Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The people that hung around our forums blasting us daily for our "silly 3D graphics" and "unrealistic turn based game" during CMBO development were not doing anybody any favors either.

Steve

You only say that because you've never written a bulldozer program.

-dale

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Those who are not having a problem with RT are probably not facing good human opponents, or using the best tactics possible, or playing well designed scenarios.

No. No. And No.

I cant play human opponents. PBEM is out of the question, the bug ridden TCP/IP RT is out of the question, and my fav game mode, WEGO MP, is not even IN CMSF:

I have no problem breezing over an apparently brain dead opponent in the scenarios supplied with the game, and I do not call myself an expert tactician or anything. In fact, I would say the scenarios are poor, instead of good, just because of that.

This game, gets old, REAL fast.

[flamingknives]

Heck, I missed all the fun with CMBO, but I remember the switch to CM:BB. There were enough people in a huff over command delays, machinegun modelling, etc., etc.

There was also one post/thread, although it may have been for CM:AK, that someone could win most QBs by selecting all their units and issuing a move order to the other side of the map.

[ August 11, 2007, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: flamingknives ]

[Harv]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Sure it does... that CM:SF was not designed for them. Just like CMBO had much of what Steel Panthers guys wanted except for hexes and IGOUGO.

Steve

And there it is again. I'll throw down the gauntlet here and now Steve, and challenge you to Not use any comparison to CMx1 while defending your design decisions.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Then why can't I bear to play WeGo any more? Because I'm fooled by my own marketing angle?

Steve

Because you're a lousy CM player. Like me. You'd rather design scenarios (in your case, entire games) than play them.

Just like James F. Dunnigan. There's worse company to be in.

Anyway, I've never seen your name on any ladders. Me neither, not my bag, not any way to prove anything. But I stand by what I said about RT - it probably appeals more for those who don't want a deep challenge. Because play against the AI will not provide that, by definition, to the degree a human will.

Which is ok - that's the whole design philosophy and the core market. I get that. CM is for solo play. Unfortunately, the closet dwellers won't be the vocal ones on the forum, so the feedback curve is skewed.

[ August 11, 2007, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

The people that hung around our forums blasting us daily for our "silly 3D graphics" and "unrealistic turn based game" during CMBO development were not doing anybody any favors either.

Steve

You only say that because you've never written a bulldozer program.

-dale </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Harv,

To start with, the point of my post (which you seem to have missed) is that there simply is no comparison to the release of CMx1. CMBO took games from 2D to 3D, hexes to no hexes, IGOUGO to WEGO, unbelievable detail, a TacAI etc. etc...massive(!) fundamental differences to what came before it (in one package at least).

On a feature by feature basis CMBO wasn't all that revolutionary. Going from hexes to tiles (nothing new), IGOUGO to WEGO (again, not revolutionary), 3D instead of 2D (Sid Meir did this years before we did)), simple UI instead of complex UI (I made wargames at Impressions that were even more simple), massive detail vs. superficial detail (depending on how you look at it, not revolutionary either), massive realism vs. massive abstraction (not unique, but we went further than most), etc. TacOps had most of these features, and it came out many years earlier. Therefore, on a feature by feature basis CM didn't have a lot of ground breaking stuff in it even by wargaming standards.

What CMBO did was combine elements together that had not been put into one package at one time. That result was a game that was greater than the sum of its parts. That was the revolutionary genius, if you will, of CMx1. It also had a lot of shortcomings which people are being kind enough to overlook now but were not so kind about overlooking at the time.

Now with CMx2 you've made huge and fundamental changes to what? I see asymmetrical objectives as new, and...? Everything else has been done before. Granted much of it by you, but I don't see anything more than evolutionary improvements on already existing features. So where is the massive shakeup for the wargaming world? Where are the sweeping changes to all of the established conventions? Where is the revolution? Where is all of the new "it" that I should be "getting"?

