MikeyD Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 "...make spotting doors less time consuming" Awh, and i've been construct maps that contain 'walled compounds' that are specifically designed to make it difficult to dash into the nearest door! You guys are no fun 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Thanks, Steve. Didn't mean to turn this into a confessional, and thanks for the examples (and no, no further elaboration regarding the SS ace is needed ). I've never been a soldier, despite spending my childhood and adolescence preparing for just that (some injuries have destroyed any prospects of being an infantryman as I wanted to), but I'm (fairly) well-read when it comes to warfare, especially with regards to infantry over the last 200 years or so, with a focus on the last forty years. I do feel like I know what you're getting at. For my part, I think that perhaps I will give 1.03 some more runs and see if my playing style still causes so many problems. I also have a feeling that as the TacAI (which I do feel I place a heavy burden on) improves, so will my gaming experience. Maybe that's the crux of it. And maybe I'm just flailing. We'll see. Thanks again for the enlightening conversation. Cheers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Maybe I am overly sensitive to it, but what I am struggling with is even though the bugs for pathfinding and LOS are reduced, they still happen just enough to screw up 30 minutes of execution and planning. Before someone says "That unpredictibility is part of real life", that is not part of the design. Build that in to the game if its needed. But when troops won't go through breaches or doors, troops get shot through walls, grenade launchers refuse to fire, etc., even 10% of the time, it is almost impossible to use "real world" tactics and trust they will work. Right now, even after 1.03, I am still struggling to see what is the true design becuse I am constantly thinking, is that a bug or was it supposed to do that. The whole thing of troops seeming to reorganize themselves at waypoints or at the end of moves is a great example. If I want troops to stop at a corner of a building, should I expect that three guys will stand in the street and get shot? Is that design or bug. If its a design, I guess I'll just have to use corners or assume I will lose three guys when they move. Strykers refusing to fire .50 at infantry 400m away. Bug or design, if its design, what should I be doing different. Sorry for the rant, but at this point I hear people talking about using real world tactics and want to know how they deal with the above issues or do they ignore them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted September 5, 2007 Author Share Posted September 5, 2007 Michael, “Any game where you order squads around, on the other hand, is not "operational". That's as goofy as the suggestions being bandied about on the Matrix forum.” I never thought such games/scales were operational … I think you sometimes read posts too fast and then jump to the wrong conclusion. I could give you both the western and the Russian/Soviet definitions of operational… I know what it means . The two scales for wargames that always interested me most were Squad Leader… the lowest realistic scale for any wargame … in my view… and the operational in the western definition of “having the right battalion, in the right place at the right time.” i.e. moving battalions about on maps that if hexed would be 1 mile, maybe 1 km to the hex. Thanks for the Airborne Assault heads up but I have it.. in my view it does not quite come off… they use what I would call a “micro-combat” model and are pause-able RT… neither perfect for operational games in my view. But I will probably get their forthcoming Bulge game. WEGO would be ideal for operational games. All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Originally posted by thewood: Right now, even after 1.03, I am still struggling to see what is the true design becuse I am constantly thinking, is that a bug or was it supposed to do that. The whole thing of troops seeming to reorganize themselves at waypoints or at the end of moves is a great example. If I want troops to stop at a corner of a building, should I expect that three guys will stand in the street and get shot? Is that design or bug. If its a design, I guess I'll just have to use corners or assume I will lose three guys when they move. Strykers refusing to fire .50 at infantry 400m away. Bug or design, if its design, what should I be doing different. I see these things also wood. I am still under the impression that they are bugs. Hoping so anyway. I know that they are pet peeves of mine that I will continue to report as we work on 1.04. On a side note when Steve says he took a note on somefink, he really is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis50 Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Originally posted by AdamL: What I don't get is why on day one of every patch, it takes like 15 minutes for the players to find a crapton of bugs. What the hell is the BFC beta team doing?!They know what needs work ..long before anyone here reports it. They are working off the punch lists. I personally think they were somewhere between 6 months and a year away from where they really wanted to be, but as they said they had a contract obligation to release it. Regards, Gunz 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 AdamL, What I don't get is why on day one of every patch, it takes like 15 minutes for the players to find a crapton of bugs. What the hell is the BFC beta team doing?!Three easy answers to this: 1. There are hundreds of you, only a few testers. It's simple statistics that out of all you guys here, there is a higher percent change you'll find something than our testers will. 2. We are working under immense time pressure. If we find a bug, run it through Charles, he comes back with a fix, we run it through to see if it is fixed, and then we're good to go. 3. You only see the things that aren't caught and fixed. Don't be silly enough to think that you see all the bugs, because you don't. This is an ultra complex environment and that means subtle differences can mean the difference between something being found and something not being found within a short space of time. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 GunzAbeam. They know what needs work ..long before anyone here reports it. They are working off the punch lists.Pretty much spot on. The problem is that some of these things are pretty difficult to pin down. For example, in v1.02 I had a path overshoot problem with a Stryker backing up and winding tail forward. It was a simple reverse to a single waypoint, then forward to a waypoint and then right to another waypoint. The problem happened going to the first waypoint. I tried to reproduce it almost two dozen times and COULD NOT. Problem is, without reproduction Charles has ziltch to go on. If he has ziltch to go on the problem will remain until that status quo changes. Saving something in mid action, like this, usually doesn't help. Kinda like seeing a plane fall out of the sky. Sure, you know it's going to crash and burn, but unless you have the voice/data recorder you aren't going to know why. I personally think they were somewhere between 6 months and a year away from where they really wanted to be, but as they said they had a contract obligation to release it.The game has been out for about 5 weeks now. I think by the end of this month most of the kinks, technical and gameplay, will be fixed. v1.04 is already shaping up to be a nice one Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: AdamL, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What I don't get is why on day one of every patch, it takes like 15 minutes for the players to find a crapton of bugs. What the hell is the BFC beta team doing?!Three easy answers to this: 1. There are hundreds of you, only a few testers. It's simple statistics that out of all you guys here, there is a higher percent change you'll find something than our testers will. 2. We are working under immense time pressure. If we find a bug, run it through Charles, he comes back with a fix, we run it through to see if it is fixed, and then we're good to go. 3. You only see the things that aren't caught and fixed. Don't be silly enough to think that you see all the bugs, because you don't. This is an ultra complex environment and that means subtle differences can mean the difference between something being found and something not being found within a short space of time. Steve </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Originally posted by kipanderson: WEGO would be ideal for operational games.*cough* W@W *cough* V4V *cough* 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 BFC, an emphatic "hell yes" on that front. My group gets the same question every release. (We blame QA. Just kidding.) Gunz... it certainly does seem as though we're uncovering new bugs. BFC may know intuitively that something needs work but not have anything concrete to go on, or any number of other scenarios. Gotta give folks a reason to report, it's pretty tough to justify spending hours tracking down a bug if BFC already "knows" about all of them. AdamL, I'd say get that crapton of bugs reported ASAP. Edit: Heh, well, I took too long getting *that* written, obviously. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis50 Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: GunzAbeam. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I personally think they were somewhere between 6 months and a year away from where they really wanted to be, but as they said they had a contract obligation to release it.The game has been out for about 5 weeks now. I think by the end of this month most of the kinks, technical and gameplay, will be fixed. v1.04 is already shaping up to be a nice one Steve </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 AdamL, Well, Steve, I think those are fine answers to give to my question but I am a single man, and I have found the very bugs you attempt to fix in every patch within the hour of installing a new patch. Lucky you! Take your pick Adam. We can keep a patch in house, constantly testing it, for weeks on end to make sure it is "perfect" or we can release it when it seems like we're doing more harm than good by holding it back. You can complain all you want about the things that aren't fixed yet, but oddly enough I don't see you complaining about the things that ARE fixed. You would be if we hadn't released v1.03 last week. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Phillip, BFC, an emphatic "hell yes" on that front.Awe, what do you know? GunAzbeam, I think you're really going out on a long thin limb Steve ....it may be a really nice one but we'll see. I agree with you there, though mostly because the expectations of what needs to be fixed is pretty personal. For us, we intend on getting our list of things wrapped up by the end of the month. So someone who expects TCP/IP WeGo, hand picking units in QBs, etc. will definitely say that the game needs more time in the oven. In that case, yeah... probably another 8 months or so will be needed for stuff like that. Which is why some of them aren't in the game now Others were left out on purpose and time wasn't an issue, so on that score the CMx2 will never be "fixed" because we aren't going to ever put those things in. Perception is a funny thing! Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis50 Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Perception is a funny thing! Yes it is ..got me! Regards, Gunz 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 AdamL, My pick is -- before you release a patch that is intended to fix certain bugs, test it thoroughly to make sure it actually fixes said bugs. If you make a new build that might reintroduce bugs, test that. Jeez, it's not rocket science.Hey, thanks for the enlightenment! We'll do it your way next time instead of... wait, we already do this. Never mind. You guys are WAAY off your game the past two years. You're still coasting on reputation for converting ASL into a computer game.That's news to me. When did we convert ASL to a computer game? Now design is a whole different animal. Your first shot at designing a game failed, pick up the pieces and move on.In your opinion, sure. If you think we're going to toss out 3 years worth of work because you don't like it, well... go find another wargame company to pester. CMx2 is what we're using for the next 5 years. Obviously there will be evolutionary changes, but that's all. These "bugs" are related to the way the game is *designed*. They are not technical issues. Well, anybody can spout off a bunch of crap and sound smart. Though I think you failed this time. Try again. The process you call "patching" is really a further extension of game design, you are trying to find a new adaptation of the design you have that will still allow the product to function realistically. Those attempts don't look fruitful or promising at all. The design isn't getting better in any way that contributes significantly to the simulation.In your opinion. You're arranging the deck chairs on your titanic, Steve.In your opinion. In my opinion you're just being a useless horse's arse. But at least I'm saying that it is my opinion and not fact. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis50 Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Hey ...over there ...did you see that? Isn't it time to eat or something. Regards, Gunz 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.