TCP/ip WEGO w Replay possibly still for Normandy game!?

[gibsonm]

I think we already have a good RT TPC/IP system in CMSF .

sure but RT isn't the focus of this thread, WEGO is.

[Berto]

sure but RT isn't the focus of this thread, WEGO is.

RT with pause system=WEGO without replay

Is a sufficient compromise?

[gibsonm]

Not for my needs.

RT with pause gives no replay and therefore no AAR / Teaching facility.

Refer previous posts #18 and #35.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

And you think that's not an exceedingly marginal need?

Yeah, yeah, I wouldn't mind TCP/IP WEGO either.

But please stop overstating the importance of it given that it's entirely possible to get essentially the same functionality, minus some convenience, from using an e-mail or chat client.

Steve has already indicated we will be getting it for CM:N. Which is more then can be said for randomly generated megatile maps or more campaign features.

[gibsonm]

But please stop overstating the importance of it given that it's entirely possible to get essentially the same functionality, minus some convenience, from using an e-mail or chat client.

I didn't "overstate" anything.

If you believe I did please quote the offending adjective or adverb.

I've even outlined the work around that I use.

He asked me if was it a useful compromise for my needs and I said "no".

I never said my needs are more important than yours or that my needs represent 99.9% of the user requirement.

I was asked for an opinion and gave it, just as you are welcome to give yours.

[Battlefront.com]

I also agree that we need to do something about recovering from disconnects. This would effectively, give us TCP/IP RT save games too.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

I would also question the need for tcp/ ip WEGO. PBEM players are minority of players and those that play tcp/ip are a minority of PBEM players. Over the past 5 years, I have consistently played CMBB, CMAK and now CMSF PBEM games, yet I have only played TCP/ip a few times. Not because it is not fun,( it is actually a real blast! ), but because it is not practical for most PBEM players. So yes, it would be nice to have, but it is way down the list of my priorities.

[noxnoctum]

RT with pause system=WEGO without replay

Is a sufficient compromise?

Hell naw. Definitely not for me at least.

^^^@Sgt. Jock if Battlefront ever wants to try to cull players from the more mainstream (which believe me is possible now that Combat Mission is "pretty"---mainstream gamers aren't as braindead as a lot of people on here think they are) they need to have a very robust direct multiplayer system. PBEM is agonizing for me. Sometimes I just feel like sitting down and playing for 4 hours and PBEM does not afford that possibility. A multiplayer lobby would be ideal. TCP-IP wego is the minimum.

Just by expanding multiplayer possibilities, this game would be appealing to a much wider group... and all without compromising on realism or anything like that!

Especially since CMx1 already HAD the capability, it makes no sense to remove it just because "it's a lot of trouble". IIRC CMSF got ripped to shreds by reviewers because it removed a lot of features.

It may not be practical for the 40 somethings that make up a lot of people on here, but for the 20somethings and teens that make up most of the gaming community it's VERY attractive.

[Blackcat]

"Especially since CMx1 already HAD the capability, it makes no sense to remove it just because "it's a lot of trouble". IIRC CMSF got ripped to shreds by reviewers because it removed a lot of features.

It may not be practical for the 40 somethings that make up a lot of people on here, but for the 20somethings and teens that make up most of the gaming community it's VERY attractive."

Is it me or is there a contradiction between those paragraphs. TCP/IP WEGO with replay was a feature of CMx1 (much loved and used by some of us) that was removed for CMSF and it seems forever. (Whether reviewers criticised this I have no idea).

I think it is the forty plus age group (some of us are a long past being forty-somethings) that seem to most regret Battlefront's design decision, the younger members seem to be more conent with RT than us oldies.

Anyway we are not going to get proper TCP/IP WEGO a la CMx1. Steve has been most firm about this. So, regretable as it is, we must surely accept the situation and move on.

[sfhand]

As has been mentioned previously, tcp/ip wego with replay would be nice, but is not a priority for me when weighed against other "improvements" or "features".

Number one on my list from the first day of CMSF is movable waypoints. For me their omission makes the game much less fun because it makes giving movement orders a real pain when, as a result of playing CMx1, I know how much easier and less time consuming giving movement orders could be. I also realize that movable waypoints are a pointless (no pun intended) feature for those who play RT which probably (and sadly and understandably) knocks them down the priority list of features to be implimented.

So, while I do agree that as a feature tcp/ip wego with replay would make the game more attractive, I have a hard time thinking my views should be a guiding force since I am clearly biased by the way I prefer to play the game. So far the people making the game have managed to make something I really enjoy playing. I'm sure they will continue to do so as long as they don't have to take backward steps to advance the game further.

[gibsonm]

Especially since CMx1 already HAD the capability, it makes no sense to remove it just because "it's a lot of trouble". IIRC CMSF got ripped to shreds by reviewers because it removed a lot of features.

