Jump to content

The CMx2, PBEM poll


Vadr

Recommended Posts

Perhaps. But has the Pusher Man decided that the infinite crack hit needs to be replaced with 6-8 month fixes? His diabolical plan to divide and conquer the Cranky Grogs?

"Hi, my name is Gilbert, and I am a cmx2 junkie.."

Deformable terrain seems to imply that each 1 meter square has state(s). It could have many states I suppose. Smoke/Dust being a state as well as shellholes, trenches, what have you.

[ March 04, 2005, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 283
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Even within the confines of this online poll the folks here that have Voted for B (Won't Buy) are in the minority. There is one thing for sure about this issue there is a VERY vocal, irrate and persistent minority. Just look at how many A or C votes there are here and look and see how much ranting and bitching those folks did when they posted.

Maybe we should keep a running total

In the 107 posts in this thread (including RANTS that are NOT votes)

There are only 12 B votes that I could find.

I did not count the A votes.

But the B votes look to be about %10 of this voting audience and (sorry) but to be honest that was about Steve's guess, maybe %10 would not buy it because of no PBEM. (DId he say that or am i confused with his statement that for everyone sale that is lost do to no PBEM he was get 10 NEW sales? dunno :confused: )

Oh well, there is one thing we know for sure, its a DONE DEAL, they will not compromise the game to MAKE sure PBEM will work. I think they have been clear about that.

-tom w

I just did a total count on the thread.Out of 126 posts.

52-A/C votes or yes we will buy votes

12-B/D votes or no we will not buy

Im not going to do the math but so far the "For every one not buying there are many more who will" is looking like it is quite true just in this thread alone.Even though the complaining and moaning grogs seem to want to live in their own reality and not accept the fact that they ARE the minority and wont be catered to in the making of this game.

[ March 04, 2005, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Erwin Rommel ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Becket,

1. A decision has not been made about PBEM.

2. BFC is planning some revolutionary features for the game.

3. BFC does not know whether the addition of those features will make PBEM an unviable option.

4. BFC is not willing to remove the revolutionary features to make sure that they can guarantee working PBEM.

5. Several people are demanding that BFC not make a revolutionary game, so that they can be assured of just playing the same thing they've been playing for years, just with prettier graphics.

This is a pretty good summary. However, I would add a #6:

6. The people demanding that BFC not make a revolutionary game, in order to assure PBEM support, don't have the same perspective as the majority. PBEM is not a game, just an extension of a game. It doesn't matter of that is the only way some people play the game... the fact remains that it is just an extension and an extension that other people might not care much, if at all, about losing.

To put #6 into perspective... let us say that we announced that CMx2 MIGHT be playable only as a real time, hex base, 2D game with little counters and cheesy sound effects BUT would have PEBM. How many people do you think would be complaining right now before having seen the game? More or less than are complaining about the POSSIBLE lack of PBEM? I think the obvious answer is a s**tload more :D Including, I am sure, most of the people that are complaining about the possible lack of PBEM. In other words, despite the impassioned pleas from the "B" crowd about PBEM being the same as the game, it really isn't. The game is the game, PBEM is simply an extension of it regardless of how much some people value it.

Now, getting back to an earlier comment about economics being at the heart of this. Bullcrap. It only once more demonstrates the #6 point I made above. The heart of this is making the best game possible. Period. The fact that we are making the best game possible should mean a bigger audience, but that is a side effect. We'd be making this same exact game if we knew for sure that not a single new person would buy it. The economics of a larger crowd, therefore, is only a side benefit.

What you guys have to remember is why we go without sleep and pay (sometimes, especially in the early days) to make the games we make. Passion. We are passionate about the games we make and we feel lucky that we are able to do it without artificial compromises imposed by the realities of the mass, retail driven market. If we aren't going to knuckle under to cater to the MILLIONS of customers that are out there, but we aren't reaching, do you really think we're going to knuckle under to a couple thousand people claiming they won't by CMx2 if it has no PBEM functionality? No, we are going to make the games we feel moved to make, the kind that keep us up late at night despite loved ones saying "you've got to get some sleep, you look like death warmed over" (and yes, we all have been accused of looking like death warmed over smile.gif ). And as luck would have it, the games we are passionate about making are, thanks to our own marketing and sales creation, viable in the marketplace.

So that's it in a nutshell. We're made CMx1 because we wanted to make the best tactical wargame ever. We feel we did that, now we have to top it. And we're confident that we can do that. The proof will be in the pudding, as they say, and we don't have any problems with that.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

NOW that is Passion folks!

