Old Forum rules revisited

[Martin Krejcirik]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Special note to Martin Krejcirik....

REALLY? Were you booted off by a BFC staff member or one of the developers who were primarily in charge of their own Forum?

By Moon, I think, but yeah, I admit, it was at the time when Dangerous Waters warez got out, and I asked something like 'Why the annoying feature X is still in?' and he banned me because of unwritten so-called zero-tolerance policy.

The feature was obvious from the screenshots and my knowledge od Sub Command (previous version of DW engine) and I had preordered two DW's by that time anyway.

I write this more as a warning to other posters, you never know when a ban is looming upon you

[ December 04, 2007, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Martin Krejcirik ]

[Sgt Joch]

I am still sort of confused, would this be example #1 or #2 :confused: :

CM:SF IS MILDLY DISPPOINTING! I can not BELIEVE the design decisions that were made! It's worse than a pillow fight and anybody that thinks otherwise must have a good reason for doing so, because clearly there are a few minor issues with this complex software. It has a few bugs and there is no hope for it except to do some minor tinkering with the code, which Battlefront says they are gong to do. So we're stuck with this still quite fun game until the next patch comes out. I'm so mildly disppointed about this I only gave my dogs one treat this morning, instead of their usual two. GRRRRR!!!

[dalem]

Originally posted by Sgt.Joch:

I'm so mildly disppointed about this I only gave my dogs one treat this morning, instead of their usual two. GRRRRR!!!

But did they show their teeth?

-dale

[Huntarr]

Steve is a good guy, but he sometimes comes off as condescending, just like Sixxkiller comes off as abrasive, or I come off as arrogant, or Huntarr comes off as a crazy Marine with a bizarrely large collection of art (well, this might be true), etc., etc.

LOL, Thanks Phillip I spewed Coffee out my nose on that one. Too funny. I had hoped the toons would keep the tone right where it was meant. Light hearted. Some get'em some don't. I just hope everyone remembers we are all trying to make this game fun for all of us.

[igor]

what are you sequoia, 10 years old?

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by igor:

what are you sequoia, 10 years old?

The irony here is so thick it could shelter me from an nuclear explosion.

[mike_the_wino]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

My advice is to come back at a later time, for example when we release the WW2 version.

Should I be looking for that WW2 pre-order to be coming any time soon? If not, how do I complain in the most annoying AND effective way possible?

[Bloodstar44]

Originally posted by igor:

what are you sequoia, 10 years old?

@Igor

I really don't know what is your position?

First, CM: SF is not that bad product. I didn't bought the product because I don't like the historical setting but quality of the product is very good AND it is still improving.

I can only applaud to Battlefront.com as it is one of the FEW developers (mind you IN HOUSE developers!!! AND PUBLISHERS!) - not just box shifters and merchants like some other publishers.

Steve is being DEMOCRATIC and allow you to express your opinion but I am first for iron rule and banning all over if consumers start to abuse this democracy and start with pure abuse and very unpolite behaviour!

I was before game journalist and can attest that Steve was really great to work with and one of best game publishers / developers I have worked with!

Gamers are many times spoiled bunch. Battlefront.com will not send you Playboy miss April 1996. along with a game. If you don't like the game just move on.

What we must realize here and what some other poster have realized is that BFC is company and it lives by selling it's products.

Also, what is here at stake is not just your 50$ so that you can bitch on the moon and howl you are cheated. Battlefront.com invested 2 million $ into this product. So there is a lot more at stake here. Not just money but pride as well, vanity, call it however you please but they HAVE also right to defend THEIR labor of love.

If this game was set to WW2 I would shell out my money right away. But I have no problem seeing that some people LIKE the game and some people DON'T. You are being not very democratic here.

God forbid I really would not like to see Battlefront.com sink down and that wargaming scene depends only on Matrix Games. No, thank you.

I would like to see a lot more companies. 10 more if nececary. This constant feud in wargaming public is not good at all. And there is also a matter of some good will and faith and some people seems to lack that. They would like to see BFC goes down. They would be really happy then. Blah.

Even if CM: SF is below standards of BFC earlier releases hell is that really that important to justify so much anger here? Nonsense, really nonsense.

