Nietzsche Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I don´t quite agree to this: "The majority of our players play solo. At least most of the time." I mean, the PBEM-feature for me and my PBEM-friends is just the thing that made the difference between CM and all the other games on the market. Let´s prove a point and tell them were not a minority. The PBEM is a unique feature and I hope the developers don´t think that it should be in the category "nice feature, but does anybody really miss it if we leave it out". TCP/IP, LAN, and Hotseat options are nice, but nor really at all the same thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kineas Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I find it curious that noone mentions the best thing in wargame communities: the tournaments. Like the ones organized on the strategyzoneonline.com. Without the pbem option I doubt these can be organized. A wargame without pbem? Naaaaa... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Although I'm generally in agreement with you, this has been addressed many times by the devs. The good news is, they seem to be 95% sure we can have it - yay! But another thread about it really isn't going to make a difference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Do we need yet another rehash of this topic? It's been covered by hundreds of posts already and every time a new thread comes up its just a repeat of an older one. Plus, the main point I've always been quite clear on is that the only reason PBEM might not be in is if it is technically impossible to offer. So why is there even any discussion necessary when it is plainly clear that we agree that PBEM is important and should be put in if at all possible? You PBEMers are a pretty thick headed bunch Well meaning, of course, but you don't listen too well. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Originally posted by Nietzsche: I don´t quite agree to this: "The majority of our players play solo. At least most of the time."Well, I don't agree with your disagreement. Even though I've playe a lot of PBEM games, and a good number of TCP/IP games, if I were to 've logged my playing time I'm certain I played solo most of the time. Originally posted by Nietzsche: I mean, the PBEM-feature for me and my PBEM-friends is just the thing that made the difference between CM and all the other games on the market. I found other differentiators with and reasons to pruchase CMBO, and then later grew into play PBEM and TCP/IP. Both are a lot of fun, got to know quite a few good folks, but that came later. Originally posted by Nietzsche: Let´s prove a point and tell them were not a minority. Have at it, but my guess would be the BFC crew have already asked and answered this for themselves. Originally posted by Nietzsche: The PBEM is a unique feature and I hope the developers don´t think that it should be in the category "nice feature, but does anybody really miss it if we leave it out".I'd miss it, but look at it this way; The reason I'd be able to miss it is I'd already have to have CMSF. You won't be able to miss it if you don't have it. A philosopher like youself herr Nietzsche should be able to see that point, neh? Originally posted by Nietzsche: TCP/IP, LAN, and Hotseat options are nice, but nor really at all the same thing. True enough as far as that goes. But they are certainly methods of playing multi-player. Same as carburetors are not the same as fuel injectors but they are fuel delivery methods. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metalbrew Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 If anyone isn't listening very well, it's BFC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I don't like the idea that me, a single player gamer, has some features of games held back because of concerns about PBEM cheating. I get the idea that without those concerns, there would be a chance that the CM series would be more open to modding. Maybe that's unfounded, maybe its unfair, but its the impression I've developed from being a CMer since '99. And its not limited to CM - there are other games I've played where concerns about multiplayer cheating have often adversely affected the single player experience. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Becket Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Originally posted by Sumac: If anyone isn't listening very well, it's BFC. What does this mean? Steve is very clear: "the only reason PBEM might not be in is if it is technically impossible to offer" The only conclusion I can draw from your one-liner is that you are saying "Steve: if it's technically impossible to do PBEM, then rebuild the game so that it is possible." Is this really what you are saying? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Originally posted by fytinghellfish: I don't like the idea that me, a single player gamer, has some features of games held back because of concerns about PBEM cheating. I get the idea that without those concerns, there would be a chance that the CM series would be more open to modding. Maybe that's unfounded, maybe its unfair, but its the impression I've developed from being a CMer since '99. And its not limited to CM - there are other games I've played where concerns about multiplayer cheating have often adversely affected the single player experience. Besides, it's going to take some time - at least for me - to get up to speed with the new game to the point of being comfortable doing PBEM or other multiplayer for that matter. Maybe it's just me, but I don't want to waste someone else's time while I figure out the nuances of the game. Much rather learn on my own, and then play head 2 head or PBEM or whatever. ...especially with the new RealTime option, and TCP/IP. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Sumac, If anyone isn't listening very well, it's BFC.What a bunch of horsecrap. I've heard every emotional, unreasonable, illogical, and down right asinine argument for PBEM in addition to all the reasonable ones. The answer to all of them is the same: We want PBEM in. The only reason why it won't go in is if it is technically impossible. Please, explain to me how this very simple statement proves your point. Otherwise, you've proved my point that I'm not being listened to. Becket, "Steve: if it's technically impossible to do PBEM, then rebuild the game so that it is possible."Yup, that's what it all boils down to. An unreasonable and irrational demand based on a single feature. I agree that PBEM is important, but it is ridiculous to make any case that states the game would not be worth a damned if it doesn't have it. And what's the point anyway, since we've already said hundreds of times that we want the feature in. Here's how this idiotic conversation (and it is idiotic) goes each and every time: PBEM Bigot - you have to put in PBEM. It's the most critical thing in the whole wide world. Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in. PBEM Bigot - PBEM is more than important, it is the only reason I get up in the morning. Put it in. Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in. PBEM Bigot - you're not listenting to me. PBEM is important, put it in!!! What is wrong with you? Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in. PBEM Bigot - obviously I'm not making myself clear enough. I represent 99.99999% of your customers because I say so. And because I represent 99.99999% of your customers you have to do what I say. And I say put in PBEM! Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in. PBEM Bigot - ARGH!!! You're still not listening. Look... it's the only way I play the game. I love PBEM. You HAVE to put it in. Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in. PBEM Bigot - I can not believe this arrogance! I made you who you are today, you MUST LISTEN TO ME DAMNIT!! PUT IN PBEM or ELSE! Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in. PBEM Bigot - you still don't get it. I will demand, demand, and DEMAND that you bend to my will because I am important. And I demand that you put in PBEM. Now, what do you say to that? Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in. PBEM Bigot - what the f is wrong with you? Why is it that you can't grasp the simple fact that PBEM is critically important to my personal tastes? What do I have to say to make you understand that you MUST put in PBEM? Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in. PBEM Bigot - I'm going to storm off this thread now and stew in my own juices for a while. I'll come back in a few weeks and start up a new thread and demand PBEM again, because there is a chance you'll have seen the light. Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in. ------------- Worst of all, throughout this whole repeated idiotic repetition of something that shouldn't have gone on for more than 10 posts, we keep saying that it looks good that PBEM will get in. Recently I even said that chances are extremely high that it will get in. Yet still, the PBEM Bigots out there aren't satisfied. That menas neither simple logic nor reassurances that they have nothing to worry about aren't good enough. To repeat an overused quote: "Insanity is defined as repeating the same action over and over again and expecting a different result" Our position is the same now as it was the very first time it was brought up. It is insane to think that after all this time we're going to say "oh, looks like PBEM isn't technically possible. Check back in 2009 for the totally rewritten, dumbed down, and technically backwards version of CM:SF instead of the one we were planning on releasing soon". Nuts! Steve [ October 18, 2006, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 How about instead, you toss out a bone on scenario design stuff? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: PBEM Bigot - you have to put in PBEM. It's the most critical thing in the whole wide world. Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in. PBEM Bigot - PBEM is more than important, it is the only reason I get up in the morning. Put it in. [&c.] God, I love this board. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Isn't the phrase "PBEM will be out if it turns out to be so difficult to implement that the low number of PBEM buyers (those who won't buy the game if it doesn't have PBEM) doesn't justify the effort. Keep in mind that 'effort' also means 'release delay' which pissed everybody else off, and we didn't have a release in quite some time" more accurate? It goes without saying that every WEGO game can do PBEM "technically". The question is how much trouble will you have to go through to save and restore the state, and do so in a way that keeps fog-of-war. The file size in particular can be trouble as whatever the native state-of-world saving mechnism of the game is might come up with pretty huge files. We have seen games to savegames of several hundred megabytes in the past. You can't really PBEM those unless you go PBM - snail mail CDs around. People will also cry bloody murder if CMx2 only includes a "trusted" PBEM mode where FOW can be broken easily (but allows faster turnaround), in which case you can't do tournaments. Those who are hardcore enough to only want the game with PBEM are likely also not buying it if it isn't suitable for competetive play. Do do, however, strongly suggest that large PBEM file sizes are not used as an "excuse" to omit PBEM. Even if it's 500 MB, some people will play it (probably using HTTP/ftp instead of mail), and people who buy BFC games usually play them for 5 years. Protecting us from ourselfes is not required. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I'm Still Laughing ! Steve's "Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in." post was brilliant and histerical. Maybe Steve would consider stand-up comedy or at least an appearance of the Jay Leno show if he weren't making so much cash selling video games! Nicely done Steve! VERY entertaining.... and oh.... one final thought: "We agree (!) that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in. -Steve" -tom w [ October 18, 2006, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 "and people who buy BFC games usually play them for 5 years. Protecting us from ourselves is not required." um.... and while we are at same thing for wide screen LCD displays and over size monitors/larger resolution requests. Protecting us from ourselves is not required. -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WineCape Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Sumac, ...yada yada yada....snip snip snip. Nuts! SteveMmm, you have way to much time at your disposal correcting the nutters. We could direct your energy to more useful tasks, like, err, another bone, or somefink. Pretty please. I demand the surrender of educating the villagers in Bastogne. Nuts! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 If this game has PBEM I ain't buyin' it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Check back in 2009 for the totally rewritten, dumbed down, and technically backwards version of CM:SF instead of the one we were planning on releasing soon". You forgot "with antiquated graphics and an outdated operating system as prerequisite." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I'm amazed, simply amazed that Steve hasn't yet threatened to pull PBEM if this kind of idiocy continues. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'Rogers Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Let´s prove a point and tell them were not a minority. How do you prove that on this forum? It isn't like everyone who ever played Combat Mission is here, and in fact the number that will play CM:SF but never bother to see this forum (much less post) is significantly greater. The people who play PBEM are more likely to post here. If you buy the game, play it single player for a few months, you probably aren't going to post on a forum. That is why there is an over representation of PBEM players. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Originally posted by RMC: If this game has PBEM I ain't buyin' it. If this game doesn't have PBEM, I ain't buying it. But if this game DOES have PBEM, I ain't buying it either. Unless it doesn't have PBEM, in which case I may buy it. Or if it DOES have PBEM, then I will definately buy it. Unless I'm broke or my girlfriend doesn't let me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metalbrew Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Sumac, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If anyone isn't listening very well, it's BFC.What a bunch of horsecrap. I've heard every emotional, unreasonable, illogical, and down right asinine argument for PBEM in addition to all the reasonable ones. The answer to all of them is the same: We want PBEM in. The only reason why it won't go in is if it is technically impossible. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 John Rambo to Steve: "They drew first blood" ! "That's what started it!" -tom w (I smell the lock coming....) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Originally posted by Sumac: You're absolutely diluted if you think the argument of the PBEM bigots boils down to a lack of reading/listening skills. Diluted. Has Steve been drinking so much that he's gone into solution again? The last time it took a couple days on the centerfuge to precipitate him out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Worst of all, throughout this whole repeated idiotic repetition of something that shouldn't have gone on for more than 10 posts, we keep saying that it looks good that PBEM will get in. Recently I even said that chances are extremely high that it will get in. Yet still, the PBEM Bigots out there aren't satisfied. That menas neither simple logic nor reassurances that they have nothing to worry about aren't good enough.The PBEM Bigots are, at least, consistent in that not even your reassurances will make them stop. So, Steve, why do you hate PBEM??? 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.