Fan-Made Points System

[Battlefront.com]

76mm,

Would import/export really be all that complicated (certainly not a whole new computer game), or just time-consuming and kind of tedious? I understand that you may not want to devote resources to this right now, but I think some of us (me!) would be willing to help.

Redwolf,

This isn't to say PzC hasn't it's problems, but they successfully used the open game design that allowed people to plug in all this stuff to be more successful than they would have been without.

One could argue that they had their development priorities backwards, but I've not played the game and only seen a smattering of commentary about it. Regardless, they aren't us and we aren't them. We have our way of doing things, they have theirs. If a customer doesn't like the way we do things they can opt to not buy our products. They can, of course, also request that we do things differently. There's probably about 1 million posts over 10 years where people have done just that. But at the end of the day if we don't want to add and support a data import/export feature, that's that. We don't want to do it, at least not any time in the near future. That's that.

76mm,

Would import/export really be all that complicated (certainly not a whole new computer game), or just time-consuming and kind of tedious? I understand that you may not want to devote resources to this right now, but I think some of us (me!) would be willing to help.

It's time consuming and tedious to setup AND support, not technically difficult. Only Charles can do it since it's all about the code end of things. Which is why it isn't a priority for us when we look at all of the things he can be spending his time on. Customers, of course, can take issue with our prioritization of features. That's fine. But after a while it does get rather tiresome.

Lee,

Steve: Perhaps you can briefly comment on this?

It's a bit off topic, but basically your recollection is correct. The game data is locked down and it will forever stay that way. There could be another 200 post thread about this issue and it will not change.

Steve

[Redwolf]

One could argue that they had their development priorities backwards, but I've not played the game and only seen a smattering of commentary about it. Regardless, they aren't us and we aren't them. We have our way of doing things, they have theirs. If a customer doesn't like the way we do things they can opt to not buy our products. They can, of course, also request that we do things differently. There's probably about 1 million posts over 10 years where people have done just that. But at the end of the day if we don't want to add and support a data import/export feature, that's that. We don't want to do it, at least not any time in the near future. That's that.

Most of the lacklusterism about their game can be traced to a lack of effort (my interpretation, plus some boardgamer stubbornness). Just for starters, they don't only have one programmer, they seem to have one person doing pretty much everything. Then they employed moddability to use the user base as a "force multiplier" if you want to put it that way.

Now, you might have a big team compared to them, but you also have one single programmer.

As impressive as Charles' output is, your resistance to give people the quickbattle system(s) they want, or the campaign system(s) they want can be directly traced to a lack of programming resources. You won't let people hack up these systems externally. So you insist on doing it yourself and the result is nonexisting campaigns and widespreadly(?) regarded useless quickbattles.

Having people doing real commercial contracts for campaign systems might look good on paper but CMC showed that it's really not any more likely to lead to a working system than a user-driven effort.

At least over in the PzC world they do have working stuff around the game, including a scenario editor. And once there (at a user-driven map editor) random maps from user-written programs are a no-brainer. And the developer doesn't notice a thing about the random maps because now the poor soul who did the external map editor has to deal with the morons doing the random map generator.

Of course there are obstacles. Even JonS writes of CSV files which are a recipe for unreliable crap interfaces. Preaching XML and external input validation using stock tools that you don't have to write is something that need to be done more. But at least it's available for those who have seen the light.

I think that your efforts to channel your userbase into playing your game the way you want might turn out very limiting to the audience of your game. Telling us how we have to like playing the game isn't any better than us telling you how to build it

[JonS]

... JonS writes of CSV files which are a recipe for unreliable crap interfaces. Preaching XML ...

St Redwolf, here to save us from ourselves

I picked CSV because it's easy, and easily understood, not because it's the best. I'm not emotionally attached to it, but I am emotionally attached to a format that doesn't require me to become a programmer to un'erstan'.

... efforts to channel your userbase into playing your game the way you want might turn out very limiting to the audience of your game. ...

Yup.

[Sergei]

Now, you might have a big team compared to them, but you also have one single programmer.

