Hype and Whining

[Rick]

I am a photographer and Canon recently released a new camera the Mk III and there was great expectaions surrounding it. When released some had focusing difficulties. You would've thought they committed a genocide by the response. Now even after they've introduced a program to fix this problem many are still griping, some saying they just wish Canon would admit the problem; aren't they doing so by instituting a plan to fix it. Personally, I bought the camera, haven't had the focusing problems and am ecstatically happy with it.

This kind of reminds me of the way things have played out with CMSF. Tremendous expectations of the game that when release had problems that BFC admitted to. Personally, I still feel this is a good game, with some bugs obviously. I have faith that BFC will work out the significant ones. No software is ever 100% bug free. I think the biggest disappointment is that it wasn't the revolution that CMBO was. Quite frankly, how could it be? I believe that if we'd get our expectations in check with reality, we'd still be frustrated with the bugs, but in general like the game and love it when the bugs get worked out. I just wish I had more time to play it. My real life doesn't allow me to play it as much as I did CMBO when it was released. I played CMBO about 70% of my waking hours upon release.

Both situations kind of remind me of Star Wars: Phantom Menace; a reasonably good movie that was very disappointing relative to the huge expectations we had on it based on the first three (I actually think first two films, as Return of the Jedi wasn't that fantastic either.)

[Spindry69]

Rick, I totally agree. I think there have been many, not to mention significant improvements with CMSF. As a very casual player i'm not in the best position to list them all, but it would be quite refreshing for someone else too..

BF is one of the few companies doing what we are passionate about and they deserve our support.

[hoolaman]

If you really are interested, here is a list of all stated fixes to date.

Not a small list, although some of these issues still exist, and patches introduced new bugs too.

Although we are now 4! months from release, I do hold high hopes for the future.

Hopefully after 1.05 BFC can do a new demo, a new manual etc. to get a bit more momentum for their game.

v1.02 Patch List:

* For recent ATI video cards a new option for "ATI left-click compatibility" has been added in the game Options Panel. Setting this option to ON (default setting is OFF) solves a crash problem unrelated to Combat Mission. If you have an ATI video card, yet never experienced mouse click problems with earlier versions, it is recommended that you do not use this feature because clicks are not registered as precisely. We are in contact with ATI and hope they fix the problems with a new driver release sometime soon.

* New game "Priority Setting" option setting has been added in the game Option Panel. This option instructs Windows to assign "normal" application priority or "high" application priority to the game when it is run. The "normal" setting can fix lagging mouse and/or keyboard input issues for some systems. The "high" setting is recommended if you have not experienced any input lag problems. The "high" priority option allows Combat Mission to use more system resources and may result in better performance.

* Alt-Tab now resets the screen to the original desktop display resolution (and back again) if different than the screen resolution setting in Combat Mission's Options Panel.

* Better vehicle defensive TacAI.

* Corrected a longstanding problem with sporadic inaccuracy of ATGMs. It was the result of the dust kicked up from the missile's own launch backblast. Sometimes it obscured the gunner's vision and (unfairly) stopping him from guiding the missile properly.

* Corrected bugs in smoothness of ATGM flight path.

* Infantry ATGMs reload more slowly.

* Shaped-charge explosives (such as ATGMs) have a reduced radius of effect for shrapnel/fragments.

* Infantry will often seek better nearby cover on their own if they come under heavy fire.

* TacAI is more likely to open fire on enemy armored vehicles.

* Commands may be issued when paused in Elite mode.

* Fixed a bug that sometimes caused smoke to not block LOS when it should have.

* Fixed a bug that caused parts of weapons to be positioned in strange ways during the reload animation.

* Support units (e.g. artillery) in the process of receiving a cease fire command cannot be given further orders until the cease fire occurs (this also fixes a crash bug).

* F5-F8 keys are now Command Category Keys and will jump directly to the Command Panel.

- F5 Brings up the Movement Command Group

- F6 Brings up the Combat Command Group

- F7 Brings up the Special Command Group

- F8 Brings up the Admin Command Group

* New customizable hotkeys with more "direct keys" added. These keys issue a specific command no matter what command group is shown in the onscreen command panel. See further below for more information about editing hotkeys.

* Blank entries are now allowed in the hotkeys.txt file. In the past this would cause a crash when loading a battle.

* After using a "high level" menu button (e.g. Save) in the command panel, the display flips back to command buttons.

* Replaced English language Tutorial Campaign with a native French language one for the French version of the game.

v1.03 Patch Features

* LOS/LOF issues improved around areas like walls, buildings, and earthen berms.

* Fixed a bug that caused orders given in the setup phase to be ignored in Play-By-Email games.

