Why ignore your beta testers? (too many problems)

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by ARFF1Tampa:

...I just liked it better the other way.

Oh no, that's not allowed.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Originally posted by ARFF1Tampa:

The one thing I don't like about the camera controls is it sems that you can only do one camera movement at a time, where in CM1, CMBB, and TOW you can pan (encircle) and move the camera forward/back, ect. at the same time. Which made for a cool effect, and a truly free camera. In CBSF if your panning and you hit the move forward, ect. button, it stops all movement and you have to repress forward to start it moving again and can only press one. I know this is how CMSF is, I just liked it better the other way.

Not exactly the case. If you hold down left click and move the mouse, you can fly all over the map. Keep your left hand on Q and E to pivot at any time.

I am actually starting to get used to the new camera. Can't say that I love it yet, but who knows, later on.

[Dirtweasle]

Yea I got used to it too. Like I wrote, it took a while, but it's fine now.

....Except; Something I cannot quite figure out is small incremental camera moves. Back and forth horizontally and less important side to side.

Ideas?

[Runyan99]

W,A,S,D

[Guest]

I use WASD for small camera moves. Just tap 'em.

As for the whole "open mind equals competence in 30 minutes" thing, I gotta say I approached this game with an *excited* mind, found the whole shebang difficult to manipulate, and was disappointed.

I kept trying, though, and have come to a somewhat workable solution whereby I only play small scenarios and give myself plenty of time to do things. It took me a couple hours of play to do so, and while I may not be "gifted" I certainly am no throwback or someone stuck in the CM mindframe (I haven't played CM since CMBO), though I have certainly purchased games from BFC.

If the TacAI were a bit more helpful it might mean less micro-management and make the whole 8-clicks versus one-click-and-a-hotkey thing more of a moot point... make the UI a bit more transparent to the user experience.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ARFF1Tampa:

...I just liked it better the other way.

Oh no, that's not allowed. </font>

[Dirtweasle]