How true this is. I don't care so much about campaign systems (though it's good that some people do), but I do appreciate the value of 3rd party applications in general. I've probably spent hundred fold amount of time using Leland Tankersley's Mapping Mission and Pyewacket's Map Converter, compared to using just the CMx1 map editors themselves. It's just so much more efficient.

Now, all my respect goes to Charles, the map editor in CMx1 was not bad by any means (just look at all the creations made with it!), and the one we have now is far better in every imaginable way. But it is still a fact that Charles can spend only so much time working on non-essential (but very fruitful) features such as map overlays. And, having become accustomed to Mapping Mission, I actually prefer the concept of utilizing a separate, lighter map editor to create big battlefields and then exporting fragments of those into the actual game.

But still, it would be an incredibly stupid idea from BFC to simply drop off the in-game map editor or limit its functionality, reasoning that it will be covered by 3rd parties much better. It just wouldn't do, all game reviews would then tell that the game either has no map editor or the editor sucks balls. I know that was a very poor analogy and I'm a jackass just for saying it, but now consider this: is it a good investment for BFC to incorporate support for 3rd party campaign systems if none of that extra effort can be commented by games reviewers and, hence, is unlikely to bring extra purchases (ie. reward), at least early on? When instead they could concentrate on things that actually can be testified by reviewers and therefore potentially increase early sales?

So, the way I see it, it's also a question of whether you are going to invest on things that are very likely going to result in more sales in short and long term, or on things that are going to result in fewer sales in short term and possibly, but not guaranteed, more sales in long term. So I'm standing on the fence on this one... it all depends on how long such feature, in minimum, would take to implement. I'd wager that exporting is a relatively simple (but still time consuming) feature, but importing is a tougher nut...

[Redwolf]

St Redwolf, here to save us from ourselves

I picked CSV because it's easy, and easily understood, not because it's the best. I'm not emotionally attached to it, but I am emotionally attached to a format that doesn't require me to become a programmer to un'erstan'.

I lost my commission? :eek:

Sorry about that, Jon, I respect you as much as everybody else.

It is just necessary to drive the message home that in 2009 you (as in, a programmer) do not write code to parse and validate files provided by the user. You have external programs validating the input and then you have libraries assisting you in parsing the stuff without your application being taken down by garbage input.

This is a huge change, but most wargame developers are completely ignorant about it (except PzC and now some TOAW).

[dischord]

If a customer doesn't like the way we do things they can opt to not buy our products.Steve

I am conflicted about this. I want to support Battlefront developers by buying Brits and NATO modules. However, I would prefer to have more functionality put into the game such as that requested in this thread. My only option then is to not buy, in an effort to make some kind of statement, no matter how insignificant. How unfortunate!

The "Don't like it? Don't buy it." and "Go make your own game." slogans which this organization seems to have adopted IMHO run contrary to the community mindset some people try to foster here. It must sound ironic to those individuals who purchased multiple copies despite the fact that they will derive no further pleasure from a 2nd or 3rd copy. It just makes no economic sense whatsover!

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

I think that your efforts to channel your userbase into playing your game the way you want might turn out very limiting to the audience of your game. Telling us how we have to like playing the game isn't any better than us telling you how to build it

On some other planet, maybe Look, the fact is that no matter WHAT we do we ultimately tell you guys what game it is you're going to play. That's because no one customer here comes up with even a small fraction of what is in the game now. On top of that, let's be honest, some of you guys have some HORRIBLE ideas But since those ideas never get made into a game, not to mention peer reviewed in a useable form, you're not even in the same ballpark as us.

The argument you make, however, is even more fundamentally flawed than that. As game designers we have to create things which appeal to the most amount of people, while customers only have to satisfy themselves. We aren't fools enough to believe that even opening up the code will fix that. It will, in some ways, make it far worse.

Despite the implications that we're just a bunch of bumbling fools, purposefully avoiding greatness, the truth is we make a top notch product which probably eclipses the sale of any other "serious" wargame. We've also been doing it far longer than most. I think it's rather interesting that individuals, who have never made a game in their lives, insist that their personal pet ideas are the solution to everything supposedly we suffer from. It's even more interesting that we're often accused of hubris and egotism for sticking to our guns.

