The funny thing is that just about everything in CMx2 was requested by CMx1 players.

[sandy]

The funny thing is that just about everything in CMx2 was requested by CMx1 players.

Above is a Quote by Steve

!!!

- This replaces everything I could say...but feel I should not...

[flamingknives]

He's not wrong, but one could also say that everything in CM:SF was campaigned against by CMX1 players and be equally correct.

[dynaman200]

Rule #1 in software development, the customer never really tells the truth when telling what they want.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[sandy]

He's not wrong...???

Now I have to say something more:

"The funny thing is that just about everything in CMx2 was requested by CMx1 players."

Above a quote by Steve in another thread today...

Like no QBs?

Like no unit selection??

Like worse AI than CM1???

Like LOS via 8m "action spots"????

Like no WW2?????

etc, etc

Sorry - I know this post adds next to nothing to the canon of anguish and disappointment created by CMSF among CM1 historical gamers, but THAT QUOTE is sooo unbelievable, it took my breath away!

[Dennis50]

Rule #2 in software development, what can we get away with and what can we not get away with.

Regards,

Gunz

[Redwolf]

There were plenty people who didn't want to go down in scale and didn't mind three-people graphics squads.

There's just no commercial future in whole-theater games with non-flashy graphics.

[MikeyD]

In an ideal world that's been magically skewed to BFC's benefit we'd see the old CMx1 crowd disappear in a puff of smoke and a fresh crops of users would show up with no inflated expectations or wish lists years in the making. How many prosepective players visiting the board were scared away by the invective directed at BFC because the 'blue bar' was no longer a feature of the game?! The guys at BFC *might* like us, and they *might* appreciate our continued patronage, but that doesn't mean we're not a net liability.

[flamingknives]

No, Sandy, he is not wrong. Every single feature or lack thereof in CM:SF was asked for by CMX1 players. Every single one.

The concept could be described as equivocation, if you were being uncharitable, but it is still not a direct lie or untruth. Don't confuse "CMX1 players" with either "all CMX1 playes" or "Me"

Certainly many CMX1 players (myself included) asked for more detailed terrain. As a direct result we get 8m action spots and greater difficulties in getting the AI to function as well as CMX1, even though it is probably more powerful.

We all (nearly all) wanted rid of Borg spotting. We got that, along with the hit on spotting algorithms (action spots again) and AI again, plus many peculiar instances (what?! how did that tank not see that)

No WW2? Did you somehow miss Kip's and mine deranged rantings for a modern or near-modern setting for CMX2?

Unit selection - you could probably find plenty of complaints about cherry picking ahistorical vehicles

QBs - another function of the more detailed terrain.

[sandy]

I appreciate the desire for many, including you and Kip, to shift into modern times.

My comment on No WW2 was really a bit flippant, and probably should have been "No history"? - There are so many better choices which could have been made (Arab Israeli, Korea, Warsaw pact 60s, or 70's or 80s, etc) than the current US/Syrian fantasy turkey shoot...

More detailed terrain makes sense - but who would have really asked for it if they had appreciated the LOS and AI failings that appear to be the consequence, despite patching repeatedly.

Getting rid of the Borg was good - no problems there - but I do not understand why that should imply brain dead AI as a consequence?

Lack of unit selection - and QB deficiencies - are not compensated by improvements in gameplay that I can yet perceive; quite the opposite in fact.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[sandy]

What a constructive post Adam - perhaps you could also tell me that I don't get it?

Or maybe that my opinion does not matter.

Or that BF does not need customers.

Never mind.

No way is THAT QUOTE true - but having made this somewhat pointless point I shall now shut up...sometimes you post things better left unsaid, which appears to be nearly everything I think about CMSF.

I do actually agree with you that I probably should not have started another thread on CMSF, but that outrageous quote was so counterfactual I could not believe my eyes whn I read it this evening and was carried away. Goodbye.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Dennis50]

Perception is a funny thing!

Easy guys ..lets drop down and back off (lol).

Regards,

Gunz

[Mord]

Originally posted by sandy:

I appreciate the desire for many, including you and Kip, to shift into modern times.

My comment on No WW2 was really a bit flippant, and probably should have been "No history"? - There are so many better choices which could have been made (Arab Israeli, Korea, Warsaw pact 60s, or 70's or 80s, etc) than the current US/Syrian fantasy turkey shoot...

