Ways to make the game more newbie friendly...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Like I said, there are things we can do to make the game more accessible. But we can not give the RTS/FPS gamers the same safe, predictable, and hand held environment they are used to. It's not because we don't want to, it's because the games are totally different. It's the difference between a non-driver behind the wheel of a gocart on a closed track and instructing him how to get around the track compared to putting the same person behind the wheel of a sports car in downtown city traffic. There is only so much an instructor should be asked to do

Steve

P.S. Dorosh should like my analogy

Just consider yourself lucky Seanachai has the axe handle this month.... :mad:

[Philippe]

I'm not quite sure how it happened, but there seem to be two different threads running on this topic.

I have always believed that there is no Royal Road in mathematics, and that there probably shouldn't be one in CM either.

I do agree, however, with all due respect, that there are aspects of the UI which could be improved upon. Franko's Rules are brilliant, but to my mind impractical, simply because the interface is too awkward to use with them. Level 1 view is not the same as the selected unit's eyeball view, and without that you can't really act in the spirit of simulated cyber-verisimilitude. And I defy anyone to get a dozen vehicles moving in column down a road in less than half an hour without going several viewing levels higher than Franko's Rules allow.

We need more viewing levels, including a top-down one that is very close to the top of the selected unit's head since you can never be sure that you can see what is directly in front of his feet. I know that you can get close to this by going into six and using the magnification buttons, but it's a pain. And we need a more efficient way to jump from organization to organization -- scrolling through the plus sign in large scenarios is not only un-Franko, it's a royal pain as well. But how else are you going to figure out what you really have in your TO&E if the scenario designer didn't tell you (besides jumping to view level nine and sorting)?

When I first started to play CMBO I found all those armor slope and penetration numbers a bit overwhelming. Then it occurred to me that apart from forum grogs, most people over the age of fifteen don't carry that kind of thing around in their heads. A WW II grunt would see a Tiger and think big mean tank -- and if he was driving a Sherman and discovered he was about to go head to head at close range he'd probably have the good sense to get out of Dodge. So one of the reasons I'm such a bad player is that I decided not to look at the numbers very much and to try to learn the difference between a Stuart and a Jagdtiger by feel -- and it feels great when it stops. So perhaps we should consider inventing a newbie/ironman mode option for when you hit enter -- instead of seeing all those numbers which you wouldn't know about anyway, you'd just see articulate descriptions of the opposing vehicle like "MM" or "W", which could stand for things like "Mean Mutha'" and "Wimp", if that were appropriate vocabulary usage for the period.

Having said that, one argument in favor of too much statistical information (the status quo) is that by overwhelming the viewer with details you discourage them from looking at anything at all. So showing more is, in a way, very much like showing less. It takes a special sort of man to really want to see his 250 pound girlfriend naked. Many in this forum, however, would probably feel a certain sympathy for Botero. As an aside, my girlfriend has been trying to convince me that doing a photo-essay on the stretchmarks that I see whenever I ride the subway through the Bronx may be bad for my health.

At the end of the day I think the answer to making CM more newbie-friendly without ruining it for the rest of us (or driving the designers crazy) is to come up with a series of incredibly short and unsatisfying tutorials that explain how to perform simple game functions. Like illustrating the difference between the different movement commands, or showing how to do indirect spotting for a mortar. Nobody (apart from gnomes) likes to read anymore, and what these one- or two- turn scenarios could be is essentially a set of cyber-illustrations to the game manual. Just don't ask me to write any because they would have to be pretty boring. Not to mention lacking in cellulite.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Philippe:

I'm not quite sure how it happened, but there seem to be two different threads running on this topic.

I assume, you bugger, that you're not simply referring to me going off on someone.

Sometimes I worry about you, though.

Originally posted by Philippe:

I have always believed that there is no Royal Road in mathematics...

I would prefer that you not explore your fetishes in any sort of 'detail'...

Originally posted by Philippe:

When I first started to play CMBO I found all those armor slope and penetration numbers a bit overwhelming. Then it occurred to me that apart from forum grogs, most people over the age of fifteen don't carry that kind of thing around in their heads.

