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

[Zepheris]

u know i am actually quite content with the mouse menu in previous titles... i don't understand why it has been removed in favor of this... UI.

i am looking forward to 1.03, but at the same time i am quite worried... 1.03 is going to make or break the game at least to me.

[Charlie901]

No wonder this game is getting an average score of <60% in all the reviews. Maybe the reviewers just don't "Get it".

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by 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!

Well, almost. There are things missing.

For example, the current customization scheme does not allow you to assign a single key to e.g. the "fast move" (my favorite ) command. No matter which keys you use, you still have to go through the sub-selection.

I don't have too much of a problem with it (and as I said the UI pretty much works for me in general), but this is very unusual and I can easily see how people coming from other games (including CMx1) are unsatisfied. It mixes particularly badly with real-time play.

I would prefer

</font>

• Optional assignment to true game functions, not UI functions (that means, a direct binding to e.g. "fast move").</font>
• Being able to use all keys, including additional mouse buttons (I have 7), caps lock etc.</font>
• being able to use the Control, Alt and Winblows modifiers</font>

[SlowMotion]

Redwolf:

"the current customization scheme does not allow you to assign a single key to e.g. the "fast move""

from my hotkeys.txt

// These will issue the designated command no matter what command panel is currently displayed

<E>F // move fast

<E>I // move quick

<E>M // move normal

[Redwolf]

Oops. I guess I should have stayed with the "not a problem for me" line.

[Huntarr]

LOL, Redwolf. At least your able to acknowledge when you have a faux pax. Some of the "peanut gallery" won't even do that much. :cool:

[Dirtweasle]

The hot keys still piss me off, (that and the manual having the wrong keys in the instructions), but I've posted on it a half dozen times... One more time with feeling?

I would appreciate it if the next patch doesn't change them again though.

[Battlefront.com]

Sardaukar,

CMSF has already patched twice..and BFC has always been good supporting their products. But, my perception was based on 1.02..and I don't even want to think how 1.00 was...

v1.03 is the one you want to check out.

My critics is not because I'd want CMSF to be like CM1-series. It's because they did throw away most things that made CM1-series so popular and great, basicly revolutionizing the turn-based combat. UI was good for that and you got reasonably good feedback what was happening.

From our perspective you are only looking at what is "missing" and not what has been added, so you are obviously finding the game overall lacking. Others are seeing what was added and aren't bothered as much by what is not there. It's very difficult for us to come out ahead when you have decided we are so far behind.

TacAI in CMSF is bad. It equals some games I rather not to mention... If one wants to model individual soldiers in battle, better dedicate lot of CPU cycles for it. How it is now...I'm appalled. Same with pathfinding...maybe they surprise me with patch 1.03..but they have looong way ahead. UI is very bad too, be it turn-based mode or RT. Why fix it if it's not broken for turn-based, for example ?

This discussion has already been had a couple dozen times so it's not worth anybody's time to repeat it. If you are interested you can use the Search function and find out why we changed what we changed. As for v1.03, it is a major improvement.

Been wargamer for 25 years and professional soldier and officer somewhat fewer years, I think I have some perspective to issue.

Sure, as do lots of other people. You've taken a negative view of the game system as a whole, others have not. There's not much I can do to change your mind if you've already made it up.

I know folks in BFC could made better than this...

We did, but you apparently aren't seeing it that way Not to say the game is perfect even with v1.03, but it's not the train wreck you apparently feel that it is. To you it might be, so if that is the way you wish to view it there isn't much I can do.

Sorry about venting..but I do feel really disappointed.

We knew we'd lose CMx1 customers as far back as 2002/2003 when we decided on the basic structure of CMx1. I would like to think you're not one of them, however it is not for me to decide only for you.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Charlie901,

No wonder this game is getting an average score of <60% in all the reviews. Maybe the reviewers just don't "Get it".

To be fair to the reviewers, we were rightly slammed for the state of the build they saw (many got 1.0 when they should have received 1.01, which still had issues obviously). Regardless of the technical issues, however, some reviewers clearly "didn't get it". They wanted a different game than the one we made and they let that affect their review. It should not have, but whatever.

