the truth about CMSF and this board ;o)

[Dillweed]

I'm offended that I wasn't listed in the blind unwavering support part.

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Madmatt:

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

Yeah, Mike, just got a nice new contract on GIC, I'm laughing all the way to the bank....

E

Wow, if that doesn't illustrate the core differences in motivations between why we make games and why he does, nothing will...

Madmatt

p.s. Anyway, my checks are direct deposited so I do all my laughing right here at my desk! </font>

[yuvuphys]

Meanwhile, Kerry called the President an idiot, saying "We certainly don't have enough programmers to do the job. And with the way the budget is balooning, George Bush has a moral responsibility to cut the number of programmers. I voted against a bill to increase the number of programmers because even though we should increase their numbers, I had to make a statement about the morality of bunnies."

Later, other prominent Democrats said "I supported the development of this game, but this game is a dismal failure. Despite the overwhelming successes in CMX1, we've only seen 2 screenshots from CMX2, and it isn't anything like CMX1, and it isn't about WWII, so obviously this will be a dismal failure. I refuse to look at the signs of progress shown by the programmers, and cite the lack of screenshots and the personal of my personal agenda, and that we will never see a CMX2 game that can support itself."

Thankfully, all Democrats fufilled their promises to move to Canada, and funding was given to Battlefront to produce CMSF, and the country was never happier, and didn't looked back.

[Pzman]

Don't send the Democrates to Canada, we already have enough of our own nutters, let alone being sent American ones.

[Madmatt]

Oh and for the record, I thought the cartoon was funny too. As to Hof's other sentiments I am not so sure though. Reasonable, mature and rational posts, even when they take opposing views from what we believe are always welcome. Hof seems to believe that a discenting opinion will be quashed without question. That is not true. What happened though is that some very loud individuals with their own agendas began to comment on issues that they simply have no info on. You can't critize a game based only on what you THINK it will be like. Thats like banning a book you have never read because you THINK its offensive. Where we drew the line in the past was when people started to complain and chastise us before they even had a chance to see what we are working on. That does neither party any benefit.

As always, we only ask for a bit of patience, common courtesty, and yes, a tad bit of faith that the game that will become CMSF will be what we say it will be, fun and exciting and realistic. I think our track record up to know has earned that modicum of faith.

Madmatt

[The DesertFox]

Originally posted by Madmatt:

You can't critize a game based only on what you THINK it will be like. Thats like banning a book you have never read because you THINK its offensive.

Exactly what you said. I think it is time for some folks to realize that it is pretty pointless to judge over a not yet existing game. Wait for the demo (hint! hint!) and then come back and rip them apart

cheers

[MikeyD]

"Don't send the Democrates to Canada"

Hey, Dems in Canada would be mistaken for members of the Conservative party! The question is where in the world would one of those neuvo-right Republicans could go to so he'd feel at home. Well... maybe Augusto Pinochet has got a spare bedroom to rent?

[GSX]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Well actually I think the reason for closing the skeptics thread because it nad become more about Scotland than Syria.

As one of the people responsible for that I'd like first, to apologies to the rest of you, and secondly state that I don't have a problem with it being closed for that reason.

By and large if I open a topic that interests me and find that it's about something completely different I tend to get ticked off.

Claiming it was closed because of a fear of critcism of Stryker is bordering on the paranoid I am afraid.

Great captions and cut and paste though, If I didn't have a life, I'd do things like that too.

Peter.

Aaargh, Im agreeing with you again. Im 30% responsible as well.

Funny original post here though.

[Battlefront.com]

Nah, Hoff was just PO'd at me because I said I couldn't afford to waste any more time correcting all of his misconceptions and misunderstandings. Every time I addressed one there were two more in the next post. Apparently Hoff was offended that I have better things to be doing with my time, like making the game. Especially since his attitude was quite close minded and even childish (at times).

Sorry to have bruised your ego badly enough that you felt it important to spend more time making those cartoons than you did trying to broaden your understanding of what CM:SF and Strykers are.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

Claiming it was closed because of a fear of critcism of Stryker is bordering on the paranoid I am afraid.

Those who are predisposed to a particular point of view don't let a few facts get in the way. At least he is consistent, since I stoped debating him because it was clear (to everybody) that he had his mind firmly made up and no matter how many times it was shown that his facts were wrong was going to make a difference.

Oh well.

Steve

P.S. By Hoff's account this thread should be locked up or even deleted. But it's not because we don't do that sort of thing. He's not the only one that is consistent.

[The DesertFox]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[snip] that I have better things to be doing with my time, like making the game. [snip]

And what are you doing here ? Hush, hush back to your work! Don´t you have a job to do like.....finishing that friggin´ game

cheers

[ November 18, 2005, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: The DesertFox ]

[Battlefront.com]

A certain portion of my time is dedicated to PR

Steve

[The DesertFox]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

A certain portion of my time is dedicated to PR

Steve

Hehehe Wait until some analyst comes up with a plan how you can increase your effectivity (just joking )

Get on with your schedule, my next investment in your game is made. I have faith!

cheers

[Dillweed]

Originally posted by Madmatt:

You can't critize a game based only on what you THINK it will be like. Thats like banning a book you have never read because you THINK its offensive.

Madmatt

Sorry, but thats an analogy that just doesn't hold water for me. Theres a big big diference between saying you don't want to try something and saying others are not allowed to try it. Critizing a game based on what you think it will be like is comparable to not reading a book because you think it will be offensive.

In that case my response would be the same for the people saying they are not gonna buy CMSF, sucks to be you.

I would like to go on record again stating my opposition to locking down posts. I would be perfectly happy yo point out to new people just discovering CMSF and being disapointed that:

1) Modern land warfare is no cakewalk. DS and OIF were exceptions, not the rule.

