The CMx2, PBEM poll

[Sergei]

Playing Combat Mission with AI is like having sex with a pig - the activity would otherwise be highly exciting, but the partner is a let down.

Or so I've been told.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

a great disservice by crushing the game design over this one feature.

i thought large save file was the only reason that makes "PBEM" problematic. obviously i am missing something.

[Panzer76]

[ March 05, 2005, 04:46 AM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ]

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

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

a great disservice by crushing the game design over this one feature.

i thought large save file was the only reason that makes "PBEM" problematic. obviously i am missing something. </font>

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

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

Playing Combat Mission with AI is like having sex with a pig - the activity would otherwise be highly exciting, but the partner is a let down.

All your attempt of humour aside, you do have a choice to have sex with the pig or not, no matter how big the let down might be afterwards. </font>

[Erwin Rommel]

Where are the mods to lock this and every other PBEM thread that pops up.This is getting really old now.

It has been argued to death and no one will get through to the people who refuse to even try to see what Steve is saying but instead choose to whine bitch and complain about something no one even knows anything at this time about whether PBEM will even be used or not.

Everything in these threads is pure speculation and assumptions and just plain jumping to conclusions.All people are managing to do is make complete asses out of themselves based on an issue that has NOT even been decided on yet.

I say if you wont buy it then you have made your choice and nothing anyone says or does will change that..even though you have NOT even seen the product yet.You are just making baseless assumptions and you know what they say about assuming anything.

So just drop the issue and just wait and see what happens.

Steve has stated numerous times that they will not cater to you by doing anything to cripple what they want to do with the new engine just to add your precious PBEM.And if that means losing some of the players then that is the way it will be.He can not put this any more clearly than he has on numerous occasions already.No amount of whining and bitching will do any good to change BFC's minds on what they want in their game.

[Malakovski]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

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

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

Playing Combat Mission with AI is like having sex with a pig - the activity would otherwise be highly exciting, but the partner is a let down.

All your attempt of humour aside, you do have a choice to have sex with the pig or not, no matter how big the let down might be afterwards. </font>

[Malakovski]

Originally posted by Erwin Rommel:

It has been argued to death and no one will get through to the people who refuse to even try to see what Steve is saying but instead choose to whine bitch and complain...

I am trying to understand what Steve is saying, and he has clarified a number of things which would not otherwise have been clear, had we not continued to beat this dead animal.

If you have bothered to read the whole thread you'll find, among the whining, and the "shut up go away" posts form people like you, who apparently refuse to try to see what the other side is saying, a number of reasonable posts trying to bridge a gap of understanding.

Arguing on the internet is worthless, but trying to understand one another is not. I suggested this thread be closed myself, but then I read a couple posts that caused me to understand a little more, and see that there were things which, seemingly, Steve does not understand, or at least hasn't yet expressed himself on. So the thread continues. He's still reading it, and replying to it, and it'll get locked when he's tired of it. Okay, he's probably already tired of it. It'll get locked when he's really, really sick of it.

[Panzer76]

How difficult is this:

1. The (insert feature that will enhance the core game) is a integral part of the game.

2. The inclusion of said CORE features MAY signify the end of PBEM, however, BFC will try to include it.

3. BFC will not comprimise the core game to include PBEM.

4. Some people look at PBEM as a deal braker. Get over it, if its not included, dont buy it.

5. Most people (and more importantly, the developers), would like to develop the game without being hindered by support for auxillary functions, like PBEM (yes, even if some ppl think its a matter of life and death). And, it would most likely translate into a better game and better sales.

The answer is obvious. BFC will do what they do, for good reasons. If you want to argue for PBEM, at least do us all the favour of getting your facts right and understand that your pet feature is not vital to us all.

[Stavka_lite]

Come on folks! this is getting ridiculous. If you are able to... step back and take an objective look at your posts that argue that it is not a game without PBEM. You sound like four year olds who want a red lollipop becuase a green one isn't really a lollipop. You also seem to be grasping at straws in your agruments now. At least in my opinion you have lost your crediblity. Put yourselves in BF.C's shoes and try to look at there side of the argument and what they NEED to accomplish here. I am reading this new development as an attempt to actually EXPAND their customer base, and stick with me here, which also means more revenue. Here is another leap in logic, so read a little longer, More revenue means a greater capibility to write games that are just better. With BF.C's core value of doing it right I really think that all of you "PBEM or nothing" people are cutting off your nose in spite of your face. Lighten up!