* Vehicle pathfinding improved. It is important to note, however, that the slower speed commands will yield better results in more restricted terrain.

* Infantry no longer tends to wander into buildings except when specifically ordered to.

* Improved terrain graphics (the degree of improvement depends on your Texture Quality option, but note that the higher quality options run more slowly).

* Better unit placement in Quick Battles.

* A new "Show All Move Paths" key added to the Hotkeys Menu.

* Fixes to the "stuck soldier" problem.

* Fixes to the "stuck unit" problem.

* By default, infantry moving "Slow" (i.e. crawling) do not stand up and run to their destinations after halting for any reason.

* "Adjust Artillery Mission" function is fixed, along with other minor artillery bugs.

* Gunners are less likely to use high-explosive rather than armor-piercing ammo against armored targets.

* Improved anti-tank missile accuracy, especially with the Javelin ATGM.

* Clicking on enemy soldiers that were not previous spotted are no longer shown.

* Very slight downward adjustment to M1 Abrams tank front armor strength.

* Javelin missile armor penetration increased modestly.

* Speed of the autoloaders on the T-72 and the Stryker MGS are reduced.

* Soldiers do a better job staying prone when under fire in the open.

* TacAI is more likely to fire on prone infantry.

* Computer player is less likely to use slow/crawling movement with its troops.

* Syrian troops (except forward observers) cannot call in artillery.

* Blast movement now works properly.

* Fixed a bug where a soldier sometimes uses a Blue Force specialty icon in the UI when it should be Red, or vice-versa.

* Improved seated poses for certain crewmen of M1 MBT, pickup trucks, taxis.

* MMGs rarely, if ever, fire single-round bursts.

* Clicking on an enemy's C2 display no longer switches to its HQ unit.

* Fixed "choppy" sound from vehicles when turning.

--v1.04 Patch Features--

* CM:SF is multi-processor/multi-core friendly. Workarounds like

"setting affinity" to single-processor are no longer needed.

* Improved frame rate, especially on large maps.

* Improved vehicle pathfinding.

* Various "stuck units" problems fixed.

* Corrected a problem with shots coming through ridgelines.

* Soldiers are much quicker to take up fighting stances and/or open

fire when reaching a movement destination.

* When ordered to stop moving, soldiers halt immediately rather than

look for best positions. This helps them avoid unnecessary casualties.

* Vehicles correctly respond to non-Movement Commands assigned to

Waypoints.

* Area fire versus buildings properly spreads fire versus all

locations on the indicated level.

* Soldiers are more likely to move through breaches blasted in

building walls rather than close by doorways.

* The TacAI is generally more likely to open fire, especially with

heavy grenade launchers. Previously the TacAI tried too hard to

conserve ammunition.

* Troops do a better job facing in the direction implied by the end

of a movement path.

* Troops cannot disembark through walls.

* "Target Light" works properly for infantry.

* Corrected a problem where a vehicle would button up due to incoming

small arms fire, but then become overly reluctant to fire its own

weapons.

* Corrected a problem where troops would not exit a vehicle because

some other troops onboard were considered blocking exits even though

they were not.

* When units are pinned (i.e. they can shoot but will not respond to

movement orders) it is shown in the suppression meter display.

* Corrected some problems where teams within a squad were not

properly coordinated for movement.

* Smoke grenades don't damage vehicles.

* Grenades are used properly (fixed a bug that made the range used

too short).

* Antitank weapons like Javelins are less likely to be used during

area fire (except versus buildings).

* Improved ground textures.

* Distant terrain looks smoother and less "blocky".

* Trenches and roads show up better at longer distances.

* Map elevations are displayed more accurately when viewed from long

distances.

* Brush terrain is drawn out to greater distance.

* Computer player won't hold armored vehicles back so far in the rear.

* Antitank specialist is more likely to be the man who picks up an

antitank weapon (say, when unloading a Javelin from a Stryker).

* Moving vehicles have reduced spotting capability.

* Blown-out building walls don't cause lots of ricochets as if the

wall was still there.

* Fixed a bug that caused problems with splitting squads multiple

times in turn-based games.

* Fixed a bug that sometimes caused a crash during game-save.

* Corrected a problem where multi-unit selecting a shaken/panicked

unit would cause the multi-unit select to be canceled.

* Stryker smoke is now the correct color (white).

* "Game Paused" message is smaller and less obtrusive.

[Rick]

One reason I wanted to write this is to make sure that there are a few voices telling Battlefront, "ok, we're furstrated with the bugs (also lack of artillery smoke) and we expect you to fix them, but in general we really like this game.

Another social phenomenon showing its head here is that the unhappy people talk (or write in this case) louder than the happy people.

