Looking back at original discussion on waypoints

[thewood]

I went back and re-read the original discussion on commands and movement.

I know Steve stated very explicitly that it would probably change, but doesn't seem like it works anywhere near what is described here. Am I just too jaded now to see how that discussion relates to what we see today?

From Steve...

"In CMx1 you could generally only issue non-movement instructions at the beginning or end of a line of Waypoints. In CMx2 that has completely changed. Now you can issue up to three Commands per Waypoint; one Movement, one Weapon, and one of either Special or Adminstrative types. Some Commands are "Persistent" in that you select it once and it applies to all further Waypoints, some are "One Offs" in that they apply only to that Waypoint, and others are used for "Start/End" only.

The ramifications of this new system are profound. To illustrate this, I'll describe (in generalized terms) something that was impossible to do in CMx1. In CMx2 if you wish to move a tank moving down a street and moving its turret around to cover potential threats, your Commands might look like this:

Waypoint 1 - Move, orientate turret right

Waypoint 2 - Move, orientate turret left

Waypoint 3 - Move, orientate turret right

Waypoint 4 - Stop, orientate turret center, button up

So for Waypoints 1-3 the player issues two Commands, and for Waypoint 4 issued three. Note that the player doesn't HAVE to issue three Commands per waypoint, just that it is possible to do this if so desired. Much of the time one Command per waypoint will be the norm because the usual Combat Commands are Persistent and Special/Admin Commands are not generally used. Was the lack of this sort of control missed by players? For sure it was to some extent. However, with the way CMx2 works now we expect that people would find the old system a serious liability.

Now, this does not mean the TacAI isn't going to do anything for you as it did in CMx1. Quite the contrary... the TacAI should be quite active in managing the little details. The difference is that the TacAI no longer has to read the player's mind for those situations which fall outside of the norm. For example, you don't have to tell a vehicle to rotate its turret towards a threat in order to engage it, then specify what type of ammo and how many shots to fire at it. 9 times out of 10 the TacAI's default behavior will handle all this stuff exceptionally well, especially because it now has a memory for targets. But when you want to conserve ammo and only whack a bunker ONCE or you have a hunch that a threat is coming from a particular direction, you can now give more guidance to the unit than you could in CMx1."

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000537

I don't see this in CMSF. Am I missing this flexibility? I will say this, going back and re-reading those old posts by Steve is helping me understand a little more what's going on in CMSF.

Edit: Just finished reading through the entire thread. They were having the exact same debates and dicussions about TacAI, WEGO, RT, etc. Amazing how much it paralles today's discussions.

[ August 24, 2007, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: thewood ]

[birdstrike]

Yeah, it's a shame this kind of detailed control didn't make it into the final game. Maybe they cut it down because it would have been too tedious for RT play?

However if they somehow decide to return to this system sometime in the future for WeGo, I could see myself playing much more "old school" again.

[Redwolf]

That's like SOPs (see TacOps' SOPs) with the ability to change them at waypoints.

That's a nightmare to implement from a UI standpoint.

[thewood]

Actually, I don't think its SOPs, its basic stacking orders. SOPs would be more formalized and almost like prebuilt stacks. What Steve talked about then was being able to apply more orders at waypoints than either CM or CMSF. We already have some of that in CMSF, just not much and some of that isn't working, from what I can see.

The best implementation is POA2 and they work very well. POA2 took a few patches to get them working properly, but they are very detailed and work great.

[Taki]

Sounds to me like someone want to sell me a real Super Duper Car. I bought it - and its a donkey-drawn carriage

[thewood]

Look at the Main UI discussion. Right there you can see that they had a LOS tool that Steve explicitly explained was to check LOS directly from the unit.

Now before Steve jumps in and states that the caveats were all over the place in those threads about changes being made before release, I understand that almost 2 years have passed since that thread started. But at the same time, its interesting how there was a clear understanding it was needed at this time, now we hear how unimportant it is because we have the targeting command.

[Holman]

Originally posted by thewood:

Look at the Main UI discussion. Right there you can see that they had a LOS tool that Steve explicitly explained was to check LOS directly from the unit.

Now before Steve jumps in and states that the caveats were all over the place in those threads about changes being made before release, I understand that almost 2 years have passed since that thread started. But at the same time, its interesting how there was a clear understanding it was needed at this time, now we hear how unimportant it is because we have the targeting command.

I know there are things to complain about, but this isn't one of them. Is there ANYTHING that a separate LOS command would give you that the Targeting command doesn't?

[thewood]

Try building a scenario without one and positionoing units in hull down or behind woods.

Edit:

Let me clarify...how can I set up any kind of ambush in the editor with some kind of LOS tool to see if my units can be seen. With only a timer variable, it is critical. Tell me how you do it and maybe I missed something.

[ August 24, 2007, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: thewood ]

[birdstrike]

Gee, so it's really a "could BF please implement something like the targeting command in the editor to enable us to check LOS?" plea disguised in a "why didn't this feature make it into Main UI?" rant.

But I'd like to second the notion that some sort of a LOS tool in the editor would be useful.

[thewood]

What the heck is your problem. I thought I explained myself pretty well. I would like to know why you charecterize this as a rant?