You're as daft as a fecking brush if you think anyone under the age of 35 carries that kind of knowledge around in their heads. Anyone with the chance of ever having sex, Grog or otherwise, wouldn't dedicate the number of brain cells necessary for remembering all that AFV ****e as opposed to using them for mumbling something safe and conciliatory and reassuring after sex.

That's what the freaking Game is for, you halfwit! It provides you with information that is, plain and simple, too bizarrely esoteric to base your day to day activity on.

If I want to play a game that helps me capture the ultimate emptiness of things I need to know to get through the average interaction at a restaurant with strangers, there's the Sims, versions I thru XX.

Hey, Philippe, what's your sign?

Originally posted by Philippe:

So perhaps we should consider inventing a newbie/ironman mode option for when you hit enter -- instead of seeing all those numbers which you wouldn't know about anyway, you'd just see articulate descriptions of the opposing vehicle like "MM" or "W", which could stand for things like "Mean Mutha'" and "Wimp", if that were appropriate vocabulary usage for the period.

Why 'instead of'? There's all sorts of space that could be used to include a 'Hi, my name's Lance, and I never thought I'd be writing a letter to the CM Forum before, but last Friday night I found myself going head to head with a King Tiger...' level of information.

Originally posted by Philippe:

At the end of the day I think the answer to making CM more newbie-friendly without ruining it for the rest of us (or driving the designers crazy) is to come up with a series of incredibly short and unsatisfying tutorials that explain how to perform simple game functions.

Your willingness to spend your own, otherwise pointlessly inane and annoying personal time to do so earns you the respect of the entire CM community. Except me. I still think that a sound thrashing followed by inadequate medical attention is the way to deal with you.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Just consider yourself lucky Seanachai has the axe handle this month.... :mad:

Shut up, you tit!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Just consider yourself lucky Seanachai has the axe handle this month.... :mad:

Shut up, you tit! </font>

[Joe Shaw]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Just consider yourself lucky Seanachai has the axe handle this month.... :mad:

Shut up, you tit! </font>

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Are you cruisin' for a bruisin' little man? :mad:

Dear God, what? Have you been spending the last few nights listening to old Meat Loaf albums and drinking two-fours of Coors Lite?

The only thing that keeps me from utterly destroying you is the rather fetching mental picture I keep of you wearing fluffy bunny slippers and, wide-eyed, asking for another story about the Dieppe Raid.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Are you cruisin' for a bruisin' little man? :mad:

Dear God, what? Have you been spending the last few nights listening to old Meat Loaf albums and drinking two-fours of Coors Lite?

The only thing that keeps me from utterly destroying you is the rather fetching mental picture I keep of you wearing fluffy bunny slippers and, wide-eyed, asking for another story about the Dieppe Raid. </font>

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Not me, I was going to sic Bugged on you. She's taller than the both of us put together. *shudders*

Send her in. I'm tired of dealing with JV 'Anger and Hate'.

[Battlefront.com]

OK guys, take it to the Peng thread.

There is no practical way to take a deep, complex simulation and mutate it (even if optionally) into something a RTS/FPS gamer would find familiar. So the notion that some combo of features can do this is simply a non-starter.

What we can do is soften the transition from highly abstract, formulaic, and simplistic game RTS/FPS systems that are by now quite predictable to a game of CM's depth. But that is it. Soften. And we have to balance the effort to soften the transition with the amount it distracts us from the simulation itself. A little distraction is worth it, a lot is not.

Like I said, we have some good ideas about how to go about this. But extensive mouse help is not one of them because it is impractical.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Like I said, we have some good ideas about how to go about this. But extensive mouse help is not one of them because it is impractical.

Steve

GOOD!

-tom w

[DarthJames]

There is no practical way to take a deep, complex simulation and mutate it (even if optionally) into something a RTS/FPS gamer would find familiar. So the notion that some combo of features can do this is simply a non-starter.

What we can do is soften the transition from highly abstract, formulaic, and simplistic game RTS/FPS systems that are by now quite predictable to a game of CM's depth. But that is it. Soften. And we have to balance the effort to soften the transition with the amount it distracts us from the simulation itself. A little distraction is worth it, a lot is not.

Like I said, we have some good ideas about how to go about this. But extensive mouse help is not one of them because it is impractical.

Steve

I'm actually happy with that. I in no way want the game itself to be compromised in any way just to make it more familiar with the mainstream crowd. All I ask is that the game is as forgiving as possible for the first week that it takes to get a hold onto the learning curve. Yes, trial and error is good, but a member of the mainstream crowd who buys the game and loses 10 consecutive games without at least being told why will very quickly move on, and tell all his friends to as well.

As an aside, a have to admit, as I play on, all my original criticisms of the game are melting away and seem a bit petty in comparison to it's sheer complexity. However the key is always giving the player in that crucial first week enough latitude so that he does not get bored of losing and moves on.

[Andrew Kulin]

Maybe this suggestion for an improvement will help vets and newbies. It's an idea building upon the current game system's way of showing roughly how strong a tank's armor is (the orange to blue line representation for front-rear-side-top you see with the profile view of the tank at the bottom of the screen when the tank is selected).

1. Modify the way these coloured lines are represented so that they are seen at the approximate (or exact if you wish) armor slope (or better still, have the coloured lines surrounding the vehicle profile (as in matching the shape of the vehicle) and changing colour at the armor strength thickens/thins at the various locations (as refined or coarsely segregated as coding permits (currently modelled as upper-mid-lower) - side armor strength could be shown by a coloured line running along the centre of the tank profile, or by adding a second vehicle profile from the front and repeating)

2. It would be sweet if at the same time within the same portion of screen real estate used for the above, to show (using same colour coding system), the penetration strengths of your weapon system at the range (actual or approximate) at the various angles (currently unit info screen shows this for 0-30-60 degrees). A 90 degree arc with shading changing over the arc could accomplish the same thing and would provide a quick and dirty visual comparison of your gun against the armor of the enemy tank. This could eliminate switching back and forth between units (hunter and hunted) with the unit info screen selected.

[Battlefront.com]

DarthJames, thanks for the follow up comments. Trust me... your first impression comments were taken as they were intended and do really matter to us. We've been thinking about this a lot over the years since we found out we aren't just a nitty gritty wargame maker like we thought we were

Glad things are loosening up for you. However, your first impressions are still valid and something we need to address as much as we can.

Andrew, some good suggestions. We must be careful about using color as a primary means of communication with the player due to color blindness issues. While very few people are truly color blind, a lot of people have more subtle color distinction issues. Meaning, they can't tell the difference between shades of green and blue that are roughly the same hue. That sort of thing.

Steve

[flamingknives]

Use the "+25%/+50%/+100% forces" option

At 100%, you're almost certainly going to win, and you can have a couple of goes at the scenario improving the amount you butcher the opposition with.

Then you can having a go on a level playing field.

[aka_tom_w]

Simple But Effective

-tom w

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Use the "+25%/+50%/+100% forces" option

At 100%, you're almost certainly going to win, and you can have a couple of goes at the scenario improving the amount you butcher the opposition with.

Then you can having a go on a level playing field.

[Olle Petersson]

My take on the issues...

Originally posted by DarthJames:

Reading mission briefings that look like they've been done in notepad may not affect the game, but looks sloppy and unprofessional.

... but reading briefings that look like they've been written by a 1930-ies typewriter on cheap wartime paper is cool!

That's the general impression i currently get when reading the briefings, provided they're well written.

Originally posted by DarthJames:

Abbreviated weapon damage, penetration and tank armour values, ... put up some relativistic values so that someone who's never played a WW2 game before will instantly be able to see that you can't take a Sherman to go head to head with a Tiger.

It's allready there in the form of colour coding for armour and penetration as well as direct info (hit percentage and kill probability) through the LOS/target tool.

Originally posted by DarthJames:

It's all very well having every single model of the Panzer Mk4 modelled, but it means nothing to me unless I have an easy way of comparing them.

Which you do have! In the units listing just point on an item to get the vital statistics in the lower left corner. When those data are the same, you can also get some clue through the point value of said item. Higher point cost (before rarity modification) usually means better!

Cheers

Olle

[michael_wittman44]

What are the policies on the board?? Just so I know what I can and can't do or say??

[aka_tom_w]

user agreement and policies:

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.

In order for the Primary Goal to be achieved, the BBS Members must cooperate with Battlefront in order to keep the BBS standards intact. Therefore, a few simple rules must be followed by a Member if he/she is to remain an active participant of this BBS.

In order to ensure that the Primary Goal is realized, Battlefront.com reserves the right to ban any Member from this BBS which it has determined to be in violation of the simple rules set forth in this Agreement below. Banishment is a serious matter and is not taken lightly by Battlefront, but years of BBS moderating has unfortunately proven that sometimes this must be done or the Primary Goal will be compromised.

Bearing that in mind, all Members must agree to follow these simple rules:

1. No Flaming and/or Baiting. Strong opinions are welcomed but are required to be expressed in a way which is not abusive and/or emotionally charged. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. Chronic violators of this simple, civil requirement are not welcomed here and are at risk of being banned. We like to think our gamers are mature, rational people. Please help us keep this opinion of you!

2. No foul language. Standard decency request here. If people ignore this simple request the BBS software does have a feature to block any word of our choosing being posted. Try and keep us from flipping the "censor" switch, will ya? We don't really want to use it.

3. Be constructive. The concept of this BBS is to exchange ideas and game suggestions so that as a group be better informed and understanding about each other's positions. Negativism is counter productive to this valuable goal and is quite different from rational criticism. To be clear, Battlefront and Members should welcome constructive criticism, but be free from abusive or otherwise unconstructive behavior. For example, here are two possible ways to offer criticism:

THE WRONG WAY - "YOUR GAMES SUCK, YOU SUCK, EVERYTHING BUT ME SUCKS! YOUR MOTHER WAS A HAMSTER AND YOUR FATHER SMELLS OF ELDERBERRIES!!!!"

THE RIGHT WAY - "I have been playing [game title] and have serious questions about the realism of [game feature]. I feel this is a major error which reduces my enjoyment of the game. It seems, from what I have read, that [unit name] are too powerful. In fact, all units of [unit type] appear to be too powerful. For example, according to [source] the real range of a ...." You get the point

The right way causes people to have respect for your posts and to take a CLOSE look at the feature/s in question and see if indeed there are problems. The wrong way does nothing but annoy Battlefront and those unlucky enough to read such tripe. It also makes such a Member look like an immature fool, which is a hard thing to shake once clearly established. Meaning, that while unproductive criticism is quickly ignored, the low opinion of Member lasts a lot longer. If someone wants to make a positive difference in life, being a jerk is not going to do that. If a Member can't grasp this basic concept, then he/she really shouldn't be here.

4. The act of "Trolling" is prohibited on this BBS. Trolling is defined as someone who routinely, although not necessarily exclusively, posts inflammatory, untrue, and/or generally useless statements with the primary motivation of insulting, demeaning, and in general causing disharmony within the BBS. Trolls often refrain from challenges to their flimsy arguments (when they even manage that much!) and fail to post rational follow ups to well thought out responses. This shows that the person is both a "mental midget" and a coward and does not offer anything of value to this BBS, the games being discussed here, or the community built up around them.

5. Multiple Member accounts by a single person are prohibited as this can be abused. If someone needs to create a second account for some reason, please contact Matt (aka Madmatt) at matt@battlefront.com to make such arrangements.

6. Members agree, through use of this service, that this BBS will not be used to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Members agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by self, Battlefront.com, or its agents.

7. Blatant advertisements for non-Battlefront product , chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also prohibited from this BBS.

In turn for Member's cooperation, Battlefront agrees to the follow Code of Conduct:

1. Live by the same posting guidelines as Members.

2. Except for extreme cases, only those Members which have clearly shown reason to be removed from the BBS according to the above mentioned Rules.

3. Make the reasons for any banishment public so that all Members will know why Battlefront took the action it did.

4. Banishments will be, unless specifically stated, permanent and without chance of reconsideration.

5. No threads/posts will be deleted or edited by Moderators as a general rule. However, in extreme cases Battlefront does reserve the right to do this if the thread/post in question is so harmful that allowing it to remain displayable would cause serious harm in the future. In five years worth of postings Battlefront can count the number of posts/threads deleted on less than one hand, even though there are some 400,000 + posts present at the time these rules were written.

Legal disclaimer:

Battlefront does not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Battlefront.com or any entity associated with it. Members remain solely responsible for the content of their messages, and agree to indemnify and hold harmless this Battlefront, InfoPop, Inc. (the makers of the bulletin board software), and their agents with respect to any claim based upon transmission of messages. Battlefront also reserves the right to reveal Member identities (or knowledge of a Member's activities) in the event of a serious complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by the Member.

