Why ignore your beta testers? (too many problems)

[Sixxkiller]

Well he does read the forum, and the reviews are mostly the same, but wtf cares? We have a little more information about what is going on with fixing the game than you do and Mr Dorosh also must remember the 3 previous titles and the support they got so he has faith that most if not all of the problems you guys are having will be fixed.

Also play Mr. Dorosh's "Slumming It" scenario and tell me this game isnt good. Its just about the best scenario any of the testers/designers made.

Originally posted by Achim:

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

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

Steve, you said:"We expect to lose some of you guys".

You can bet your head on it, that you have lost "some" customers.

But i dispute that you gain new ones for the next Battlefront titles.

A look at the new user names who signed up to congratulate him on the title has already proven you wrong, though. Not that the criticisms aren't without merit, but why embarrass yourself with stupid blanket statements like this that can be disproven by a casual glance at the forum's first page? </font>

[dalem]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

It should take 6-7 hours to "get it".

No, it shouldn't. That's a ridiculous assessment, in my "humble" opinion. 6-7 hours, for somoene that might have two hours a day, is minimum 3 days just to "get" moving guys around and having things fire at other things correctly?

Crazy talk.

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

My objection was to Achim's blanket statement: "But i dispute that you gain new ones for the next Battlefront titles."

We've already seen many new purchasers, whom have expressed satisfaction with the product. Ergo, Achim is wrong before he's left the gate. :confused: Why even say something so stupid?

[Battlefront.com]

dalem,

No, it shouldn't. That's a ridiculous assessment, in my "humble" opinion. 6-7 hours, for somoene that might have two hours a day, is minimum 3 days just to "get" moving guys around and having things fire at other things correctly?

Oh, I agree with you there. The reason why it takes 6-7 hours is because people spend about 5 bitching about it and only 1-2 actually playing

I am being serious here. The people that approach this with an open mind are up and running within a half an hour. There are people that have posted such comments here. Some of our testers had the same experience. The ones that are so upset to see the right-click menu gone just won't let it go and instead struggle with it.

Another way to look at it is this. Most games are only playable for 40 hours before they are discarded. So 7-8 hours means 1/5th of the total life of the game is spent getting to know it. That's a very bad proportion. People have been playing CMBO for 7 years. A 7 hour investment, therefore, would be 1 hour per year used. Not a bad investment.

I'll also keep reminding you guys that when CMBO came out we had endless bitching about how bad the UI was. People just needed to get used to it. The irony is that the same UI so many people hated when it first came out is what we are supposed to go back to.

Steve

[McIvan]

I haven't read the manual, and I had no trouble figuring out how to play within ten minutes using RTS. The UI is somewhat irritating......specifically having the same hotkeys for each panel....but not a game breaker.

[thewood]

I agree with Steve...We all thought the CMBO UI sucked. I really don't think it still is very good, but it was streamlined enough to grow on me.

I have spent 14 hours on a flight playing CMSF in RT. I am going back to WEGO. I was constantly missing things happenings. One QB started out within the first 5 seconds 2 M2s and 3 T72s dead. I missed it checking a stupid squad tangled up. What would get me throwing out WEGO is some kind of replay or event log. Even in real life commanders get SITREPs and AARs to kkep track of what has happened.

The thing that bothers me the most about RT is that unit may have spotted a whole battalion passing in front of it, but I screwing around doing a house entry with a brainless sqaud that I have no clue. That is where event or SITREPs are critical.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

dalem,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No, it shouldn't. That's a ridiculous assessment, in my "humble" opinion. 6-7 hours, for somoene that might have two hours a day, is minimum 3 days just to "get" moving guys around and having things fire at other things correctly?

Oh, I agree with you there. The reason why it takes 6-7 hours is because people spend about 5 bitching about it and only 1-2 actually playing

I am being serious here. The people that approach this with an open mind are up and running within a half an hour. There are people that have posted such comments here. Some of our testers had the same experience. The ones that are so upset to see the right-click menu gone just won't let it go and instead struggle with it.