"It" is there if you want it to be.

If you want to compare the two CM's release in terms of being the first release of the series and the inherent problems with that, then fine. But please quit freaking telling me (and some others) that I "don't get it" because it's so radically different from everything that's come before and apparently I'm too stupid to grasp how fantastic all of this new greatness is.

I never said you are stupid. What I said is we combined certain elements together that haven't been combined before. That is what we did with CMBO and you thought it was great. You "got it", while many others did not. We combined elements again to form CM:SF and you don't apparently like it, therefore I don't know what to say. Other people are having the "this is the future of wargaming" reaction and you are not. What would you suggest I do?

And where do you see me rejecting anything new? Or pining over things missing?

Then I don't understand what it is you don't like about CM:SF.

The reason for the irony above is of your own doing. You kept telling us that it's totally new and different and nothing like CMx1, but then you continually make comparisons to CMx1, call it CMx2, make it look and feel like CMx1 and then wonder why people seem a bit confused and/or talk out of both sides of their mouths.

It is new, it is different, and yet it is inherently routed in CMx1. CMBB was very different from CMBO far beyond the fairly superficial changes, but it was obviously derived from it. We lost a lot of CMBO customers over those changes. A LOT. But those who "got it" went on to hold up CMBB as the best of the three. The others... they either avoided CMBB and CMAK or skipped to CMAK.

You see Harv, we've already been through this even if you personally did not. We've seen our customers turned off by our decisions even if you weren't. This is not something new for us even if for you it is.

When you see a post like mine you should realize that I'm disappointed because I keep getting told I "don't get it", when I can't see or find what I'm supposed to be getting.

That's just it... I can't make you do anything. I can explain all the differences between CMx1 and CMx2 until I am blue in the face and I bet you'll still not be any happier about CM:SF than you are right now. It's all there in front of you and you don't see what the big deal is while others do. Therefore, I'm at a loss as to what I can do or say to change your mind.

Panzer76,

At what time is it *your* reasoning that becomes *selective reasoning*, considering that most reviews has been mediocre? Or does that never happen?

Most reviews have been mediocre to positive. Most of the problems listed in the reviews are legitimate and we are working to fix them. We aren't blind to that and have been, unlikely most companies, very honest and straight forward about it. When those things are fixed presumably the reviewers will be much happier. So we are satisfied that we're on the right track. If your problems with CM:SF go deeper than that, there isn't much we can do for you.

Steve

[Huntarr]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dorosh,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And that still doesn't tell you anything?

Sure it does... that CM:SF was not designed for them. Just like CMBO had much of what Steel Panthers guys wanted except for hexes and IGOUGO.

You mention on this page that RT is a great leap forward, but I don't see it as such. It limits the size of game to play - you admit that on this page also - and it removes the ability to play back.

What advantages, then, is it supposed to impart? Other than a nice blurb on the box and expanding the market? I can understand the need to do that, but that isn't a revolutionary change, it's just a new marketing strategy. Gamers don't care about that. Nor will they. They care about the stuff they keep whining about - QBs, purchase points, etc.

Then why can't I bare to play WeGo any more? Because I'm fooled by my own marketing angle? Look... it's really simple. I am not asking the WeGo people to want to play RealTime, so why do they feel it is their God Given Right to try to piss on the people that do like it? Sounds like the height of arrogance and snobbishness to me.

RT doesn't provide the gamer with anything but additional restrictions. Fewer units to control, fewer units to control at once, more reliance on memorization of a new UI in order to do it all. No advantages other than some quasi-"realism" of having actual chaos substitute for simulated chaos.

You forgot to add "in your opinion". In "my opinion" you're being a bigoted, small minded, horses ass I could be mistaken since this is just my opinion, of course.

Steve </font>

[TBlaster]

I used to buy Battlefront products without trying a demo first, knowing that they would deliver. I can't do this anymore. First TOW, which I could forgive since it was not developed in house, and now the flag ship product CMSF.