[Grimthane]

One way to allow scenario designers, particularly of the tutorial scenario, to give more detailed advice and suggestions is simply to tweak the Briefing feature a bit.

I'd suggest allowing the designer to add a Briefing for any turn he chooses, the arrival of which can be flagged when the turn comes up - "Your briefing has been updated"

This allows the designer to put in his preferred level of hand-holding (This turn, Move platoons one and two towards the woods. Hold your Shermans at the ridge). It also allows designers to note significant developments, such as reinforcements, in more detail. This would have been very handy in Moltke Bridge, for all of you who didn't spot those Paras for two turns...

Of course this is not context responsive, and could be done with the existing Briefing to some extent, but it would at least put the Tutorial advice in-game.

[Philippe]

And please don't use black as a setupzone and unit base color. It tends to become completely invisible in a background with a dark palette.

[DarthJames]

Ooh, dynamic mission objectives!

I don't really think that they fit into the size and time scale of the game. If enemy reinforcements show up, then it is up to the player to decide what to do, because in RL it would be the person in the player's position to decide.

It might be nice in some of the larger assault based scenario's to have a 'message from command' show up half way through saying something along the lines of:

"massive enemy counter-attack imminent, pull your forces into defensive positions to deal with it".

It gives the player the task of disengaging his attacking units and trying to rearrange an attacking formation into a defensive one.

[Baneman]

Grimthane's suggestion about the "extra" briefing elements has much merit.

One thing that is a sort of extrapolation of what Darth James was suggesting would be to have some form of in-game ability to bring-up/see your Orbat and select a unit from there.

I'm currently on my 3rd PBEM, so am still seeing things from a newbie pov and find that even with relatively few units, I have to "+" through my entire force often to make sure I haven't missed someone - and it's easy to forget ( at deployment ) who commands who.

Cheers

[iron_weasel]

I don't post much on these forums (don't know if I ever had) but this is a topic that interests me greatly.

I work as a game designer and love a really wide variety of games. I like Combat Mission as much as I like Tony Hawk Pro Skater or Zelda. The problem is that I have friends would might like this game, but they have a hard time coming to grips with it. This means that I have a hard time finding opponents and have played a lot less multiplayer than I would like. Let me tell you about my initial experience with the game and what I think could make the game more digestible.

I first tried Combat Mission because it had gotten such great reviews and it sounded like something I would enjoy. However, I did not have a good time when I started out. In Combat Mission learning the controls and learning the strategy are two different tasks. As a first time player I was overwhelmed, and put the game aside.

Months later I came back to the game because I wanted a new war game. My second experience went much better. I think the key difference is because I now had some understanding of the controls, I just needed to learn how best to use them the second time.

When it comes down to it there are really just a hand full of things that a new player needs to know. Theses things may not make them a great player, but it will give them the tools to make decisions good or bad.

1. They need to learn how to move. Some orders like Sneak or Fast require almost no explanation because the player has a vague, but inherent, understanding of them. What they need to be told is that moves like advance and assault increase speed and moral, but make their men more tiered. Also, they need to be told that Move and Advance are the two orders they will use the most, and that the rest are for special cases.

2. They need to learn that they don't need to issue shoot orders, and that its often a good idea if they don't.

3. They need to be expressly informed how Order Delay works.

4. They need to be told the general strategy for attacking a tank with either another tank or anti-tank gun.

This information needs to be presented to the player right up front, in a place that is easy for them to find. It also needs to offer hard guidelines (i.e. don't Advance over 60 meters). Even if this was just text in a mission briefing it would help a new player.

While I am sure there are other more advanced changes that could be made. I think if you simply combined this with an in game order reference then it would at least help people get their feet under them.

[Philippe]

I think this is the kind of thing I was talking about a few days ago when I mentioned that someone needed to write some idiot simple and incredibly boring scenarios. Like one in which you just move a couple of squads across a large open field. And another in which that large open field is covered with snow and you get to watch them collapse from exhaustion if they try to run across it. Each of the dozen or so basic critical functions in the game could be reduced to a one or two turn scenario, with the briefing serving as commentary on how the rule works. A bit like playing the turorial for Europa Universalis, only a lot simpler and more basic.