Another way to look at it is this. Most games are only playable for 40 hours before they are discarded. So 7-8 hours means 1/5th of the total life of the game is spent getting to know it. That's a very bad proportion. People have been playing CMBO for 7 years. A 7 hour investment, therefore, would be 1 hour per year used. Not a bad investment.

I'll also keep reminding you guys that when CMBO came out we had endless bitching about how bad the UI was. People just needed to get used to it. The irony is that the same UI so many people hated when it first came out is what we are supposed to go back to.

Steve </font>

[LuckyStrike]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

dalem,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No, it shouldn't. That's a ridiculous assessment, in my "humble" opinion. 6-7 hours, for somoene that might have two hours a day, is minimum 3 days just to "get" moving guys around and having things fire at other things correctly?

Oh, I agree with you there. The reason why it takes 6-7 hours is because people spend about 5 bitching about it and only 1-2 actually playing Steve </font>

[C'Rogers]

Maybe it is because I played Ground Control 1, which from memory had a similar camera control, but am surprised people could struggle with the camera for more than five minutes.

[Achim]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

My objection was to Achim's blanket statement: "But i dispute that you gain new ones for the next Battlefront titles."

We've already seen many new purchasers, whom have expressed satisfaction with the product. Ergo, Achim is wrong before he's left the gate. :confused: Why even say something so stupid?

Hello Michael,

the statement was very provoking.

I know.

If its stupid, time will show.

I dont wanne write more, because the thema of the thread was "Why ignored beta testers".

And not "Lets predict the future: Will you buy CMSF 2, after you didnt like CMSF."

I hope you are right:

- battlefront patch the bugs

- battlefront sold millions of CMSF

- battlefront develop CMSF 2,3,4,5,...

- battlefront sell millions of CMSF 2,3,4,5,...

- battlefront take over blizzard and develop a new MMORPG

I would be happy

[Battlefront.com]

Dale,

My specific anecdotes of my personal experience with CM:BO are no more relevant than your generalizations, so I won't bother with them. The bottom line is, what are you going to do to help those of us who loved what you did for us with CM begin to love CMx2?

If people don't want to adapt, there isn't much I can do. We aren't going to roll the game backwards, no more than we were willing to put hexes back into CM when we yanked them out or to go 2D. You really don't remember all the CRAP we went through when the CMBO Beta Demo came out, do you? I thought you were there.

"Bugs", whether they be pathfinding, targeting, or whatever, don't concern me - I have full faith and confidence that you & the lads will wrestle those bad boys into submission as soon as is "brain-in-a-jar"ly possible.

Excellent.

What I (and others like me) are concerned with are the design decisions, or what appear to be so from our POV. No random maps, no QB purchases, are things I now know of from reading the forum and are certain of and VERY concerned about.

There are reasons why we abandoned them and it doesn't matter if the reasons make sense to you because they make sense to us. Since we're the designers, and did these decisions KNOWING that we'd see pitchforks and torches, that should get SOME of those gray cells wondering if perhaps we might have a good reason. We've explained ourselves a dozen different ways, but it just won't sink in to some because they don't want it to.

Will things change in before the WWII game release? Dunno, but probably. We believe in evolution and that means there will be further changes. But will it be like CMx1's system? No, for sure it will not be because it can not be for the same reasons it isn't in CM:SF.

The lack of a morale model I can't verify since my current video setup can't run the game well, but if it's true that there is no more unit morale, then I find that problematic.

Pardon my acronyms, but WTF?!? Where on EARTH did you read this? CMx2 actually has a far superior Morale system compared to CMx1. Morale and Suppression are independent now. Look at any screenshot of the game and you'll see the Morale factor right there where you'd expect it (with Experience, Condition, etc.). If there is a thread with such wacky disinformation in it, I'd appreciate a link to it.

