Why ignore your beta testers? (too many problems)

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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:

Except that they hadn't already given you 150 bucks, Steve-O.

That's the point some of us feel that you aren't apparently grasping.

-dale

[Runyan99]

Dale, I don't see what your fixation with random maps and unit purchase points is, and why you insist on acting like CMSF is totally worthless without these items.

1) The random maps in CM, by and large, sucked. They generally made no sense, and didn't do a very good job of depicting realistic locales. Given that CMSF maps are more detailed, a random generator for this new game is only going to make maps that suck even more. Playing QBs on user designed maps is, was, and will be, far more interesting. Why don't you try it?

2) The point system for purchasing units in CM was gamey. I understand you used it to set up QBs, but can't you work around the lack of a point system somehow? Can't you agree to play with 'a company and two tanks' or something? I did this myself. My first CMSF QB is an infantry only game I set up with a company on each side. I didn't need a point system to set this up. Failing that, can't you devise a point system of your own?

[ August 03, 2007, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]

[jomni]

I'm seeing where he's getting at...

CMx1's QB enabled people to structure their multiplayer games. They feel it is fair because it allowed them freedom in choosing the units... and no one has seen or played the map before.

In CMx2's QB they can't choose exactly the troops that they are going to get. And they don't like playing the same old maps again and again. If the opponent has better knowledge of the map than you, then they think it's unfair.

Well most new games don't even have random map generators. Squad Battles and POA2 has limited maps. Do you see the grognards complaining? In ARMA or BF2 you keep playing the same maps. Do you the FPS buffs complaining? In Company of Heroes, you also keep playing the same maps. Do you see the RTS freaks complaining? But CMSF has the edge over all these because it has a powerful map editor.

But I guess he's just too spoiled by what CMx1 has provided.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

Dale, I don't see what your fixation with random maps and unit purchase points is,

Because that's the draw in the game for me. It's not important if you don't "see" it, and it's not important if I don't see what snazzy graphics and/or RT and/or 1:1 and/or whatever else is the draw in the game for you or anyone else. My opinion doesn't invalidate yours, nor does yours invalidate mine.

and why you insist on acting like CMSF is totally worthless without these items.

Find one post of mine that states or implies that CMSF is "worthless without these items". CMSF could be the greatest game ever for a gajillion folks, and I am happy for them and Steve & Crew if that's the case. It's just not the game for me, and I just found this out three days ago after many years of enjoyment of the Olden Days and some not-small expectation that my enjoyment would continue in some form. Well-formed and -expressed opinions have always been welcome here; have you decided that that is no longer true?

1) The random maps in CM, by and large, sucked. They generally made no sense, and didn't do a very good job of depicting realistic locales.

Maybe so, maybe not. But I could toggle through a handful in about 3 minutes to settle on one I liked. That was a core feature for me and my style of play.

Given that CMSF maps are more detailed, a random generator for this new game is only going to make maps that suck even more.

I'll never know, now will I?

Playing QBs on user designed maps is, was, and will be, far more interesting. Why don't you try it?

Most user-designed maps sucked a lot worse than the random efforts - there were few real artists with the CM editor, and I'm no poor study myself for non-built-up locales. As for why I don't try it, I assure you I planned nothing less (and nothing more) for CM:SF when I found out about the mapping limitations a while ago. I was going to wait a patch or two then buy SF just to learn the editor. Now there appears to be no point (see below). No harm, no foul.

2) The point system for purchasing units in CM was gamey.

Not with the people I play against and not for my AI battles. And it allowed for tremendous off-the-cuff fun and "edutainment".

I understand you used it to set up QBs, but can't you work around the lack of a point system somehow?

Sure I could if the game allowed for it. I don't care about points and I don't care about fair. Like I said above, I play mostly against people I trust and/or to set up situations that entertain me, like taking a platoon of infantry with some ' zooks and a lone ATG and seeing what I can do to hurt an attacking Mech Company. Or how fast I can get by the reverse.

Can't you agree to play with 'a company and two tanks' or something?

What if I want two specific tanks? Two M24s or whatever? A weird company? Modern OBs are probably far more constricted in choices and perhaps that even makes sense, but I'm not going to get the choice in QBs even if a WWII version comes out, right?

I did this myself. My first CMSF QB is an infantry only game I set up with a company on each side. I didn't need a point system to set this up. Failing that, can't you devise a point system of your own?

Again, I don't care about points. I care a great deal about The Ability To Select Exactly What I Feel Like for a QB. Ain't gonna happen.

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by jomni:

But I guess he's just too spoiled by what CMx1 has provided.

You could call it "spoiled". You could also call it "setting the customer's expectations".

-dale

[Sirocco]

As someone who only ever played QB's with CMx1, I feel disinclined to play them in CMSF. I think perhaps it's a combination of both no random maps and pre-selected forces.

I didn't like scenarios in CMx1 because I felt the designer had a game plan pre-defined and the trick was to follow their route. With pre-defined maps I feel the designer has a plan in mind, expressed in the map layout.

