Here is how bad the movement code actually is, and it's not just "pathfinding"

[J Ruddy]

Bugs... gawd how I hates bugs... finding bugs... fixing bugs... convincing someone something is a bug... I used to come here for a break from my job but it's as bad (or worse) than work here... bloody bugs...

<font size = 20 color = red>BUGS!!!</font>

I found another bug. I can't bring up the screen that lets me select the WWII based equipment and setting...

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Becket:

Indeed. When I read the original post from Redwolf, the first thought I had was that the thread would have been so much more productive - and less flamey overall - if it hadn't been inspired by a Sisyphean desire to win an internet argument and score some e-cred.

Nah, it's just the way it is.

You see none of what I reported is anywhere close to new. There's a ton of threads earlier that included it.

The difference, however, is that the "whatever is in the game is in real life" crowd can too easily shoot down these arguments with a "it's not there in version xxx (claim made up on the fly); it's not there in non-fast (claim made up on the fly); it's not there with more waypoints (claim made up on the fly)".

If you want to get through this forum red tape you have to go pretty straight and start with a good chunk of kinetic energy.

Also, I have learned my lesson that what I consider showstoppers needs to be reported (and reported in naysayer-proof ways) at the right time. The right time is right after initial release technical bugs gets sorted out and while gameplay issues are getting addressed. Once this window of opportunity passes it will not return.

[Becket]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

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

Indeed. When I read the original post from Redwolf, the first thought I had was that the thread would have been so much more productive - and less flamey overall - if it hadn't been inspired by a Sisyphean desire to win an internet argument and score some e-cred.

Nah, it's just the way it is.

You see none of what I reported is anywhere close to new. There's a ton of threads earlier that included it.

The difference, however, is that the "whatever is in the game is in real life" crowd can too easily shoot down these arguments with a "it's not there in version xxx (claim made up on the fly); it's not there in non-fast (claim made up on the fly); it's not there with more waypoints (claim made up on the fly)".

If you want to get through this forum red tape you have to go pretty straight and start with a good chunk of kinetic energy.

Also, I have learned my lesson that what I consider showstoppers needs to be reported (and reported in naysayer-proof ways) at the right time. The right time is right after initial release technical bugs gets sorted out and while gameplay issues are getting addressed. Once this window of opportunity passes it will not return. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

If you want to get through this forum red tape you have to go pretty straight and start with a good chunk of kinetic energy.

Well, really it only matters what we think since we are the ones that look into something and have the power to fix it. As it was these things were identified and isolated during v1.02 testing and were in fact fixed for v1.03 before you posted.

I will also remind you that sometimes your kinetic energy has been there, but your aim was not Can't think of the specific incidents off the top of my head, but I do recall more than one time when you put in a lot of energy, and a LOT of resistance to reexamination, only to find out that you were either completely wrong or mostly wrong. Just pointing out that you can be as stubborn and closed off to reexamination as anybody else.

And yes, the time to raise issues is while there is active support is the correct time to do it. As you say, years after the game is out the window is closed. The difference between us and most developers is our window for fixing things is open far longer and wider.

Steve

[ August 27, 2007, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

J Ruddy,

I found another bug. I can't bring up the screen that lets me select the WWII based equipment and setting...

Oh, it's there. We're just not telling anybody in the Peng Thread how to access it, and everybody else is being kind enough to play along with us at your expense. Muh-ha-ha-ha!

Steve

[Becket]

Do you guys have enough data about the bug in Quick Battles where units are placed outside of their setup zones?

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

GaJ,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But given the apparent lack of like-minded people, well... I'll drop it for another year or so

I've marked it in my calendar

Steve </font>

[Letsbe Ave.]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

I've just never seen someone in a customer-facing role so relucant to say "thanks" before!

He was speechless at the incredible ability to report a problem?

Did you ever see any gratitude from Microsoft when you reported a problem? No, prolly not, since they don't even have a way for you to supply an email address when web-filing a report.

However, I'm sure I speak on behalf of the world and his wife, when I say 'thank you' from the bottom of my heart for doing such a splendid job of discovering and documenting a problem.

Words cannot express our collective gratitude and admiration of the monumental size of your abilities of reporting a problem, and not letting go, no matter who replies that 'we've heard it, found it, fixed, ta', or how many people pile on, agreeing with you.