In my opinion, any wargame is keyed on appropriate scaling. If I'm simulating a regimental command, I don't want to be bothered with squads, and if I'm running a company, I don't care about Private Garcia and his jammed rifle or whether he's taking sufficient cover.

You don't have to care. Funny thing is a lot of CMx1 players DO care and they asked us for more detailed individual modeling since the Beta Demo days. I'm sorry that you feel that we can only make the exact game you personally want, but it doesn't work that way. There is no single CMx1 customer type.

I guess my chief concern about actual game play centers on the same things I brought up a couple of years ago when you announced the firm commitment to 1:1 depiction: can I run a company consisting of squads (and/or fireteams for modern) if the game is insisting on showing me individual people?

The gameplay centers on the exact same things it always has. You command a company consisting of Squads and Teams same as CMx1. No difference. The only difference beyond that is in CMx1 you popped open a screen and it showed you the individual guys and weapons in an abstract form. In CMx2 the information is always present in front of you in the 2D UI and in the 3D environment. Big difference in terms of realism and immersion, no difference in terms of the game concept.

Clearly I think that's something you got "right" for CM, but if I have to worry about "running the morale" for each individual squad under fire, and that's what I'm getting from reading the forum the last couple of days, then I won't enjoy running that company, and therefore won't enjoy playing your new game. I hope that my impressions in that area are, quite simply, wrong.

You seem to be mistaken about one fundamental thing. Individual soldiers are shown and they are simulated as individuals. You still control them as a Squad or a Team, not as individuals. So no, you don't have to give a flying fig about individuals any more than you did in CMx1.

Likewise, if I am told that everything is 1:1 but then my individual pixeltruppen are getting shot through walls and running through trees, then that's a distraction and ABstraction that is misplaced and very problematic.

No system is perfect. CMx1's system was highly abstracted and you loved it, so having an imperfect visual representation that is miles ahead of CMx1 should not bother you.

The larger issues that you're no-doubt tired of are things I've harped about already - maps and purchases. Whether or not it's appropriate for SF or your interpretation of modern combat is not for me to say, but I (and others like me) will never pay money for a WWII tactical game that does not allow me to "play around" with units. Bad enough that I can't get random maps. No futzing around with a QB of HQ units and a lone ATG defending a crossroads after setting it up in 5 minutes? No sale.

Well, you'll just have to wait and see then. As it is, looks like a no sale for you.

And as to UI, well, who would have believed you'd dump something as easy, familiar, and universal as a right-click menu base?

Because it no longer worked, otherwise I would have kept it DESPITE the fact that I never, ever used it in CMx1. It was too slow and inefficient to use.

And who would think that after convincing those of us that needed to be convinced about the utility of such a thing, that we wouldn't be stung by its absence?

I'm not faulting people for missing it, I'm faulting them for not seeing if they need to miss it.

And in closing, if you made a deliberate decision to toss away the seven year lifespan of your previous engine and the whole of its appeal in favor of something people will play for a whole 80 (wow, DOUBLE the number you used! ) hours and then uninstall, then that's your decision, of course.

Now you're just being an ass, and you know it. We decided to not be stuck in the past and instead move forward. You're a reactionary, so you're going to be left behind. We left the hexheads, IGOUGO, and TopDown people behind and I don't hear you complaining about those decisions. So you can't expect me to take your logic seriously since if we had listened to your type in 1997 and 1998 there would never have been a Combat Mission series as you know it.

p.s. My fingers are crossed for the "modularity" which you touted to save the day for the WWII version.

With your crappy attitude, I doubt it. We're not rolling the clock back.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

LuckyStrike,

That in no way makes any kind of case that the CMSF UI is better than that of CMBO etc. I guess the avalanche of posts, and now negative comments on the subject in games reviews, have made no impression at all!