The fact that the new engine started in a modernest of modern settings is more apt to get you Korea/Nam/whatever quicker and easier than it would have if they had started in WWII and worked forward. This was stated many times during the early days of the announcement. Much easier to take the game engine backwards in warfare technology than to take it forwards. If you have a game engine designed solely around WWII tanks and armament how are you gonna add in game mechanics and equipment like they had in say, Nam? Or the 1980s? That was the main problem with CMX1 engine and the games were set during the same war. They had to break the game and re-fix it every time they wanted to add something new.

I know this game has problems. I've seen them, but despite them, I am still having fun. And I am glad, as I have said on numerous occasions that the growing pains/design problems are being hashed out in this setting...every problem identified and fixed means a much smoother transaction when we get to the Big One.

I think if we all keep our eyes open and report stuff as it comes up it's gonna get taken care of. They've done it before they'll do it again. Have some faith, and try adding to the discussion and solutions instead of instigating.

Mord.

[birdstrike]

here's more that was "never asked for" but made it into the game anyways:

mounted units can fire from vehicles

units can bail out/reman vehicles

tank crews bail out after getting hit, because they think their tank would blow up - only to realize it doesn't

buildings with doors and windows

breachable walls (now, if only we could pass through them... )

1:1 soldier representation

1:1 ammo tracking

vehicles as cover

no more morale/supression mix

a scenario editor

moddable graphics

less bogging

ability to get resupply from vehicles

medics

etc, etc

Agree that QBs are screwed, but "worse AI than CM1" - come on! Are we talking about the same "point a Tiger's lower back towards the enemy"; "cannot disembark vehicles"; "getting shot 1m before reaching cover and turning around to get killed on the 100m way back" AI? Don't be ridiculous.

[SlapHappy]

My personal 2 cents on the issue is that if BFC wanted to move away from WWII into something else and remain in a historical context they should have gone Arab-Israeli '67 or '73. Here's why:

1. As mentioned above, still a historical context. One of my first board war-gaming experiences was AH's Arab-Israeli Wars and it would have been fun to play some of those scenarios "digitally". This is not to suggest that hypothetical scenarios with realistic TOE's CANNOT be fun.

2. One of the over-riding advantages the Israeli's had was based on strategic events that heavily shifted the initiative to the IDF right from the outset (destruction of enemy air forces day one, etc.). Although some of that would have trickled down into the tactical level, I believe it would have been a better match-up vs. US-Syria circa 2009.

3. Would have been the first realistic 3-D game to take a stab at the conflict, so the uniqueness would be there after the recent barrage of WWII concept games.

4. Familiarity with those Middle East conflicts would have brought a good number of interested players even if that number is not nearly what a WWII title might garner.

5. The basic tenets of combined arms warfare are all present. This is especially important, I think.

[Battlefront.com]

Good post Birdstrike

The truth, and it is truth, that every major feature in CM:SF was requested. The ramifications of those requests may not have been. But since when do customers know how to build the products they use? It's like people demanding bigger, heavier vehicles with sportscar like handling and then are shocked that the gas milage goes down or that it costs more than something they bought 5 years ago.

The job of the designer, or in this case game developer, is to take what customers say they want, figure out what really adds value, determine how those things can work together, then see if they can make it happen. There are bugs in CM:SF, no doubts about it, and some of those bugs are the direct result of the game system being inherently more complex. These are tradeoffs that we feel were worth dealing with because long term the benefits outweigh the negatives.

What is also true is that not everything requested was put in. In fact, I'd say the majority of suggestions people made over the years were filtered out due to being impractical, detrimental, or just plain not worth the effort.

Finally, it is also true that we did not implement things that people wanted and/or expected. it is true that we did not ask for a couple thousand people to sign off on the design document. That's just the way it goes

As for the choice of theater... we have a genuine interest in contemporary warfare. So do a LOT of gamers out there. So we feel it was a great choice and we don't have any regrets about it at all. From a technical standpoint it was also a smart pick because the game engine is now set up for it and probably wouldn't have been if we started with WWII. It's a code structure thing, but basically it's a LOT easier to design a game around the most complex concept and then "dumb down" future versions than the other way around.