I do enjoy the real time aspect of the game. But the fun dissipates quickly when I start having to micromanage my unit movements due to bad pathing, so in the end it's a battle vs pathing not against my opponent.

Why was area fire abstracted? It was great in the CM1 series.

Why are there no minimum firing ranges indicated for missles? CM1 had this for onboard mortars.

1:1 representation was a bad desgign decision if LOS is still abstracted.

Like many I'm disappointed with CMSF. And being told that "I just don't get it" is odd. I know what fun is, and CMSF in its currently implementation is not fun for me.

[ August 11, 2007, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: TBlaster ]

[Battlefront.com]

Darren,

Anytime that beta testers are supposed to have had some problems with the interface but got used to (or even embraced) the new one after using it for extended periods of time then one can pretty much assume that reviewers are not going to like it. For many of us customers, the game is supposed to deliver entertainment, not frustration. Well, not the frustration that comes from not figuring out how to do what we want to do via the interface. Figuring out how to overcome the frustration of the enemy messing up our plans is a good kind of frustration. One of the key words in reviews is intuitive - and it is considered to be a good thing. I'm not reading a lot of people using intuitive about this game's UI. (Ignoring the childish sycophants who insult anyone who doesn't agree that this game is perfect).

I've seen a bunch of people saying they had no problems with the interface and I have no idea who those people are. Recent registrations, low post counts. I think there are far more people here insulting anybody that thinks the game is good rather than the other way around. It must be kept in mind.

My personal feeling is that customers who get BFC's vision for the game and embrace it are going to love the program "because they do get it." However, the attitude that seems to come out here from time to time is that people who don't get it do so because they aren't capable of getting it. It's just insulting. I don't know if it drives away any potential customers or not, but I would be surprised if it didn't.

I'll say it again... when someone hits me with an emotional response, sometimes quite angry, there isn't much I can do with it. I'm not saying the person is incapable, more likely just unwilling. And I don't have any problem with that. I don't understand the draw to SimLife or Second Life and yet I don't feel stupid. It just isn't for me because "I don't get it". I don't see why I should demand that someone who LOVES Second Life present a rational argument to win me over. I doubt they can.

Obviously I chose very different games from CM:SF on purpose. They are extreme, 'tis true, but the underlying principle is the same. At some point there is just no way to convince someone to like CM:SF. It simply isn't possible.

If the game has a lot going for it that the reviewers aren't getting - then sell those points to us. It isn't the customer's (potential or realized) job to search for the jewels in the system - they are supposed to be out there to dazzle us from the beginning. And if people want to simply say that people who don't see the gems never will, then fine, but thats incompetent sales tactics. As is letting the Sycophant Sod Squad insult people who are on the fence. Hell, if dalem ever says buy this game I will spread the news far and wide. His rational comments have been more significant to me than the petulance of the mindless defenders or whiners.

Again, a reminder that the number of people complaining about the game without making ANY positive contribution to the discussion outweighs the "Sycophant Sod Squad" by a significant margin. I will also remind you that people that came to our Forums to criticize CMx1 games made the same accusations you're making now. The funny thing is I know some of the people making the strongest complaints against CM:SF were once labeled "sycophants" by those who did not like the game. It's all a matter of perception, isn't it?

BFC, nor any other business, will never satisfy all the potential customers. BFC will support this game long past the time the cows come home and I tell anyone I talk to that fact. But despite your telling us how sad you are to see some of the CMx1 faithful leave, Steve, you sure don't come off that way.

We've given people 5-7 years of entertainment at a ridiculously low cost. Few few game companies are in this league, few gamers have ever experienced such prolonged joy from a piece of software. Now we are at a crossroads and some don't wish to extend that relationship. That's regrettable, but that's just a part of life that we accept. Those that go quietly we will miss, thouse that go after turning on us in a very personal way, no... I'm not sorry to see them go. As in my personal life I don't pine for fair weather friends any more than I pine for acceptance from fair weather customers. There are many that are disappointed with us for what we did with CM:SF, but let me tell you that we are personally disappointed with how that has been expressed by some.