AFAIK, (and I'm sure Steve will correct me if I'm wrong) its not a case of BTS / BFC "removing" anything.

Yes CMx1 had that feature.

However CM:SF was built on a totally different engine / basis so its not a case of starting with CMx1 and tweaking it. Its a case of starting with basically a blank sheet of paper and putting features in from scratch.

So 90-95% of the feature set from CMx1 (albeit in an improved form) is in CM:SF but all been built from scratch.

To abuse his favourite car analogy, if CMx1 was a 1940's Packard it may have had the ability to open the windows via a manual handle.

CM:SF might be a 2009 Ford. The windows still open but its via an electric motor.

So they didn't just take the window handle from the 1940's car and stick it in the 2009 one, they said the effect we want is to be able to open the windows and then designed a mechanism from scratch to do it.

Things like TCP/IP WEGO are in the "what's left over" pile (after satisfying most customers most pressing needs) and Steve et al are now looking at building CM:SF versions of what was in CMx1 but not included in CM:SF on release.

On that basis as he has said they can do TCP/IP WEGO (no replay) "relatively" easily so it will make it "in" in due course. TCP/IP WEGO (with replay) is harder so it may well take longer to get "in".

The critical thing from my point of view is to have it on the "still to be implemented, but unsure when" list as opposed to the "this is never going to make it" list.

[noxnoctum]

Well hate to break it to you but that's not how reviewers see it.

It doesn't matter that they started from scratch...You always add, don't take away. The QB system was an even more blatant example of this.

I remember when CMSF first came out and was getting hammered by the press (getting reviews in the 4-5 area) a lot of people came out and said "Well they're not wargamers, they're just ADD addled kids who don't 'get it'!" Wrong. CMBB got upwards of 9.0 in most mainstream gaming publications, like Gamespot, IGN etc. It's just really really bad form to take stuff out from previous games just because you feel like reworking it. Sure, add stuff if you feel like it (real time), but for god's sake don't remove something that already worked near perfectly!

[gibsonm]

Well hate to break it to you but that's not how reviewers see it.

Well its a good thing I don't care what reviewers think then isn't it.

Again, its not a case of taking it out to rework it.

If you take a movie recorded on a Beta tape and put it in a VHS VCR, it wont work.

Same thing here.

The computer code written for CMx1 doesn't work in CM:SF.

So what you are saying is that everyone should have waited until now (or indeed some time into the future because its not ready yet) until they had worked out the way TCP/IP WEGO with replay worked before they released CM:SF at all?

That way they would have gotten CM:SF with TCP/IP WEGO so it would be "just like" CMx1.

Or perhaps delayed the released for another few months while they worked out the QB issue?

I want TCP/IP WEGO with Replay too, but I'm sure 90% of the customers wouldn't have waited what 2-3years to get the product at all, just because that and QB's were in it.

[Thomm]

It's just really really bad form to take stuff out from previous games just because you feel like reworking it. Sure, add stuff if you feel like it (real time), but for god's sake don't remove something that already worked near perfectly!

I think we should give BFC the benefit of the doubt here. I doubt they take stuff out just to piss us off. I also think that some of their decisions are driven by economical demands and not what they or us want. After all, CMx1 was pretty much perfect in what it did, yet sales went down with each game ...

Best regards,

Thomm

[Pvt. Ryan]

They didn't take anything out; they just didn't put it in for one reason or another.

[sfhand]

Well its a good thing I don't care what reviewers think then isn't it.

Again, its not a case of taking it out to rework it.

If you take a movie recorded on a Beta tape and put it in a VHS VCR, it wont work.

Same thing here.

The computer code written for CMx1 doesn't work in CM:SF.

So what you are saying is that everyone should have waited until now (or indeed some time into the future because its not ready yet) until they had worked out the way TCP/IP WEGO with replay worked before they released CM:SF at all?

That way they would have gotten CM:SF with TCP/IP WEGO so it would be "just like" CMx1.

Or perhaps delayed the released for another few months while they worked out the QB issue?

I want TCP/IP WEGO with Replay too, but I'm sure 90% of the customers wouldn't have waited what 2-3years to get the product at all, just because that and QB's were in it.

Ummm... I think I understand what you're getting at, and I think I understand what noxnoctum is getting at. All else being equal, I'm sure BF would prefer to have good reviews vs not-so-good reviews (I'm not saying all else is equal). However, I'm not sure a reviewer would use a CMx1 title to assess CM:N. I'm guessing they would compare it to CM:SF so I doubt the lack of tcp/ip wego with replay would be viewed as a missing feature. AFAIK, the only tcp/ip option now is RT, which if true, would make tcp/ip wego of any flavor and expansion of the feature set.