The main problem we had was the combo of reviewers who "didn't get it" and who had v1.0. That was a bad combo since even if they saw v1.03 they probably would have been negative, but with the bugs... not a good thing.

As I've said... we take the long view. We're not happy with the rocky start to CMx2, but we aren't disappointed either. It's a temporary thing and we're quickly working through it. At least for those who aren't predisposed to disliking the game itself. For those people, those who "don't get it", there is no hope. They are lost and we will move on without them. Perhaps some changes in the future will bring them back into the fold, but i doubt it if they fundamentally do not like the direction we took. Can't please everybody, so no point crying about it.

Steve

[Bahger]

To be fair to the reviewers, we were rightly slammed for the state of the build they saw (many got 1.0 when they should have received 1.01, which still had issues obviously). Regardless of the technical issues, however, some reviewers clearly "didn't get it". They wanted a different game than the one we made and they let that affect their review. It should not have, but whatever.

The main problem we had was the combo of reviewers who "didn't get it" and who had v1.0. That was a bad combo since even if they saw v1.03 they probably would have been negative, but with the bugs... not a good thing.

Oh come on, Steve, this is nothing but denial and evasion. You sound like George W. Bush when asked if he has made any mistakes.

I'm going to give CMSF another shot with 1.03 but you cannot go unchallenged with this guff re. bad reviews being about reviewers who "didn't get" the game. Quite obviously, this kind of stubborn, defensive insularity is partly responsible for the lamentable state of the product at the moment.

Look, you got bad reviews (and, I regret to say, you deserved them) because:

- The game was unfinished

When will you understand that it doesn't matter which version the critics played? 1.00 and 1.01 were both critically sub-par for a "finished" retail product.

- Advertised features were not implemented.

- Preordered hard goods have still not shipped for many people, a month after the game's release date.

- The quality of both pathfinding and tacAI were, and still are, absolutely dismal.

This is not a matter of opinion. It's a fact. The only variable is the extent to which the player is prepared to work around it. Those with a greater level of tolerance for this are likely to enjoy the game more. That fact doesn't mean BFC does not deserve all the criticism it's been getting for terrible tacAI and pathfinding.

Please don't call me out for arrogance again because this is "only my opinion". It's essentially a slightly evolved version of schoolyard rhetoric ("Yeah? Says who?") and I think you are too smart to hide behind this kind of defensive bluster. Of course it's only my opinion; but it is an educated opinion, shared by many and I think it may even be the consensus.

The truth is that, with tacAI and pathfinding in the state they are, the game, like many of the reviewers have correctly claimed, cannot be taken seriously. What can you possibly expect when you release a game in which vehicles charge into the enemy FLOT, uncommanded, and/or target a group of infantry a hundred yards away when a T-72 is attacking at fifty yards?

Seriously, I think BFC is a valuable independent component of an otherwise corporatized game-design landscape, and I realise that too much negative buzz will have a greater impact on you guys than on a big company that can roll with the punches. However, BFC screwed the pooch in a very big way with this product: you made some bad design decisions, put way too much faith in the capabilities of your tacAI, your laudable desire to eliminate certain abstractions did not enhance gameplay sufficiently, advertised features were not implemented, the game was broken on release, and a combination of all the above with a clunky GUI, hobbled WEGO and feature-stripped QBs merely offers a big fat morsel to the critics.

None of the above has anything to do with expectations on my part that everything in CM1 would find its way into CM2. I didn't have any such expectations but how can you be surprised when, having released CMSF in its present state, many if not most CM vets accuse you of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? If the game worked on its own terms there would be no such criticism.

