So where is the patch

[Battlefront.com]

DzrtFox,

So I would rather wait until the issues that ruin the game are fixed than even bother installing another patch that doesn't truly fix these things. Of course, there has to be some sort of cutoff point too and I suppose after long enough it is better to release what you've got as long as it's an improvement.

That's a good summation of the problem we have with releasing a patch. A patch is a major thing to release so we can't be chucking them out every couple of days or weeks. Generally it makes things worse, not better, because there isn't time for testing. The problem is the more you test the more you fix, the more you fix the more potential side effects there are that also need fixing. Code is so FUSSY that way.

The major fixes you guys have been looking for are in there. Perfect? I doubt it since nothing is ever perfect. So for the last few weeks we've been trying to make sure that v1.05 is "better than good enough". Each successive patch has improved the main complaint areas, so it would be very nice if people would give us the benefit of the doubt that we haven't been tweaking unimportant stuff for the last two months.

Steve

[DzrtFox]

Each successive patch has improved the main complaint areas, so it would be very nice if people would give us the benefit of the doubt that we haven't been tweaking unimportant stuff for the last two months.

I wasn't trying to imply at all that ya'll aren't fixing the important things. I appreciate the work ya'll do and I was one of the first ones to say that I thought 1.04 was a HUGE improvement and a major step in the right direction. I have faith that you guys know what you're doing or I wouldn't still be here. While I was writing that post (in particular the paragraph you quoted) I realized the plight you guys face when deciding when to release a patch.

I'm just laying my (unasked for) .02 out there on what I feel are the most important things by far to fix. When I saw there are over 60 (IIRC) bug fixes I just got nervous that maybe priority hadn't been placed on the main issues, which are obviously going to take a lot of time to iron out.

[aka_tom_w]

oops

[ December 11, 2007, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Battlefront.com]

DzrtFox,

That bit of my commentary wasn't directed at you One of the problems with there being LOTS of you and only one of me... I often blend commentary together into a single post designed to cover a wide range of people or a wide range of concepts. My standard piece of advice is that if you see something that I've written that you don't think applies to you, it probably doesn't. If there is confusion about it I'm more than happy to clarify.

Yeah, priority for v1.05 was primarily aimed at LOS/LOF and pathing. Believe it or not... these things were greatly improved rather quickly. The problem for us was that wasn't the only thing we were out to fix, and collectively it's taken this long to get the patch to a point where we think it's ready to release. The compiler switch fiasco was a very unfortunate waste of time We also had a couple of TCP/IP memory leaks due to other fixes that had to be tracked down. Yadda, yadda, yadda

Steve

[Taki]

I agreee with Deseter Fox. I hope the Patch Iron out the Major Problems of the Game. Im glad you are back again and tell us you Fix things. Thats great. Hope that one Day that CMx2 got the Same "over-and-over" Playability like CMx1.

Ill wait for the Patch and see. Looking here in this Forum every day and wait for the Patch

[Sixxkiller]

I think the reason so many major and minor things are to be addressed in the patch is because of Steves famous phrase.....

Steves posts in Skunkworks usually include the phrase, "Ok, here's the final release canidate I promise" followed by "Ok, well here's a new final release canidate, this is the last one I promise" followed by (you guessed it) "Ok guys theres a new final release canidate, this is the final one, I promise" followed by (notice the pattern here) "Ok guys......

I know that there have been times where I was 2 builds behind what Charles had already done hehe because I didnt check enough.

[DaveDash]

I really appreciate the feedback from BFC. The level of detail that you share with us on these forums really is beyond many other gaming communities where you rarely have contact with the developers.

[GSX]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

If I don't say anything about the patch some people get upset and unpleasant. If I start talking about the patch some people get upset and unpleasant. And some people wonder why I didn't want to post until v1.05 was out the door

GSX,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Im sorry Steve but thats the kind of Bollocks talk that puts me off coming here. If you fix 60 things but dont fix the most important one, the whiners as you call them, loyal customers to some, will still not be pleased.

Yeah, but who said we didn't fix the things you are most concerned about? All I said was we don't want to release the patch when we know there is a significant problem because (based on prior experience) some "loyal customers" are too eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Currently the problem we're trying to fix doesn't have anything to do with major issues, but it would likely become a major issue if we didn't fix it for v1.05.

BTW, I do not consider people that personally abuse me, CM, or Battlefront to be "loyal customers". Just because someone pays some money for CM doesn't mean they have the right to be insulting or abusive. I don't expect loyal customers to be kiss asses, but I also don't expect them to go out of their way to be unpleasant. People that go ballistic on us are just "customers".

So it would be nice if instead of insulting your customer base you just fixed the bloody game I paid you for.

I'm not insulting the customer base, just those who insist on being unnecessarily pissy when they don't get EXACTLY what they want out of a patch. Bad attitudes are never helpful. If you don't have a bad attitude remember there are a few people on this Forum, so chances are I'm speaking about someone other than you.

Steve </font>

[wolf66]

I just want to know : Nvidia Geforce 8800 problem solved ?

Laggy mouse solved ?(maybe this problem is GF 8800 related too ?)

[DaveDash]

GSX 'flawed' at its very core is a matter of perception. Despite some of the annoyances I enjoy the game significantly, it runs, I can complete missions, and I can have fun.

This is the first line of a new engine from BFC, please enlighten me and point me to a game dev, even a big one, that has released a new engine with this complexity and gotten it right on go one.

What would be more useful is if you provided stated examples of what is flawed and suggested how to fix it in a constructive manner.

If SF isn't want you want, then, perhaps another game would suit your style more, and perhaps you should consider not telling us all about it if you don't have anything constructive to say?

How many times have I seen a game likened to a car, or this, or that. Cars are not complex. CM:SF is complex, vastly more complex than CMx1. you just don't see what goes on under the hood. Even the U.S. military can't get things right the first time, look how many 'patches' the F-22 needs. Microsoft Windows XP still has bugs, years later. You paid what, $40 USD for this game? A car costs thousands of dollars and in any such case any new generation car usually has millions of dollars behind it in testing. Apples to Oranges, get some perspective.

Future releases will get better and better, the fact is we have to go through teething problems to get there, and I'm happy with that. At least BFC are still here working on issues, unlike other gaming houses that are forced into 'two patch only' policies by their publishers and you end up having to pay for an expansion pack to get the game fixed in the beginning.

The naivety of this community is quite cute sometimes. But personally having played thousands of games of different genres, and been a member of hundreds of gaming communities, a lot of you guys really don't know how lucky you are.

Cheers.

[GSX]

Dave there you go youve made me break my word in 2 hours.

Flawed means that I cant play it right now. Flawed means that when I tell a vehicle to go somewhere it doesnt. Flawed means that 3 conscript Syrians who in real life couldnt hit a Cows Arse with a Banjo, suddenly kill my whole Squad from 200 yards thru 20 feet of hill. Flawed means that when I order a Squad out of a Stryker and into a door 5 yards away, they dont run all the way round the Block. Flawed means that when I use tried and tested infantry tactics straight out of the manual of infantry tactics my Squad will do as they are told and not cower in the open. Flawed means that when a Stryker turns a corner and spots a T-72 it does not stop to admire the sleek lines of the Tank but moves its arse rapidly backwards.

Now I enjoyed SF for what it was/is, a neat little throw away game to be played in RT with modern US forces. But simulation it isnt, I for one have never in my whole military life witnessed any of the things I stated above.

I will re-load the game when the majority of guys here tell me it plays without the above flaws, then I will come back to this once great forum and say 'hey BF, I was wrong and youve got it right'.

BTW, the car analogy was only there as Steve is very fond of his car analogies to describe how we 'Dont get it'.

Cheers and I hope I have answered some of your questions as this time I am gone until SF is playable[FOR ME].

[aka_tom_w]

GSX,

These are all problems that everyone wants fixed.

In order to fix them all it takes is time. (Last time I checked you can't really buy some extra time to carry around in your back pocket, although, come to think of it, that sounds like something someone should invent and market, hmmm )

Have a little patience.

You will see v1.05 soon (Before Christmas Holidays, I think Steve was suggesting) and he has promised v1.06 for sometime in the new year.

"At the core", the game engine has way, WAY more potential then you give it credit for. Have a little faith.

[ December 12, 2007, 06:15 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[thewood]

Originally posted by DaveDash:

Cars are not complex.

How about a little reality here. There is more SW in cars today than in CMSF. We are talking giga bytes worth of SW. Now the entire car:

17,000 base parts in a car

4 years to design even with a platform foundation

$1B investment to launch

500 man hours to build one car

It weighs a ton and can go 100 miles per hour

Is expected to protect a human being in a crash that releases immense energy

Is heavily regulated by most governments

cost $10k to $100k US.

over 40M are produced every year

As a matter of fact, I many times wonder how the heck human being are capable of doing it.

Now I know what you are trying to say, but as "they" say, keep it real.

On the CMSF front, I agree with the core of what GSX says. But I do think CMSF has a lot of potential. But back on the old CM forums we used to ridicule the "potential" games. I am just disappointed we are in this mess. BFC is the only game company I really trusted enough to preorder. It was a bucket of cold water, and still is.

Every time Steve, even in an unrelated thread, makes a comment about all the complainers, he has no one to blame but BFC and himself. Every game has complainers, no doubt. But putting the CM name on something should have meant a certain quality. And doing nothing but sniping at loyal customers who paid money for a game that absolutely did not function anywhere near what was advertised is something I can't really fathom.

For people that like parallels, look at HOI. It was a screwed up mess when it came out. Lot of patches and very justified complaining. Paradox basically ripped off the first buyers. It really took HOI2 to make it all work. Many people ended up dumping hundreds of dollars into Paradox before the game finally settled down through all the patches, add ons, and expansions. Interesting that Paradox was involved in both.

[DaveDash]

Originally posted by GSX:

Dave there you go youve made me break my word in 2 hours.

Flawed means that I cant play it right now. Flawed means that when I tell a vehicle to go somewhere it doesnt. Flawed means that 3 conscript Syrians who in real life couldnt hit a Cows Arse with a Banjo, suddenly kill my whole Squad from 200 yards thru 20 feet of hill. Flawed means that when I order a Squad out of a Stryker and into a door 5 yards away, they dont run all the way round the Block. Flawed means that when I use tried and tested infantry tactics straight out of the manual of infantry tactics my Squad will do as they are told and not cower in the open. Flawed means that when a Stryker turns a corner and spots a T-72 it does not stop to admire the sleek lines of the Tank but moves its arse rapidly backwards.

Now I enjoyed SF for what it was/is, a neat little throw away game to be played in RT with modern US forces. But simulation it isnt, I for one have never in my whole military life witnessed any of the things I stated above.

I will re-load the game when the majority of guys here tell me it plays without the above flaws, then I will come back to this once great forum and say 'hey BF, I was wrong and youve got it right'.

BTW, the car analogy was only there as Steve is very fond of his car analogies to describe how we 'Dont get it'.

Cheers and I hope I have answered some of your questions as this time I am gone until SF is playable[FOR ME].

Thank you, you just proved the very first line of my post. Flawed is a matter or perception. None of your points even remotely have anything to do with the 'core' of the game, otherwise they wouldn't be getting fixed bit by bit with patching.

CM:SF is flawed for sure if you are after some sort of magical real life combat simulation, but I'm not seeing too many of those around. Oh apart from this one cool game I heard about called joining the Army.

Every time Steve, even in an unrelated thread, makes a comment about all the complainers, he has no one to blame but BFC and himself. Every game has complainers, no doubt. But putting the CM name on something should have meant a certain quality. And doing nothing but sniping at loyal customers who paid money for a game that absolutely did not function anywhere near what was advertised is something I can't really fathom.

This argument would only hold water if there wernt millions of complainers bored at work with nothing really better to do across hundreds of game forums for thousands of different games.

Your post is way over-exaggerated. I don't blame BFC at all for their utter frustration at many people here. Many of you are acting like you just invested your life savings or something. How about some reality straight back at you?

Seems to me some people have extremely unrealistic expectations these days. Comes from lack of experience I suppose, perhaps after this release there won't be soaring expectations for CMx2 WW2 and no doubt far less complaining and far more constructive critism.

How about a little reality here. There is more SW in cars today than in CMSF. We are talking giga bytes worth of SW. Now the entire car:

17,000 base parts in a car

4 years to design even with a platform foundation

$1B investment to launch

500 man hours to build one car

It weighs a ton and can go 100 miles per hour

Is expected to protect a human being in a crash that releases immense energy

Is heavily regulated by most governments

cost $10k to $100k US.

over 40M are produced every year

This just proves how apples to oranges comparing a car to computer software is. There are so many holes in that comparason it's ridiculous. The functions of car software is also extremely simplified compared to a graphical game where pixels on the screen need to figure out the difference between a bush and a rock while doing about 50 million other things. And guess what, I guarentee the most complex car software breaks and you have to PAY to get it fixed. Look at Formula 1, the absolute peak of technology and their cars break all the time. Gee whiz, think they could get that right with all their billions, staff, etc, lets go and complain!

The day I start paying $40,000 for a computer game is also the day I expect it to run flawlessly.

You guys can harp on about the BFC seal of quality and how you're dissapointed as much as you like. Fact is moving from abstract to 1:1 is going to cause issues. Abstract is easier to get right, 1:1 isn't, in fact, its expodentially more complex. I think some of you don't get that, maybe it's from not having any sort of actual background in computing, I don't know.,

The fact that BFC is sticking around to try and move closer to a 1:1 solution despite the sky is falling attitude.

I've been in gaming communities where the Devs were like BFC is now, graced the forums, talked straight, etc, and due to many post like displayed in here simply just didn't do it any more. It just wasn't worth the hassle for them to try and explain concepts to people who just didnt get it. Would be a damn shame to have it happen hre.

[ December 12, 2007, 07:07 AM: Message edited by: DaveDash ]

[thewood]

Actually when car SW breaks in the US, it almost always happens in warranty and is fixed free. Automotive SW is 100 more comples than any game, even with graphics. The speed of processing, the complexity of interacting systems, the security needed, the reliabilty testing that is done. I have been involved in both and any game company that thinks it SW is more complex than automotive is way into self importance.

I am probably in the minority, but I would gladly pay more for a good game. I spent $125 on SB Pro and have probably spent over $300 on CM and still consider them a bargain. Maybe BFC needs to follow a model of charging more to a more focused audience and avoiding distribution.

[DaveDash]

Well I agree. I've said that ages ago in some other thread, I'd be quite happy to pay more for a game.

The fact is though that the gaming industry is becoming a large multi-billion dollar super competitive market, and it's now acting like any other big market. It's not the days of old any more.

Just for the record, it annoys me even more to see people whine that they paid $40 for a computer game. $40 is absolutely nothing. Where I come from new PC games are $80-$120, and income is pretty much the same.

[thewood]

Yeah, to me you either decide to be a big boy, or a niche player. BFC seems kind of stuck in the middle. And then there is the military as a customer option. If you go that route, there can be a big payday, but more than likely you'll get crushed.

[dynaman200]

> The day I start paying $40,000 for a computer game is also the day

Call me a loon, but I expect anything I buy to work correctly regardless of cost.

[DaveDash]

Originally posted by thewood:

Yeah, to me you either decide to be a big boy, or a niche player. BFC seems kind of stuck in the middle. And then there is the military as a customer option. If you go that route, there can be a big payday, but more than likely you'll get crushed.

Yes they are stuck in the middle, but they have to try and make the jump otherwise we'd be playing low graphic abstracted wargames for the rest of our lives.

[Battlefront.com]

Guys... remember that I've said more times than I can count that feedback, even if negative, is appreciated. I can understand people feeling like a "cold bucket of water" was poured on them. That's why I was VERY liberal here for several months. Technically I should have banned dozens of people for breaching the Forum rules (i.e. flaming, abusive posts). I did suck it up when warranted, countered when appropriate. But we are months further down the road and we have been improving the game. As time goes on and things are improves my patience for people grinding the same axe diminishes.

We KNOW what the problems are, we KNOW people are not happy about it. So there is absolutely no point in the bad attitudes running amok here. People that can't keep that in check when they post here should go away and either come back later when things are fixed to their satisfaction OR don't come back at all. Otherwise it's just a big waste of time and energy for everybody. We should be focusing that time and energy on things that really matter, and rehashing things for the 1000th isn't productive. This post of mine is, unfortunately, yet another example of a complete waste of time

Steve

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

This post of mine is, unfortunately, yet another example of a complete waste of time

If you'd like to see some unprofessional and rather embarassing name-calling, check out UFO:Extraterrestrials forums.

Wait, you can't! They got into mass deletion-flamewar between some modders and moderators all of whom had too big egos and too little sense. On the other hand, generally speaking the complete information produced by human race was improved by the deletion of said pointless flamewars. And polls if moderator Z should be sacked. And..

So BFC forum is still pretty professional compared to some that are out there. Imagine Derek Smart as Steve and you get the idea.

[DaveDash]

> check out UFO:Extraterrestrials forums

And example of a game series plagued by some real issues...

Still highly enjoyable though, but oh, the complaining. Jeez.

[Guest]

Just bought it a week or so ago, grabbed Bman's mod, started modding myself, and haven't looked back. Great game when modded.

The base game is awful, though. CM:SF is really pretty good on its own, but in comparison to UFO:ET it rulioz like a foolio.

[SlowMotion]

Just saw some new 1.05 screen shots, maybe the patch will be here for Christmas?

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by SlowMotion:

Just saw some new 1.05 screen shots, maybe the patch will be here for Christmas?

Where?