1.07 Demo Feedback

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Adam1:

Well, he's right that if you were more forthcoming about the details "under the hood" (remember numerous requests for designer "notes") we'd be a happy group.

It's not about designer's notes, and everyone knows it. It's about passing on crucial game information to the player during play and giving him the ability to act on that information. It's always been about that, from the first decision to have see-through buildings in CM:BO and the first time BTS had to explain why the tree depictions didn't really block LOS. What you show and what you get need to correlate, and if not, there needs to be some intuitive reason why, and some workaround to understanding how the game actually works as opposed to what it looks like is going on. The two don't need to correlate exactly, but the player needs to be able to grasp at a certain basic level what is going on and why.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Lurker765]

Just a quick question -- How is entering a building through a window unrealistic?

I can understand assaulting a building through a window might be non-SOP and unrealistic, but let's say you are in an alley and the only doors in the building are facing a street (or two) that is populated with enemy troops. But you have some windows available on your side of the empty building. You want to get in the building and then fire on the enemy from the concealment/cover of the house. Why is it unrealistic to bust out a window, climb through and move to attack?

This tactic was used by me many, many, many times in CMx1. I used a building as cover and entered it from a side that was not under fire from the enemy.

[Melnibone]

[Lurker765]

The door to my house is one of those security doors as well so I guess we can't get into a house in any method.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Adam1:

I can't say I have any trouble acting on information in CMSF. It's a pain to have to do my own tests - it'd be a lot easier to have a more obvious indication of penetration abilities, but fas.org can help with that and alt-tab and CMSF are compatible.

For me more notes on what is going on under the hood is enough. I don't expect the armor model in CMSF to be as accurate as the CMx1 series because info on the exact performance of modern armor is unavailable.

I may have been hasty in my comment - yes, designer's notes would of course help in eventual understanding of what is going on during the game, but I meant to say the only time you really need to have that information at hand is when the game is in progress. If you can memorize the pertinent data, so much the better. If not, better to have mnemonics or visual references in game and on the screen than a 500 page manual (ASL anyone?) to which one needs to refer.

Some of the data will be intuitive, and one doesn't need to "know" the exact rpm of a machine gun to know it fires fast. But what you're talking about is the point where, for example, the 3D models in a playback fire 5 round bursts with an M240B, but the game engine is allocating 30 rounds or more to the resolution and having in game effects at wide variance with the type of fire that is being displayed - something non-intuitive, in other words, that is only being discovered via testing.

[VonWebb]

Battlefront is breaking new ground. They have always done so and are with this game pushing software and simulation to the extreme, and with a low budget and a limited workforce to boot. unfortunately since we've left the patronage system of the 1700's, one can't wait forever to release the perfect "treatise" on ones ideas. Sometime you have to barrel your way through and support yourself at the same time. It seems, at times, people on this forum forget what is trying to be done, it's the "backseat driver" syndrome... made even worse by people you can't even drive.

They just want to get to the end of the roadtrip without a hitch and the roadtrip is off-road safari from NYC to LA.

[Bruce70]

Sometimes I think Steve's an arrogant bastard , then I read what he has to put up with and realise that I would be 100x worse.

CMx2 had quite a lot of problems, now it has a lot less, and there has been no let up in the pace at which problems are being fixed and features added.

Keep up the good work BFC!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Adam1:

I can't say I have any trouble acting on information in CMSF. It's a pain to have to do my own tests - it'd be a lot easier to have a more obvious indication of penetration abilities, but fas.org can help with that and alt-tab and CMSF are compatible.

For me more notes on what is going on under the hood is enough. I don't expect the armor model in CMSF to be as accurate as the CMx1 series because info on the exact performance of modern armor is unavailable.

I may have been hasty in my comment - yes, designer's notes would of course help in eventual understanding of what is going on during the game, but I meant to say the only time you really need to have that information at hand is when the game is in progress. If you can memorize the pertinent data, so much the better. If not, better to have mnemonics or visual references in game and on the screen than a 500 page manual (ASL anyone?) to which one needs to refer.

Some of the data will be intuitive, and one doesn't need to "know" the exact rpm of a machine gun to know it fires fast. But what you're talking about is the point where, for example, the 3D models in a playback fire 5 round bursts with an M240B, but the game engine is allocating 30 rounds or more to the resolution and having in game effects at wide variance with the type of fire that is being displayed - something non-intuitive, in other words, that is only being discovered via testing. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

The whole question about "designer's notes" is an interesting one. Unfortunately, I'm well aware that it's a fool's errand because the same personality types demanding such a thing are the ones that will never be satisfied with it unless every single frick'n thing under the sun is in there, even the stuff that should be obvious. So when we look at a very intensive, laborious, tedious project and know that it's not going to be "good enough" it kinda takes the, uhm, incentive out of doing it

Our philosophy has been to include as many realistic features as possible and let gamers play intuitively. Things that are not intuitive are explained in the manual or supported (to the degree we wish to) with in-game feedback. We do feel there is room for improvement on the latter issue, which is why things have been added since release. More will be worked in over time.

However, some things are just WAY beyond explaining. Armor penetration, for example. Even in CMx1 the numbers that we displayed were largely useless without a deeper understanding of ballistics. It isn't our job to educate people to this degree. If someone is really interested in ballistics then there are other, and superior, resources to draw from than "designer's notes".

In the end it all comes down to time. We've spent nearly 4 years on CM:SF so far and we haven't had the major amount of spare time necessary to publish a 500 page book covering all topics under the sun that come into play within CM. And that won't change because we're not in control of how many hours there are in a day.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Windows are, by design, almost always intended for passage of air and light. 240 pound soldiers with bulky equipment, inflexible body armor, pouches that snag on stuff, a weapon, and an inability to leap 4 feet straight into the air and through a narrow opening are obviously outside the design specs for most windows. For such things there are something called doors

Even when a window isn't barred (which is common in the Middle East), too small, or dangerous due to shattered glass, they make for very poor entry points. Even under optimal conditions getting in through a window is slow, energy intensive, noisy, and clumsy (Moon saw a guy in his squad literally blow his foot off after climbing through a window). Sure, it can be done... but as far as we know it isn't something that most soldiers would want to do in the heat of battle. Certainly the first guy to get boosted in probably isn't happy about it!

Points of entry/exit are very important tactical considerations for both sides. For an attacker this means having to approach a building from a specific side, which the defender can anticipate. From a defender's point of view this works the same in reverse; meaning escape routes can be readily identified and covered by the other side.

One of the great advances in CMx2 is the inability to pass through any wall of the player's choosing like one could in CMx1. In real life most houses have no more than 2 ways in or out, not 4. Having twice as many possible ways in/out affects tactics unrealistically both on the attack and defense. What's more, CMx2's system lets the entrances/exits determined by the scenario designer. This allows for greater, and more realistic, variety of ways in and out of buildings in relation to their surrounding terrain. By default CMx2 buildings have 2 entrances on opposite walls, but the designer can alter this in any way he wishes. So if you see something other than the default in a game that's because the designer purposefully wanted it to be that way. Who are we to allow someone to "cheat" a way around what might be a critical balancing decision by the designer?

Steve