Well, I will say again - Matrix Games can put 30 games a year but in my eyes real heroes of 2007. in wargaming business is Battlefront.com.

They had the guts to put their money where their mouth is.

It is rather easy to publish games what some 5 poor developers will make in their spare time, push the release few years. That is really easy - no big risk and no big money put at stake.

But Battlefront.com invested BIG MONEY, put everything at stake and even if they FAIL - they have my respect. C'mon where are the other wargaming companies investing 2 million $ in making a wargame? Huh?

Some put a Close Combat Modern Tacctics lol with graphics from 1997. (!!!) and that without CAMPAIGN!

LOL! mind you campaign COMES with ADD ONS in todays world! Check new Heroes 5 campaign lol

Not to say that Matrix Games owns Wargamer.com so you will see THEIR ADS there heavily promoting their games. That is unheard of in game business and I still don't see that EA owns Eurogamer, or IGN, or Gamespot (and guys at Usenet didn't beat that argument of mine). Of course such ILLOGICAL things are OK in wargaming world because some can easily make excuse saying thao our hobby is TOO SMALL. So when it is benefiting your arguments then wargaming is out of this space, blah!

So cut the crap, boyo.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

LOL, Thanks Phillip I spewed Coffee out my nose on that one. Too funny. I had hoped the toons would keep the tone right where it was meant. Light hearted. Some get'em some don't. I just hope everyone remembers we are all trying to make this game fun for all of us.

You're very welcome Huntarr, I'm glad you noticed and enjoyed it, I'd hoped you would. I know that I enjoy the spirit that you bring to the forum (I do look forward to the art in your posts -- no pressure!) even if we don't necessarily agree on everything, and you're right -- keep it light-hearted, and to paraphrase myself, remember we're almost all here because we care about the game. I think it's easy to lose sight of that.

Cheers, and again I'm happy you liked it, hopefully no coffee-related damages to account for.

[Battlefront.com]

DaveDash,

Actually Steve I think both are unconstructive, but one is definately less banworthy than the other.

I agree that if #1 is repeated ad nauseam then it would be non-constructive. However, it is important for people to be able to voice an emotional reaction to something, a feature or the game itself, without doing more than that. It is important for us to know that something disappoints or excites, though I agree it is far more meaningful to know WHY someone thinks it is a let down or the best thing since sliced bread. Definitely harder to do design work without specifics

Igor,

What I found offensive was the condescending original post in this thread saying basically we know what the problems are, we're working on it and stop bitching about it.

After several months of intensive activity on this Forum, if we don't know what the problems are, and weren't hard at work fixing them, then people would have the right to bitch. But we do understand the problems and we are fixing the ones we feel we should fix, so the bitching (as you admit was happening) is unnecessary. Plus, we have been talking to you guys constantly for 10 years, so that should count for something.

Phillip,

Steve, just so I'm clear, we have to be following BOTH rules at once, right? I do get tangential.

Yes, people need to be respectful of others and keep the conversation focused on CM. However, I made an edit to my original post because I phrased something in a way that I think is tripping you up.

We have always tolerated side conversations here, so this isn't a new edict. Attempting to learn in a vacuum isn't usually helpful so we don't want that here either. CM is a wargame and there are plenty of other wargames out there, so it's very necessary (when appropriate) to bring up other wargames. Kidding each other, bringing a little bit of personal lives into the mix, etc. is also acceptable as a means of making this place more of a community than a tech support forum. So if you want to mention you're bad day at work, fine by me

Steve is a good guy, but he sometimes comes off as condescending, just like Sixxkiller comes off as abrasive, or I come off as arrogant, or Huntarr comes off as a crazy Marine with a bizarrely large collection of art (well, this might be true), etc., etc.

Just for the record... Huntarr is a Marine and he is crazy. It's all that surplus Agent Orange that the Marines got from the Army in the form of "Powdered Drink Mix, Orange" in their MREs. It's true!

Just try and look past that at the actual message. Forums are a horrible place to judge tone. And even if they mean it, it's not going to change. You kind of have to make peace with it.

Also, the "understanding perspectives" thing needs to swing both ways, Steve.

Yes, definitely it has to swing both ways. As I said up top of this post and my other posts, I understand people like Igor aren't happy with the way CM:SF turned out. In return I need him to understand that there is a right way and a wrong way to express this, and that after a while any repetitious message loses whatever value it might have had and instead becomes a detraction from other people's messages.

People that really like CM:SF shouldn't feel the need to dismiss criticism of it, as long as the criticism is respectful and constructive. If there are flaws in each others arguments, pro or con, they can be discussed rationally instead of emotionally (or at least not purely emotionally). There is also no need for people to agree in the end, since agreement is very often not possible when issues generally come down to opinion.

BTW, I think I sometimes come off as condescending because there is a wide range of people here and, to put it nicely, some aren't as "quick" to grasp simple concepts as others. So I sometimes have to post to the lowest common denominator, and sometimes people above that level feel I'm talking to them specifically. It's just the way things go sometimes. I'm used to it.

Martin Krejcirik,

Ah... if there was some sort of mention of WAREZ in your post... that would explain it. It's one of a tiny number of reasons to get banned first time. But, as you can see, that doesn't mean the decision can't be reversed if there is reason for it. We try very hard not to be unreasonable.

Sequoia,

The irony here is so thick it could shelter me from an nuclear explosion.

Yes, but of course you did ask for some sort of response. Having said that, in my long experience here the people that take the most offense at being reminded they need to be respectful of others are the ones who most need the reminder. I do not know if Igor fits that description, but your snipe at him and his response makes me wonder. So let's have the two of you not make me have to wonder any more so I can do something else with my time

Bloodstar44,

Thanks for the strong voice of support and your perspective as a gamer reviewer. It is true that the tendency of wargamers to see a glass that is half full as completely empty is a major reason why wargaming is almost extinct. I can tell you this from my days with Sierra. Gamers in general can be difficult to deal with, but wargamers are the most difficult (possible exception - flight simers). We still love you grumbly little buggers enough to keep making games!

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

There is no announced timetable for WW2 yet, but we will start working on it very soon. Some more base game stuff to get into shape and a couple Marines things started, then it's back to WW2 design work for me. I've enjoyed the break from it, so I'm sure I'll be happy to work with the subject matter again. 7 years in a row was a little bit of a long stretch

Steve

[Huntarr]

It's all that surplus Agent Orange that the Marines got from the Army in the form of "Powdered Drink Mix, Orange" in their MREs. It's true!

I was under the impression that only Chesty got MREs and the rest of us nasty Devil Dog's got "chow". (as in dog chow) MMM, delicious MRE fruit cake.

[SgtMuhammed]

The fruit cake was better than the orange nut cake.

[JohnO]

Actually I liked the pound cake. You had to let it soak in the kool-aid for about thirty minutes to be able to eat it

[Cameroon]

Enforcement of the forum rules be praised!

I found myself spending much less time in CM and on these forums than I would normally, not because of the game (though I am also eagerly awaiting 1.05) but because the forum had grown so abusive, especially towards those that had positive things to say.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean you have to rain on someone else's parade, but that seemed so frequent lately (even before the hiatus of moderation).

[hoolaman]

Since banning would only be a last resort, maybe a few threads that unproductively bring up the same old issues might benefit from judicious use of the padlock.

[Battlefront.com]

Padlocking rehashed discussions generally cheeses people off, so I'd rather not. Also, there is the rare occasion when a new perspective, piece of information, etc. is brought into what has already been discussed a dozen times. Rare as these little extra nuggets are, they sometimes get things moving in a different direction. So I guess rehashing things in a CONSTRUCTIVE way isn't necessarily a bad thing. Having said that, the less constructive a rehash is the more likely it is that I'll padlock it.

Steve

[M1A1TC]

Steve

Can you post projected timeframe for the upcoming patches and USMC module?

Thanks

[Sixxkiller]

Sometimes "banning" isn't the last result, its the ONLY result.

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

Since banning would only be a last resort, maybe a few threads that unproductively bring up the same old issues might benefit from judicious use of the padlock.

[MarkEzra]

My favorite deodorant is Speed Stick. But sometimes I buy Ban