[hammelman]

I think the biggest disappointment is that it wasn't the revolution that CMBO was.

I agree completely with Rick, a total rational thought process that makes sense. I also like your photography Rick, cute birds.

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by Rick:

Another social phenomenon showing its head here is that the unhappy people talk (or write in this case) louder than the happy people.

Not only are they loud - they also repeat themselves again and again.

[Steiner14]

Rick, how many PBEM-games have you going on?

How often and how long do you play CMSF?

[dynaman200]

Another social phenomenon showing its head here is that the unhappy people talk (or write in this case) louder than the happy people. [/QB]

All a matter of perspective. I've found both sides able to write just as loudly.

[Hev]

I agree with dynaman, both groups shout just as loud.

The thing is people will remember all the "Its broke" shouts over the "it works" shouts because,quite frankly, the game SHOULD work.

Personaly i love the fact that even now, four months down the line, people are still screaming about the same bugs and issues ( leaving aside the fact that these bugs are taking a long time to squash )

To me it shows that the comunity still love and care about the franchise, the latest edition and above all Battlefront!

[Paper Tiger]

Hi Rick

I like your reasoning and your analogy. I think most of the people who come here would agree with you that it is indeed a good GAME and that we can tolerate the bugs, confident that most of them will be ironed out at some point in the future. As Hoolaman's list shows, just look how much they've fixed already. Nice list man, and there's so much more to come.

I don't think CMSF is going to win any awards but I wouldn't be surprised if it blows people away when WW2 arrives. And that's definitely where this game is going. I'm happy to have something really cool to play around with until WW2 comes in the summer next year.

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by Rick:

One reason I wanted to write this is to make sure that there are a few voices telling Battlefront, "ok, we're furstrated with the bugs (also lack of artillery smoke) and we expect you to fix them, but in general we really like this game.

Another social phenomenon showing its head here is that the unhappy people talk (or write in this case) louder than the happy people.

That makes two of us

[Sirocco]

The use of the word "whining" doesn't help. It does nothing but poison discussions. People have genuine complaints, questions, etc. But I suppose that's an Internet phenomenon not restricted to this board.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Paper Tiger:

I don't think CMSF is going to win any awards but I wouldn't be surprised if it blows people away when WW2 arrives. And that's definitely where this game is going. I'm happy to have something really cool to play around with until WW2 comes in the summer next year.

I agree; I think we'll look back at this as a "lessons learned" exercise.

[Rick]

I am not currently involved in PBEM too busy and I haven't been able to reconnect with the opponents I had when we discovered the really bad bugs regarding PBEM. The PBEM bugs were in my opinion the most serious there ever were actual crashes and troops refusing to disembark were what I saw. As to how long I play CMSF all night when I get the chance, Hammertime is a great scenario, athough I'm not playing it well as most of my infantry is dead now.

True that the word whining can poison the discussion and I apologize for that. The complaints are legetimate, my only complaint with the complaints is that they tend to be overly dramamtic. Back to the camera analogy, what do people want other than the problem fixed, do they literally want a pound of flesh?

[MarkEzra]

Rick said: The PBEM bugs were in my opinion the most serious...

It was very worrisome....I was glad to see it fixed. I'd say rock solid now. I have had the good fortune to re-connect with old CMBO PBEM pals. Like old times, now

[Abbott]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

It was very worrisome....I was glad to see it fixed. I'd say rock solid now. I have had the good fortune to re-connect with old CMBO PBEM pals. Like old times, now

It's nothing like "Old times" Mark. There are no websites popping up weekly. There are no Ladders. The only Forum buzz is "like it or not like it" threads. The Forum is full of those who don't like the game (the whiners eh?) and those who like the game (the Fanboys eh?) and 3 or 4 Beta testers who like to try and use the fact that they are Beta testing as a weapon. Then there is that "Hammertime" guy who thinks one scenario means that the game is a huge success. Me, I sent my copy of CM:SF to my nephew as I did CMBO. He didn't care for it. If and when it picks up I may purchase a copy and/or the next module. If not I will wait around for a new release. Of course only if that's all ok with you.

[MarkEzra]

It's old time for me, Abbott...I didn't do ladders then, don't now... I play with old friends that haven't played CM in years. You got a problem with that?

[thewood]

I still play with a couple of regulars in CM1 but our CMSF experience has really turned us off CMSF. I still play it solo, but still have issues in PBEM in 1.04.

[DaveDash]

As I said in the 1.05 thread you are now all living in the reality that is modern software development.

I've seen pretty much EXACTLY the same posts verbatim from so many 'hardcore' fans of other game series when the Developers get ambiguous and try new scope but the realities of the situation end up being a good idea but not so good execution.

