All the same fundamental flaws in all their glory.

[c3k]

Steve,

"It's only a game"???

You're obviously delusional. If you don't recognize what this release means to us by now, when will you?

Later,

Ken

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Sirocco,

Another vote for fundemental not meaning irredeemable. There's hostility here on both sides which isn't helpful in moving forward.

This is a problem with language. Words must be chosen carefully because they have meaning. If the meaning of words didn't matter, then we can use any word we want to describe anything we want. For example, I find your post very greenish with a tinge of space dust. See what I mean?

The issue is that "fundamental" implies that there is an inherent problem that is so serious that it affects everything else. The implication, in this context, is that "fundamental" is something that undermines the game as a whole in a seriously negative way. Perhaps irreparably. It is a strong word that is used to convey very strong opinion, but it is still an OPINION. Truppenfuhrung, for example, just posted that he doesn't find these things getting in the way of a positive game experience. He is no more wrong than the person is who says they can't play the game because of it.

A better term might be "significant distraction" or "significant issue". These are still opinions, which are held more or less by any particular individual, but it is a lot more "humble" a claim than using the term "fundamental". CM:SF has no fundamental problems other than it will never be able to simulate the real world battlefield with anything but a fraction of its realism. So on that score, when Adam said this I can agree with him:

As it stands, at 1.04, it is totally unrealistic and has fundamental design flaws which have NOT been improved or corrected.

But what good is a statement like this? From my point of view a statement like this is not only completely without rational merit (because it has no context), but it is also deliberately hostile and therefore deliberately hindering us moving forward in a positive way.

Steve

[ October 03, 2007, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

KNac,

Now play both battles in a similar and you will see which is the result. Flaws exist, but are NOT as bad as some want to belive.

The flaws aren't as bad, as you say, because not much is shown and everything in the game is designed to NOT show them. So it isn't so much that CMx1 is superior as a simulation, it is just superior at hiding stuff. CMx2 shows more and does more, therefore it is increasing the chances of seeing things that aren't necessarily realistic.

P.S: Shooting through terrain IS NOT happening *all the time*. Repporting issues is fine, doing it a negative retoric way is unnecessary.

Agreed. Shooting through terrain was far more common in earlier builds, so it has been dramatically reduced. Not eliminated, for sure, but to say that things haven't improved is demonstrably false.

c3k,

You're obviously delusional. If you don't recognize what this release means to us by now, when will you?

I guess I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue

Adam,

Actually, it does happen all the time.

It's statements like this that don't do any favors to you. No, it doesn't happen "all the time", it happens "some times". Or are you telling me that you can always shoot a unit that is behind terrain all the time every time?

As I just said, this problem has been reduced quite a bit since the initial release. So have other LOS/LOF problems. That's a fact that you appear unlikely to find comfort in, but it still is a fact.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[thewood]

Adam, I think you're heading for one of those metdowns again. Maybe you should start trying out Adam2?

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

CMx2's terrain/LOS model is FAR less abstracted than CMx1's

In CMx1 it is not possible to shoot through terrain but in CMSF it is happening. </font>

[Melnibone]

Well said Sir!

[thewood]

Steve, I grew up in Hartland (only a few towns over from where I think you live now). The people seething are the ones that realize you are from away and screwing up thier system.

btw, I was one of the biggest complainers about the shooting through terrain thing after 1.03. I see it less in 1.04. What does that say about me? I am still annoyed at it, but BFC has shown it can be improved. I really thought is was a "fundamental" flaw. BFC has shown me it can be tweaked, fixed, squashed...whatever you call it. That allows me to move on to something else to complain about knowing Charles is tanking up on Red Bull and plugging away.

[ October 03, 2007, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: thewood ]

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

So it isn't so much that CMx1 is superior as a simulation, it is just superior at hiding stuff. CMx2 shows more and does more, therefore it is increasing the chances of seeing things that aren't necessarily realistic.

Why not making CMx2 hide certain distractions, too?

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

Can you fix the problem?

Sure. I don't think it is worth my time counting up how many times I've said this, but it's been said MANY times already. Will it be 100% fixed to your satisfaction? Probably not since your expectations are obviously unreasonably high.

If so, great. Do it.

Yes massa, what ever you say massa! I go right to it now massa, just don't whip me any more!

Otherwise please stop hammering people for pointing out the most basic and obvious problems.