[Wartgamer]

I don't believe that the core engine needs to be compromised.

This is all getting tiresome.

In many threads, the designer goes balls to the walls saying "what will be, must be and what will not be, won't". In another thread its, "we haven't coded it yet, so we will see".

If anyone followed the 1:1 threads, its apparent that its an idea that needs some more gestation. It is not parable-worthy in any regards. I would not spite my face over it.

Many other supposedly 'core' items, like changeable terrain 'states' might be toned down or optioned. Do I need 256 different types of terrain states to keep me happy? I really think not.

Poking a sharpened stick into a hungry, rabid dog usually gets predicatable results.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

I don't believe that the core engine needs to be compromised.

This is all getting tiresome.

What is getting tiresom is your opinions that is securly fastend in your ass. If I so kindly can ask you, WTF do you know about the core engine?

[Wartgamer]

That it hasn't been coded?

Damn the Torpedoes, and the PBEM, and perhaps the length of even solo play 'crunch' time, and whatever else too, FULL STEAM AHEAD!!!

[Malakovski]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

How difficult is this:

1. The (insert feature that will enhance the core game) is a integral part of the game.

2. The inclusion of said CORE features MAY signify the end of PBEM, however, BFC will try to include it.

3. BFC will not comprimise the core game to include PBEM.

4. Some people look at PBEM as a deal braker. Get over it, if its not included, dont buy it.

5. Most people (and more importantly, the developers), would like to develop the game without being hindered by support for auxillary functions, like PBEM (yes, even if some ppl think its a matter of life and death). And, it would most likely translate into a better game and better sales.

I stand in awe of your ability to oversimplify and then dismiss.

How difficult is this: Something which you deeply care about is threatened with a maiming, and what's more, a lot of people are taking it much more lightly than you think it ought to be, so you try to explain to them why it's so important, and why, perhaps, taking a different attitude would be benficial. They (or rather, some other people hanging around the conversation), get impatient and start calling you names.

So how about this: go play the AI and eat at McDonalds. The quality is about the same, and hey, 50 billion people can't be wrong, can they?

[Wartgamer]

Supersize it. I want a PBEM with 50 megabytes and a chocalit' shake.

I feel like someone is making a new ski resort and all the trails are 'bunny hills'. And I am supposed to get excited because there will be three McDonald's concessions and I can rent skis that are exciting colors.

[ March 05, 2005, 06:58 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Richie]

BFC, please lock this thread.

The patronizing, belittling and abuse of forum members toward each other serves no good at all.

People have had their say... We've all seen this.

Build the game you're going to build but please lock this thread...

Richie

[Wartgamer]

Yes. And can we have a cmx2 forum so that threads there can be locked also?

[Malakovski]

Originally posted by Richie:

BFC, please lock this thread.

Agreed. It's getting pointless.

[Battlefront.com]

David,

IMHO, there is another way of looking at this. In one of the previous 1:1 bone threads, people were talking about how 1:1 could be bad because little sprite guys would be hiding on the wrong side of walls, or the LMG would be stuck behind a rock and not able to fire, etc, etc. Steve, your response was that 1:1 was in, and that the only option was to get it right. For me, that is the attitude that I would like and expect to see towards some aspect of 'non-hotseat/tcp multiplayer' option.

No, there is only one way to look at this because the ONLY reason PBEM won't be in there is for technical reasons. Technical reasons means it is outside of our control once the best game possible is built. Therefore, the only way to ensure PEBM is to gut the game design NOW before we do anything further just in case it proves to be too overwhelming for PBEM support.

So again... demanding PBEM be 100% assured is the same thing as demanding that we gut the game system. There is no other way to look at this. Period.

Jon,

are you being deliberately obtuse?

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you

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?

Same line of argument people used with hexes, 2D, and RealTime. There is zero difference. For them the "only" way to play the game was with these features. With the PBEM crowd the "only" way to play it is through PBEM. There is no difference. None.

Sergei

Oh, I see. Being able to play the game seems to be your pet feature.

It isn't the only way to play. It is the only way YOU choose to play. There is a huge, fundamental, gaping difference. If the ONLY way to play was PBEM, don't you think that there would be 100% "B" votes in this thread? Or do you think all the "A" voters are planning on buying CMx2 to use as a beer coaster?

Jon,

Oh really?