Nope, customers telling us what to do and us telling customers what we're going to do isn't even remotely similar.

Discord,

I am conflicted about this. I want to support Battlefront developers by buying Brits and NATO modules. However, I would prefer to have more functionality put into the game such as that requested in this thread. My only option then is to not buy, in an effort to make some kind of statement, no matter how insignificant. How unfortunate!

Yes, unfortunate indeed. But ultimately that's the choice. If 20 guys came here and said they wanted us to spend our time making body parts flying all over the place when hit, does that mean we should drop everything and cater to that specific need so we don't risk missing some sort of additional market? No. Therefore, someone who thinks CMx2 really needs to have such a feature has a choice... buy it or not buy it. There are no other choices.

The "Don't like it? Don't buy it." and "Go make your own game." slogans which this organization seems to have adopted IMHO run contrary to the community mindset some people try to foster here.

Lying and pandering to customers also runs contrary to the community mindset. So I've got a choice... tell people the truth, even if they don't want to hear it, ignore them, or lie through my teeth. Our policy is to be truthful and upfront.

It must sound ironic to those individuals who purchased multiple copies despite the fact that they will derive no further pleasure from a 2nd or 3rd copy. It just makes no economic sense whatsover!

Having game design by committee makes no economic sense either. Just because you want something doesn't mean it's a wise thing to do. Might be, might not be. We must be the judges of that because the truth is we did start up our own wargaming company and we do have to be concerned about commercial viability, while customers don't. They should be concerned about it, though, because if we go under... would we be quickly replaced? I doubt it.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Sergei,

Yes, those who look at things in "glass half empty" mode tend to focus on what a game doesn't have, vs. what it does have. But start taking away things that the person takes for granted and wow... I bet you'll see a massive shift in priorities by that customer.

But still, it would be an incredibly stupid idea from BFC to simply drop off the in-game map editor or limit its functionality, reasoning that it will be covered by 3rd parties much better. It just wouldn't do, all game reviews would then tell that the game either has no map editor or the editor sucks balls. I know that was a very poor analogy and I'm a jackass just for saying it, but now consider this: is it a good investment for BFC to incorporate support for 3rd party campaign systems if none of that extra effort can be commented by games reviewers and, hence, is unlikely to bring extra purchases (ie. reward), at least early on? When instead they could concentrate on things that actually can be testified by reviewers and therefore potentially increase early sales?

Bingo I'm not convinced that the requests for a more open campaign system is wrong, I'm just saying I'm convinced it's not a sure thing compared to lots and lots of other things we know of. It would be rather refreshing if when customers push very hard for something that they sprinkle a bit of humility into their posts. It could just be that we know what we're doing and, overall, making the right decisions. Or am I wrong and you guys know more about this wargaming stuff than us?

So, the way I see it, it's also a question of whether you are going to invest on things that are very likely going to result in more sales in short and long term, or on things that are going to result in fewer sales in short term and possibly, but not guaranteed, more sales in long term. So I'm standing on the fence on this one... it all depends on how long such feature, in minimum, would take to implement.

The question we ask ourselves is "would the average customer still buy the game without x?". The more the answer is "yes", the less incentive we have to include whatever feature is being discussed. We don't think an external campaign system, or a extremely expensive internally made system, will add anything to our overall sales. But we can think of features that will increase sales. Until we've exhausted the list of things we know will contribute to a net increase in sales, the things which won't (and aren't easy to do) will just have to wait. Possibly forever.

I'd wager that exporting is a relatively simple (but still time consuming) feature, but importing is a tougher nut...

Worse... we have just opened ourselves up to all kinds of support issues. Customers with big ideas never have to support them, therefore it's routine to have little (if any) thought put towards the ramifications which come from the idea. If we put them into the game then we do have to support them.

Steve

[Aacooper]

I'm curious which features ARE worth the time and investment. Obviously Quick Battles, but also water, winter, novel terrain, King Tigers, and then what?

[Echo]

We're talking about Normandy right?

Not interested in points. I'd like the ability to grab formations of units, any formations (by companies, or battalions), much like it is now in the CMSF editor.

Leave it to the players to agree on how many, what types, etc.