Lastly, what was the alternative? Re-release the CMx1 game engine with slightly better graphics but NO changes to the actual game? Sandy and others seem to think that was not only a viable choice for us but also one that they would have actually liked. In other words, it is easy to complain about what you have against something that doesn't exist. I don't know what you pictured CMx2 being like but my instinct tells me that if we had done it that way it would be the last game we ever made. Or it would look pretty much like CMx2 and have a nice, long future ahead of it

Steve

[panzermartin]

I really wonder, who was complaining about cherry picking of units? That, combined with the variable rarity gave CMBB/CMAK an endless lifespan. I mean, I must have played countless 2000pts meeting engagements on the same village/med hill/mid trees type map and each time was completely different due to the unpredictable force mix. And cherry picking alone wouldnt buy you a victory and could cut both ways if your 400pts KingTiger got immobile or destroyed from a lucky shot.

I'm all for bringing back the unrealistic cherry picking of units. What CMx2 needs is more game in it and less "real world" limitations.

[stoat]

Originally posted by panzermartin:

I really wonder, who was complaining about cherry picking of units? That, combined with the variable rarity gave CMBB/CMAK an endless lifespan.

The only complaints I have about cherry picking can be rectified by in-game mechanisms. The first complaint is about rare vehicles showing up too often in battles. This can be fixed with by setting rarity to standard. Almost all of the QB PBEMs I play feature StuG IIIs, Pz IVs, and Shermans. Cats don't bother to show up because they eat up way too much of a 2000 point allowance.

My second complaint is about cross-nationality bargain shopping. For example, at certain times you can take a French 105mm spotter to support an otherwise American force. Same ammo loadout, both with radios, same number of tubes, same quality, but the French unit costs 40 points less. I've also seen 6 lb'ers supporting Americans because of a relative cheapness to 57mm ATGs. This can of course be fixed by limiting the nationality in the QB setup.

The greatness of the QB system was that it allowed for a freewheeling, flying-circus-like, ecclectic mix of units while also allowing for more likely OoBs to line up against one another. Is CMx2 broken because of the absence of QBs? Not hardly. But QBs contributed immensely to the replayability of the CMx1 series. I'm sure that I've said nothing new, and that the user-purchase vs scenario edited OoB debate will go on for some time, as Combat Mission has always tread the line between a conflict's specific history and the users' more widespreads desires.

[C'Rogers]

In addition to the problems mentioned (why customers request things they don't like) is that on this forum we have thousands of people making requests. I never personally requested 1 to 1 detail, but a lot of people did. I personally do not find it a huge addition, a lot of people do.

The thing is the people who will make the most statements are those who are not happy. I never started a post saying "Quick battle point selections are awesome, even if unrealistic, they are a huge factor in my enjoyment of the game and should never go away." Why would I? I am happy with what is in it, until I am faced with the alternative I have no judge.

On the other hand if I didn't like the quick battle system I would certainly make mention "This game is so close to perfect, if only you could do something more realistic than a point selection."

I might even make a post like that every month.

Which in the net result means it is easy for those disgruntled with an aspect of the game to have their voice overrepresented, because they are the ones most likely to speak out.

Which is, as someone who really enjoys CM:SF despites some of my disagreements with their choices, what has happened on this forum I think. I am happy with the game, and thus less inclined to post telling people how much fun I am having, what good will that do? On the other hand if there is something I am dissatisfied with I probably would make mention in the slight hope that my "improvement" can make it into the game.

[Seanachai]

Oh, wait! I've got one! I don't think there was a single person playing CMx1 that said: Please abandon the Mac Platform!

They were probably thrown off by the fact that BFC had so repeatedly said they wouldn't abandon the Mac that they figured there was no point in even bringing it up.

[Battlefront.com]

panzermartin,

I really wonder, who was complaining about cherry picking of units?

Stoat did a good job showing that people DID complain about cherry picking, even if they didn't know it. They also complained, complained, and COMPLAINED some more about the point system. Many also didn't like the Rarity feature but still complained about always fighting guys who had King Tigers. So one possible solution was to simply ditch cherry picking. Fixed many complaints all at once, even though we knew it would cause some others.

We also had technical reasons to go the route we went, which must be kept in mind. We can't do everything for everybody in one game or we'd be working on it for another 10 years. Somethings have to give so that other things can be. Obviously it is debatable as to which tradeoffs were worth it for a particular person, no doubt about it. But tradeoffs must be made somewhere or we'd have about 14 years more of development before release

Stoat,

The only complaints I have about cherry picking can be rectified by in-game mechanisms.

