How do you adjust waypoints?

[David Chapuis]

I did look (at least a little) in the manual, but I didnt find it. Anybody care to enlighten me?

[MHertogh]

in CM you could select it with the mouse and move it. Have you tried that (I just check the manual and did not find it either)

[Exel]

Originally posted by MHertogh:

in CM you could select it with the mouse and move it. Have you tried that (I just check the manual and did not find it either)

Nope. That's what intuition would tell you, but nope. I hope it's just a missing feature - annoying to cancel a whole chain of commands just because you placed the last waypoint three meters amiss.

[Xipe66]

The last waypoint is only a Backspace away, but it would really suck if your first waypoint out of a chain of ten was amiss...

[ParaBellum]

Haven't found a way to edit waypoint either...

[tinjaw]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

I did look (at least a little) in the manual, but I didnt find it. Anybody care to enlighten me?

You uninstall CMSF and go back to one of the other Combat Missions. At this time, that is the only way to do it. I think it was a poor decision to not include this functionality when it has been in previous versions. (A new engine is not excuse to remove *basic* functionality.)

[Moon]

Adjusting waypoints is indeed not in. You can select a waypoint (or the command line) and change the command (you could e.g. turn a Move command into a Fast command), but you cannot change the location of the waypoint itself.

Why is it not in? It was fairly low on the priority list to put into 1.0 and didn't make the cut in the end. The primary reason for this is that CMSF is not using "comand delays" tied to the amount of waypoints in the same way. Command delays are still in, but much less noticeable. Therefore the ability to adjust waypoints without having to do new ones is less important. It may, however, be put in in some of the future feature patches.

BTW, if you need to delete a string of waypoints quickly, don't forget that there are three "Instant commands" (top of interface, above the command panel): Pause, Stop, and Evade. The Stop one cancels ALL commands for a unit instantly.

Martin

[thewood]

One thing I have always respected about BFC is that, when it comes to CM, they don't rationalize features and functions. They didn't have time and thats it. No weird and uncomfortable rationalizong away a missing feature.

[tinjaw]

Originally posted by Moon:

Why is it not in? It was fairly low on the priority list to put into 1.0 and didn't make the cut in the end. The primary reason for this is that CMSF is not using "comand delays" tied to the amount of waypoints in the same way. Command delays are still in, but much less noticeable. Therefore the ability to adjust waypoints without having to do new ones is less important. It may, however, be put in in some of the future feature patches.

Martin,

Thanks for the insight. But I am going to have to disagree with you on the decision to not include it. (I know it doesn't matter what I think )

First, It was in the prior three versions and you don't want to remove functionality on successive versions. Enhance, yes. But remove, no.

Second, Don't make the user repeat themselves. If the user takes the time to input orders, provide the user an efficient manner to correct their mistakes without having to start over. Nothing aggravates users more than having to do something over from scratch when they perceive the issues as being solvable by only making "one small adjustment". Users/Gamers/Etc value their time -- more so when playing a "quick" game like a Quick Battle Scenario during a lunch break or 30-minutes between putting the baby to bed and going to sleep themselves.

Edited to add:

Let me provide another example, fire missions. If I am entering a fire mission and I want to make a change, say 10 minute delay instead of 5 minutes, I have to start over. I cannot change the delay before confirming the minssion.

[ July 28, 2007, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: Tinjaw ]

[Moon]

Except that CMSF is much more than a successive verison. It's coded entirely from scratch, Sharing no two lines of code with CMx1. Under the hood you're looking at two completely new games. Therefore the decision was not "should we remove X" but "do we absolutely need it for v1.0"?

This is a choice one always has to make in game development. If you add one thing, you have to drop another, because there is no limit in ideas, but there always is a limit in resources (time, manpower). More options is (almost) always better, no disputing that. But it's the choice of what to do first and what to do next that will in the end (collectively) decide about the quality of the game, and we decided that other things were - for now - much more important when factoring in the benefit/effort ratio.

I am almost certain that the ability to move waypoints will make its entry sooner or later in a future feature patch, actually, for the reason you mentioned and a few others

Martin

[tinjaw]

Originally posted by Moon:

Except that CMSF is much more than a successive verison. It's coded entirely from scratch, Sharing no two lines of code with CMx1. Under the hood you're looking at two completely new games. Therefore the decision was not "should we remove X" but "do we absolutely need it for v1.0"?

I understand that it is a complete rewrite. However, Combat Mission is a franchise, it is a brand name, it is a user experience. So, 250K LOC being replaced doesn't matter on the inside, it is the "outside" that matters to the purchaser.

My personal (software) design philosophy is that features and functionality should remain even after a complete rewrite, in general. It obviously does not make sense took keep "tank only functions" in a game, if the rewrite only includes infantry because it it now simulating the US Civil War.

So, yes, I understand that it is a ship-it-now-or-never decision to get something in a game due to resource restraints. I just would have given "reproducing existing functions/features/behavior" a higher multiplier on the decision matrix. Personal preference? Yes.

And I will hold you to your word that it will be in next week's patch. J/K

[Moon]

Oh, it had that multiplier. Most testers, myself included, who first played CMSF included a comment about this. That ensured it a decent multiplier. But even with the multiplier it didn't make the cut because CMx1 and CMSF not only differ on the inside, but also differ on the outside. The C&C system in completely different, the game mechanics are different to a large degree, too. The need for this command simply isn't as high as it was in the earlier games, and it is in fact so low that even despite the multiplier and the fact that we knew that people are going to mention it, we decided that other things were more important.

Of course I never say that it will be in next week's patch. But the much more interesting question is actually if you will still have the same opinion next week after playing the game more

Martin

[tinjaw]

Originally posted by Moon:

But the much more interesting question is actually if you will still have the same opinion next week after playing the game more

Martin

Agreed! And if I was on your side, that would be my response.