[JonS]

Leave it to the players to agree on how many, what types, etc.

Welcome to the beginning of this thread

[Battlefront.com]

I'm curious which features ARE worth the time and investment.

Lots and lots of stuff Just look around at the ideas you guys churn out in a single thread, not to mention tens of thousands of threads and hundreds of thousands of posts. Some of those ideas aren't very big, some are so big that they can't possibly be done. Some are fun and not core to the simulation, some are core to the simulation but not by themselves fun. Some aren't very good, some are really great.

My primary job here is to sort through all of these ideas and figure out what it is that will make CM a better game overall. The "best" (which is a subjective term) get married with other ideas of our own and wind up on one of our ToDo Lists. The lists are constantly reevaluated and re-prioritized based on ever changing circumstances. Hundreds of user suggestions have gone into CM:SF since it's launch, thousands since CM was first talked about. Probably tens of thousands have not. Likewise, thousands of our own ideas have gone in, tens of thousands have not. You guys would probably fall over if you read the original design docs for CMBB, CMAK, CM:SF, and CM:Normandy and seen how much stuff isn't in the game yet. A shortage of ideas is something we definitely will never experience.

Obviously Quick Battles, but also water, winter, novel terrain, King Tigers, and then what?

Oh, there's tons and tons more I've joked that we have about 10 years worth of really good ideas on paper right now is probably pretty close to the truth.

If some entity came down from the sky and told us it could freeze time for 5 days so we could put something in CM that people want and would likely increase customer appreciation (but perhaps not sales)... my personal pick would be to improve the UI in the Editor. Hour for hour, there's definitely more value in making the Editor more user friendly than there is in an import/export campaign tool. Why? Simple:

Everybody wanting to make a scenario has to use the Editor. It's something that works right out of the box and doesn't require any help form a third party. In making the Editor easier to use we will likely see more customers making more scenarios, which in turn gives people more choices of what to play (including a lot more bad scenarios, but that's another issue ). That most likely will keep a certain segment of the customerbase happier than they otherwise would be.

Compare this to the import/export request. Everybody who wants to make their own campaigns has to either use the Editor or rely on people who use the Editor. Nobody will care about the import/export feature until something is done with it by a 3rd Party. In other words, the import/export feature has no "out of the box" benefit. If a decent product is made which works off of the import/export feature, then certainly a portion of the customer base may find value in it provided it's the sort of campaign they want to play. Otherwise they won't care. So at best we're talking about a small segment who would be interested in any one specific outcome compared to the number would would be interested in a better UI for the Editor.

As it so happens, we have so many other priorities that the Editor UI is not high up on our list. Which is why I keep saying the primary argument against the import/export feature is that we've got higher priority things which should be tackled first.

We're talking about Normandy right?

Not interested in points. I'd like the ability to grab formations of units, any formations (by companies, or battalions), much like it is now in the CMSF editor.

That is a very, very, very high priority for CM: Normandy. In fact it is one of a handful of "critical" features that CM: Normandy will not ship without.

Steve

[JonS]

Yes, those who look at things in "glass half empty" mode tend to focus on what a game doesn't have, vs. what it does have.

Alternately, you might view it a slight corrective to the worldview that assumes that "if it ain't perfect, it ain't."

But start taking away things that the person takes for granted and wow... I bet you'll see a massive shift in priorities by that customer.

Yes, well, the fundamental assumption is that over time you'll either be leaving extant features in the game or replacing them with something clearly better. It's never occurred to me that you'd remove features to spite players.

[JonS]

Hour for hour, there's definitely more value in making the Editor more user friendly than there is in an import/export campaign tool.

Could you please cease referring to it as a "campaign" tool. What is being asked for is import/export functionality. That's it. How it's used is up to the user. Certainly, it could be used for campaigns, but also for QBs and scenarios. Or a zillion other things that I can't even imagine.

Incidentally, it's probably worth pointing out that the game already supports script-file importing, so it's not like the concept is totally alien to CMx2.

[JonS]

As it so happens, we have so many other priorities that the Editor UI is not high up on our list. Which is why I keep saying the primary argument against the import/export feature is that we've got higher priority things which should be tackled first.