You are either NOT reading what I am saying or you are being deliberately thick headed. If the requirement, by the "B" crowd, is to have no excuses, absolutely, guaranteed, no-ifs-ands-or-buts support for PBEM we will have to, without any doubts at all, gut the game design right now before we code any further. If, instead, the "B" crowd is willing to risk not having PBEM for a much better game, then they should have no problem letting us proceed as we have said we will. And that is to make the best game possible and see if PBEM is viable. But you, and the rest of the "B" crowdThere is absolutely no other way to look at this because the PBEM issue is 100% purely technically based, 0% related to our desire to put it in.

OK, so... according to that enlightened link you put up, and in relation to what I just said above, tell me... how am I thinking about this wrong? Tell me please, how is it that we can satisfy the PBEM crowd without sacrificing the advances in the game? If you can do that, then you're correct... I'm thick headed. If you can not... well... the opposite must be true.

Tero,

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

I'm not imposing anything... I'm sitting here STUNNED (to use a Dorosh term) that people are actually suggesting that PBEM "is the game" and that there is no point in making something with out it. This has been stated directly, in plain language, several times now. I'm not inventing this perspective.

You have NOT stated in any shape or form the parameters which would render asyncronous multiplayer game inoperable in the new game engine.

It's not relevant because a) we don't know and we'll likely unofficially support PBEM (at the very least) provided it isn't ridiculous to do so. And we'll just cross that bridge when we come to it.

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

Not sure what this has to do with this discussion, but the answer is the save game feature is not a problem. It simply saves the last state the game was in. Piece of cake.

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 ?

Strawman because such an issue won't come up. We've already done x-platform networking so it is a known. Viable PBEM support is an unknown simply because it is dependent on quantity of data, not the type of data. But to carry your thinking through... if we knew ahead of time that some feature of our game design would quite possibly kill cross platform support we would consider chopping out that feature AFTER evaluating its importance to the game vs. the number of Mac sales we might lose if they couldn't play against a Windows machine. If the value of the feature was greater than the Mac sales we MIGHT lose, then we would go forward with the design at the risk of perhaps not supporting Mac to Windows network play.

Hopefully you will see that our logic on this is solid and consistent.

Panzer76

No, your pet feature is PBEM. You can play the game in numerous other ways without PBEM, including playing the AI. You CHOOSE not to.

I've said this many times before, but the "B" crowd refuse to see it this way, even though this clearly reality.

Steve

[Richie]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Yes. And can we have a cmx2 forum so that threads there can be locked also?

Well... cynical maybe, but at least isn't patronizing or belittling or abusive.

This thread was started as a 'vote for the option that suits you best' thread, and now it's a slanging match.

Not everyone reads every CMx2 thread. People here have expressed their opinion in a simple manner in a poll that's drawn from a good cross section of the CM forum members.

It's all been said, so what's the point?

Richie

[Malakovski]

Originally posted by Richie:

It's all been said, so what's the point?

No point anymore.

We just wait and hope PBEM doesn't end up on the chopping block, and if it does, we hope, with an even greater feeling of futility, that the CMx1 engine will be GPL'd or some such, so the community itself can add the vehicles and theaters which have not yet been featured.

And that's that.

[A.E.B]

Panzer76

quote:

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

No, your pet feature is PBEM. You can play the game in numerous other ways without PBEM, including playing the AI. You CHOOSE not to.

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

I've said this many times before, but the "B" crowd refuse to see it this way, even though this clearly reality.

Steve

No Steve, some of the "B" crowd say this, others don't.

Yes, playing PBEM is a personal preference.

It is called personal choice.

After all, the fact that we don't all wear the same clothes, drive the same cars, read the same books, etc, is also a matter of personal choice.

BF.C will produce the best game it can. The individual consumer will evaluate that game. No PBEM may influence some of us not to buy CMX2. Some of the "B" crowd may change their tune and buy regardless. Some of the "A" crowd may choose not to buy it. Many new consumers may buy the game. Some of us may even be dead by the release date.

We can only go off the bits of information BF.C chooses to feed us with about CMX2. The fact that we reply demonstrates how much we care about the game.

If you do not want us to react, don't feed us information. Many gaming companies choose this method.

But if you do give us information, then we will tell you what we think and feel.

A.E.B

[Battlefront.com]

Ah rats... sorry, I made my last post not realizing that there was a whole 'nother page of stuff to read through. I won't lock up this thread yet so as to give people a chance to respond to my post.

I will also restate what should be obvious to everybody here by now. And that is, our position on PBEM.

