CommonSense Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Originally posted by Impudent Warwick: Never mind. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. ... This is the garbage I am talking about! You took up a whole slot to say nothing useful! Troll off you spam whore! The rest of us don't need this **** from you or anyone else. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 But then you just did the same thing... And broke forum rules on language. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonSense Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 You are breaking the forum rules of Common Sense! Now stow it already! Add something useful or go have cybersex with a Scout leader somewhere far from here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Yes, but it's not your forum, so your rules don't count. Tell me, are there any features you'd like to see in CMX2? I've said my piece elsewhere and so won't take up more space here with it. Other than swear, insult and gibber, you've contributed nothing so far. And what have you against scout leaders? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 17, 2005 Author Share Posted February 17, 2005 CommonSense... can it or we'll can it for you. You're in violation of the Forum rules regarding abusive behavior. You're only posting to abuse, and that trolling. Straighten up or buh-bye. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 17, 2005 Author Share Posted February 17, 2005 Regarding testing... the vast number of things to test for are best done solo. For those things which are specific to the method of multi-player, then each form of multi-player needs to be tested. Playing head to head, in any form, is more useful towards the tail end of the testing process when the bulk of the bugs have already been found and squashed. From a testing standpoint, there is absolutely zero benefit by using PBEM. It's not like TCP/IP testers are playing with the time clock set to 2 minutes, with heads bent down to WIN WIN WIN!!! No, the point is to find bugs, not to win the game (unless winning is something we are testing). On the other hand, PBEM is so slow and subject to breaking with new builds, it is really a poor way to test compared to the other methods. Usually when testers are doing PBEM they are doing it at the same time so as to speed it up. And that means they could be using TCP/IP instead if PBEM itself isn't what is being tested. Usually, at least in rapid bug fixing phase, Charles will churn out a build at least once a day. That means any game that was started the day before is likely to not work the next day. Hence PBEM games rarely being finished except for the twilight days of testing when the file format is locked down and not being changed. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 No, the point is to find bugs, not to win the game Testing is NOT to just find bugs. You have to test for correct modeling. Just because the system doesnt crash, or a unit doesnt disappear off screen, that there arent modeling problems present. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Wartgamer, I am confident that the good folks at BFC know how to test a game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Yes they do testing but I am really curious about the methodology. Specifically, when playtesters play, do they have questions that need to be answered? A test sheet? After action feedback? Does anyone at BFC look over the turns? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Originally posted by Hoolaman: Wartgamer, I am confident that the good folks at BFC know how to test a game. Like when the patch was released and PBEM was unusable.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 18, 2005 Author Share Posted February 18, 2005 Wartgamer, Testing is NOT to just find bugs. You have to test for correct modeling. Just because the system doesnt crash, or a unit doesnt disappear off screen, that there arent modeling problems present.There you go again... telling us how to do our jobs like you know what you are talking about. Does the combo of arrogance and ignorance just come natural to you, or do you have to work at it? Do you think we really made three games that have garnered tons of awards and fans by some sort of freak accident? No? Then why insist that we don't? Do everybody, including yourself, a big favor and stick to topics where your opinion has at least some chance of being at least relevant like ammo counts for MP-40s. Like it or not, the best way to test for MODELING stuff (and everything else) is solo play. TCP/IP is great way to suss out other things later on in the process when most things have been tightened up. Dorosh... if being an unnecessary pain in the arse made for a good tester, we'd have signed you up 17,000 posts ago. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Ouch. Steve, I guess I'm in that group that wouldn't mind giving input, but really have enough faith and trust that you guys will come up with yet another great game. Sure, I'll voice things like "campaign feature" or ask for a much wider variety of stuff for the terrain editor, but, overall, I trust you guys. I think most people here do. The problem is, they love your products so much, they want to help make the next one better than before without having any idea how significant their contribution might or might not be. Just my two cents. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Pies Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 At last someone has mentioned the F word. FAITH (in BFC) There are a whole lot of people in this thread that need to get some. I have it, and I'd warrant that the 10,000 others that aren't posting on this forum have it too. Could we please get back to the bones now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WineCape Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Originally posted by Captain Pies: At last someone has mentioned the F word. FAITH (in BFC) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 18, 2005 Author Share Posted February 18, 2005 To be clear guys... Faith is only necessary until you have something more concrete to sink your teeth into. Once that happens, let 'er rip Until that time, which is a ways away, we can do one of two things... 1. Have me not participate and you guys run around imagining whatever it is you want, then arguing about it without any real sense of who is right or wrong. Call this the Tempest in a Teapot option. 2. Have me participate and discuss the specific things that I bring up for discussion, then keep the discussion focused on those things KNOWING that I can't possibly tell you everything at this point. Call this the Bone Discussion option. Tempest in a Teapot seems to be a waste of everybody's time, so I'd opt for the Bone Discussion. It might not be the most detailed, thorough discussion possible... but at this stage it is as good as it can possibly get. What nobody needs are distracting comments which question things that are irrelevant or too early to discuss. Much of this comes down to Faith. If you don't have Faith based on the little information I am providing, then butt out of the conversation and come back later when there is less need for Faith. Coming in now with all offensive and defensive hackles raised, discarding Faith, will only detract from everybody else's experience. In short... the narrow minded, imagination impared, never pleased types should sit this one out and return at a later date Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonSense Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: CommonSense... can it or we'll can it for you. You're in violation of the Forum rules regarding abusive behavior. You're only posting to abuse, and that trolling. Straighten up or buh-bye. Steve Steve; I was merely venting my frustrations and got a little carried away. I made a already apologised for this. There is no sense in me becoming a Troll over being trolled at. It's that is just how it spreads. Sanctioned Trolling is the worst kind you know. Moving on; I have questions about the sound in your upcomming game. The .WAV files don't do it for me and sound horrible on my audiophile level computer sound setup that does double for gaming. The good part is that well recorded tracks and sound/ music in games sounds extremely good, but poorly recorded tracks and lack luster sound in games sounds much worse. Now even when I had average computer speakers CMBO /CMBB never sounded all that graeat to begin with. I understand you are not going to get hi fidelity sound from a WAV but my question is what do you plan to do about this? Since you are writing a whole new game engine I would like to think that the sound will be greatly improved. It is'nt urgent you answer this as a Demo down the road would let me find out for myself but since your here I may as well ask. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melnibone Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: In short... the narrow minded, imagination impared, never pleased types should sit this one out and return at a later date Steve Now that is just going to cause a new Tempest in a Bone Teapot 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonSense Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Steve; while I'm here I would also add that Nebelwerfers must be fixed in the new game. The way the rockets were designed varied from the Allies and Soviets. The German warhead was in the back rather the front. This should cause much more airburting as thier design dictates it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 A favourite subject of Mr. Tittles IIRC... Originally posted by CommonSense: Steve; while I'm here I would also add that Nebelwerfers must be fixed in the new game. The way the rockets were designed varied from the Allies and Soviets. The German warhead was in the back rather the front. This should cause much more airburting as thier design dictates it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willbell Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 More bites. First what not to do. Don't expand the scale of the game, then it becomes a different game. Keep it at this battalion level where we can play with squads and companies. I want better, more flexible town modeling where the streets are not restricted to 45 degree angles. Wide streets, narrow alleys, dirt paths. Have the terrain in layers so that you don't have to have a particular type of tile for each combination of road, building, and foliage. We should be able to lay down the terrain, then lay road down on that (with trees and brush automatically clearing away), then set down the buidlings at any angle we want. When selecting a route (or in the case of the advanced orders AI capabilities pointing to an objective) we should be able to see imediately if the route is unpassable. Or at the very least, if an obstacle is unpassable the AI will stop the unit, rather than have it make a huge ciruitous route around it right through the enemy field of fire. There should be a highly advanced AI for the officers which allows them to operate independently on immediate tactical situations when given an objective, but which can be over-ridden if we feel like micromanaging their moves. I like the idea of being able to start the game either jumping out of an airplane, or off of a landing craft. There definitely needs to be a larger, multiplayer component that lets several players play a small part of a larger operation. This will allow for more variation in goals. Currently most games are balanced for each player which means you don't ever have to figure out if you should just retreat to fight anther day, you always know the approximate size of the opposing force and that it is roughly comparable to yours. HERE'S A BIG ONE - A quick battle editor that gives you a whole lot more variety in both terrain building and type of battle. It should offer air attacks, rivers and bridges, town fights, bad weather, just everything. How about this, what if BF has a web site, and there is always this ongoing WWII war going on with various campaigns, and a player can jump in at any time and play some current piece of it? There could be slots available to players at all levels, from overall command to battalion leader, etc. The game would just keep moving forward, even if there weren't players to fill each slot, by using AI leaders. But players could log in and fill the shoes of any particular leader for one battle, or a series of battles. Some players might play a general and just keep playing it if they have time. When they finally do stop the AI just keeps the overall war going. So there is no such thing as a player quiting and messing up the whole multiplayer game. leaders could even email other players and ask them to personally lead certain key battles. But there would always be AI leaders to keep the overall game/war moving forward. There could be several times in a day where the battles are available to be played via TCP/IP, and that is when each player would have to jump in and play if they wanted to. It's kind of like letting a SimCity continue to grow, even when you weren't there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonSense Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Wicky; what do you think of Nebelwerfer modeling in the new game? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Have you reregistered on the forum? Originally posted by CommonSense: Wicky; what do you think of Nebelwerfer modeling in the new game? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonSense Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 What are you talking about and what does that have to do with my question? If you insist to be a Troll at least get some skill at it kiddo. Make me laugh or contribute to the conversation. Or you could even contribute while joking around which is what I prefer anyway. I'm just posting as myself man. Be an ass if you want; I won't take it seriously or anything; all I'm saying is that if you are trying to insult me or whatever actually be funny. Don't carry on like some princess on the rag. I'd rather laugh with you; not at you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 He's back again? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 He's back 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.