You are completely correct though, people have to accept the changes that have been made. Like you said, they don't have to like it either but they do have to accept it. My opinion is to listen hard to people, customers and reviewers, who loved your product in the past and are now walking away. Y'all are bright at BFC - you can separate the wheat from the chaff - but don't get too defensive. It never helps - at least not publicly. As marketing 101 says: perception is reality. Gotta get those perceptions a bit more positive in the gaming press. I want the game engine to succeed.

Not to worry. We listen very well. There will be changes that will make some of the currently disappointed people come back. But for some... I don't think there is anything we can do. Some want CMx1 back, and that just isn't possible.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Harv,

And there it is again. I'll throw down the gauntlet here and now Steve, and challenge you to Not use any comparison to CMx1 while defending your design decisions.

I never do that. I am talking about higher level reaction, which I'm trying to show is not as surprising as you think it is. See flamingknives' post just above yours:

Heck, I missed all the fun with CMBO, but I remember the switch to CM:BB. There were enough people in a huff over command delays, machinegun modelling, etc., etc.

There was also one post/thread, although it may have been for CM:AK, that someone could win most QBs by selecting all their units and issuing a move order to the other side of the map.

I've discussed specific features in threads were people are there to talk about specific features. This is not such a thread. My comparisons are completely valid in the context of this thread, therefore I will continue to make them because it is entirely relevant.

Steve

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Well..I like both micromanagement and 1:1 representation. I enjoy seeing the battlefield from the point of view of the squad leader but because I am greedy I want to see the entire battlefield from the point of view of many squad leaders all at once .

Micromanagement and seeing the battlefield from the perspective of the squad leader/ AFV commander is what CM is all about… it is the magic of it.

For chaos live team play/CoOp play is the answer. But I like the detail. With pause-able RT I can also easily cope with RT. I very rarely pause, in most games I never pause.

What is needed is a full debugging. But now I know the explanation as to why CMSF was sent out door early I am more relaxed about that too.

Many here pontificate about things they know nothing about. What can and what cannot be coded in RT and 1:1 representation in CMSF only Charles and maybe Steve know. Not JasonC nor Michael. The modelling of cover is one example of this. Whether RT and 1:1 representation are a fundamental problem for casualty modelling neither JasonC nor Michael know. They can only guess.

But no harm in that. Each to their own.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Harv]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Then I don't understand what it is you don't like about CM:SF.

...and I bet you'll still not be any happier about CM:SF than you are right now.

These are interesting statements, seeing as I haven't really expressed an opinion here about CMSF one way or the other. I'm mostly interested in why you keep comparing the negative reactions to those from the CMBO release when they're really apples and oranges, and (now) why you think there is something tangible to "get".

Having said that I do think CMSF mostly sucks from a casual don't want to be frustrated when I play viewpoint, and I'm quite certain you'll flesh it out and polish it up quite nicely in a few months, but that, once again, isn't the point of my posts here.

Do you happen to remember how you defended your design decisions in the CMBO/BB days? My memory isn't the best after this many years, but I don't recall that you simply blew off the critics/whiners/piners with a "you don't/won't/can't get it" statement or kept referring back to another troubled release.

[Chelco]

Originally posted by dalem:

Maybe an irrelevant point, but, you know what struck me the other day?

Two weeks into the game and I haven't seen a single grog thread. I don't count the big Stryker threads because their discussing big theory there, not the nuts & bolts.

Where's the "M9 Beretta Overmodeled?" thread, with somebody posting "My CP got overrun and the CO dropped 9 Syrians with his sidearm! That's strange." With 20 links to "proof" that the M9 sucks and 20 links to "proof" that the M9 rocks?