Hey, if you don't like the heat then get out of the kitchen. You are responsible for your town and are fortunate that my response to it is as measured as it is.

I don't need your subjectivist philosophy lessons or rhetorical devices.

You do need it, you just don't want it. Much easier to make unfounded, overblown statements if nobody holds you're feet to the fire.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[thewood]

Don't mean to be a smart ass, but probably coming across as one:

It is his forum. I think Steve is not the best PR person in the world, but he sure can be very patient and tolerent of people going postal on his life's work.

No offense to Steve or postal workers of the world.

[Huntarr]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

This is a problem with language. Words must be chosen carefully because they have meaning. If the meaning of words didn't matter, then we can use any word we want to describe anything we want. For example, I find your post very greenish with a tinge of space dust. See what I mean?

Koo?

Koo.

Koo!

Name that one. Hint: Кин-Дза-Дза

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />As it stands, at 1.04, it is totally unrealistic and has fundamental design flaws which have NOT been improved or corrected.

In a vacuum his comments stand quite well on their own. But what happens when I inject a little bit of context using his logic? This is what one gets:

"As it stands CMx1 is totally unrealistic and has fundamental design flaws which have NOT been improved or corrected in 10 years of development"

All I am doing is carrying his logic, completely unchanged, to a relevant contextual connection. If he really can't enjoy CM:SF for the reasons he has stated, then I am completely baffled by how he could have played CMx1 beyond the demo. </font>

[FinnN]

You know, the only fundamentally flawed thing I see to do with CMSF is the ad-hoc method used to communicate bugs and design decisions. Is it really surprising that 'debates' like this are common?

I know it's been mentioned many times before by different people (with no comment from BFC), but why not take a leaf from Paradox's book and have a structured forum for people to post bugs which are then categorised by a moderator into things like 'fixed in 1.04', 'known bug', 'working as designed', etc, etc, etc? Not only would it encourage more meaningful feedback it'd also help clean things up here.

Have fun

Finn

[Battlefront.com]

YankeeDog,

I don't much care myself whether you call it "fundamental" or or whatever. Semantics.

When there is no attitude behind it I could dismiss it as semantics. The more the word is meant as it is intended, the more I must take issue with it.

It does seem that some are deliberately trying to bait the bull, though, and that there's a lot of feigned indignation when the bull responds in kind.

Unfortunately this is true. One of the constants of Forum behavior... make a strong position and then effectively abandon it when challenged. If Adam's position were simply "there are annoying problems, here they are" we'd be having an entirely different discussion.

When I'm criticizing BFC's games here (which I have done on number of occsasions), I do try to remember that it's their game and their forum, and accordingly I make an extra effort to frame my criticisms in a respectful manner. Interestingly, when I do bring up a criticism, I almost always get a respectful and thoughtful response back from Steve. More often than not, he politely explains to me why he thinks I'm way off base, but he's usually at least polite in doing so.

Funny how that works.

Yeah, funny indeed

thewood,

Steve, I grew up in Hartland (only a few towns over from where I think you live now). The people seething are the ones that realize you are from away and screwing up thier system.

heh... actually, most of the people I'm thinking of have lived here less time than I have Plus, I think a system that has a hole in zoning big enough to park a Walmart in with a Rural tax rate instead of a Commercial one is a system that could use more input from people From Away. Hey, I moved here deliberately because I like the place, more or less, as it is. Why the Hell would I want to change it into the Hellhole I so willingly left? "If you don't like this place, go back to where you came from" doesn't apply to me.

btw, I was one of the biggest complainers about the shooting through terrain thing after 1.03. I see it less in 1.04. What does that say about me? I am still annoyed at it, but BFC has shown it can be improved. I really thought is was a "fundamental" flaw. BFC has shown me it can be tweaked, fixed, squashed...whatever you call it. That allows me to move on to something else to complain about knowing Charles is tanking up on Red Bull and plugging away.

Sleep depravation is about as good as Red Bull And thanks for having perspective. That's all I'm asking for.

Steiner14

Why not making CMx2 hide certain distractions, too?

Because we can't due to the finer resolution of terrain, 1:1 soldier graphics, and 1:1 weapons simulation. To "hide" something like this we'd need to undermine the integrity of the entire system, which would then be called into question because it would be an obvious step backwards.

Nope, fixing the problems is a much better solution.

Adam,

Steve, chill out.