Sure, it makes an impression. The parts of it that we agree with will be worked on, the rest of it won't be. We did the same when CMBO Beta came out and we had the Steel Panthers guys screaming at us for not having hexes and "useless 3D Graphics, or the Close Combat guys coming here and pounding people for playing a "silly game" with "useless 3D Graphics".

Not to mention the crapstorm we took for improving CMBO and making CMBB. Man, I think the "avalanche" of negative posts over a fairly modest set of tweaks was not all that less than this time around with MUCH more fundamental changes.

You see, I have the advantage of perspective here. If we listened to the reactionary elements we'd have gone out of business years ago after making the last in a series of antiquated top down 2D hex based IGOUGO games.

Some people have to be brought forward kicking and screaming, some have to be left behind. We knew that years ago and so we're not seeing anything we didn't expect back in 2002 when we made the outline for CMx2.

Steve

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The lack of a morale model I can't verify since my current video setup can't run the game well, but if it's true that there is no more unit morale, then I find that problematic.

Pardon my acronyms, but WTF?!? Where on EARTH did you read this? CMx2 actually has a far superior Morale system compared to CMx1. Morale and Suppression are independent now. Look at any screenshot of the game and you'll see the Morale factor right there where you'd expect it (with Experience, Condition, etc.). If there is a thread with such wacky disinformation in it, I'd appreciate a link to it.

</font>

[CaptainBly]

A look at the new user names who signed up to congratulate him on the title has already proven you wrong, though. Not that the criticisms aren't without merit, but why embarrass yourself with stupid blanket statements like this that can be disproven by a casual glance at the forum's first page?

You know how easy it is to make a new name on here and act like you're new or just look new. That doesn't fly one iota that NEW people have actually bought the game. It's more probably people like you making up a new name and login and just being a fanboy or doing something like this to try to disprove others statements I don't put anything past fanbois actions when their game is under attack. You're all like partisains during the issues that come up. It's a war or the words and it's usually the same people on the fanboi side saying the same things over and over in every other thread. Get used to it CM:SF has issues and it's not going to be very popular as word gets out about the UI and camara controls and general bugs/flaws and ctds.

[jomni]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The lack of a morale model I can't verify since my current video setup can't run the game well, but if it's true that there is no more unit morale, then I find that problematic.

Pardon my acronyms, but WTF?!? Where on EARTH did you read this? CMx2 actually has a far superior Morale system compared to CMx1. Morale and Suppression are independent now. Look at any screenshot of the game and you'll see the Morale factor right there where you'd expect it (with Experience, Condition, etc.). If there is a thread with such wacky disinformation in it, I'd appreciate a link to it.

</font>

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by jomni:

If you have bullets flying above you, and all your friends are dead... will you run back? or stay down and play dead?

Believe it or not, people do tend to run away from things that are trying to end their lives.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dale,

If people don't want to adapt, there isn't much I can do.

Nothing is further from the truth. There is a LOT you could do or have done. You just didn't do it.

We aren't going to roll the game backwards, no more than we were willing to put hexes back into CM when we yanked them out or to go 2D. You really don't remember all the CRAP we went through when the CMBO Beta Demo came out, do you? I thought you were there.

I WAS there. I DO remember it. I somehow thought that would count for something. You say "backwards" but I'm thinking "what I like".

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Bugs", whether they be pathfinding, targeting, or whatever, don't concern me - I have full faith and confidence that you & the lads will wrestle those bad boys into submission as soon as is "brain-in-a-jar"ly possible.

Excellent.</font>

[Battlefront.com]

molotov_billy

I think what's he referring to is the absence of any type of retreat behavior. I don't know if it's by design or a bug, but it's something that a lot of people have noticed. I haven't seen anyone retreat yet, after about 10-15 hours of gameplay.

Ah, that's an entirely different thing. See... there's the problem with Dale's posts. He doesn't have even the demo in front of him, so pretty much all his complaining is based on second hand information. Very easy to get things confused that way.