2) Modules will expand options for different armies

Also, I will state once again that I am really pumped about SF. I just think locking down dissent (no matter how idiotic) does more harm than good.

Its a "disagree with what you say, defend your right to say it" sort of thing.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Dillweed:

I would like to go on record again stating my opposition to locking down posts.

In that case I'd like to go on the record to state my support for locking down posts, especially in the following cases:

i) Where if a thread is started so an issue can be raised, that issue remains unresolved after numerous posts, or continuing threads;

ii) Where no consensus can be reached between two points of view, again after numerous posts

iii) Where flaming gets out of hand.

But my opinion of how to best manage this board carries about as much weight as yours, that is sweet f.a., so I leave the board administration to Battlefront's capable hands.

[panzermartin]

That was a good laugh However, I dont understand what the fuss is all about.

CM:SF modern setting is by far the ideal environment for CMx2's kick off. I think WW2 trend is gradually fading, vastly overdone with all these FPS and RTS that float around. Right now BF2 is hugely popular with its mid east and china settings and I think more is coming this way.

If I was a developer, I wouldnt spend 3 years of money and programming for another ww2 grog game. I would shoot for modern warfare. As for the stryker debate...I dont know. I dont think we will see anything "uber". It has been mentioned that stryker's advantages are mainly on the logistics side, so I see no point in debating something so insignificant. CMSF is about fast paced, lightly armed forces and the stryker sounds like an ideal basis for simulating this.

The only thing I am concerned about is play balance. I trust BFC to get things right in this area and not make the game one-sided and unchallenging for the syrian side. That would be a game killer imho, since decent online play should be the main focus of gameplay.

If CMSF proves to be a "jarhead's moral booster" targeted for the trigger happy part of the american market (which I seriously doubt), I'll propably wont buy it..that's all. I believe we can show some well deserved faith and wait till the demo is out. At this time, little can be done to influence how this game shapes out anyway.

[Dillweed]

Originally posted by panzermartin:

It has been mentioned that stryker's advantages are mainly on the logistics side, so I see no point in debating something so insignificant.

What was the Napolean said? "Lts discuss tactics..."

And yes mace, I agree. All of our opinions are equally worthless.

[panzermartin]

Originally posted by Dillweed:

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

It has been mentioned that stryker's advantages are mainly on the logistics side, so I see no point in debating something so insignificant.

What was the Napolean said? "Lts discuss tactics... </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Dillweed,

I would like to go on record again stating my opposition to locking down posts.

Well, since we don't lock down posts due to their content, then you're obviously a happy camper with how we run the Forum. There is not a single post on this Forum that has been locked down because of a well reasonsed, mature criticism. We even suffered through an amazing qunatity of mud slinging, name calling, character assassination, and countless new threads saying the same exact thing as threads that were already open. Our record of tollerance towards contrary opinions is clear and extremely well documented. Not just now, but since we started this Fourm.

Mace is correct about the line we've drawn between legitimate criticism and simple abuse of us, the other Forum members, or the general rules people must agree to in order to post. From time to time someone crosses that line and something needs to be padlocked. But in general, like this thread demonstrates, we don't padlock easily. I say that because Hoff's "chew and screw" premediated attack on the facts, me personally, and other Forum members certainly crossed the line big time. But here we are... unlocked thread, Hoff not banned, and a fairly restrained response from us.

Tell us where this system is broken before you criticize it again. You already opened a debate on this issue before, and had the same response, so why do it again?

Steve

[Mace]

Originally posted by Dillweed:

And yes mace, I agree. All of our opinions are equally worthless.

Strange, I didn't say worthless.

Still I hope you'll agree with me in that the board moderation is in Battlefront's capable hands.

[Mace]

btw Dillweed, here's an important paragraph from the conditions of becoming a member of the board:

Battlefront is solely responsible for creating, hosting, and maintaining this BBS for its customers and gamers in general. This BBS is designed to be a fun, informative, and intellectually stimulating place where gamers can feel free to exchange their ideas and communicate with Battlefront's developers directly. It can be seen as both a tool to help create better games as well as a place for gamers to get together and discuss relevant issues without having to filter through SPAM, Trolls, and the other sorts of negative byproducts the flourish in unmoderated forums. Battlefront's Primary Goal for this BBS is to ensure that it remains a haven for those who wish to exchange ideas in a relaxed and enjoyable atmosphere.

By pressing OK and signing up to this board you've basically indicated that you're prepared to abide by those rules.

Hence Battlefront solely reserves the right to lock any thread it deems necessary to close down, and they have forewarned everyone here by indicating so in the conditions for membership.

If you didn't like those conditions that you're now complaining about you should not have signed the waiver that you're happy to abide by those rules.

[Rick]

I think we should give them credit for the job of regulating/managing this forum. It is a difficult thing to balance the desire for free speech and the desire to not see ones business, hard work, and passion being derided on ones very own forum. Wheras, I'd accept people saying my photos suck, I don't think I could bring myself to publish those sentiments on my web site.

[BFCElvis]

Dear Steve,

Although I don't agree with the points Hof throws out there I couldn't help but laugh my ass off reading them (any shot at "little w" make me laugh or cry most days).

Thanks for keeping it open for everyone to see.

Love,

Elvis

[Dillweed]

As I had originally planned this post, I was gonna be a prick and write some 3 page post about how everyone except me is wrong wrong wrong.

**** that.

I have stated my point before, others have stated theirs. I still think I am right, but I will be the first to admit it is a mostly an intalectual point as the posts getting locked down arn't really contributing to the community.

Steve

Sorry if I pissed you off, I always find your military related posts well thought out and informative. I also seem to recall you hand a hand in some semi-decent wargames I played a while back.

-D

[Vanir Ausf B]

**** that.

A point we can all agree on.