What will be fixed in 1.05?

[Huntarr]

I have said repeatedly that I understand the frustration in the game not being “perfect”. That’s why we (players and production) are all here trying to get the game to be a better experience. :cool: I was just trying to give those who continually call for BF to answer them about 1.05 the information that they seem to not comprehend. BF clearly does not want to comment on the patch before it is out. I suggested some reasons why. I am sorry, I know that it not what anyone wants’ to hear but it is what is happening. :confused: So the constant hateful color commentary about how BF is the bane of existence for not commenting on something that isn’t even out yet is pointless and counterproductive. It’s just far more productive to post a bug and move on to the next one. Think of it as being involved in making the game the way you like it. That’s more than can be said for most of the games out there.

Abbott, I don’t quite understand this attack. :confused: All I’ve ever said to you were direct answers to your questions…

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003066;p=5#000101

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002706#000010

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003153#000004

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003339#000007

I’m not offended but it seemed to come out of left field.

from Abbott:

And I hope that sometime in the future Huntarr and I have the opportunity to hold hands and discuss the virtues of the CMX2 game engine.

.....but just because we're holding hands, doesn't mean we're gonna be takin long warm showers together till the wee hours of the morning.

from Abbott:

Maybe he will take a moment and tell me with that extremely large pie hole of his about how Marines make the best beta-testers. You see without Huntarr I doubt if there would even be a Marine module and truth, justice and the American way would also be in jeopardy.

Thank you for the back handed compliment, but there are a number of amazing testers on this and BF's future projects. Marines may not be the best testers but we are the sexiest. And yes you can thank your Military service personnel for their service to their country. That never hurts.

from Abbott:

He even went as far as posting a list of them all with derogatory names.

That’s a pretty wild accusation. I’d like to see the list also. I hope my name is on it.

Relax

Happy Holidays!

[ November 30, 2007, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Huntarr ]

[thewood]

Huntar, the main issue at least some of us have right now is we post a question about how something is supposed to be or whether its a bug or not, and we get no real acknowledgement.

The game's design is what it is. I don't think I have much influence on that. What I should get when a buggy premature release is put out is at least some response to real game questions. Manual is only slightly helpful because of its inconsistency. Until BFC went dark, the only way to get a detailed response from anyone in this forum was to question military doctrine of some kind.

There should be no risk to BFC posting a real FAQ or even a list of stuff they are investigatiing. At that point I can set it aside and see what results. What we get is a group of beta testers waving 1.04, 1.05, etc. in front of us saying something is fixed. If the beta testers can do that, can't BFC come in and give us some detail?

Instead, if I were a potential cutomer, it would kind of look like BFC says if you don't like the way we play, we're taking our ball and going home. If the beta testers and BFC were really that concerned about potential customers getting a negative vibe, a little more frankness about the release, AT release, would have been better. Now BFC looks like any other game company. Shove it out the door and worry about it later.

I know they will fix CMSF, they have to. But the pawning problems off on complaining customers driving business away smacks a lot of American corporate head in the sand thinking. Doctors call it looking at the symptom not the root cause.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

That’s a pretty wild accusation. I’d like to see the list also. I hope my name is on it.

It was a short list you posted a few weeks back at the bottom of a post listing who you thought at the time were the 1/2 dozen or so complainers. It was no big deal. Maybe that will jog your memory because I know if you remembered the post you would say sumfink like "yeah, I posted it so what?" So in reality it is not a "wild accusation".

I am always relaxed.

Merry Christmas.

[Dirtweasle]

I recall something like that too Abbott.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

@ Thewood, yup.

[Huntarr]

thewood, great level headed response, sir.

Try to remember how many developers and staff BF has. The amount of work they are putting into patches is obviously better served doing it not talking about it. What you see are some players (yes testers are players too) who do have some of the information that is being asked for, stopping the very testing that would make it better and coming in here to try and put out crazy inflammatory threads. They don't want the hard work they are putting in (for free) to go to waste. Try to remember that some of the testers are acutally tring to get bugs from the forum.

Steve has already said he was going to do a post for LOS/LOF several times. But why not get LOS/LOF fixed before he wastes time writing something that would/could be negated in one patch.

BF can't change the past. They did learn they don't want to ever make the mistake of this type of release, again. Steve's already said that, so it's really a dead issue.

I'm serious when I say these guys are busting ass to get a better game out, here. They show no signs of "taking the money and running" They want to play as much as we do. Just somebody has to the work first.

[thewood]

I completely understand that. I have been following BFS/BTS in the Beyond Squad Leader days. I know what they are capable of. I know their communication model is usually great. But, given that, I also thought I knew they would never team up with a big distributer that would force their hand. At that point, the bets are almost all off.

BFC's biggest mistake was and continues to be getting caught up in the philisophical discussions and almost ignoring people with legitimate questions. I will bet they lose more future customers through that approach than through negative posts from customers. Many times prospects look at forums, not for positive/negative posts, but how the company responds to questions and issues.

What still concerns me is not the negative posts in these or other forums, but the lack of posts in the CM forums around the web. No one is even talking about the negative things. I will bet my house its not because they are heads down playing CMSF. BFC is going to have to do something to reenergize interest in CM2.

Now on to beta tester interaction here. Absolutly nothing has frosted me more or made me want to completely give up on BFC than beta testers coming and saying that complaining is driving away customers. I hear that all the time from other companies and it makes me lose complete respect for any company that falls back on that old theme. Yes, I do expect more reasoned responses from BFC. I take a step back and have to realize its beta testers saying it, not BFC. But BFC needs to realize that people not in the know won't know that and think BFC is no different than any other company in crisis. I know better, but there are not many 7 year customers left in this forum.

[JohnO]

Good points all taken, so my understanding from your post is that you would rather have questions answered by BFC themselves instead of beta testers answering them, is that correct?

[Huntarr]

This the list?

[Dirtweasle]

Good collection.

~~~~~~~~~~

John if you, or another beta-buddy, can make an authoritative post of all the items acknowledged as a bug and what is a design / feature / user / game-play issue, and what of the bugs is on the list to be fixed now or further down the road, and so on fine by me.

[ November 30, 2007, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Dirtweasle ]

[dalem]

Originally posted by Paper Tiger:

Wow, I'm REALLY confused. Who are you Abbott? Are you another incarnation of Dale? If you're not, my 'dumb' questions were addressed to him and not to you so if I've somehow offended you by doing so, I apologize.

Nope, me & Abbot are not the same. In fact, I owe him a game from about 3 months ago. Abbot, I will do my utmost to turn that around to you this weekend - I'm about half caught up on all my old games now.

PT- did you ask me a question that I forgot to answer? I'm happy to do so, I'll re-read the thread.

-dale

[thewood]

Originally posted by JohnO:

Good points all taken, so my understanding from your post is that you would rather have questions answered by BFC themselves instead of beta testers answering them, is that correct?

Don't take this the wrong way, but many of the answers from beta testers weren't right or were guesses, maybe a little more educated than others, but still guesses.

As an example, go back to my original questions about Stryker behavior under fire. Asked three or four times, including a pretty lengthy thread in the tactics section, and not a reposnse from BFC. Got a couple of "guesses" from people who said they were beta testers, but absolutely nothing concrete about how they are supposed to behave. Then, when 1.03 came out a few weeks later, one of the mentions was that reactions to fire were adjusted. Was it because of my question? No one ever came back and said they were looking at it, beta tester or BFC.

Even now, no one has really addressed this. Even BFC saying, hey its the best we can do would have saved me time. I probably built 20 different scenarios and run them multiple times to try to figure it out. All I can say now is its broken.

There are issues like this acattered all around all the CMSF forums. beta tester input is appreciated, but unless they know for a fact something is recognized and being fixed, its still a guess.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

thewood, great level headed response, sir.

Try to remember how many developers and staff BF has. The amount of work they are putting into patches is obviously better served doing it not talking about it. What you see are some players (yes testers are players too) who do have some of the information that is being asked for, stopping the very testing that would make it better and coming in here to try and put out crazy inflammatory threads. They don't want the hard work they are putting in (for free) to go to waste. Try to remember that some of the testers are acutally tring to get bugs from the forum.

Steve has already said he was going to do a post for LOS/LOF several times. But why not get LOS/LOF fixed before he wastes time writing something that would/could be negated in one patch.

BF can't change the past. They did learn they don't want to ever make the mistake of this type of release, again. Steve's already said that, so it's really a dead issue.

I'm serious when I say these guys are busting ass to get a better game out, here. They show no signs of "taking the money and running" They want to play as much as we do. Just somebody has to the work first.

"Trust us" just doesn't cut it any more Huntarr. Doesn't matter if Charles' jar water is murky and low or how much hair MadMatt has forgotten to scrape off of his dome - some folks are expecting at least a fix list.

-dale

[JohnO]

Dam, need to type faster when trying to respond to a thread question

thewood, I agree, I don't answer anything unless I know for sure its the right answer, been in the Army to learn that

makes since to me Dirtweasle, I would be in the same boat as you guys if I wasn't a tester.