[birdstrike]

Compared to your initial posts of this thread(which were explained very well indeed), your last two or three statements about a lacking LOS tool show a certain degree of anger and inconsistency and IMHO are deviating a little too much from the the UI topic you started with, so I would refer to it as a "rant", a little one at least.

I could read too much into it, though.

[thewood]

You have definitely read too much into it. It is directly related to the UI discussion. Did you even read the links I had posted? I would suggest before getting high and might, actually pausing for a moment, reread the threads and links and then post.

[thewood]

Originally posted by thewood:

You have definitely read too much into it. It is directly related to the UI discussion. Did you even read the links I had posted? I would suggest before getting high and might, actually pausing for a moment, reread the threads and links and then post.

and btw, take a look at the reposnse to my post about the LOS. I wasn't complaining, and someone decides to come in and complain about me complaining without even giving thought to why I posted. Note he never responded. Can I not start a decent discussion without some knuckleheads coming in waving their hands over their heads complaining about whining and complaining...jeesh!

[birdstrike]

Note: at first, you weren't specifically relating the LOS issue to the editor, and "someone" is right when he's saying the target command ingame is the LOS tool.

Which had me comment as I did since I fail to see how a LOS tool in the editor is related to a more detailed UI for the actual game (which your first post was all about).

Besides, I cannot find the LOS tool mentioned in the thread you linked.

I found it somewhere else.

And in both threads I found this:

NOTE! graphics and naming conventions related to Commands are preliminary. Therefore, this thread should be seen as a discussion of the general UI and behavior of the Commands interface, not an in depth "it will absolutely be in the game this way" type discussion about individual elements.

As you said, this was almost 2 years ago. Perhaps in the meantime they came up with another idea (happens sometimes), like the floating icons and found this to be the better alternative?

And if of all the features mentioned in these old threads which did not make it into the final game, your biggest concern is a missing LOS tool for the editor, maybe you should take a pause and reread those threads too.

P.S. You do sound pretty agitated. And I hope you feel better now, after venting your anger about us knuckleheads whining and complaining about your whining complaining. I hope it helps when I say I'm sorry for supporting your plea for a LOS tool in the editor, since actually I think I would be satisfied if the targeting tool would be availiable in the editor.

Now, perhaps we can forget about this and move on, no need to retain hard feelings when a new patch is on the horizon.

[Guest]

No, you can't. The "You're complaining. Why are you complaining?" thing has been a prevalent thread through all of our significant discussions in this forum post-release.

I'm not sure that that was the case here (birdstrike did not seem to be complaining about your complaining), but in general what you refer to seems unavoidable.

[thewood]

Originally posted by birdstrike:

Gee, so it's really a "could BF please implement something like the targeting command in the editor to enable us to check LOS?" plea disguised in a "why didn't this feature make it into Main UI?" rant.

But I'd like to second the notion that some sort of a LOS tool in the editor would be useful.

You specifically called it a rant. I have included your post to make sure you see it. Tell what your connotation of a rant is vs. a complaint. I didn't specify in editor because I considered the game as a whole. I was pretty clear and reasonable in my response, even though the guy said I wasd complaining. I am agitated now. Care to guess why. Reread the thread from my perspective and tell why I might just happen to get a little teed off.

[birdstrike]

Okay, as for my post, I used "rant" in combination with a " ". If this still was too aggressive, I'm sorry, I might have misunderstood the exact connotations of "rant" as I used it more in a teasing/joking sense, because of it being a common term around here recently and because I was of the impression you seemed to have slipped from a decent argument in this thread into emotional nitpicking and arguing about secondary issues, thus you seemed to complain about something not related to the topic - just for the sake of complaining. That was my impression and reason behind me making this remark.

Being who I am, I might differ from your feeling and consider what I said no great offense, as I wouldn't consider "knuckleheads" much of a harm.

But as for other opinions, also try to reread the thread from our perspective:

you started about missing features in the UI

I know Steve stated very explicitly that it would probably change, but doesn't seem like it works anywhere near what is described here. Am I just too jaded now to see how that discussion relates to what we see today?

- am I the only one to see a certain sarcasm implied here?

We all know about your reservations of the current game engine - you even refer yourself to discussions where you displayed your opinion - now, if you continually bring up threads written like that, then tell me what shall one make out of this?

As you might have noticed the discussion did actually start in a civilized way. People (including myself) were trying to argue why the implementation was changed, and your second post was a positive, productive response to it all.

Then Taki breaks in with a snappy remark, as we all like to do time and again and as if you have been waiting for somthing like this, you take the opportunity and start criticizing about something not related to the topic you started with.

Look at the Main UI discussion. Right there you can see that they had a LOS tool that Steve explicitly explained was to check LOS directly from the unit.

Now before Steve jumps in and states that the caveats were all over the place in those threads about changes being made before release, I understand that almost 2 years have passed since that thread started. But at the same time, its interesting how there was a clear understanding it was needed at this time, now we hear how unimportant it is because we have the targeting command.