The heart of this is making the best game possible. Period. The fact that we are making the best game possible should mean a bigger audience, but that is a side effect. We'd be making this same exact game if we knew for sure that not a single new person would buy it.
smile.gif

-tom w

Link to post
Share on other sites

"CM" is what it is for me because of being able to

play my longtime opponent through "pbem". Like other people have stated, time is a consideration

and "pbem" is the cure. As far as "CMX2" goes I do

not care what "pbem" would be called per say, but

It would be crucial that some sort of function other than tcp or hotseat for multiplayer would be

present. Weather it was large files or server subscription I would swing with it, for the fact

that I know the game would be great! As far as "AI" goes, there is no enjoyment for me, it's

that simple and that's not a dig. Also looking forward to "Straticic Command 2" smile.gif should be awesome!

CheerZ!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, I can't believe you're still reading and responding to this thread. I appreciate your answer to the economic question however. I now see that there is simply and unbridgable gap of opinion between you and those of us who see PBEM as the only worthwhile way to play the game. I mentioned the possibility of no PBEM to a friend, and his response: "why bother to make the game?" That's our response, and it is no more right or wrong than your opinion. But you're the developer so it's your say.

So I guess I am done with this debate, and can only wait and hope that the next best tactical game of all time will include a worthwhile way for us to play it. As a parting gift, I leave this emoticon:

horse3.gif

I suggest you use it to reply to any further posts on this topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Becket:

5. Several people are demanding that BFC not make a revolutionary game, so that they can be assured of just playing the same thing they've been playing for years, just with prettier graphics.

Okay, 5 may be harsh, but that's what I'm taking from some of these posts.

I for one will be properly overjoyed and extatic when the new features and screenies are published.

Yes, 95% of the game for me is asyncronous (AKA PBEM) multiplayer game or hot seating. But that goes to ALL the games I play. Playing solo is definitely strictly for learning the ropes on the new game.

I think that calling the feature PBEM is detrimental to the debate on the feature, given the limitations the ISP's impose on the file size per transfer and the protocol as a method of transfer in general.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My gut feeling, only overuled by my butt feelings, is that the game will support smaller games at some form of non-TCP/IP asynch play. Perhaps some of the 'core' elements can be toned down.

Another issue is just solo crunch time. Right now its acceptable on my system. But if turns crunch beyond the 'sip n chip' moments, I will get frustrated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Malakovski,

Steve, I can't believe you're still reading and responding to this thread.
Gotta... this issue apparently won't die after a sever beating... looks like it has to have an MG42 pounded into it :D

I appreciate your answer to the economic question however.
Just had to get that down in writing since it is one of the first things that gets circulated around as a reason for a developer dropping something. i.e. they don't care about their customers, just the money. It is absolutely false, and it needed to be said before the notion got going any more than it already was.

I now see that there is simply and unbridgable gap of opinion between you and those of us who see PBEM as the only worthwhile way to play the game.
Correct. Just like there is an unbridgeable gap between us and the people that demanded hexes and to not waste our time on the superfluous 3D eye candy. We can't please everybody, so it is a shame but we would be doing ourselves and the majority of current customers, as well as plenty of new customers, a great disservice by crushing the game design over this one feature.

I mentioned the possibility of no PBEM to a friend, and his response: "why bother to make the game?"
Back in the early days we had a ton of people say if CM wasn't RealTime "why bother". Again, we can't please everybody. In fact, we expect to lose a fair number of people because of the advances too, having nothing to do with the possible loss of PBEM. We're prepared to lose them as well in the interests of progress vs. stagnation.

That's our response, and it is no more right or wrong than your opinion.
True, but when choices have to be made going with the one the least number of people will be happy with can hardly be seen as the "right" choice to make. That doesn't mean your opinion is "wrong", but its relevance must be seen in perspective.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect to BF.C, I don't think that any of the B votes are demanding that CMX2 be dumbed down.

What some of us are saying is that we play CM almost exclusively by PBEM.

Therefore, the lack of a PBEM facility will heavily influence whether we will buy the game or not.

This is simply feed back: we are not threatening to hold our breath until we get our way.

Why would I pay $75-100 AUD for a game I won't play?

If BF.C feels that PBEM will compromise the greatest game ever, then PBEM will have to go. I and most of the B voters understand that.

BF.C will take the options that make the most commercial sense. How can they do that without feed back from their current customer base?

Regards

A.E.B

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what the big deal is, I am sure that some enterprising programmer will write some 3rd party freeware application that will allow PBEM if BF.C doesn't do it first. I would rather see the wargame genre evolve and grow than stagnate and die. This type of design, demonstrated by BF.C, must be persued. Open your minds and enjoy the games for what they are, oh, and have some faith and optimism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Stavka_lite:

I don't know what the big deal is, I am sure that some enterprising programmer will write some 3rd party freeware application that will allow PBEM if BF.C doesn't do it first. I would rather see the wargame genre evolve and grow than stagnate and die. This type of design, demonstrated by BF.C, must be persued. Open your minds and enjoy the games for what they are, oh, and have some faith and optimism.