But because I know whats being tested and sometimes I will post on a question about a bug saying that its being looked at and or will post it in the skunkworks for other testers and see if we can reproduce it and put it in the projects for Charles to see and I know that other testers are doing the same and I fall beck to the point "Do I post whats being tested in the forums or do I let the BFC guys do that"? I can say for myself that I would rather have the BFC guys post about bugs and issues.

I'm just a tester that is doing this because I see great potential with CM:SF but after awhile reading so many negative post that it gets to the point where its not worth it having heartburn trying to explain what and why over and over again.

Now back to getting some information for Webwings test on tired soldiers.

JohnO

[ November 30, 2007, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: JohnO ]

[Huntarr]

I'm sorry if no one acknowleged your posts about that particular bug. I know that several testers have tried to post within a thread if it was spotted and added to Projects. I know several cases I posted that it was noted. That was one that I noted myself.

Engage or not to Engage- Strykers not firing on spotted troops

That is the title of the bug, I can not post the issue #, nor the date or comments, due the NDA w/BF I hope that can help you know that BF is/was aware of it.

[c3k]

Hmmm,

A large communication issue seems to be the recurring lack of a dedicated bug/known-issues thread.

Many of us WANT this game to work. In fact, we may want it to work more than BF.C does. Who knows? Whereas we all (should) realize that BF.C should NOT comment on what fixes are being implemented, it would behoove them (BF.C) to at least post an acknowledgement to the many messages highlighting anomolous behavior.

In short, ANSWER THE CUSTOMER WHO CARES ENOUGH ABOUT THIS GAME THAT THEY TRY TO BRING SHORTCOMINGS TO YOUR ATTENTION SO THEY CAN BE FIXED SO THE GAME ACHIEVES THE POTENTIAL WE ALL WANT IT TO REALIZE.

Comms check? Over.

Thanks,

Ken

[Huntarr]

Dalem you made me think of this one. I had to laugh.

[Abbott]

Old retired Gunny in his best Bill Clinton voice says: "I can only remember that I didn't inhale".

[thewood]

Originally posted by JohnO:

Dam, need to type faster when trying to respond to a thread question

thewood, I agree, I don't answer anything unless I know for sure its the right answer, been in the Army to learn that

makes since to me Dirtweasle, I would be in the same boat as you guys if I wasn't a tester.

But because I know whats being tested and sometimes I will post on a question about a bug saying that its being looked at and or will post it in the skunkworks for other testers and see if we can reproduce it and put it in the projects for Charles to see and I know that other testers are doing the same and I fall beck to the point "Do I post whats being tested in the forums or do I let the BFC guys do that"? I can say for myself that I would rather have the BFC guys post about bugs and issues.

I'm just a tester that is doing this because I see great potential with CM:SF but after awhile reading so many negative post that it gets to the point where its not worth it having heartburn trying to explain what and why over and over again.

Now back to getting some information for Webwings test on tired soldiers.

JohnO

For one thing, I know its not your responsibility. It is BFC's. I beta tested a tactical game before and found myself in the exact situation where customers looked at me as a company rep, which at the time is legally true. The game company left the testers out to dry and basically abandoned the forum and we testers took the heat. In my opinion you are better off just posting as a player and not a tester. It makes for a lot of ambiguity and pressure that BFC should not put on you. Trying to run the fine line of being player and producer will only lead to aggravation and a situations like this where you can't win.

We had an old saying in the factory, knowing just enough to get into trouble. That is the situation I see guys like you in right now. You really can't win.

[thewood]

Originally posted by Lawson:

Best post I've seen here in over a month.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by dalem:

In fact, I owe him a game from about 3 months ago.

Not a problem Dale. Nidan is keeping me hopping with his British Paratroopers and Crazyivan has BIG assault guns rolling in from what seems like all directions. My Krauts are reeling, rolling and rockin with the break of dawn.

[thewood]

Originally posted by Abbott:

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

In fact, I owe him a game from about 3 months ago.

Not a problem Dale. Nidan is keeping me hopping with his British Paratroopers and Crazyivan has BIG assault guns rolling in from what seems like all directions. My Krauts are reeling, rolling and rockin with the break of dawn. </font>

[Abbott]

CNN reports that Evil Knievel just died. Was he on the list?

[thewood]

I hope for his legacy's sake, he went down in a flaming wreck while jumping the Peng Challenge.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by DaveDash:

This thread reminds me exactly of all the Shogan Total War vets grumbling about Rome Total War when it was released, or Civ2 vets grumbling about Civ3, or game X fans grumbling about the new game Y.

Except ofcos, all these games got great scores in reviews, and CMSF Metascore is just over 60. Its not like there is only a few "rotten apples" who think this game is lacking, but rather, most people.

[thelmia]

All changes are fine if the final product is a good game on its own merits. I'm no longer expecting anything, and have long since moved on to other things.