As for the lack of units taking defensive action, that will be fixed to some degree with v1.02. However, it will probably be something that evolves over the next year. We were still working on the TacAI when we made CMAK, and that was about 4 years of post release development. It's just one of those things that takes a LOT longer to do than the game itself takes. We would still be tweaking CMAK's TacAI if it were a supported product (i.e. even after 4 years we didn't get it to where we wanted it).

CaptainBly,

It's more probably people like you making up a new name and login and just being a fanboy or doing something like this to try to disprove others statements I don't put anything past fanbois actions when their game is under attack.

I agree!! I think all the complainers are just one or two people. So tell us, CaptainBly (if that is your real name), how many accounts did you create so you could slam the people that really like CM:SF?

Get used to it CM:SF has issues and it's not going to be very popular as word gets out about the UI and camara controls and general bugs/flaws and ctds.

So people can only hate the game because you do, is that what you are saying?

I'm sure you're not going to respond well to that, but you opened yourself wide open for it. Disagree with someone's opinion, fine. Make a case and let it stand on its merits. But if you have to fall back on claiming challenges to your position are the result of deceit instead of honest disagreement, well... you should have some real reason to think that. Otherwise you just come off sounding like someone who has a problem with people having a different opinion. That would make you rather small minded, wouldn't it?

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Ah, that's an entirely different thing. See... there's the problem with Dale's posts. He doesn't have even the demo in front of him, so pretty much all his complaining is based on second hand information. Very easy to get things confused that way.

And I've pointed out as much with things like LOS/LOF and morale. Maps and purchases, I don't need the demo in front of me to know they're gone, and I think those are the only two things I've really complained about.

Because that's all I really know about.

-dale

[Caesar]

Steve, I suspect that at least half the problem with the perception of the interface comes from the lack of hints and walkthrough. I downloaded the demo and have bought the game. For the first while (probably 2 - 3 hours of play) I hated the camera control. I told at least 3 other people that it was only just playable. Then I discovered a few details I had missed and learned how to use the full functionality of the camera control. Now I find it to be quite okay - not the best I have used, but quite okay and certainly no disaster. I think you are getting a LOT of bad reviews and people going no further than the demo for just the same reasons. Before you say it, yes I could have just read the manual and no doubt it would have helped me. I didn't read it, and didn't expect to have to. I might read it sometime on the train if pdf is able to be printed out, but I am not going to stop and read 200 pages before jumping into the game. I have never done it for any other game (including your three) and have never needed to.

I still hate the tabbed control panel. I do realise the problem you face (designing GUIs is part of my job too) and to be quite honest, I am not sure how to do it in another way that is better. The Right Click option would have been more familiar (and therefore intuitive???) but I am not sure that you would have made it any more usable. I do think that at the very least it needs to have a hotkey per tab so that you can directly select the tab. The rotating through them is clunky.

On the positive side of things, I bought two games in the weekend. One was CMSF and the other was the best FPS I have ever played (I like both genres). I went to work sleep deprived because of staying up playing CMSF - not the FPS. This game is FUN!

P.S I have seen men run away in the demo - never in the full game.

[Battlefront.com]

Maybe it has sunk in but I think it's just plain f*cking stupid, Steve, and I'm trying to figure out what the rationale is behind it.

Dale, the problem is when I tell you (and others) why you can't have these things because of the engine changes, you then say "well, that was f*cking stupd, nobody wanted that crap anyway, so you killed the game for nothing". Which is why this is a continually frustrating experience for both sides.

Look at this thread. Then realize it is because of the changes we made that we're getting this sort of reaction. We would NOT be getting it if CMx1 was just warmed over:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002050

The things that have people excited about CM:SF (even despite some teething problems) are exactly the things that required us to kill off Random Maps and Purchasable Units (at least the way you want them to be). That is the basis of the problem, for you. To do what we wanted to do we HAD to change what was already there. The two examples you care most about:

Random Maps - barely possible with CMx1's vastly simplified and overly abstracted terrain system, impossible with CMx2's finer resolution and umpteen number of additional terrain types. Chief amongst them, buildings. There are probably more building choices than 1/2 of CMx1's total terrain possibilities.