What has happened in many cases with the good developers is that the and some of their loyal fans stuck with them and the follow on product of the new engine or whatever usually turned out to be significantly better. There will be light at the end of the tunnel.

I also think many people forget this game is programmed by one dude. With that limited resources you can't expect something completely revolutionary. It was much easier to do 'back in the day' before gaming became a multi-billion dollar industry. Don't expect it now. There are only so man new wheels to invent.

[Sirocco]

I don't think the discontent is simply that BFC are changing direction, or scope. A significant part of it is that the Paradox contract went against their original mission statement, and lead to a situation they pretty much outlined therein themselves, as I recall it. Follow that up with the whole "you just don't get it" attitude and we're where we're at now.

But that is all in the past. Time to put it behind us and move on. At least that might be possible if we can take down the barricades.

[Guest]

Hey all.

I think part of the reason that the unhappy people are still complaining is that the thing is still broken... and we want it to work.

About ten minutes ago, I (a software developer) killed a bug that our QA team put into our bugbase, because it quite frankly was so out there that there's not a chance in hell that anyone could ever reproduce it unless they were insane, drunk, and a monkey. We make specialized legal tools; it is unlikely that a user dim enough to reproduce the bug would come within 100 yards of our product.

Unfortunately for BFC, however, they make games, not legal tools. Games, especially sandbox games, NEED to be playable by alcoholic monkeys with painkiller addictions. (Oh, all right, for wargames let's say alcoholic monkeys with painkiller addictions and an extensive knowledge of the campaigns of Napoleon.)

That's not to say that the users don't need to know what they're doing, it just means they shouldn't have to be overly conscious of doing it.

My pet peeve, for example, is the infantry behavior. Have you considered, Rick, that your inexperience with the game might not be the reason all of your infantry are dying in Hammertime?

When I watch my men react to effective point fire (read: people are dying) by continuing on their merry way UNLESS I spend ten seconds micro-managing them, it certainly makes me wonder how anyone could be extra happy-happy-joy-joy about this product. This has improved over the patch cycles but is still not good enough to be FUN.

What it boils down to, though, is that we all have different perspectives, as I've mentioned elsewhere. Infantry that act like gits really kill a 1:1-repped simulation for me; that doesn't seem to be a problem for you (and in my view you're lucky for that). Nobody here is wrong per se, there just isn't much else for us to do... the magic of forums.

Okay, back to the fray. We release today after several months of work (again); fingers crossed!

[76mm]

Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:

...quite frankly was so out there that there's not a chance in hell that anyone could ever reproduce it unless they were insane, drunk, and a monkey. We make specialized legal tools; it is unlikely that a user dim enough to reproduce the bug would come within 100 yards of our product.

You've got a curiously elevated opinion of the users of legal software; it never ceases to amaze me how otherwise intelligent people can make a complete hash of anything involving a computer.

[Guest]

While that's certainly true, my opinion is based on experience. Folks in this industry -- where a single simple screw-up can cost millions -- tend to either a) understand the software, or hire someone who does, before using it.

[Rick]

Phillip, absolutely there is something here about the perspective issue as I agree with you about the facts you state about CMSF (still broken, infantry behavior sometimes way messed up) the difference is in attitude towards those facts. I'm not sure what is the origin of the difference in perspective, but there you have it.

One thing I noticed that seems way more civilized here than in the camera issue I mentioned is that on those forums there was a lot of back and forth about "you're a moron because you like the camera" "yeah, well obviously you don't know what the *&%&%* you're doing because the focusing problem is obviously operator error rather than a hardware problem." There has been a little of that here, but not like over on that forum.

[Guest]

Hmmm.

You're a moron because you like the game!!! LOLZORZ!!!!1!

Nope, didn't feel right. I think wargamers are probably a bit less prone to stuff like that. I won't say gamers in general because that would be a terrible, terrible lie. I play a game called EvE, and every third forum response, to ANYTHING, is "talk to someone who cares" or "piss off", but in less polite terms. Rude.

I think it's a matter of preference with regards to the attitude. I REALLY bought CM:SF because it had modern infantry in it: I wanted to play with small infantry units and watch them do their thing, modern-wise.

Didn't work out that way, of course. Folks who bought the game for different or more general reasons probably will have a much different attitude regarding the infantry issues.

Edit: another good example would be BFC's upcoming Napoleonic game, HistWar. My particular interest is with the light troops of the Peninsular War, the skirmishers and light cavalry on both sides.

If, for instance, skirmishing in HistWar were largely abstracted, or did not feel right (all indications point to the opposite of this, of course, for which I am very happy), I'd most likely be super-pissed about the game. Most folks would probably be pretty "meh" about it, though. Yeah?