Most of the negative points made in the reviews are fully justified from a consumer standpoint and not a function of "not getting it". Again, that argument is both an evasion and a form of head-in-the-sand denial. The game is every bit as flawed as these reviewers point out and the Tom vs Bruce piece was, sadly, right on the money, too. These people do not wish you any harm; it's merely their job to point out the failings of your product and you served up a rich feast. We trust you guys to do your very best to fix it; but please do not insult our intelligence by telling us that it isn't broke or the critics "don't get it". They do. The only difference is that they didn't pay $70 for it. I did, and I'm sticking with it. But I'd be happier if you admitted to having made mistakes instead of merely telling us to "stay the course"; I've heard that before.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Hey Bahger, selective quoting sucks. I find the following pretty clear.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As I've said... we take the long view. We're not happy with the rocky start to CMx2, but we aren't disappointed either. It's a temporary thing and we're quickly working through it. At least for those who aren't predisposed to disliking the game itself. For those people, those who "don't get it", there is no hope. They are lost and we will move on without them. Perhaps some changes in the future will bring them back into the fold, but i doubt it if they fundamentally do not like the direction we took. Can't please everybody, so no point crying about it.

Steve

Not much denial and evasion. What more would you require BFC to do at this point? Knock on your door with a pair of hookers in tow for you to have some fun with?

[Bahger]

I'll tell you exactly, Elmar, using the quote you supply:

At least for those who aren't predisposed to disliking the game itself. For those people, those who "don't get it", there is no hope.

The vast majority of those who feel let down by the game are neither "predisposed to disliking the game" nor do they not "get it". The former implies bias, the latter stupidity. Most of the negative comment comes from those with legitimate grievances that are mistakenly dismissed by Steve as "a matter of opinion". I'm saying that the game is broken and that is a matter of fact.

Having said that, I follow your contributions to this board closely and find your input to be really valuable and it's not my intention to irritate either of you, okay? I'm just making a case here according to the way I see the facts.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by Bahger:

I'll tell you exactly, Elmar, using the quote you supply:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />At least for those who aren't predisposed to disliking the game itself. For those people, those who "don't get it", there is no hope.

The vast majority of those who feel let down by the game are neither "predisposed to disliking the game" nor do they not "get it". The former implies bias, the latter stupidity. Most of the negative comment comes from those with legitimate grievances that are mistakenly dismissed by Steve as "a matter of opinion". I'm saying that the game is broken and that is a matter of fact.

Having said that, I follow your contributions to this board closely and find your input to be really valuable and it's not my intention to irritate either of you, okay? I'm just making a case here according to the way I see the facts. </font>

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Forgot to add that I, obviously, am aware of some aspects of CMSF that are broken. It's kinda hard to be a tester and not be aware of this.

But I do not believe that the game at its core and fundament, is broken. It is not beyond repair. I believe in CMSF. Not the CMSF of the past perhaps, but the CMSF of the future. Yet some on this forum will take every little (or big) flaw and point at the concept/subject/blue bar as being at fault and that only a complete change of course can save it. This is what I take issue with.

Go ahead and kick BFC in the nutsack for the early release, subject, daft bug or whatever. Be cruel if yo feel you must, but be fair too.

[thewood]

What I am puzzled about is that more people are compaining about design decisions than the early release. To me, the early release is more troubling than the design concept. It really seems to go directly against BFC's core message about being an "indy" and being ready when its ready. It also makes it difficult for some people to seperate the bugs from the design. My vote is still out on some design things because I can't tell if they are actually working or not.

Design decisions and bugs can be changed and corrected, but cred is hard to get.

[B00M$LANG]

It's a GAME...designed to ENTERTAIN.

Personally, I get a HELL of a LOT of fun out of this game, and games and modern warfare are my job. I've been burned out on RTS's for years, and CM:SF has rekindled my desire to see more try and do it right.

Is CM: SF perfect? OF COURSE NOT! Is Windows XP perfect? How long has IT been out?! How many times has anything EA ever made been patched? SF is, by far, THE standard for 3D modern warfare RTS's.

Come on, people...lighten-up, get a life, learn your modern warfare tactics and enjoy the game...or go back to surfing porn.

But most of all, for those of you who are so wrapped-up in the intricacies of what SF does right v. what it does wrong, ease-up and get some perspective.

IT'S A GAME! I've spent far more money on far worse products, even over the last 6 months. This happens to be the best $45 I've spent on a game in quite awhile.

[ August 28, 2007, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: B00M$LANG ]

[Battlefront.com]

Bahger,

Oh come on, Steve, this is nothing but denial and evasion. You sound like George W. Bush when asked if he has made any mistakes.