Picking Units - it barely worked in CMx1 where the units were roughly balanced and there was no chain of command to stick to. There was no TO&E over Platoon Level in CMx1 in that regard. CMx2 requires chain of command to function and the units (at least in CMx2) are so vastly different from side to side that coming up with a point system was seen as futile. Hardly anybody liked the system we had for CMx1, but they lived with it because we refused to endlessly futz with it.

Reactionary, am I? Well. If I am to be labeled a reactionary it's in response to something you created Sir - something I needed all of 5 seconds to become enamored of, lo those many years ago -blink- -blink-. No need to get insulting over the fact that what you thought was the bee's knees back then also appealed to me.

Do you even see how silly the above makes you seem?

You miss the point Dale. We knew in 2002 that this day would come. The day when the release of CM:SF would separate the people who wanted something new and those who wanted the same thing we've already made reheated. Not everybody that thinks CMx1 is the "bee's knees"will think CMx2 is better. Not everybody that passed on CMx1 for the last 7 years will pass on CMx2. It's a trade off, which we do find unfortunate since we would rather all CMx1 fans move ahead with us. However, that just isn't possible and we knew that well ahead of time. It would have been "silly" (or "f*cking stupid" as you put it) if we didn't see this schism coming. Have we ever struck you as "silly"or "f*cking stupid" about what we do? I doubt it, otherwise you wouldn't be here with a Forum post count almost as large as mine.

From our perspective we created CMx1 to be a leap forward and a break with the past. You joined us because of that vision and in doing so moved on from the games you had loved before that, correct? Now CMx2 is doing to CMx1 what it did to Steel Panthers and other games like it. That is progress, whether you agree with it or not. Staying with CMx1, and not moving forward, is stagnation. Those who emotionally oppose progress and favor stagnation could be called "reactionaries". Perhaps I should not have applied it to you, but this isn't the first post I've read of yours that makes me think it is appropriate. I used the same term for the Hexheads and CC nutters that came to our forums and tried tearing us new holes for daring to replace what they loved with something new. Someone who accepts that change is here and opts not to partake in it is not a reactionary.

Don't you see where the conflict is between us here?

Well. Now my attitude is "crappy". How so?

I said "attitude". You don't think you've copped an attitude instead of just wanting to discuss these issues? That's not been my impression.

Hire a customer service rep Steve - you are, and always have been, your own worst enemy.

This company is here when most don't make it a year or two in this biz. You can't separate my customer service skills from that success, sorry. It's tough love here when it is required, and it's served us very well over the last 8 years.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Caesar ,

Steve, I suspect that at least half the problem with the perception of the interface comes from the lack of hints and walkthrough. I downloaded the demo and have bought the game. For the first while (probably 2 - 3 hours of play) I hated the camera control. I told at least 3 other people that it was only just playable. Then I discovered a few details I had missed and learned how to use the full functionality of the camera control. Now I find it to be quite okay - not the best I have used, but quite okay and certainly no disaster. I think you are getting a LOT of bad reviews and people going no further than the demo for just the same reasons.

Indeed, that is the problem. If we miscalculated anything, it was the number of people that would initially stumble on the UI and quickly declare it a disaster. And then STICK to that opinion. Unfortunately this has been compounded by the sort of thing I posted to Dale, above. Some people were destined to hate CM:SF no matter what the UI was like, even if it was identical to CMx1's UI. That's complicated the assessment of the UI since someone predisposed to not liking the game for some reasons is likely to find fault with everything else possible.

What to do about it? It's tough to say. A small "UI Tutorial" is an idea, though it would have to be in text form external to the program itself.