Your collective perseverance in reporting this problem so many times in one thread is commendable. Thank you so much. Thanks. Thank you. Please may we have another?

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by Becket:

Do you guys have enough data about the bug in Quick Battles where units are placed outside of their setup zones?

Is that the one that's caused by not having a setup area for the AI plan(s) painted (which is not a bug so much as a needed QA check on the published QBs) or something else entirely?

I'm not referring to creating the "Setup Zone", but actually painting in the setup area for the AI's plan(s).

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Redwolf,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If you want to get through this forum red tape you have to go pretty straight and start with a good chunk of kinetic energy.

Well, really it only matters what we think since we are the ones that look into something and have the power to fix it. As it was these things were identified and isolated during v1.02 testing and were in fact fixed for v1.03 before you posted.

I will also remind you that sometimes your kinetic energy has been there, but your aim was not Can't think of the specific incidents off the top of my head, but I do recall more than one time when you put in a lot of energy, and a LOT of resistance to reexamination, only to find out that you were either completely wrong or mostly wrong. Just pointing out that you can be as stubborn and closed off to reexamination as anybody else.

</font>

[mitchell58]

thank you,,gracias,thank you,,gracias,thank you,,gracias,thank you,,gracias,thank you,,gracias,thank you,,gracias,thank you,,gracias,

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the thanks

Becket, there will be "modest" improvements to the deployment problem when the Setup Zone is too small for the number of forces being plunked into it. However, we want to get v1.03 out the door ASAP so it is likely to still be a problem sometimes. We're going to tackle some QB stuff specifically for v1.04.

Redwolf... ah the ISU-152 thread... that's the one I was thinking of in particular I remember that ISU-152 getting killed and confirming that it was wise to back up. It was well within the active support time, otherwise I wouldn't have run through the thing and had Charles involved in making sure everything was OK. Since the behavior was what it should have been, we kept it as it was. Deliberately. However, I do remember that there was a completely unrelated bug that somehow came into play. I can't remember what that was but we fixed it.

I don't have any recollection of the auto-sneak-exhaustion thing.

Steve

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Redwolf... ah the ISU-152 thread... that's the one I was thinking of in particular I remember that ISU-152 getting killed and confirming that it was wise to back up. It was well within the active support time, otherwise I wouldn't have run through the thing and had Charles involved in making sure everything was OK. Since the behavior was what it should have been, we kept it as it was. Deliberately. However, I do remember that there was a completely unrelated bug that somehow came into play. I can't remember what that was but we fixed it.

See? It would have been fine - if it had been as SU-152, or if it had been killed or if it was was in danger of being killed. In the event it was none of that.

It was a standing ISU-122 (long gun), hull down, having a Pz IV coming into sight directly in front of the ISU's gun, and the Pz IV was precisely moving horizontally (perfect side shot for the ISU) and not hull down. The only reason why the ISU didn't kill it is that the ISU backed up before taking the first shot and thereby ruined it's own hit chance.

And luckily I still have the PBEM to show, otherwise selective memory would probably go on a rampage.

[GreenAsJade]

Did you ever see any gratitude from Microsoft when you reported a problem? No, prolly not, since they don't even have a way for you to supply an email address when web-filing a report.

*shrug*

Who likes or supports Microsoft more than they have to?

When people take the time to help me improve my software - either hobby or professionally - I take the time to thank them for it. It tends to result in a positive cycle.

Shame BFC miss out on that.

GaJ

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

And luckily I still have the PBEM to show, otherwise selective memory would probably go on a rampage.

The thread itself is a better record. We looked into the "problem", we found you to be wrong, we didn't change what you wanted us to change on purpose. I don't think there is anything wrong with my memory there.

GaJ,

When people take the time to help me improve my software - either hobby or professionally - I take the time to thank them for it. It tends to result in a positive cycle.

Not if the other side doesn't want it to be, as exhibited by you continuing to focus on the bee in your bonnet. Oh... OK... I'll give you what you want...

GreenAsJade, thanks for being a continual pain in the ass in this thread. Happy now?