To continue with the analogy, your ability to suss out facts is about as good as the NYT doing a story on Iraq's WMD program I've not dodged, evaded, or been in denial about anything.

I'm going to give CMSF another shot with 1.03 but you cannot go unchallenged with this guff re. bad reviews being about reviewers who "didn't get" the game. Quite obviously, this kind of stubborn, defensive insularity is partly responsible for the lamentable state of the product at the moment.

No, it is the fact that you're reading comprehension isn't so good. You read something I've tagged to a SPECIFIC issue and you misapply it to a totally different issue. Elmar was already good enough to point out the fact that you're offbase, but here are some more things:

Look, you got bad reviews (and, I regret to say, you deserved them) because:

- The game was unfinished

Yup, and I've already said we deserve the punishment for that. More than once.

When will you understand that it doesn't matter which version the critics played? 1.00 and 1.01 were both critically sub-par for a "finished" retail product.

It does matter in that some of the things complained about in v1.0 were fixed in v1.01. Some of the issues they brought up weren't accurate, either. However, it is true that some issues in v1.0 and v1.01 (to some extent v1.02) are still present, so on that count you're correct.

- Advertised features were not implemented.

This is a new one! What advertised features were not implemented? I can't think of a single one that WE said would be in the game that isn't in the game. I can think of loads of stuff people assumed would be in the game that aren't. Different thing.

- Preordered hard goods have still not shipped for many people, a month after the game's release date.

Everything is shipped but we got boned by one of our suppliers so things shipped 2 weeks late. I'm not sure what that has to do with the state of the game, other than you trying to bring the kitchen sink into the discussion.

- The quality of both pathfinding and tacAI were, and still are, absolutely dismal.

Uhm... wouldn't this go in the "unfinished" category that you already raised? We've not dodged any of these issues, in any case. Most are addressed in v1.03.

This is not a matter of opinion. It's a fact. The only variable is the extent to which the player is prepared to work around it. Those with a greater level of tolerance for this are likely to enjoy the game more. That fact doesn't mean BFC does not deserve all the criticism it's been getting for terrible tacAI and pathfinding.

Right, which is why I've not disagreed with any of that criticism. If you can find me one quote where I said that these things are all in people's imagination, I'll give you a free copy of anything we sell. And I do NOT mean taking something out of context (again).

Please don't call me out for arrogance again because this is "only my opinion".

Yeah, but you're so far off base there has to be SOMETHING I can call you. You don't like "arrogant" how about something else? Oh, like "horribly misinformed"?

Of course it's only my opinion; but it is an educated opinion, shared by many and I think it may even be the consensus.

Excepting that you have shown you aren't very educated, it is your opinion. No problem there. But here we have a problem...

The truth is that, with tacAI and pathfinding in the state they are, the game, like many of the reviewers have correctly claimed, cannot be taken seriously.

Zip... right from "this is my opinion" to "my opinion is the only opinion". Hmm... can I call you arrogant now, or would that still ruffle your feathers too much?

Seriously, I think BFC is a valuable independent component of an otherwise corporatized game-design landscape, and I realise that too much negative buzz will have a greater impact on you guys than on a big company that can roll with the punches. However, BFC screwed the pooch in a very big way with this product: you made some bad design decisions, put way too much faith in the capabilities of your tacAI, your laudable desire to eliminate certain abstractions did not enhance gameplay sufficiently, advertised features were not implemented, the game was broken on release, and a combination of all the above with a clunky GUI, hobbled WEGO and feature-stripped QBs merely offers a big fat morsel to the critics.

A mixture of things that I agree with, disagree with, and can prove to be factually incorrect. But still, it's your opinion, for whatever its worth.

None of the above has anything to do with expectations on my part that everything in CM1 would find its way into CM2. I didn't have any such expectations but how can you be surprised when, having released CMSF in its present state, many if not most CM vets accuse you of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? If the game worked on its own terms there would be no such criticism.

Again, more confusion between what an opinion is and facts. You're voicing an opinion here, nothing more.