And it was a pleasure just to look through all your force options in CMx1 and come up with an idea of how to employ them together. A pre-defined force is much more non-descript; it's like sitting down to a set dinner menu rather than having a choice.

[thewood]

Originally posted by jomni:

I'm seeing where he's getting at...

CMx1's QB enabled people to structure their multiplayer games. They feel it is fair because it allowed them freedom in choosing the units... and no one has seen or played the map before.

In CMx2's QB they can't choose exactly the troops that they are going to get. And they don't like playing the same old maps again and again. If the opponent has better knowledge of the map than you, then they think it's unfair.

Well most new games don't even have random map generators. Squad Battles and POA2 has limited maps. Do you see the grognards complaining? In ARMA or BF2 you keep playing the same maps. Do you the FPS buffs complaining? In Company of Heroes, you also keep playing the same maps. Do you see the RTS freaks complaining? But CMSF has the edge over all these because it has a powerful map editor.

But I guess he's just too spoiled by what CMx1 has provided.

Oh yeah, I'd use those two games as perfect examples of how to provide longterm replayability in a wargame. As I ststed before, I love POA2's detail, but I play it very infrequently, specifically because there only like 12 maps. Gets a little boring playing the same map over and over.

At least CMSF has a good mapbuilder, but no random generator means a different kind of QB experience. I do think that will hurt long term replayability. That may be BFC's plan. They have stated in so many words that the CM games were too all inclusive of features and they want to break it up in to more modules.

edit...as quantitative proof, where is the Squad Battles forum or show me the activity on the only POA2 forum in existence over at GameSquad. Now look at the activity in the CMBB forum (a 6 year old game). Note the activity on the TOW forum and the discussion on rando battle generator.

[ August 03, 2007, 07:32 AM: Message edited by: thewood ]

[Becket]

I dont' see the reason to attack dale for his QB preferences.

I really love CMSF so far. But, right now, I do have issues with the QB system. I, too, enjoyed the ability to have random maps & select units.

I understand the reasons why the random maps are gone for good - and I'm cool with that.

I understand the reasoning why selecting units is gone for good; but I hope that at least BF.C will at least consider giving the user the chance to select from pre-created formations. I don't need points or anything like that. If there are, for each game size, a list of the available formations (with details on what's included), that's enough for me. I have no idea how hard this is to program; it's just a feature that would be very welcome. Edit: It would be sort of like presenting the user with acceptable army lists for the game size - and if the handicapping feature made it overly complex, I for one (though I know I'm just one person) would jetison the handicapping system. And if you broke the system down further and said I could pick one from category A, two from category B, and one from either category C or category D, I'd be over the moon.

Also, now that random map generation is gone, I think the ability to select maps will be key. While I did some QBs on random maps in CMx1, I think I did just as many on user created maps. If you want to use a specific map with new forces (and an unknown opponent), the current system doesn't work very well.

Last, I am sure BF.C already knows about the bug in QBs where it places forces outside their setup zone at the start. They can't be returned to their setup zones nor placed, and, in many cases, if you do try to play the battle, this results in one side showing up as the targets in a turkey shoot.

So - I love the game outside of QBs right now. For QBs to become an enjoyable part of my gameplay experience, those are the modifications (and critical bug fix) that I'd like to see.

[ August 03, 2007, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: Becket ]

[clcaldwell]

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.

THAT will help. Right now one of the most frustrating things is giving the wrong command by being on the wrong tab -- typically between target and move.

Is there some way to make what mode we are in (Move, Target, etc) more obvious?

-- nick

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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.

Right, that's kind of what I guessed, stuff happens.

You do understand that having the camera controls command keys mixed up leads to or at the very least contributes to the an increase in the learning curve, correct?

On top of that the commands for other stuff, unit functions for instance is a little odd, or not exactly intuitive to say the least and decidedly different from CMX1. Plus the same problem in that manual. The documentation does not line up with the actual game.

For instance, in the group of commands in the movement type orders you have in the manual;

K = Fast

J = Quick

M = Move

4 = Slow

5 = Hunt

B = Reverse

When in the game;

U = Fast

I = Quick

O = Move

J = Slow

K = Hunt

M= Reverse

So we have keyboard controls that are not only counter-intuitive (M = Reverse and O = Move) but the manual is again FUBAR.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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.

...Steve

Right, setting aside the observable fact - not opinion - that in two crucial areas the manual and the game don't jibe, and at the risk of beating a dead horse into a fine mist the opinion of your customers does count for something, probably should count for a lot. It's my opinion that having movement commands that are shortcutted to keys that either make no sense, (J = Slow) or counter-intuitive, (M = reverse instead of M = Move) has more to do with a long learning curve, sense of disbelief in the "finshed" state of the version 1.01 release than havig a poor attitude or a nostalgic longing for a reactionary retreat to CMx1.

Just my two cents as a customer.

[sebastian]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I think it is fair to say, did not like the camera controls and the Commands UI when they first tried it.

Because they are bad.

We told them to try them out for awhile and see if it got better. And that is exactly what happened.

Because you can learn to use even the worst UI, if you waste enough time on it.

The newness and unexpected design was MOST of the reason for their initial mixed/negative reaction,

"Newness" and "unexpected design" is almost always bad, when it comes to UI:

The first rule of computer UI design is: Use standards that have evolved over years. They are tested, optimized and known to many people. Why not have a look on other strategy games, or standard 3D-software or Google Earth, before inventing new crappy camera controls.

[track]

Revolution without evolution is pointless.

[Guest]

Right on, track. I can design UIs for my company's apps that are:

a) revolutionary,

get the job done, but

c) are hard to relate to based on both past and new experience and subsequently cause hundreds (scale this for your own userbase) of issues.

The little company that I work for creates dozens of apps per month for internal and external use, 80% of them variations on the same UI theme.

Anytime we ignore an "isn't that odd?" initial UAT reaction, we get screwed down the line by users and customers who just don't understand how to do what they need to do, screw up their tasks, and blame development for it. And our interfaces are MUCH less complex than CM:SF's.

I think the initial beta tester reaction should have been more of a red flag for BFC, honestly. Their needing to "get used to it" means exactly the opposite of what BFC seems to have thought it meant. Not "The interface is great! People just need time!" More akin to "Wow, nobody gets this. We need to change it."

That said, I've gotten used to CM:SF's UI, and the fun is worth the awkwardness. I'd just be happier without it.

[track]

The best possible UI is the one that you do not even notice using. But ofcourse such thing cannot be made.

I really regret that BF decided to drop right mouse buttton drop down menus. Now I have to scroll - (was it) four submenus back and forth plus I have to point around the map to select the units.

It does not seem very natural untill I learn all shortcuts by heart which will take some time.

[sebastian]

Originally posted by track:

I really regret that BF decided to drop right mouse button drop down menus.

Did they give any reason for this? I mean: why not use pressed mouse wheel for camera rotation. Then you have the right mouse button for:

- drop down menu, if clicked on a unit

- cancel, otherwise

[track]

They said it was not natural and none used it. I think it was the other way around. None memorised all shortcuts. Plus they changed all the shortcuts too. So prior knowledge of CM shortcut keys is useless.

I would like to point a unit and then select the appropriate commands from a dropdown menu. If the list would be long you could just scroll it with a mouse wheel. This would eliminate the constant the back and forth mouse traffic towards and from the right lower corner of the screen. The current UI has definately some usability issues that make the end user to do more work.

[jomni]

Yes I miss the drop down but that would mean we will have a maximum of 36 commands (9 x 4) in that list. Not good either. The new system actually does note need memorizing. Since the logic of the keys are based on the position of the command button in the grid. But I would like to see the switching between command types easier than the current one. like use the four F keys above (F5 - F8) which corresponds to the command menu positions.

[Pinetree]

Originally posted by track:

They said it was not natural and none used it. I think it was the other way around. None memorised all shortcuts. Plus they changed all the shortcuts too. So prior knowledge of CM shortcut keys is useless.

I would like to point a unit and then select the appropriate commands from a dropdown menu. If the list would be long you could just scroll it with a mouse wheel. This would eliminate the constant the back and forth mouse traffic towards and from the right lower corner of the screen. The current UI has definately some usability issues that make the end user to do more work.

You could just group them and use the menu like you do with the programs menu in Windows. e.g you mouse over Movement and all the movement commands become visible.

[track]

Submenus for a dropdown menu ain't bad idea at all. Sounds like it could work. And the basic menu does not have to be a square either. Maya for example has available commands grouped circularly around the target point.

[Steiner14]

No submenu necessary: 4 different color coded rows instead of one.

A submenu needs one additional aiming with the mouse - not so a one page menu.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

That people don't like the command interface I understand and agree with. But people still not getting to grips with the camera interface...? Are you kiddin?! It's the easiest I know.

[Caesar]

I think the initial beta tester reaction should have been more of a red flag for BFC, honestly. Their needing to "get used to it" means exactly the opposite of what BFC seems to have thought it meant. Not "The interface is great! People just need time!" More akin to "Wow, nobody gets this. We need to change it."

That said, I've gotten used to CM:SF's UI, and the fun is worth the awkwardness. I'd just be happier without it.

Couldn't agree more. At the very least they should have recognised that the interface is not terribly intuitive and therefore needs an in game guide. I am okay with the Camera control now, but the tabbed button panels is just clunky. It is unfortunate because it gives the whole program the same feel as so many of those open source programs - they are incredibly powerful, clever pieces of software but with a weak interface.

[track]

I have no difficulties operating the camera with the mouse. It is issuing the commands and deploying troops that has certain clunkiness in it.

[Guest]

Caesar, the tabbed panels are definitely the worst bit for me.

And track, I too have the most difficulty with issuing commands and deploying troops, though these problems are occasionally compounded by an uncooperative camera.

[sebastian]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

But people still not getting to grips with the camera interface...? Are you kiddin?! It's the easiest I know.

Then you don't know much. The problem is not "getting to grips camera interface", It not like the camera interface is to difficult, but simply inefficient. And every time I have used other software with a better one, and I go back to playing CM, I see the difference: more mouse action to achieve the same camera action.