1. We understand very well that some segment of our existing customer base lives by, and for, PBEM.

2. We understand that not supporting PBEM might cost us some sales from otherwise solid fans of CMx1 games.

3. We do not want to abandon PBEM support unless there is no alternative. That will hinge on the physical size of the PBEM file and whether or not it is considered to be "viable" by us to be officially supported.

4. If the file size is too large to be an officially supported feature, but small enough to be viable for hardcore high bandwidth users, we will unofficially support it.

Now, here is what the PBEM guys, the "B" crowd must understand:

1. The decision to include or exclude PBEM is purely a technical one. And sitting here now, we can not determine if it will be technically possible, therefore we would be lying if we said we can support PBEM no matter what. And there is one thing you guys all know... we do not lie to our customers, even when it would be soooooo much easier to do so

2. Because PBEM support is a technical question only, and we don't know what new feature might make it impractical, the only way to ensure, with 100% certainty, that PBEM be included with CMx2 is if we start hacking out "suspect" features right now before we start coding. In short, we'd have to cut out the unknowns.

3. The reality of #2 is that the only way to 100% guarantee PBEM support is to hobble the game design right now, before we even know that it is necessary. This is because there is absolutely no way we are going to spend 6 months of coding time, find no reasonable way to do PBEM, then scrap the code and start over again. So we either chop out the suspect features now and get 100% PBEM certainty, or we proceed with making the best game possible and THEN see if PBEM is viable.

4. Since the "B" crowd is a definite minority group (there is no arguing this), and we are all about making the best game possible, we are not willing to sacrifice core game features simply to support PBEM. From a sales standpoint alone it would be a mistake to hobble the game for PBEM, but from a creative and forward looking company like us... it is unthinkable. We can not have our creativity held back by any minority group, period.

5. PBEM is an optional feature. Some people might think that it is so important that it isn't an option, but the fact remains the game can be played without PBEM and therefore, by definition, it is optional. Saying that "I will never play the game any other way than PBEM" is making a choice. Doesn't matter if the PBEM diehards see it that way or not, it is indisputable fact.

6. PBEM is no different than any other game feature. 2D, hexes, WeGo, realistic terrain, etc. in that games are made without PBEM all the time, just as they are made without WeGo, realistic terrain, or anything else for that matter. It is just a feature. Plain and simple, absolutely no room for argument. Having said that, some people are narrowly focused on one particular feature as the main reason to buy or not buy a game. Turn based people don't want to play realtime games, realtime gamers don't want to play turn based games. Each could play the other way if they wanted to, but they CHOOSE not to. It doesn't matter how much enjoyment or flexibility they find in the way they CHOOSE to play, since it is all about personal preferences.

7. Personal preferences must always be kept in perspective with the personal preferences of others. One must understand that what is important to oneself might not be important to another. We, the developers, must balance these sometimes competing personal preferences within our vision of what will make the best game. People that argued against CMBO being 3D had the personal preference of 2D. We heard those arguments and decided it wasn't the direction we wanted to go. We also heard from people that said we couldn't possibly make a "realistic" warsim without RealTime and lots of blood animations. We also chose to not change the game design to cater to these points of view. These people had valid points of view, but they weren't the ones we chose to cater to. PBEMers need to keep in mind that they are no different than these others. Those who have said they are "insulated" by this comparison are clearly not understanding the ramifications of their own position and how unreasonable they are being to us and their fellow (majority) gamers.

That's about it I expect it won't make much headway, so I'll likely be locking this thread up soon and locking up anything else that has anything to do with PBEM until it is time to discuss it again (6 months or so down the road). At least I can't be accused of not letting the PBEM crowd air their views!

Steve

[Wartgamer]

I would like to throw out one other thought.

Does it matter to BFC if people buy the game and not play it? By this I mean people buying the game and deciding after a few games, or a week or so, that they really don't like it that much.

Some companies make demos, so that is one way of dealing with this. You can say "Try the demo, buy the game, its yours now".

But what I see is people 'borrowing' the game from companies. They buy it, try it for awhile and then sell it. Usually on ebay. Sometimes for close to new prices when stocks are low or sold out!

This 'ebay return policy' must cut into sales. In the worst case, people copy the software, and then sell it.

The one nice thing about PBEM or any human-human game capability is that it makes games keepers. People hold onto them. While the PBEM grumblers may be a minority, they are probably teh majority as far as human-human play?

[Malakovski]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

That's about it I expect it won't make much headway.

Nope, not a bit. I understand your position, and I'm sorry you hold it. I've tried to explain mine, but if I haven't made any headway, I don't think I'll try again.

Let us know in six months how depressed we should be...