Most of the negative points made in the reviews are fully justified from a consumer standpoint and not a function of "not getting it". Again, that argument is both an evasion and a form of head-in-the-sand denial.

In your opinion In my opinion I see people that have gone ballistic and can't understand how anybody can see anything positive in CM:SF. I'm not talking about the obvious bugs and rough edges, I'm talking about the game itself. You're one of them because you say things like this:

your laudable desire to eliminate certain abstractions did not enhance gameplay sufficiently

The people that "get it" hold the opposite opinion. So by definition you "don't get it".

The game is every bit as flawed as these reviewers point out and the Tom vs Bruce piece was, sadly, right on the money, too.

In your opinion

These people do not wish you any harm; it's merely their job to point out the failings of your product and you served up a rich feast.

True to some extent.

I did, and I'm sticking with it. But I'd be happier if you admitted to having made mistakes instead of merely telling us to "stay the course"; I've heard that before.

Not from me. Not in this thread and not in any other thread. I can't help it if you aren't able to correctly read what I write.

Steve

[ August 28, 2007, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Elmar,

I wonder if people are at times aware how incredibly rare it is for developers to be this involved on the forum. And what's more, so brutally honest. Some people get offended by this honesty, I find it refreshing and informative. But it does result in them telling some people that wish to be the core customer of BFC that they aren't. It's this people don't want to hear. And this is why they get lambasted for "not listening" and "arrogance". They aren't telling some customers what they want to hear. And I happen to think BFC is doing a good thing in being so honest, no matter what hopes and dreams they crush.

This is the crux of the problem with quite a number of complainers, such as Bahger. He accuses me of dodging and dishonesty, yet I've done exactly the opposite. The problem is he didn't like my answers

Go ahead and kick BFC in the nutsack for the early release, subject, daft bug or whatever. Be cruel if yo feel you must, but be fair too.

First, it is my nutsack and you aren't allowed to authorize someone to kick me in it. I know you Dutch are into all that S&M stuff, but I'm from New England and we don't discuss such matters in public.

I don't mind taking the criticism, though. I do mind people grossly mischaracterizing my positions and attitude, however understandable the underlying reasons for it are. Bahger is bummed about the state of the game. Got it. We'll do what we can to fix it. Getting nasty about it is counter productive.

Boom$lang,

I've been burned out on RTS's for years, and CM:SF has rekindled my desire to see more try and do it right.

Don't you know you're wrong? You're not only supposed to dislike the game in its current state, you are supposed to hate the RealTime feature because it is useless. Well, according to some, anyway

Come on, people...lighten-up, get a life, learn your modern warfare tactics and enjoy the game...or go back to surfing porn.

First part I agree with, second part I don't. Without Porn there would be no Internet

Steve

[MeatEtr]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I'll give you a free copy of anything we sell.

Steve

Ok, Steve, this is very generous of you, but I know I'm one of BFCs favorite customers. Surely this offer is only for me, since I am so special. But I really appeciate this. So without further ado, I'll get to my list.

I'll take one of everything you sell please. Yup, even the books and posters. Thanks again, you guys rock!

[Battlefront.com]

Hehe... well, if someone is going to cut and paste things out of context, might as well try to maximize the gain from it, eh?

Steve

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You're not only supposed to dislike the game in its current state, you are supposed to hate the RealTime feature because it is useless. Well, according to some, anyway

Ive seen you harping about this many times now, but I still have no idea where your getting it from. Nowhere have I seen anyone saying that RT should be removed and WEGO be the only option.

What I *have* seen is people that want WEGO implemented with TCP/IP. Or people that feel that the core game design (UI etc) is designed with RT in mind, not WEGO.

To me your repeated comments about this seems like your fighting an imaginary enemy and you like to tell everybody about it. For whatever reason, I do not know.

[Charlie901]

Originally posted by Bahger:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />To be fair to the reviewers, we were rightly slammed for the state of the build they saw (many got 1.0 when they should have received 1.01, which still had issues obviously). Regardless of the technical issues, however, some reviewers clearly "didn't get it". They wanted a different game than the one we made and they let that affect their review. It should not have, but whatever.

