature even just because the files are big.

We didn't ask you to make the files small and compromise on your game design to do so. We asked you not to kill PBEM even if the files are big.

Next thing thereafter we know is that you blame us for bad communication.

[ February 10, 2005, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Redwolf ]

[flamingknives]

Steve is right.

[flammenwerfer]

PBEM allows for larger, more thoughtful games were tactics matter.

I think it's unfair for Steve to criticize an outcry from the games core audience, when we are for the most part in the dark on exactly where the new game is evolving.

By all means make the best game possible, just keep in mind that PBEM is valued by the majority of players.

[ February 10, 2005, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Flammenwerfer ]

[Battlefront.com]

We didn't ask you to make the files small and compromise on your game design to do so.

talk about "putting things into one basket that don't belong there". Look back up through the posts and tell me again that some people aren't advocating changing the game design JUST to make sure there is no POSSIBLY of disrupting the PBEM option. If you can do that, then I'll concede you have a point.

We asked you not to kill PBEM even if the files are big.

I will make no such promise because I don't have the facts in front of me to make such a black and white promise. But, I will say that it is unlikely that we will cut out PBEM just because of file size.

Steve

[ February 10, 2005, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[PseudoSimonds]

Tsk, tsk, tsk. People, your arguing powers are weak. In the future, I'd advise using lots of :mad: :mad: :mad: , AND USING BOLD AND CAPS LOCK WHEN YOU'RE REALLY TICKED OFF or else people will never take you seriously.

[Battlefront.com]

I think it's unfair for Steve to criticize an outcry from the games core audience, when we are for the most part in the dark on exactly where the new game is evolving.

Which is exactly why people should chill out and stop overreacting. I'm seeing posts here as if I said that we have already decided to cut PBEM from the game because we don't see the value of it. Even though I have said exactly the opposite, more than once. So yeah... I think I have good reason to be critical about the response I've seen in the last two pages, or more if you want to throw 1:1 represention into the mix.

Steve

[Redwolf]

But fact is that after the decisions for sub-squad mechanisms and similar game mechanics aspects the file size is more or less fixed.

It's not that voicing our concerns later has any chance of coming at a time where anything could be done about it anymore.

[Battlefront.com]

Voicing your concerns now doesn't have any chance of doing anything later either since even if we could see into the future, and know for sure that PBEM would be impractical, we would still not change the game. But we can't see into the future and so we'll just have to see how things go. Whining and complaining now is about as useful as whining and complaining usually is... and that is "not much"

Steve

[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.

It is important to note that the discussions we have been having on CMx2 in these threads are mainly philosophical/conceptual. Steve's comments on PBEM are that technically they don't know yet how feasible PBEM will be. In other words, there's still a lot of work to be done, CMx2 is far from finalized philosophically or technically. They've got to housetrain this puppy before teaching it to shake hands and roll over... We should not be treating the end of PBEM as a fait accompli.

That being said, the value of PBEM should not be underestimated. It is an important and legitimate concern, and BFC should understand this. I would say PBEM is far more important than TCP/IP, but that is putting the cart before the horse considering how little I actually know about how CMx2 looks or works.

To sum up; until most of us finally get to move to the front of the cart we shouldn't panic, and BFC should incorporate the fact that PBEM is hugely important into their future considerations. In any case, some here (including myself) are going to have to prepare themselves for the fact that CMx2 probably will NOT be the same exact game. It will be difficult for some here to accept, but given the track record, I personally am very optimistic.

[ February 10, 2005, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Noiseman ]

[aka_tom_w]

I think the horse has left the barn and the final decision to go with soldiers represented in a 1:1 graphic display has already been made....

So Redwolf, perhaps we can just let it go...

Faith, Have a little faith baby, that bridge is going to be there!

-tom w

[ February 10, 2005, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[flamingknives]

There is a fair amount of irrational reactionary behaviour against some, all or none of the stuff that Steve has chosen to share with us.

I think that BFC, based on past performance, will do a good job. People will disagree with some decisions, but then you can't avoid that.

(I've got gripes of my own about the CMX1 series that could be resolved by changing a few values, but that's not germane here.)

The apparent assumption that the posting community here represents the majority of gamers is ridiculous. If the games audience consisted just of everyone on these fora, and everyone bought all three games, the next offering would most likely be CM:FB (flippin' burgers). Going by my crude calculations, of course.

There's a whole world out there lads.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I want PBEM, and I have every confidence BFC now know this and will try to include it should it prove feasible. Should it not be feasible I will be comforted because it wasn't be feasible because CMX2 is so amazingly kick ass. YEAH BABY!!!

[aka_tom_w]

OK

point well taken...

I think Steve has already labeled us the "vocal minority"

I think maybe he had a few other choice words for us ... But I can't be sure

-tom w

Originally posted by flamingknives:

There is a fair amount of irrational reactionary behaviour against some, all or none of the stuff that Steve has chosen to share with us.

I think that BFC, based on past performance, will do a good job. People will disagree with some decisions, but then you can't avoid that.

(I've got gripes of my own about the CMX1 series that could be resolved by changing a few values, but that's not germane here.)

The apparent assumption that the posting community here represents the majority of gamers is ridiculous. If the games audience consisted just of everyone on these fora, and everyone bought all three games, the next offering would most likely be CM:FB (flippin' burgers). Going by my crude calculations, of course.

There's a whole world out there lads.

[Battlefront.com]

Noiseman is right about it being a new thing completely, not the same old dog you're used to. But don't assume it is a puppy... could be a baby wolf we are raising

You guys don't need to remind me how important PBEM is to a fair number of people. What I did above was remind you that it is only a fair number of people. 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.

Steve