Yeah, I know, we have something different now -guys who have actually done it. Recently.

But still. No grogs. Odd, ain't it?

-dale

Ah, give me a break!

Let's take off the masks fellas!

Grog, what grogs? The ones who would discuss 10 pages of threads about if the PzIII should have the number 13 in the cuppola painted white or light blue while happily let go a game mechanic that was basically combat chess?

That's not grog, that's hardware fetish fed with Amazon books.

I've seen people that make military grade simulations for a living giving praise to the game. I've seen people who have been in the military giving good feedback too. Are they kiddie-clickfesters too? Are out there bigger and better grogs than the ones who held the real weapons and rode the real machines of a state for a living?

You should stop acting like you are the center of the universe.

How many of you are calling BFC for a "soul searching" and "going back to your roots"? 25? 100? Don't fool yourselves: you may be visible and vocal, but you are just a fraction of the market. Don't self-appoint yourselves as the chair commitee that preserves the holy grail of wargaming. I would share my tootbrush with any you rather than to agree to the convoluted pseudo-logic you use to cover the bitterness from the realization that the train has left without you this time.

This game is clearly not for you. I already know what you think. Time to let it go.

Edited for ESOL.

[Darren J Pierson]

Steve,

A lot of the stuff here lately does remind me of a big family brawl. I guess one could say that the passion comes from a good place - but it isn't always expressed well and certainly sometimes with vitriol.

And yes, perception rules the day. Some readers see the boards overwhelmingly occupied by complainers and others by sycophants. Not too mention what makes a whiner/sycophant is also in play. Luckily the boards do have some truly thoughtful folks and writers who can express themselves constructively. As we have all been pointing out, everything is our opinion - mine is just that there are some very offensive supporters who don't ever seem to be reigned in while some moderate complainers got too much attention. But that's just me and how I see those things.

It is hard to deal with emotional backlash from disappointed fans. Fans usually don't have perspective and lash out because they think a deep personal bond has been violated. Often one would think those bonds would get people more slack, but it often works the other way.

In six months I think we will all have a much better idea of the strengths and weakenesses of the product without all of the emotional baggage in either direction. Then we can generate new emotional attachments to the new engine.

My personal interests don't sync with yours completly, I think, in many possible theatres, so I hope that the engine gets refined, tweaked, etc to the point where you can profitably license the engine to others. I might get some of my Cold War/WWIII scenarios, etc and still have the things that you will provide. Of course, and this might seem out of place in this thread, I assume that any licensing will keep quality control in mind.

Anyway, I wanted to point out that some of the problems are coming from supporters as well as detractors. (Edit: See the post above mine for an example of the moronic flaming.) Some of the comments have been awfully harsh towards y'all and many folks have crossed the line. I look forward to when the nasty fights center on the possible flaw in angles of attack of Toyota mounted ATGMs in the North African deserts.

[TheNathan]

IMO I find the game very much enjoyable and definitely a step in the right direction as far as the 1:1 modeling, graphics, arty system, and RT features go. The game is rough, sure, and the TacAI needs some serious improvement (My little pixeltruppen have been cut to pieces exiting the strykers on numerous occasions by their inability to run for cover and exit the vehicle in a timely manner) but it is not as if Battlefront is intentionally subjecting us to this out of some sort of malice or incompetence. Hell, I'd rather have the game sooner and deal with patches than wait till 2008, seeing as I enjoy the game that much, bugs and all.

If there is any one single area where Battlefront have seriously faltered, other than the TacAI, it would be the setting. As good as the game is, Syria is not very compelling of a conflict and even through the Syrians have given me a tough time (And have been downright frustrating on occasion) they are no big deal as far as OPFORs go. The U.S really is simply too overwhelming of an opponent, and I can think of a few OPFORs past and present better suited for a wargame (Vietnamese in the Vietnam War, Koreans/Chinese in the Korean War, modern Chinese in a Sino-American war, Iran) if Battlefront really wants to have an American side and a modern setting. However, I am still happy to pay the 65 dollars for Shock Force as it is still a good game, and I harbor some hope that Battlefront will have one their next releases be one of the conflicts.

Also, as far as the real time goes, I do find it superior to WeGo in many respects aside from the fact that in order to pause the damn thing, you have to press escape which brings up that annoying text in the center of the screen. I would have really liked it if there were some kind of "command mode" so the game can be paused without having that text, or the ability for intermittent pause periods for RT multiplayer so people can catch their breath a bit.

[Battlefront.com]

AdamL,

Huge array of scenario design tools? There were some improvements to be sure - you made victory flags much more functional (setting different objectives for different units). Explosion of terrain types? I see less terrain, 3 types of grass and 3 types of dirt but so many people have pointed out already that the terrain variety is lacking. Nothing but scattered trees?

The terrain is limited to the setting, so yeah... of course there is a limitation there. But look at the variety of buildings, the ability to mix and match terrain in a single tile, the smaller tile size, a greater variety of base terrain (yes, there is more types, not just variety), etc. No, there aren't thick European forests and what not... never planned.

No way to create a defensive plan of my own in scenarios.

Hopefully we can do something about that in the future. But you forget how much people hated the 2D visual representation we gave them. You might not have cared, but please don't suggest others didn't.

CMx1 had water somehow.

And so will the WWII version.

The placeable doodads aren't going to get you any credit from the grog crowd, but you know that.

Right.

Going realtime, radical reduction in abstraction, these things have proven to harm rather than help anything.

In your opinion. Whatever the flaws are in CM:SF they pale in comparison to those of CMx1. That is my opinion. You are just focusing on the negative and seeing a mostly full glass as empty. Again, that is my opinion.

Massive increase in unit details - what, you mean graphics -wise? Sure, you can upgrade the graphics without touching anything else and that'd be great

Again, you overlook the truth. Individual ammo counts and types are tracked, individual soldier Morale is tracked, vehicles have dozens of things that can be damaged, the ballistics modeling is now based on the highly detailed 3D models instead of abstracted forms of them, etc. These are all things that people asked for and now they have them. I can forgive the short memories, I can not so easily forgive people almost deliberately not looking at something that is right in front of them.

But instead we don't even have info panels for our units anymore. I don't even know who is doing what damage after my battles. How is this a step up in unit detail?

It has nothing to do with unit detail, and it hopefully will make a comeback soon. It wasn't present in CMBO either I might add.

There is hardly anything remotely close to "major improvements" in CMx2. That's not even touching the issue of the state of the release code.

Again, I know what is in both games and I know your opinion to be contrary to fact. If you do not wish to see things for the way they are, I can not make you.

The reason people are pissed is because it was Battlefront.com Not Ubisoft, not Atari, & so on. It's "our" Battlefront (BTS) that's gone off it's f'ing rocker, and you bet we're letting you know.

Of course it could be that we are on our rockers and you just "don't get it"

Steve

[ng cavscout]

Originally posted by Mr Reality:

Having the uncons invisible, imho, is not fair.

I suddenly found myself surrounded by uncons which seemed to spawn in buildings.

You are telling me!!! Try have it happen in real life...

[Darren J Pierson]

Originally posted by NG cavscout:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr Reality:

Having the uncons invisible, imho, is not fair.

I suddenly found myself surrounded by uncons which seemed to spawn in buildings.

You are telling me!!! Try have it happen in real life... </font>

[sandy]

Steve

Thanks you for taking the time to reply to my early response (on about page 4) to your official response to the review.

Sadly your response shows that my message failed - I tried to say, listen to the voices of all your old fans and customers.

The message of your reply was that my opinion was an opinion that just did not matter to you and BF. Well you are the expert and the true professional here - I am only a long-time paying customer looking for some fun in my spare time.

There is a very old truth in marketing that you seem to be ignoring here, but I shall not be blunt enough to spell it out.

Here is another quote from you:

I've said it before, though. If we had CMx1 style QBs, WeGo TCP/IP, and no RealTime I bet you we would not have had such a negative reaction from a segment of our CMx1 customer base even if NOTHING else was different. But since they are in a foul mood, everything we've done is fair game for criticism. Even the stuff that, in our opinion, they should be celebrating.

Steve

Those are your words! - For pity's sake, why did you not do exactly that?!.

(No need to kill RT, just make it replayable as an option)

Even now, you could tell us that you hear your customers, and will try to listen to them in the future. But, no - you tell us that "we don't get it" and that our opinions do not matter to you or BF.

That is the tragedy of this thread.

[Battlefront.com]

Dale,

But still. No grogs. Odd, ain't it?

They are here, but they are WWII grogs for the most part. That has no small amount to do with all this hubris too. If the setting were WWII the tone would be quite different, of that I'm sure. Just think back to the wonderfully "warm" reception we received when we announced contemporary warfare would be the first subject matter for CMx2. Think of the many wonderfully reasoned threads that people started up to tell us that modern warfare was a joke and we were wasting our time.

My point is that many CMx1 fans came to CM:SF only half heartedly because it wasn't WWII. Obviously such people were coming into this with a different mindset than those looking forward to the contemporary setting.

You only say that because you've never written a bulldozer program

The mileage we've got out of that one is priceless

Dorosh,

Because you're a lousy CM player. Like me. You'd rather design scenarios (in your case, entire games) than play them.

Poppycock. I could probably beat most people on this Forum. I just don't have time to.

Anyway, I've never seen your name on any ladders. Me neither, not my bag, not any way to prove anything.

Right, so why are you bringing it up? I did partake in a CMBB Tourney and did quite well until I had my ass handed to me due to a design flaw, which was fixed in the next patch. Sometimes it is good to be the King (the problem was split squads were just about 1 hair's width away from panic from the second they were split off. My defenses involved everybody being split!).

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by NG cavscout:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr Reality:

Having the uncons invisible, imho, is not fair.

I suddenly found myself surrounded by uncons which seemed to spawn in buildings.

You are telling me!!! Try have it happen in real life... </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Harv,

Do you happen to remember how you defended your design decisions in the CMBO/BB days? My memory isn't the best after this many years, but I don't recall that you simply blew off the critics/whiners/piners with a "you don't/won't/can't get it" statement or kept referring back to another troubled release.

Actually Harv, that is almost exactly what I did. Except I wasn't as polite as I am being now. Note that there is no smiley. I'm not joking at all. I learned a LOT from that transition and it is one of the major reasons I am reacting the way now. That relatively small transition taught us that we couldn't so much as fart differently without a wild and near hysterical reaction. Not by all, sure, but by some. The greater the change, the greater the reaction. A lot has changed and therefore there is a fairly big reaction. That's why it is relevant to draw parallels to these things. It is about as apples to apples as one can get.

Steve

[Darren J Pierson]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by NG cavscout:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr Reality:

Having the uncons invisible, imho, is not fair.

I suddenly found myself surrounded by uncons which seemed to spawn in buildings.

You are telling me!!! Try have it happen in real life... </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dorosh,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Because you're a lousy CM player. Like me. You'd rather design scenarios (in your case, entire games) than play them.

Poppycock. I could probably beat most people on this Forum. I just don't have time to.

Anyway, I've never seen your name on any ladders. Me neither, not my bag, not any way to prove anything.

Right, so why are you bringing it up? I did partake in a CMBB Tourney and did quite well until I had my ass handed to me due to a design flaw, which was fixed in the next patch. Sometimes it is good to be the King (the problem was split squads were just about 1 hair's width away from panic from the second they were split off. My defenses involved everybody being split!).

Steve </font>