The main problem we had was the combo of reviewers who "didn't get it" and who had v1.0. That was a bad combo since even if they saw v1.03 they probably would have been negative, but with the bugs... not a good thing.

Oh come on, Steve, this is nothing but denial and evasion. You sound like George W. Bush when asked if he has made any mistakes.

I'm going to give CMSF another shot with 1.03 but you cannot go unchallenged with this guff re. bad reviews being about reviewers who "didn't get" the game. Quite obviously, this kind of stubborn, defensive insularity is partly responsible for the lamentable state of the product at the moment.

Look, you got bad reviews (and, I regret to say, you deserved them) because:

- The game was unfinished

When will you understand that it doesn't matter which version the critics played? 1.00 and 1.01 were both critically sub-par for a "finished" retail product.

- Advertised features were not implemented.

- Preordered hard goods have still not shipped for many people, a month after the game's release date.

- The quality of both pathfinding and tacAI were, and still are, absolutely dismal.

This is not a matter of opinion. It's a fact. The only variable is the extent to which the player is prepared to work around it. Those with a greater level of tolerance for this are likely to enjoy the game more. That fact doesn't mean BFC does not deserve all the criticism it's been getting for terrible tacAI and pathfinding.

Please don't call me out for arrogance again because this is "only my opinion". It's essentially a slightly evolved version of schoolyard rhetoric ("Yeah? Says who?") and I think you are too smart to hide behind this kind of defensive bluster. Of course it's only my opinion; but it is an educated opinion, shared by many and I think it may even be the consensus.

The truth is that, with tacAI and pathfinding in the state they are, the game, like many of the reviewers have correctly claimed, cannot be taken seriously. What can you possibly expect when you release a game in which vehicles charge into the enemy FLOT, uncommanded, and/or target a group of infantry a hundred yards away when a T-72 is attacking at fifty yards?

Seriously, I think BFC is a valuable independent component of an otherwise corporatized game-design landscape, and I realise that too much negative buzz will have a greater impact on you guys than on a big company that can roll with the punches. However, BFC screwed the pooch in a very big way with this product: you made some bad design decisions, put way too much faith in the capabilities of your tacAI, your laudable desire to eliminate certain abstractions did not enhance gameplay sufficiently, advertised features were not implemented, the game was broken on release, and a combination of all the above with a clunky GUI, hobbled WEGO and feature-stripped QBs merely offers a big fat morsel to the critics.

None of the above has anything to do with expectations on my part that everything in CM1 would find its way into CM2. I didn't have any such expectations but how can you be surprised when, having released CMSF in its present state, many if not most CM vets accuse you of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? If the game worked on its own terms there would be no such criticism.

Most of the negative points made in the reviews are fully justified from a consumer standpoint and not a function of "not getting it". Again, that argument is both an evasion and a form of head-in-the-sand denial. The game is every bit as flawed as these reviewers point out and the Tom vs Bruce piece was, sadly, right on the money, too. These people do not wish you any harm; it's merely their job to point out the failings of your product and you served up a rich feast. We trust you guys to do your very best to fix it; but please do not insult our intelligence by telling us that it isn't broke or the critics "don't get it". They do. The only difference is that they didn't pay $70 for it. I did, and I'm sticking with it. But I'd be happier if you admitted to having made mistakes instead of merely telling us to "stay the course"; I've heard that before. </font>

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by Charlie901:

Greatly articulated post here and my sediments exactly.

Your sediments appear to have sunk to the bottom.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Melnibone:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Charlie901:

Greatly articulated post here and my sediments exactly.

Your sediments appear to have sunk to the bottom. </font>

[Statisoris]

Funny Stuff about the sediments, especially since I'm a geologist. I'll have to say that as a corny joke at work.

I would also like to add that I really thought that post by Bahger was was overly arrogant, harsh and filled with baseless assumptions. Why do you blame BF so much for releasing the game in its current state, they HAD to by contract. Why are you rubbing how crappy the game is in their face? has their post-release support for the game been sub-par in any way? If not, why throw around so many negative vibes. be cool :cool: