PBEM-fans unite!

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Sergei:

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

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???

</font>

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by Sumac:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

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.

Your mind is made up, you can't be reasoned with. You can't identify who's the customer in this situation. You've said before if the old customers don't like the game, screw 'em: you'll just go find new customers.

Well, I dare you. Here's your chance to prove me and other wrong. Leave PBEM out and see how the game fairs. I double dog dare you. I triple dog dare you.

You're absolutely diluted if you think the argument of the PBEM bigots boils down to a lack of reading/listening skills. Diluted.

Oh, and the idea that it may not be technically possible is crap. If it's not technically possible, and you're the technologist, then who's to blame? That's a pile of manure that's been spread way too thin. Either you make a good game or you don't -- that's all that matters.

Lastly, you realize that you attacked first, right? I didn't use language any more harsh than you lead off with and you immediately escalated into these insanely bad impressions of your core customers. For shame.</font>

[Becket]

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.

Crap. Who poured too much water into BFC?

[Vanir Ausf B]

No worries. I suspect Steve could solve his dilution problem by simply concentrating harder.

...

These threads are pointless. Why complain over something that has not happened and is very unlikely to happen? If you're gonna bitch at least bitch about a problem that actually exists. And I say that as a proud PBEM bigot who will have little reason to buy the game if by some chance there is no PBEM.

[RMC]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

And I say that as a proud PBEM bigot

Big Time keep on turning

Proud bigot keep on yearning

And were rolling, rolling

Rolling on the forum

[Moronic Max]

If you're gonna bitch at least bitch about a problem that actually exists

Right on, man, right on. In that spirit...

...I think we need to buy Steve a new hat. I'll donate $1. Anyone else wanna participate in this charity event?

Hell, we could make it a ball or something.

[Redwolf]

I don't think these threads are useless. If they weren't here then BFC wouldn't know that there's any interest in PBEM at all. And no, it doesn't go without saying that PBEM is a desirable feature in the 2006/2007 gaming world.

Personal attacks are of course pointless, and I think it is even more pointless to speculate about the number of lost sales since there is no sales data from a previous game dropping PBEM available. Game companies generally don't publish sales numbers at all anyway.

%%

The only thing that would make me angry is if PBEM is left out for the "protect from ourself" reasons such as dropping it just because the files are too big. We can deal with the large file problem somehow, let that be our problem.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I may be mistaken, but I think it's actually Charles in that picture who's in desperate need of new headwear.

[Moronic Max]

Whatever, man. Game developers--all look alike, y'knowwattamean?

[The Coil]

I think you are all missing the real problem here. PBEM players tend to play CM longer, people who don't PBEM just play it a few times and then shelve it. To the company selling a game, it doesn't matter if you play it once or a thousand times, they get the same money (this is why there are so many games out there with cool graphics and crappy gameplay - can't put a picture of your gameplay on the box). What we need here is some sort of incentive for BF to tailor their games to the tastes of those who play it more.

I think you see where I'm heading here, the solution is so obvious, it suggests itself: Don't charge a set price for the game, rather charge people per time they play it, maybe a dime a play. Play it once, and think it stinks, you are only out ten cents, not fifty bucks. Play it a lot, pay more, but now BF has correspondingly more reasons to listen to your suggestions.

Of course, the system would need some tweaking for international sales - for instance, in the UK you might have to pay a farthing a play or whatever, and in Canadia it'd be $72 or something.

Dang, that's a good idea...

[Kineas]

The sentence 'we put it in unless it proves to be technically impossible' conveys one clear message: the PBEM mode is of second importance at best. (What is technically possible or not was clear at the time of the design, so pbem isn't designed in from the start, but might be a nice bonus) Which means the new product won't just be an overall better CMx1, but a fundamentally different one. This is not a bad thing, invention mustn't be stopped, maybe after the new game we can't even look at CMx1 again.

But there are other signs. The RT-wego conversation and other messages indicates that BFC trying to position itself into a bigger market, out of the hardcore-wargamer niche. And the hardcore-wargamer fans (overly presented on this

forum) are worried about that. That is why the conversation is a bit heated. They are not worried without a reason, see the first paragraph.

Maybe BFC hasn't realized that their competition is not BF2, not Theatre of War or "Rush for Berlin". The greatest competitor is - surprise - CMx1 itself. e.g. I just recently discovered the game, and I will surely play it for 3 years at least, unless a lot better game comes.

[WineCape]

Nietzsche/Sumac,

Please do well to read the following statement below, posted more than a year ago by Steve.

PBEM

We want PBEM in. Very much so. We fully understand the importance of it. However, we might (and I stress MIGHT) run into technical issues that nix the feature. We don't think this will happen, but we don't want to promise something that we aren't very sure we can deliver. The whole problem with the previous debates is that people, emotionally, wanted us to promise that no matter what it will be in. And that is something we can not do.

Remember, even if there is no PBEM there will still be TCP/IP, LAN, and Hotseat options. So the argument that no PBEM = no Human challenge is pure nonsense. It might not be the way some people want to play multi-player, but that isn't the same as saying the options do not exist at all.

The majority of our players play solo. At least most of the time. Having said that, as I have said hundreds of times before, we understand that PBEM is an important part of the enjoyment for a significant (though minority) slice of our customer base. We do not wish to cut this feature any more than they do. But if we must cut it for technical reasons, we must.

Sometimes a moment of clarity hits me and I can understand why telling lies is so routine in game PR as well as the rest of the world. And when I realize this I am tempted to give into the Dark Side. But I get over it and instead wind up wasting a few days yelling back at people who are yelling at me. Someday I'll get tired of it and lie instead. That day ain't here yet.

Bolding mine. Now please rest the matter. Unite! We need another bone! That should be the battle cry instead.

[ October 19, 2006, 02:28 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

[RMC]

Originally posted by Kineas:

The sentence 'we put it in unless it proves to be technically impossible' conveys one clear message: the PBEM mode is of second importance at best. (What is technically possible or not was clear at the time of the design, so pbem isn't designed in from the start, but might be a nice bonus).

Interesting point. But what's the alternative? Designing a game around PBEM?

Which means the new product won't just be an overall better CMx1, but a fundamentally different one.

Is that all people really want? An "overall better" CM? Not a lot of specificity in that goal. Do people really just want a prettier version of CM with higher-poly models? This whole debate reminds me of when CM was still Computer Squad Leader and there was a sizeable group of people who wanted, demanded really, the literal translation of Advanced Squad Leader, hexes and all, to the computer. Any deviation from that was a sell-out of the wargaming niche. Don't see too many advocates of that position anymore, but this PBEM argument feels very familiar.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Sumac:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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>

[Kineas]

Originally posted by RMC:

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

The sentence 'we put it in unless it proves to be technically impossible' conveys one clear message: the PBEM mode is of second importance at best. (What is technically possible or not was clear at the time of the design, so pbem isn't designed in from the start, but might be a nice bonus).

Interesting point. But what's the alternative? Designing a game around PBEM?

</font>

[Becket]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

No worries. I suspect Steve could solve his dilution problem by simply concentrating harder.

110% awesome.

[RMC]

Originally posted by Kineas:

No, the alternative is a predesigned, 'must have' feature what only needs to be implemented. Or a predesigned and dropped feature (which makes the current situation quite good actually).

Care to elaborate? It seems you think it is all too easy for BTS to just make PBEM happen and all that is lacking is the will. I think they are trying to design the best game they can and that sacrificing design elements just so it can fit the mold for one of the modes of play in their previous games is the wrong tack.

If this was an entirely new game I think there wouldn't be such an issue. We have been spoiled by the pbem.

It is entirely new. CMx2 is new from the ground up. It's not a tweaked, revised CMx1. It doing new things and dropping some of the old things it used to do. It won't be everything to everybody.

[WineCape]

Originally posted by Kineas:

If this was an entirely new game I think there wouldn't be such an issue. We have been spoiled by the pbem.

Question: What will CMx2 be?

...these are the basics (in no particular order):

1. Not CMx1

2. A game system that is flexible enough to handle many different theaters, timeframes, and game genres without doing years of rewriting for each. This does not mean that the CMx2 codebase will automatically support things like horse cavalry or Space Lobsters, rather that it will not automatically preclude them from being added in later. The CMx1 codebase was absolutely not written this way, which is why we told you almost 2 years ago that CMAK would be the last game made using this code.

3. A graphics engine that takes advantage of today's hardware possibilities. The idea is that a more realistic looking game is a more realistic feeling game, all else being equal. When combined with #2 above it also means that internally it is a lot easier for us to make cool graphical representations than it was in CMx1 (which was a nightmare ). Therefore, the development distraction to us should be less than it was in CMx1 even though there will be a big leap forward in terms of quality. A win-win situation for everybody.

4. A game that can be played by more than 2 people, with a heavy emphasis on cooperative play (CoPlay). While we can not do this feature for the first release (not practical), the game engine itself is being coded to work with many players as soon as we can code the rather difficult technological foundation to allow such play. Think of it like CMBO not having TCP/IP functionality even though the game was written to work using this protocol.

5. The plan is for unit focus (scale) to be flexible, though the tactical focus for the first two CMx2 games is the Squad/Team just as it was for CMx1. This may or may not vary from title to title afterwards, we simply aren't planning that far ahead. Just know that in theory the CMx2 code allows us to keep things a bit flexible.

6. The command level is, like the unit focus, somewhat flexible. However, like CMx1 the first two planned games for CMx2 are Battalion/Company centric.

7. Each soldier has its own 3D representation in the game. For the first two CMx2 games there will not be 1:1 control over these soldiers, but if the scale is lowered for another game 1:1 control is possible (eg. we make a Platoon level game where you only have 30 soldiers, obviously more control is desirable). 1:1 simulation is also desired, but hardware limitations will mean some carefully implemented compromises (i.e. 1:1 LOS checks are impossible). Overall the control should be roughly the same as CMx1, but the abstractions far less.

8. WeGo is not being abandoned. In fact, there will be more options to make this system work even better.

9. Relative Spotting, as described in depth over the past couple of years, will be a huge part of the CMx2 experience. This feature can not be turned off.

10. Overcoming CMx1 "Borg" problems is a top priority to us since it is one of the biggest distractions from a realistic combat simulator. However, there is only so much we can do with this, so it isn't like we can eliminate the Borg problem. It will, however, have far less influence over games than it has in the past. Some of these features can be toggled off for those who really want more unrealistic game experiences.

11. The "God" problem, which is related to #10 but is not the same, is also something we are trying hard to knock down. The player will be able to choose how much he wants to be like a real Human commander and how much he wants to be a God.

12. A tighter focus on "story" than in past CMx1 games. A lot of the previous mentioned features will add to this, but we are putting in specific features to draw them together into a more clean message for the player. CMx1 games were sometimes described as "soulless" because of how little influence we (Battlefront) and scenario designers had over the "big picture" setting. We agree with this and therefore are putting in more tools for the scenario designers as well as us the game designers. Again, these sorts of things will vary from game release to game release, being either a more or less important part of the game.

13. Much finer detailing of terrain. This means a ton more flexibility in how maps look and how units interact with them.

14. Coupled with the above, we are including a lot more stuff for making more realistic looking scenarios. In a CMBO setting this might be stuff like telephone poles, previously wrecked tanks, far more rubble options, decorative bushes, haystacks, etc. These things may or may not have much value to the game play (wrecked tanks would, decorative bushes not so much), but the atmospheric affects will help out in a major way.

Charles and I aren't changing our philosophy. CMx2 is being designed from the ground up to be an improved simulation of warfare, not an improved version of Combat Mission. Having said that, we aren't chucking things out of CMx1 just for the sake of doing something different. Things that worked well in CMx1 that can work well in CMx2 will stay in. Since a lot of what was in CMx1 worked well, a lot of it will be staying in. Other things will be in, though perhaps not in a way that is directly understood by the player. Some stuff is going to be abandoned in favor of totally new things which will not only replace the old feature but allow for a better game and/or sim experience. In the end CMx2 will be recognizable as being related to CMx1, much the way that an M1 Abrams is recognizable as an improvement of the M60, which in turn was an improvement over previous tank designs going all the way back to WWI.

New enough?

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks WineCape for the digging up of old, yet still 100%, relevant stuff.

It boils down to this. We all want PBEM in, or at least nobody wants it left out (except for RMC ). So on that count there is no disagreement. Where things go bad is tht we, the developers, need to make our development decisions based on rational and technical grounds, not emotional ones. Gamers have no such restriction. They can be as emotional, positively or negatively, about anything in the game or not in the game. There is zero accountability for such opinions so there is no natural check to prevent emotions from going to extremes.

Occasionally this gets forgotten. People like Sumac go on a tear and refuse to listen. And that is the truth. In order to bolster what is at heart an emotional argument there is often an attempt to put rational reasons in order to not come off sounding like a 10 year old who didn't get what he wanted for Christams. This never works because the customer never has enough information to trump ours. The whole "without PBEM you will go out of business" argument is laughable. And even if the customer is right... who's ass is on the line? Not the customer's, it is ours. So demands for us to bend a rational development decision to irrational and misguided demands is not good for us.

Of course, none of this makes any impression on someone who is overly emotional. As can be seen each and every time this discussion comes up.

Steve

P.S. And yes, that is Charles' headgear, not mine

[RMC]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

nobody wants it left out (except for RMC ).

You think I'm joking. I'm deadly serious. I will not buy this game if it has PBEM.*

<font size="1">* on the day of release if it is a Tuesday after Veteran's Day but before Memorial Day, it's raining outside and my car needs gas.</font>

[Canada Guy]

Can we stop beating a dead horse until it is nothing but bloody mist?

There are more important things we could talk about until BFC has determined whether PBEM will be in or not.

I just want to move the discussion along to newer, brighter and better things rather than just a re-hash of past arguments. What about a screen shot of the TOE screens or some snaps of the terrain. Anything to stop talking about PBEM.

[RMC]

Originally posted by CanadaGuy:

Can we stop beating a dead horse until it is nothing but bloody mist?

Probably not.

Anything to stop talking about PBEM.

How about we talk about PBIM, Play By Instant Message? I for one, won't buy this game if it doesn't have PBIM, but I'm getting the vibe that BFC don't care about me, their core customer.

[Michael Dorosh]

BF.C are prize ignoramuses for ignoring those of us who have built this company into what it is. If I don't get PBIM I am going to work for their competition and drive them into the ground.

:mad:

YOU'RE ON NOTICE, STEVE. PBIM OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES! And we don't want that crappy PBICQ copout either. :mad:

[C'Rogers]

I just want to move the discussion along to newer, brighter and better things rather than just a re-hash of past arguments. What about a screen shot of the TOE screens or some snaps of the terrain. Anything to stop talking about PBEM.

Right on, there are plenty of others old arguments that need rehashing and argued over as well.

For example, why won't there be any horses in CM:SF?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by RMC:

I'm getting the vibe that BFC don't care about me, their core customer.

Naturally, for I am their core customer.

So Stev-o, how's it going on with modelling the Finnish Defence Forces?