Steve

[JasonC]

Just to toss in my two cents so people know how they look, just going on this thread I'd trust Redwolf on any engineering job, I'd leave a deposit with him, I'd rely on his say-so about any observation you please, I'd happily and constructively discuss any technical matter with him and would freely leave important issues in his care. On the strength of his behavior on this thread, I wouldn't lend Steve 20 bucks. (Not that he is asking I wouldn't let him give me 20 bucks. Wouldn't be worth the expected "spun" grief.

Love your games, guys, and I've no doubt my own "people skills" and abrasive debating style are not anything you'd care to emulate, so I'm one to talk. But the ungracious, thin-skinned way you spin and lawyer constructive feedback sometimes, would be breaktaking if we weren't all so used to it. In the meantime, my hat's off to Redwolf for his cool and his objectivity. One man's opinion.

[Battlefront.com]

And I send the love right back at you JasonC

Steve

[Janster]

Hm

I remember this too..I had a hill with 2x SU 122 and 2x SU 152...

Upon seeing a column of PZIV, they retreated...down the hill towards the enemy ...got shot and ended up burning against some houses...

It was very funny.

Also, the words that include 'thanks' are to be used after we see 1.03 imho.

Janster

[NoxSpartana]

And THIS is why I've shelved CMSF for now, along with the utterly stupid AI (both TacAI and enemy StratAI), and pretty bad UI.

[Sardaukar]

I gave quite extensive play to my buddy's CMSF last weekend..and I found the state of pathfinding and TacAI appalling.

I do thank BigTimeSoftware/Battlefront for producing great games that I have enjoyed years and years. Value for my money has been very good.

State of the CMSF seems to be pre-beta to me, compared to other BFC releases. If trying to model individual soldiers, TacAI needs to be multitude better, ditto with pathfinding.

And I wonder how the hell they came to conclusion to use UI like this ? Totally remapped hotkeys (great idea...) and there is no real shorcut to get fast commands out until you memorize new hotkeys. Is that to increase the chaos of battle by forcing player to not be able to input orders ?

Has the hubris from previous games gotten into BFC ? Because otherwise I cannot understand why things are like this, after years of very good quality.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

And I wonder how the hell they came to conclusion to use UI like this ? Totally remapped hotkeys (great idea...) and there is no real shorcut to get fast commands out until you memorize new hotkeys. Is that to increase the chaos of battle by forcing player to not be able to input orders?

You can assign your own hotkeys with patch 1.02 by editing a text file as described in the readme file.

That does not justify the original concept in any way, but makes it possible to overcome the problems in a few minutes.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

State of the CMSF seems to be pre-beta to me, compared to other BFC releases.

BFC was forced to release CMSF prematurely, and already told us so, so your judgement is correct. It is not up to me to judge whether this is a clever act on behalf of the publisher, or BFC, but it is their risk and their decision. Surely, clever minds have weighted the advantages and disadvantages?!?

However, in the absence of any comparable product I suggest we sit out the patches and see what comes out in the end.

Personally, I already had enough fun with the game as it is. You learn to adapt your orders to the pathfinding weaknesses pretty fast.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

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

State of the CMSF seems to be pre-beta to me, compared to other BFC releases.

BFC was forced to release CMSF prematurely, and already told us so, so your judgement is correct. It is not up to me to judge whether this is a clever act on behalf of the publisher, or BFC, but it is their risk and their decision. Surely, clever minds have weighted the advantages and disadvantages?!?

However, in the absence of any comparable product I suggest we sit out the patches and see what comes out in the end.

Personally, I already had enough fun with the game as it is. You learn to adapt your orders to the pathfinding weaknesses pretty fast.

Best regards,

Thomm </font>

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

If you have to issue orders without given time to think first, due to bad UI, that makes bad wargame.

You can assign your own hotkeys with patch 1.02 by editing a text file as described in the readme file.

That does not justify the original concept in any way, but makes it possible to overcome the problems in a few minutes.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Huntarr]

Rollstory, I think you almost got it. One more time for the back of the peanut gallery? Yeah the hotkey's were fixed already; I'm not sure why anyone is complaining about them anymore. How is BFC supposed to actually read the minds of every single player of this game and then configure the hotkey layout it fit his/her "perfect" set?......Oh I know let them lay it out for themselves. Brilliant!