Only if the game code allows it. Of course, it may be possible to play a false hot-seat arrangement by emailing saved game turns after each party does their orders, but again the code must support it.

After all, some people managed to work out a form of co-op play for the current CM exploiting the saved game system.

A.E.B

[ March 04, 2005, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: A.E.B ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

horse3.gif

It's dead already. This is something like the fourth thread.

If this thread doesn't satisfy someone, read the first three. BFC's position, as well as those of us who play PBEM exclusively is very thoroughly spelled out.

Those two positions are very different, and they're not going to get any closer together by repeating the same arguments over and over.

If you do you'll just be compared to knuckledraggers who think it can't be a wargame without hexes. I think that particular analogy is quite unfair, but if I read through as many repetitive complaints as have been posted here, I probably wouldn't be in the mood to be fair either.

Padlock, anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A.E.B

With respect to BF.C, I don't think that any of the B votes are demanding that CMX2 be dumbed down.
Of course nobody is saying that directly, but that is in fact what they are saying means. And that is if there is a choice between a much better game and PBEM, the choice is to go with PBEM. Therefore, by definition, they are arguing that we must go with an inferior game design right now. There is no other way of looking at this. If we are going to ensure there is PBEM, come Hell or High Water, then a less sophisticated, advanced game is the only way for us to go.

Malakovski,

If you do you'll just be compared to knuckledraggers who think it can't be a wargame without hexes. I think that particular analogy is quite unfair,
To be fair, I also compared you to people that said that if CMBO wasn't realtime it wasn't worth doing. The comparison I made was not about the specifics of the argument itself but the logic behind it. And that logic is "if I don't get my [fill in pet feature] then the game might as well not be made". There is, of course, nothing wrong with a customer expressing his opinion about what features will, or will not, get him to buy a game. That is actually a good thing for a developer to hear. But to say that what the developer is doing is worthless (has NO value to ANYBODY) simply because it doesn't suit his specific needs is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Especially when that "need" is an opinion and is clearly an opinion of a minority. Can you see the difference? Just to make sure...

Arguing that you will not buy the next game we put out, no matter what, if it has no PBEM is a valid opinion (even if premature). Arguing that if we don't add PBEM then we shouldn't make anything at all is, well, insulting to everybody's intelligence. It crosses the line from valid feedback to invalid hubris. I can take the first line of argument seriously, I can't take the second seriously. Especially when it is made with so few relevant facts available to base such a claim on.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

A.E.B

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />With respect to BF.C, I don't think that any of the B votes are demanding that CMX2 be dumbed down.

Of course nobody is saying that directly, but that is in fact what they are saying means. And that is if there is a choice between a much better game and PBEM, the choice is to go with PBEM. Therefore, by definition, they are arguing that we must go with an inferior game design right now. There is no other way of looking at this. If we are going to ensure there is PBEM, come Hell or High Water, then a less sophisticated, advanced game is the only way for us to go.

Steve </font>

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

that logic is "if I don't get my [fill in pet feature] then the game might as well not be made".

Steve,

are you being deliberately obtuse?

The argument on one side is not about 'pet features', it's about being able to play the game at all. For a reasonable number of your consumers the AI isn't good enough, and hotseat, lan, or TCP are not practical options. Do you see? It doesn't matter how freaking great the game is, if it can't be played what's the point of buying it?

Jon

[ March 04, 2005, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Of course nobody is saying that directly, but that is in fact what they are saying means. And that is if there is a choice between a much better game and PBEM, the choice is to go with PBEM. Therefore, by definition, they are arguing that we must go with an inferior game design right now.

You should not try to impose your POV on that of the others when going about reasoning both sides of the debate.

You have NOT stated in any shape or form the parameters which would render asyncronous multiplayer game inoperable in the new game engine. The file size argument is completely mute since there are numerous file transfer methods around which accomodate larger than 5mb files. Server based save game housing is one option.

There is no other way of looking at this. If we are going to ensure there is PBEM, come Hell or High Water, then a less sophisticated, advanced game is the only way for us to go.

Would this mean also that in solo game there would not be a mid-game save game feature ?

Especially when that "need" is an opinion and is clearly an opinion of a minority.

What would happen if during the compillation of the code you discover that the game would work on MacOSX but not Windows or vice versa ? Or that LAN multiplayer games across the platforms is not doable ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

that logic is "if I don't get my [fill in pet feature] then the game might as well not be made".

Steve,

are you being deliberately obtuse?

The argument on one side is not about 'pet features', it's about being able to play the game at all.</font>

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...