DOH! Thanks Runyan and Phil, I'm at work and could not look up and it was bothering me.

~~~~~~~

Crapitude is the technical version Dale; Crapitude.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

Crapitude is the technical version Dale; Crapitude.

There I go being all reactionary again.

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

Panzer76.

The paradigm shift to CMBO et all was a clear progression in my eyes.

That's the point I keep making that you aren't apparently grasping. Look at the all important words "in my eyes". For a fact, recorded on this Forum, the Steel Panthers, SL/ASL, Close Combat, HPS, etc. fans said the same exact thing about CMBO as you are saying about CM:SF:

Motion does not always equal Progress

They saw the move to 3D as a complete waste of time. Motion? Sure, but utterly useless in their eyes. Getting away from hexes was seen as a step backwards, so it was motion in the wrong direction according to them. The Close Combat people thought the game not being RealTime meant a step backwards too.

Can't you see that your opinion is only valid as an opinion in relation to your own personal wants and desires? It doesn't make your wants and desires invalid, but it doesn't make them relevant either when it comes to trying to judge if what we're doing is progress or not. To you it isn't, to us it is. To many customers it also is. Who is right? Everybody and nobody.

Again, the point of all of this is to emphasize that what is to you sacred is to us something that is flawed and in need of improvement. We feel very confident (even more than we did prior to release) that we are pushing the basics of CMx1 in the right direction down the never ending road towards a perfect wargame system. You disagree, which is your right. But it is just your opinion, not an established fact. Don't confuse the two.

Dale,

I still see you poking the bear, quite deliberately, so you shouldn't be surprised when the bear swats back. You know me well enough to understand that is how I work, which is why I'm surprised at your surprise. But enough has been said on that so I'll drop it. I suggest you do the same.

Steve

[ August 02, 2007, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Dirtweasel,

Bullshit.

My mind was not right so it took me nearly an entire day to "get it"? Pure unadulterated bullshit.

First, can the swearing or you'll be bounced. Your low Member number and large post count doesn't exempt you from the Forum rules, and in fact should make you more aware of them.

You're taking my comments out of context. We have a bunch of people saying that the controls are completely, and utterly, unusable. That the game, as is, can not be played. The solution to this, in their eyes, is a blind retreat to the CMx1 system (which I keep stressing WILL NOT WORK). So when we've also got people posting that they had zero problems with the UI, or at least very little, and were up and running in a very short space of time... well, I can not help but try to determine why it is that some people are struggling so badly whlie other people are having no problems at all. It certainly can't be that the controls are "broken" because nobody would be able to play.

I don't know, perhaps J Ruddy is correct that it takes someone of extremely high intellectual capabilities to be able to use the controls quickly. The flaw in that theory is that J Ruddy claims to be one of those types. I think I do not need to elaborate on the contradictions

Steve

[VicKevlar]

The Close Combat people thought the game not being RealTime meant a step backwards too.

Damn straight.....and it looks like you're finally coming around.

Would it be in bad taste to say SA:WF was better outta the box?

[Battlefront.com]

Heh... haven't seen you around here in a DOG'S AGE, Vic.

Damn straight.....and it looks like you're finally coming around.

Always loved the RT aspect, the hardware just wasn't ready for us back then. I still rank CC2 as one of the best wargames of all times, flaws and all. I think the only wargame I played more than that, prior to CC2's release, was Grigsby's War in Russia on my old Atari 800. After that, I'd say Chris Crawford's Eastern Front and Patton vs. Rommel. Both of the latter, I might add, were WeGo.

Would it be in bad taste to say SA:WF was better outta the box?

Not bad taste, because I'm not sure many would take you seriously

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Achim:

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

I agree with you, incidentally, that a bad first release would obviously have an impact on future titles, so you are very much correct about that. I'd just be careful about making dire predictions - we've seen a lot of them here in 7 or so years, not many have come to pass. I think we both agree that neither of us can predict the future, so I'm happy to leave it there too. Fingers crossed, eh?

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh,

I agree with you, incidentally, that a bad first release would obviously have an impact on future titles,

And we agree with both you and Achim, which is why we need to get the bugs in CM:SF fixes ASAP But one advantage of our Internet sale model is that the game will be available for a long time to come. If someone comes back in 6 months, we'll be there with something like v1.05 or what not. This allows them to change their mind, whereas a retail release only... someone has to go out back and do some dumpster diving to find things that old!

We did, incidentally, see a second wave of sales on CMBO after we fixed things that were broken in the initial release. I expect the same thing this time around. If not... we'll just hope to catch them with a future release. Sales of CM:SF are going very nicely thus far (outsold CMBO by this same point in time), though obviously things can drop off at any moment. Which, again, is why we are busting our asses to get patches out. We're not the complacent types!

Steve

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We have a bunch of people saying that the controls are completely, and utterly, unusable. That the game, as is, can not be played. The solution to this, in their eyes, is a blind retreat to the CMx1 system.

This is a fairly innaccurate generalization. There are different people saying different things. A blind retreat to the CMx1 system would certainly be a mistake, considering that the controls for that game are just as foreign to the typical gamer as the current ones are. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell us that the diehards who have been playing CM for years are used to them. That isn't important, though, if we're attempting to expose Shock Force to a new audience in addition to the current one.

Any control scheme can be adapted to, so there's no surprise that there are people that have done so. But that isn't important. The goal of a UI and control scheme should be to get the player up and running quickly. If a person is to have a good first impression (undeniably the most important thing in selling games), than they have to be playing the game from the first minute, unnoccupied by technical difficulties. The average time of 1 to 15 hours simply to get used to the controls is an appalling period of time that will cost you customers in the long run. Reading the forums and aruging with the users that have stuck around will not change that fact.