I don't need to because I'm not enraged or anything. In fact, I'm quite pleased to see you hop down from your soapbox. If you actually tried to defend your positions I'd be in for a longer debate.

thewood,

It is his forum. I think Steve is not the best PR person in the world, but he sure can be very patient and tolerent of people going postal on his life's work.

Thank you. Despite some claims to the contrary, we are quite open to criticism here. The ratio of people even threatened with banishment since CM:SF was releaesed can be counted on one hand. Considering the amount of criticism, I'd say that is a fine record.

Steve

[dima]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

Koo?

Koo.

Koo!

Name that one. Hint: Кин-Дза-Дза

How do you know that movie? Was it ever shown outside of Russia?

[KNac]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

KNac,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Now play both battles in a similar and you will see which is the result. Flaws exist, but are NOT as bad as some want to belive.

The flaws aren't as bad, as you say, because not much is shown and everything in the game is designed to NOT show them. So it isn't so much that CMx1 is superior as a simulation, it is just superior at hiding stuff. CMx2 shows more and does more, therefore it is increasing the chances of seeing things that aren't necessarily realistic.</font>

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Huntarr]

I have over 8k movies. I found to be very good.

My local Haunt

We're not all redneck hillbillies in Dallas you know.

[FaxisAxis]

Originally posted by Jamm0r:

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

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

And when they are all fixed every itsy bitsy one of them according to you're delusional liking you'll still be whining, like an idiot.

Its never going to be "playable" for you guys.

It's playable right now for me actually. Are you on medication? </font>

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by dima:

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

Koo?

Koo.

Koo!

Name that one. Hint: Кин-Дза-Дза

How do you know that movie? Was it ever shown outside of Russia? </font>

[FaxisAxis]

From a technical standpoint CM:SF is only the beginning of CMx2, just as CMBO was for CMx1.

[/QB]

[Battlefront.com]

Hoolaman,

You might as well carry his logic to Monopoly for all the relevance it has: "As it stands Monopoly is totally unrealistic and has fundamental design flaws which have NOT been improved or corrected in 80 years of development". Erm, yes but CMSF still has LOF through a mountain.

Really, can you send me a screenshot of v1.04 firing through a mountain, or were you just using hubris to demonstrate a point? As to your point, I don't understand it why it is wrong to compare CMx2 to the game engine that is conceptually based upon and to which people generally feel to be the measuring stick for what a good wargame is.

Whatever you may say about CMx1 it is excellent at suspension of disbelief.

For you and for me, sure. However, it is probable that the most consistent complaint we've had, since we showed the very first shot of CMBO in development, was the lack of 1:1 representation of soldiers. So obviously there is room for disagreement. And for me I find the existing CM;SF system to be FAR easier to believe than CMx1. I'll never be able to play CMx1 games again because of it. Even when I look at screenshots I find myself remembering how divorced from visual reality it was. CM:SF might not be perfect, but to me it is far more believable.

That is really the key here. Flaws that are hidden in abstracion but give good results are not actually flaws.

True, but not all were hidden. I for one didn't like the fact that a unit would forget about a target when it moved out of LOS, even though it was sure to move back into LOS. I didn't like the fact that I could shoot a tank behind a house because at the time I fired it was in the open, not when my shell struck it. I didn't like the fact that the terrain was so abstracted and difficult. Nor did I like the fact that Absolute Spotting meant I could concentrate firepower in ways that were very unrealistic. And the lack of tools to be able to craft a story for a scenario was always a disappointment. BUT, compared to every other game at the time, or before, I felt the positives outweighed its shortcomings. I feel the same way about CM:SF.

These are all games, entertainment products, and CMSF is not up to scratch at that so far, but it's good and getting better!

I've got no problem with this at all. I hope that we'll get it to the point you want it to be sooner rather than later.

PS I am not a member of the "bring back abstracted squads" society.

May I ask why not? I mean, are the annual dues too expensive? Do they have strange initiation rituals that involve paddles and goats? Or is just the goofy handshakes they make you remember? Inquiring minds want to know

FinnN,

You know, the only fundamentally flawed thing I see to do with CMSF is the ad-hoc method used to communicate bugs and design decisions. Is it really surprising that 'debates' like this are common?

Every developer can do things the way that works best for them, but personally I'd quit and work at my local grocery store before I went the route of having to manage a bug database that was open to the public. We've got one internally for beta testing and that's enough to manage. Important bugs mentioned here are topics of conversation amongst testers and they do get entered into the bug database if they warrant inclusion.

Steve