I still hate the tabbed control panel. I do realise the problem you face (designing GUIs is part of my job too) and to be quite honest, I am not sure how to do it in another way that is better. The Right Click option would have been more familiar (and therefore intuitive???) but I am not sure that you would have made it any more usable. I do think that at the very least it needs to have a hotkey per tab so that you can directly select the tab. The rotating through them is clunky.

The right-click thing would not have solved the problem for anybody that wanted to play this RT. It would get in the way for sure, which is why even in 2003 we ruled out having a popup menu in the game. Yup, we knew even then that we had to find another way. My first mockup was sometime around January 2003 and it wasn't very long after that that we realized the popup menu idea had to go away.

I do agree with you about the 1 key per tab idea. In fact, we always meant to have it that way and DID at one point, but we redid how the keys were mapped and... well, it got forgotten about. It will be in v1.02.

One other thing to note. The Commands are grouped the way they are because Commands within a Group can't be used with others within that same Group at the same time. If we had them all laid out in one big menu, not only would that be ungainly and difficult to use, but it would be extremely confusing.

On the positive side of things, I bought two games in the weekend. One was CMSF and the other was the best FPS I have ever played (I like both genres). I went to work sleep deprived because of staying up playing CMSF - not the FPS. This game is FUN!

Thanks! Of course I am pleased to hear we beat out the competition

P.S I have seen men run away in the demo - never in the full game.

Something on the v1.02 fixlist and we expect to have it available very shortly. I'll give a heads up when I can comment more on the exact features and when (roughly) we expect it out.

Thanks,

Steve

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by LuckyStrike:

Uh, no, its because the interface actually is very inefficient and counter-intuitive.

I can't judge that, since i haven't played it yet, but:

Its about the necessity to take your eyes off the screen when playing RT mode to see what tab you are in.

Aren't there tab-independent hotkeys?

Or are the tabs not switchable by keys?

In general my impression is, that there are peaople very loud about things in the UI, that do not work as they expect it. And i have the impression, they are not even willing to get used to the new system - they always played with the mouse only, so that's how a UI has to be. :eek:

For example from music-production: one of the most productive and best sequencers available, has the steepest learning curve you can imagine. NOTHING works intuitively. But once you get used to it - and you will need the manual ALWAYS for several weeks - once you've leaned the key-commands, this thing flows like no other.

And now guess, what is the major complaint of newbies? The UI!

I don't say, that the UI of CMSF is good or bad. I can't judge that, yet. But from reading the posts i have the impression, that there are people uncapable or unwilling to learn a new UI that way it should be used. Instead they keep their old behaviours and are wondering, why things don't work as efficiently as expected.

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

problematic.Pardon my acronyms, but WTF?!? Where on EARTH did you read this? CMx2 actually has a far superior Morale system compared to CMx1. Morale and Suppression are independent now. Look at any screenshot of the game and you'll see the Morale factor right there where you'd expect it (with Experience, Condition, etc.). If there is a thread with such wacky disinformation in it, I'd appreciate a link to it.

It seems the member Bonxa was the idiot:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002128#000014

[massive1974]

:eek: wow...wow...I've been reading the exchange between Steve and Dalem...wow :eek: I haven't been around much these forums (only registered a couple of weeks before the release of CMSF) but man, the passion, the love, the hate. it's funny and shocking at the same time. I 've never seen such an exchange between support and customer.and reminds me of the Great Metallica Schism of 1989

i'm amazed at the degree of interaction. It's exciting to see the process. a new paradigm being born, oldschool versus newschool, Trotskyites versus Stalinists, etc.

anyways, as i've already said in another thread before, I'm the example of someone lured by the RT system and the timeperiod. I have played all of the CM1 games and respected them (OK liked them too) for their realism. But the WEGO thing was stuttering a bit for me. Now i'm completely satisfied (well, minus all that will be fixed in a patch) and a prepaying customer.