Basically this comes across as a complaint: you claim in a slightly offended tone that there is no LOS tool, though there was one explicitly mentioned two years ago in a thread about preliminary version. Despite the fact that Steve stated repeatedly, and you say it yourself, these things were still subject to change.

This is followed by Martyr's (maybe also slightly offended) post that the targeting command IS the LOS tool. So your argument seems invalid.

But you seem to avoid this statement and refer that the LOS tool is a missing feature in the editor (and I agree with that), but at the same time, you seem to ignore completely that your argument for a non-existant ingame LOS tool has proved to be wrong - the LOS tool is there (only with a red instead of a blue line) it is just not implemented in the editor, so how does this rationally translate into a UI criticism of the game as a whole?

Shortcomings of the game are not meant to be a personal insult to you. Don't try to turn every discussion to a "what the game should have been IMHO" thread and you'll see there is no need to feel offended by people opposing your ideas.

peace

[JohnO]

Excellent, birdstrike, Excellent. Straight to the point. And you wonder why it is the same people who keeps posting stuff like this and no one wants to respond to them. Its getting old seeing the same thing over and over and over again.

JohnO

[thewood]

Exactly where did I come across as personnaly insulted. I stated that LOS is needed in the editor, I referenced a 2 year old discussion, I replied and clarified someone saying I was complaining (in a non-constructive way), you then immediately follow up that I am ranting.

btw, I was pointing out that Steve had the LOS tool in and then stated it wasn't important. Tell me exactly how that is a complaint. I have complained about certain things in CMSF and CM over the years, and will say that with all candor. Are you policing the forums for people complaining when they suggest something is needed.

I can't understand how someone can come into a reasonable thread and start throwing around complaining and ranting without expecting a peed off response. I am pretty tired of trying to discuss something in a grown up manner only to have a couple immature responses like this from either synchphants or doomsayers. Go look at my other posts, I am generally looking for info, providing some info, sometimes complaining about an issue, or making a joke. I don't get pissed off often. You have managed to do that by not admitting you came into the thread, didn't really read and decided to spout off, as well as not admitting you ststed I was complaining.

You want to have a reasonable discussion about the LOS tool then come on in and I'll discuss, but what did you think you were going to accomplish coming in and claiming I was ranting. Now lets get back to you claiming you didn't say I was complaining (are you splitting hairs?)

Go start a thread about an any issue and I'll jump in and start berating you for ranting and whining.

[birdstrike]

Hm, I thought I did already admit to have said that, but if it makes you happy, then I will repeat myself:

I wrote you were ranting and complaining.

If my statement offended you, I am sorry. My aim was to tease you, I did not want to offend you. This, however does not change my opinion that the tone in your posts was hardly benign, but provocative and their rhetoric aimed at criticizing the game's UI and LOS tool, unless you fail to acknowlegde your own clever use of language.

Also, that I didn't read the post is only an assumption. You should not draw conclusions based on assumptions.

Now, about coming into a reasonable thread and start throwing around complaining and ranting, my first post was:

Originally posted by birdstrike:

Yeah, it's a shame this kind of detailed control didn't make it into the final game. Maybe they cut it down because it would have been too tedious for RT play?

However if they somehow decide to return to this system sometime in the future for WeGo, I could see myself playing much more "old school" again.

You didn't feel offended by the time I wrote it.

As for a rational argument concerning LOS, here is one:

A dedicated LOS tool ingame is not needed, as the targeting command, paired with the floating icons do the job quite nicely. However I wouldn't mind if the targeting command was also available in the editor and for units without weapons in the game (e.g. unarmed Humvees).

I think it gets the point across without making it a crusade for the right cause and without repeated side blows to the game in its current state. I don't need to cite old threads and make it look like every small issue I don't like in the game is contradicting statements the BF folks made 2 years ago.

If the only persons you want to have a reasonable discussion with are the ones agreeing with your witty criticisms about the game, you should note that in the header of the topic.

Go start a thread about an any issue and I'll jump in and start berating you for ranting and whining.

Here is one. Go ahead. Have fun.

[Dennis50]

Come on guys ..I think everyone has the same goal ..to hopefully help BFC make this the best of the best. And, you guys are doing a bang up job ..really you are, all of you. And, I very much enjoy reading each and every post you guys make. You also need to keep it up ..so that every little problem comes to the surface to be looked at. But I don't think you guys need to start ripping each others throats out. He said, I said, they said, she said (just to be pc, lol) can get out of control real quick. Come on now ..let it be ..you guys like each other ..maybe even luv each other (hehe). Now, a real big group hug and get back to the issues at hand, the game.

Regards,

Gunz

[birdstrike]

Right. Hey wood, let's just bury this nonsense between us. There's no prize to win, we're just making fools of ourselves. Just ignore what I said, this got out of hand. Sorry.

We're here to play war, not to wage it.

[thewood]

I agree, but my point is ALL, including me, need to think a little before jumping into a discussion and accuse poeple of whining and ranting.

[Dennis50]

Dammit thewood ..forgitaboutit ..I luv you man ...no your not getting my bud light ..I'm on fixed income so I have to be very careful how I ration out my bud's. Now go ahead rant away, I'm listening, so is Steve and the boys. It's all good.

Regards,

Gunz