In theory everything can be worked around. The questions are how much time do we devote to it and what are people willing to sacrifice? Obviously there is a huge range of responses to that. A person that didn't really like QBs in CMx1 is going to have a very different take on things compared to the guy that only played QBs.

The greatness of the QB system was that it allowed for a freewheeling, flying-circus-like, ecclectic mix of units while also allowing for more likely OoBs to line up against one another. Is CMx2 broken because of the absence of QBs? Not hardly. But QBs contributed immensely to the replayability of the CMx1 series. I'm sure that I've said nothing new, and that the user-purchase vs scenario edited OoB debate will go on for some time, as Combat Mission has always tread the line between a conflict's specific history and the users' more widespreads desires.

Agreed, however the differences in CM:SF between units and something like CMBB are night and day. The US forces have exactly one tank in 4 flavors, for example. Strykers either come with infantry or they don't, which is as they should be. So one has to wonder how much practical Cherry Picking there is to have in CM:SF even if the feature were in there now.

C'Rogers

In addition to the problems mentioned (why customers request things they don't like) is that on this forum we have thousands of people making requests. I never personally requested 1 to 1 detail, but a lot of people did. I personally do not find it a huge addition, a lot of people do.

Yup.

Which in the net result means it is easy for those disgruntled with an aspect of the game to have their voice overrepresented, because they are the ones most likely to speak out.

For sure, however it is up to us (as always) to balance those requests with others. Recent case in point is the v1.03 CM:SF patch that has improved graphics. How many people were saying we needed to improve the graphics? Few. How many people gushed all over the place when they saw the graphics changes? Vast numbers greater than the ones that asked for improvements. So it is true that the most vocal can perhaps represent nobody but themselves, but it is also true that sometimes they have hit a nail on the head that others have missed BUT will recognize instantly when they see things improved.

Which is, as someone who really enjoys CM:SF despites some of my disagreements with their choices, what has happened on this forum I think. I am happy with the game, and thus less inclined to post telling people how much fun I am having, what good will that do? On the other hand if there is something I am dissatisfied with I probably would make mention in the slight hope that my "improvement" can make it into the game.

Very true. It is why you have seen me stand my ground so firmly in spots because some people are arguing that anybody that likes this game "as is" shouldn't be allowed to play any wargame because they aren't worthy of such pleasure. Again, it is part of the process of figuring out what to listen to and what not to. We register the discontent with the state of the game when it shipped, but that doesn't mean we listen to people like Adam who suggest we should just chuck all the code and start from scratch. All feedback is valuable, but some of it registers so low that whatever specifics are communicated have no meaning to us. Instead, we say "yup, that person doesn't like the game. Nothing more to see here".

Seanachai,

Oh, wait! I've got one! I don't think there was a single person playing CMx1 that said: Please abandon the Mac Platform!

Thank Apple and Code Warrior for that

They were probably thrown off by the fact that BFC had so repeatedly said they wouldn't abandon the Mac that they figured there was no point in even bringing it up.

Not to worry, my cesspoolian friend, we have not abandoned the Mac. If you knew how badly Charles is jonesing to move the code over to the Mac you'd know that So don't think of "abandoned" just think of "delayed because we once again picked the wrong time to start coding". Damn Apple and their transitions (but not their products... new my Mac Book Pro with 10.4 ROCKS!).

Steve

[thelmia]

Hey, if you make a game you set the rules. If you put years of your life into it then you own it. I get to play it. If I don't like it I can play something else. Yes, the devs should take this into account if they want to make money.

The way I see it, my main job on the forum is to point out where the problems with the game are given the creative decisions made by the devs .

That means if something is standing in the way of the game they want to make, I should say so. I shouldn't fault them for not making my game. They should make the game the best possible game for what they want to do.

It's like book reviewers that criticize the author for not writing the book the reviewer wants to read!

[ September 06, 2007, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: thelmia ]

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Good post Birdstrike

The truth, and it is truth, that every major feature in CM:SF was requested. The ramifications of those requests may not have been. But since when do customers know how to build the products they use?

Oh, those stupid customers, there they go again, huh?

Adding features is important. Adding features that accomplish what they are supposed to accomplish, or that work at all, is also important. Dropping features that are popular and/or just plain useful is important too.

But since when do developers know how to build the products their customers want?

-dale