Apart from your persistent confusion over what the I/O can be used for, this paragraph is something I've never questioned. Obviously you need to prioritise, and do so according to pressures that only you understand.

Please, though, don't pigeon-hole I/O as only something that can or would be used for external campaigns.

[Battlefront.com]

JonS,

Yes, well, the fundamental assumption is that over time you'll either be leaving extant features in the game or replacing them with something clearly better. It's never occurred to me that you'd remove features to spite players.

Right, but the assumption is that the game can be made without such features as an Editor or a campaign system at all, instead relying upon 3rd party support to provide them. Or put another way, the presumption that we can save time to do A by leaving out B for others to address presumes that nobody will miss B until someone gets around to making a decent substitute. And if nobody makes B that people won't miss the feature at all. Which, to me, means we shouldn't even be talking about feature B since it's obviously not commercially important.

Or put yet another way, that there is a presumption that it is a possible way for people to have their cake and eat it too

What is being asked for is import/export functionality. That's it. How it's used is up to the user. Certainly, it could be used for campaigns, but also for QBs and scenarios. Or a zillion other things that I can't even imagine.

And we'd have to code for each of those zillion things since there is no such thing as a bunch of variables all neatly sitting there in code for Charles to dump out. Not to mention documented, not to mention exported in a form that is useable. So either you're asking for a set of data to be exported/imported for campaigns *or* for QBs *or* for scenarios *or* for a zillion other things.

If you want me to think of this request as something generic (a zillion other things), instead of to specifically support campaigns, I can do that. But then I have to change my tune about where such an idea may fit into our future plans. A campaign specific I/O capability may happen, a generic dumping of pretty much all variables necessary for whatever people can dream up... it will never happen. It's impractical to do from a technical standpoint. A specific campaign I/O is not a high priority, but it is practical given certain circumstances.

Steve

[JonS]

And we'd have to code for each of those zillion things since there is no such thing as a bunch of variables all neatly sitting there in code for Charles to dump out.

No, you wouldn't. Unless you are saying that a given unit in a scen is different to the same nominal unit in a QB is different to that same nominal unit in the editor.

It's not the whole campaign or the whole scen or the whole QB we're talking about. Just the units bit (see: thread title and related discussion).

[Battlefront.com]

JonS,

No, you wouldn't. Unless you are saying that a given unit in a scen is different to the same nominal unit in a QB is different to that same nominal unit in the editor.

Of course the unit in a save file is the same as any other unit in a save file. But if you want things like the "price" of the unit or data other than what the player sees on the screen, that isn't stored in the save file.

It's not the whole campaign or the whole scen or the whole QB we're talking about. Just the units bit (see: thread title and related discussion).

And as I said, if that's what's being asked for then I can say, with absolute certainty, it will never happen. Since it will never happen then there is no point discussing it any further. There's actually little point in discussion I/O at all since if it happens it won't be any time soon. And when it does happen, the specific things accessible for I/O will have to be extremely specific. CMC, for example, had several rounds of "we need this, and we need that" before they got everything they needed to create the campaigns. There's no getting around that, which is one of the primary reasons we're not going to get to it any time soon.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Slight clarification... of course a unit present in a save game of one type of file (QB, Scenario, Campaign) is the same as the same unit in a different type of file (QB, Scenario, Campaign). But it's just the basic data that's the same. Anything else that makes the game being played (QB, Scenario, Campaign) different from another type of game played (QB, Scenario, Campaign) has to come from data that isn't in the save file. If all one is interested in is the data specific to the units, and specific to what the player can (generally) see of it in the game, then yes... one I/O is possible. Anything other than that, though, needs to be extremely specificly coded for.

Again, not that it matters since there will be no I/O function at all for Normandy and, likely, the next game or two that follows. The reasons for that has nothing to do with me perhaps misunderstanding what the request is, nor the request being too vague to work with as a concept. It comes back to what I've been saying for several posts here and across this Forum for a very long time. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If we support an I/O feature, something else doesn't get supported. Until we are we are far enough down on our ToDo Lists that we feel I/O is more important than the things remain, then it will not go into the game.

Steve

[daft]

Well, if that didn't kill your CMSF related creativity, nothing will!

[76mm]

If all one is interested in is the data specific to the units, and specific to what the player can (generally) see of it in the game, then yes... one I/O is possible. Anything other than that, though, needs to be extremely specificly coded for.

I would think that data specific to the units would suffice--the unit's designation/name, experience level, full strength, casualties, weapons, ammo/supply status, leader data, probably a few other things.

When Normandy comes out I'll take a closer look so as to be able bug you for this feature prior to the East Front game, which is what I really want it for! Import/export also seems like it would be particularly interesting for HistWar, which has seemed to attract the attention of lots of Napoleonic campaign clubs.

While we're at it, it would also be really cool to be able to convert saved game files into scenario files, allowing you to use the map (with destroyed bldgs, etc.) at the end of a game as the basis for creating the next battle in the campaign. Have no idea how complicated this would be, but my understanding is that Battlefront's chief reason for not allowing editing of saved game files it to prevent cheating, but conversion into a scenario file would seem to eliminate the risk of cheating...

[Scipio]

I've had a T-72 survive 3 frontal hits from a Challenger 2. Then knock it out. And this with minimal damage, I think the coax was broken and the tracks and optics were somewhat degraded.

Sorry, my post was misleading in this point. The alternativ calculator makes indeed a difference between different qualities of equpiment, even if it's not obvious and abstracted to some degree. The crux is within the selction of forces/army branch and quality. There is a big difference between army stuff and guards, for example. The calculator takes this into account, as some simple testing shows.

[Battlefront.com]

daft,

Well, if that didn't kill your CMSF related creativity, nothing will!

That's the downside of me being honest, I suppose!

76mm,

I would think that data specific to the units would suffice--the unit's designation/name, experience level, full strength, casualties, weapons, ammo/supply status, leader data, probably a few other things.

Spitting this sort of data out is, on the scale of things, pretty simple. Doing anything with it in terms of importing... not so simple. As I've said many times in many different discussions, the primary difference between a developer and a customer is the developer immediately thinks of all the potential problems, additional things needed, and then doubles or triples the time estimate to cover anything else that isn't currently being mentioned. Customers don't.

This is not a slam on customers, it's just a statement of fact that game developer's minds are focused on what it is like to make a feature, the customers are focused on what it's like to play it. On top of that, game developers tend to be pessimistic (because rarely does anything go better than expected) while customers tend to be overly optimistic. Again, it's just the difference between experiences and perspectives.

When Normandy comes out I'll take a closer look so as to be able bug you for this feature prior to the East Front game, which is what I really want it for! Import/export also seems like it would be particularly interesting for HistWar, which has seemed to attract the attention of lots of Napoleonic campaign clubs.

I'm pretty sure importing data, to do something with it within the game, isn't likely in the near future. As I've said before, it's pretty far down on the ToDo list.

While we're at it, it would also be really cool to be able to convert saved game files into scenario files, allowing you to use the map (with destroyed bldgs, etc.) at the end of a game as the basis for creating the next battle in the campaign. Have no idea how complicated this would be, but my understanding is that Battlefront's chief reason for not allowing editing of saved game files it to prevent cheating, but conversion into a scenario file would seem to eliminate the risk of cheating...

We will never allow save games to be directly editable because that would require massive amounts of recoding. Security issues are also of a concern, but that's a philosophical point that comes second to the technical one.

As for "persistent damage", that's something we do intend on supporting specifically for our campaign system. It's not going to happen for Normandy, for sure, but hopefully it will make its way into the game sooner rather than later.

Steve

[76mm]

daft,

As I've said many times in many different discussions, the primary difference between a developer and a customer is the developer immediately thinks of all the potential problems, additional things needed, and then doubles or triples the time estimate to cover anything else that isn't currently being mentioned. Customers don't.

I don't argue with you there, I am comfortably oblivious to the technical difficulties of most of the features that I request. Thank you for your time in responding to these issues.

That said, even just being able to export post-game data would be helpful, because it would eliminate the current tedium of having to go to each unit in game and recording casualties, kills, etc.