My understanding of it is that we have a control scheme here that's completely different than anything else that anybody has ever played. There tends to be certain intuitive, logical control standards that people expect out of any game. The developers of Shock Force have chosen to ignore those standards (if they are aware of them), or simply throw them out the window.

There are controls that are so unintuitive, I never found out about them until I read about them on the forums. No other game in the world pans the screen by left-click dragging, so it never occured to me to try it. I was stuck with the arrow keys, which work completely differently in shock force and are woefully inadequate for moving about the battlefield. I have no doubt that most new users have had similar experiences.

Now, if the only customer base that BFC is interested in is the die hard gamer who's willing to put up with any and all technical difficulties to play a modern warfare simulation, then there are no problems whatsoever. People will get used to the controls, or they will leave.

So far, that seems to be the case, and it's incredibly unforunate that BFC has passed on the opportunity to reach a larger customer base.

Considering that the average user rated the CM:SF demo as a 2 out of 5, it seems likely that they're going down that road.

[ August 02, 2007, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[molotov_billy]

On a positive note, there have definately been specific improvements to the UI that have made playing Shock Force a lot more enjoyable than previous incarnations.

The biggest one in my mind is the addition of selectable icons over units. So much simpler and readable than having to hunt through forests and terrain looking for soldiers and camouflaged tanks. I can't put into words how frustrating it used to be to try and select soldiers that were loaded into half tracks. Now I can just select the icon.

They also improve the user's ability to guage a battlefield situation at a glance - I can see all positions of friendly and known enemy units at the same time. Good stuff.

[VicKevlar]

Heh... haven't seen you around here in a DOG'S AGE, Vic.

I'm always around.....but I certainly don't try and keep up with Dorosh on post counts and such.

I kinda started posting again when TOW was first announced and now that I actually have it....I may get to play it in the near future and see if it's what I dreamed for with CC. I'll get CMSF also but knowing my schedule it won't be until Thanksgiving that I'll actually be able to install it let alone play. :eek:

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

If someone comes back in 6 months, we'll be there with ... v1.05.

Steve

So there will only be 5 patches?

I would expect more serious support from Battlefront...

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dirtweasel,

...We have a bunch of people saying that the controls are completely, and utterly, unusable. That the game, as is, can not be played. The solution to this, in their eyes, is a blind retreat to the CMx1 system (which I keep stressing WILL NOT WORK). So when we've also got people posting that they had zero problems with the UI, or at least very little, and were up and running in a very short space of time... well, I can not help but try to determine why it is that some people are struggling so badly whlie other people are having no problems at all. It certainly can't be that the controls are "broken" because nobody would be able to play.

I don't know, perhaps J Ruddy is correct that it takes someone of extremely high intellectual capabilities to be able to use the controls quickly. The flaw in that theory is that J Ruddy claims to be one of those types. I think I do not need to elaborate on the contradictions

Steve

Ok, that's funny.

Steve, take a look at my post in this thread; CAMERA CONTROLS, How they work in game vs How the manual says they work.

just an fyi there, but somebopdy ought to sort that out before you print your next batch of manuals and in the mena time fix the pdf file.

Hey I'm a slow cautious CM player, and it takes me ages to even do a turn, and thne with this new game I go throug a scenario / battle and take my time and alt-tab through the manual. It's just the way I learned to learn things. No Crapitude from me, no sir eee, just a different style than the Gonzo gamers.

[SKELLEN]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

I recommended CMx1 to anyone that bothered to listen to me. I wont recommend this game to nobody, atleast until its been heavily patched.

There is absolutely no reason why this game should have to be heavily patched in my view given the development time of 4 years?

Why do companies persist with this course of releasing software full of bugs and then expect the customer to pay for this - both downloading patch after patch as well as their wallets due to their inability to properly playtest the game initially?

Obviously no game is and never will be perfect and a patch or two is understandable but to require heavy patching on initial release is inexcusable for a commercial product, and could be seen as a kick in the teeth (so to speak) for your customers.

Come on BFC you're better than this I'm sure! :confused:

[ August 02, 2007, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: SKELLEN ]

[Guest]

Based on what I've seen, this is BFC's business model for in-house development. Seems like it's working for them, though, wouldn't you say?

Basically, they created a game in four programmer-years that I would estimate at needing about 4.5 p-years on average, 6 at the outside, and that's leaving out testing, art and design. On top of that, the longer-term product would likely still have bugs... that's just the nature of development.

Frankly:

a) I would not be surprised if they spent the next .5-2 years patching and

I'm *very* glad they released now rather than waiting until it was perfect. It may be imperfect, but a fun game in hand (plus the incidental anticipation / excitement of the promise of future patches) is easily worth two "perfect" games in the bush.

Lastly, this release / business model also benefits the user... this way they fix stuff that *we* want fixed.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Panzer76.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The paradigm shift to CMBO et all was a clear progression in my eyes.

That's the point I keep making that you aren't apparently grasping. Look at the all important words "in my eyes". For a fact, recorded on this Forum, the Steel Panthers, SL/ASL, Close Combat, HPS, etc. fans said the same exact thing about CMBO as you are saying about CM:SF:</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Sgt.Joch,

So there will only be 5 patches?

I didn't say that. I just picked a number out of my butt. We had 12 patches for CMBO and I suspect we'll probably (eventually) have just as many. It all depends on how many "quick" patches we put out (like v1.02) and how many are for feature improvements that can take a little longer to do.

Dirtweasle

just an fyi there, but somebopdy ought to sort that out before you print your next batch of manuals and in the mena time fix the pdf file.

Yup, goof on our part. We changed the defaults more times than I can count, and it looks like we didn't quite get all the correct keys for the layout as shipped.

Hey I'm a slow cautious CM player, and it takes me ages to even do a turn, and thne with this new game I go throug a scenario / battle and take my time and alt-tab through the manual. It's just the way I learned to learn things. No Crapitude from me, no sir eee, just a different style than the Gonzo gamers.

I don't denny that there is a wide variety of responses to the new UI, some extremely negative and some extremely positive. I was simply reminding the extremely negative people that this is not a factual issue they are commenting on. It is, like most game features, an opinion. Therefore, in theory it is no more or less valid or invalid than the people who hold the opposite opinion. Too often that is forgotten.

SKELLEN,

There is absolutely no reason why this game should have to be heavily patched in my view given the development time of 4 years?

I can think of a reason! We have but one programmer and he did in 4 years what most programmers could never do, no matter how much time they were given. When I look at the amount of coding that is in the game already I wonder how we could have even got to this stage in such a "short" period of time. Now, if we took 4 years to do a warmed over version of CMx1... that would be different.

Why do companies persist with this course of releasing software full of bugs and then expect the customer to pay for this - both downloading patch after patch as well as their wallets due to their inability to properly playtest the game initially?

Releasing software is always an imperfect experience. Nobody gets it right, generally speaking. VISTA is a perfect example. How overdue was that software? How buggy was it when it came out? How many VISTA people are STILL having problems or have uninstalled it because they couldn't use it? This is a product that is now shipped on every new computer, like it or not. The company has billions of Dollars in revenue and more programmers than probably any company in the world, yet the most critical piece of software on the PC still has a lot of problems. Further, as a Mac guy I have something to compare it against. MacOS runs my Intel based laptop better than WindowsXP

Now, before anybody gets the wrong impression... we're not happy with the technical and other problems you guys are experiencing. It's certainly something we don't like and are trying to correct as quickly as we can. And we will, just like we did for CMBO when it came out.

Phillip,

a) I would not be surprised if they spent the next .5-2 years patching and

Depends on how you define "patching". If it is simply fixing problems with the existing code, it won't take us even .5 years to do that. But if you mean adding features that people want or improving features they already have, I'd say we're talking about a never ending series of patches.

I'm *very* glad they released now rather than waiting until it was perfect. It may be imperfect, but a fun game in hand (plus the incidental anticipation / excitement of the promise of future patches) is easily worth two "perfect" games in the bush.

That was the same kind of debate we had with people when we released CMBO without TCP/IP. Some said we shouldn't release the game AT ALL until it in, but most people felt that was silly. This isn't exactly the same situation here, but the principle of keeping the game locked up until it is "perfect" never ever benefits the user. It usually means the game turns into vaporware or ridiculously long developed products. Off the top of my head, Duke Nukem Forever, Battlecrusier 3000k (or whatever the number was!), Road to Moscow, and more if I wasn't so tired that I could think straight

Lastly, this release / business model also benefits the user... this way they fix stuff that *we* want fixed.

And honestly, that is something we like. Even without testers I could keep Charles cranking on features for the next 6 years. I am a creative guy But we have to draw the line somewhere and see what people think beyond our testers. And from that feedback we decide what to include or at least what to prioritize. It works out better for the customer in the end.

Panzer76,

Thing is, I felt in love with CMBO from the get go.

The thing is a lot of people didn't. That's the point I apparently have to keep bringing up. Just because you loved it doesn't mean it was perfect for everybody. Other people hated it. With a passion in some cases. This time you're more like the others. I'm not asking you to be happy about it or to change your mind, I'm simply asking you to understand that you could have been the one on the outside looking in and seeing nothing but blasphemy with CMBO.

I felt in love with CMBB from the get go.

And we lost a LOT of CMBO people when we did CMBB. They hated the theater and/or they hated some of the fairly minor (comparatively) changes we made to the engine. You loved it, great! But don't let your love of it gloss over that a lot of people had exactly the opposite reaction.

I have not felt in love with CMSF, not even close to how I felt about CMBO. Yes, I know, its just my opinion, but its an opinion, non the less.

It is an opinion I value unless the opinion is taken to an extreme as some have done. I am no more happy with people saying we sucked for taking out hexes than I am for people saying we suck for adding RealTime.

I think that CMSF gets a "free" ride now in the beginning. You have alot of CM fans, and they have pre ordered your games, many more times than your CMBO release.

Well, I don't know about "free". We worked very hard to get this far and we will continue to work very hard to keep up the standards. What we can't do, and won't do, is reverse the progress we've made simply because some of these people don't like the direction we went in. Nothing I've seen here has made me doubt that we made the right decisions for where CM should go. And before we get yet another thread started with people saying that we've already, or soon will, abandon WeGo... we're going to do no such thing.

However, so far, I dare say, CMSF has no recived the same warm welcome as CMBO. Whiners included. So, I dont think its fair to compare the twos. More appropiate would be to compare the next module and CMBB. AS things stand right now, I think you will be dissapointed. However, I hope the issues that many of your customers point out, will be corrected.

CMBB sold a lot less than CMBO did, and CMAK sold less than CMBB. So I hope you are wrong in more ways than you intended

BTW, we did better than the industry average for direct sequels off of a single (modified) game engine. The rule of thumb is a 50% reduction in sales with each release compared to the previous one. We did quite a bit better than that, but people that think CMBB was the best game we did should not confuse that with the facts of how well it sold. Personally, I agree that CMBB was the best for a bunch of reasons, including the fact that I am an Ostfront Grog!

Steve

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

CMBB sold a lot less than CMBO did, and CMAK sold less than CMBB.

Had no idea BO outsold BB. Would have imagined that BB would have been number 1 with AK selling more than BO, too.

[patrik pass]

i love real time mode in shock force!!! because real time is more real and more dynamic. you can pause anytime and your turn based mode is still there. so wheres the problem?!