Since I didn't really play the game, even though I ordered ASAP, until 1.08 or so I can safely say I would have gladly waited longer for the game. I would have waited until now for the game if need be. What other choice do I have?

But it really boils down to trade-offs; feature set vs development time/ability/current tech. I would think something like tcp/ip wego with replay should be possible since it was done before and isn't like the kill probablility pop-up from CMx1 that can't be done due to the improved game mechanics. No doubt it would have to be coded from scratch, but the general understanding of how to do this is already in the jar...

But I'm keeping my spirits up about CM:N. Even when Steve says there is no way a feature will be put in I'm not ruling it out - see FOW trenches - and he hasn't said tcp/ip wego with replay is out of the question, he just said it wouldn't be in the initial release. I'm pretty sure I will happily play whatever they release.

[Battlefront.com]

@Sgt. Jock if Battlefront ever wants to try to cull players from the more mainstream (which believe me is possible now that Combat Mission is "pretty"---mainstream gamers aren't as braindead as a lot of people on here think they are) they need to have a very robust direct multiplayer system. PBEM is agonizing for me. Sometimes I just feel like sitting down and playing for 4 hours and PBEM does not afford that possibility. A multiplayer lobby would be ideal. TCP-IP wego is the minimum.

Actually, TCP/IP RealTime is Seriously... you have to get a grip on the reality of the situation here. The people that want to play TCP/IP WeGo is a very, very small percentage of our customer base. Period. So adding this functionality will NOT increase our sales, will NOT broaden our appeal, will NOT bring about world peace. It will add a certain amount of desirable functionality to a small percentage of our customers, that's all. Which is why we aren't dropping everything on our plates to put it in. Yet at the same time we DO want to put it in and so we haven't chucked it off our ToDo lists.

It may not be practical for the 40 somethings that make up a lot of people on here, but for the 20somethings and teens that make up most of the gaming community it's VERY attractive.

No, it isn't Most 20 somethings don't want to play WeGo at all, so if that's the demographic we're supposed to tailor to then we would never do TCP/IP WeGo *ever*. Not even the compromise solution that lacks replay. Not that the 40 to 50 something core wargamer wants TCP/IP WeGo either, since they prefer PBEM. Which gets me back to the inescapable conclusion that TCP/IP WeGo is a minority interest feature.

Ummm... I think I understand what you're getting at, and I think I understand what noxnoctum is getting at. All else being equal, I'm sure BF would prefer to have good reviews vs not-so-good reviews (I'm not saying all else is equal). However, I'm not sure a reviewer would use a CMx1 title to assess CM:N. I'm guessing they would compare it to CM:SF so I doubt the lack of tcp/ip wego with replay would be viewed as a missing feature. AFAIK, the only tcp/ip option now is RT, which if true, would make tcp/ip wego of any flavor and expansion of the feature set.

Reviews and reviewers have a limited impact on sales. I learned this lesson years ago when one of the worst reviewed games of all time sold like hotcakes for the company I used to work for. So much so that they made a sequel, which also got panned and also sold like hotcakes. CM:SF, despite the scathing criticism of some reviewers and customers, has sold as many units as we predicted when we decided to make the game (i.e. not predicted based on the released state). And without hardly any marketing either.

Do I want to see positive reviews? Sure! Do I like negative reviews? No! But do I think people who might be interested in a game take the time to download a demo and see for themselves instead of blindly believing everything they read? Yes. Therefore, to some extent we really don't care if there is a reviewer out there with a hair across his backside looking to rip into us for not including TCP/IP WeGo or anything else for that matter. The market will decide and that's the best way for it to be.

Since I didn't really play the game, even though I ordered ASAP, until 1.08 or so I can safely say I would have gladly waited longer for the game. I would have waited until now for the game if need be. What other choice do I have?

You'll never see us tell someone to buy our games because they should feel obligated to. If someone downloads Normandy v1.0 Demo and says "it's not for me until x feature is in", then that's fine with us. Just like someone who downloads it and says "it's not at all like Company of Heroes... this sux!" is also fine with me. We know we can't please all the people all the time, so we do the best we can to please enough people most of the time that we stay in business. It's a strategy that's worked extremely well for us since we've outlived most game companies, not to mention wargame companies.

But it really boils down to trade-offs; feature set vs development time/ability/current tech. I would think something like tcp/ip wego with replay should be possible since it was done before and isn't like the kill probablility pop-up from CMx1 that can't be done due to the improved game mechanics. No doubt it would have to be coded from scratch, but the general understanding of how to do this is already in the jar...

Yup. As I said before, there is no technical problem with having TCP/IP WeGo, but it does take a lot of time to get it implemented. It's possible there is no technical problem with TCP/IP WeGo with replay either, but we're not so sure about it. We do know that it will take even MORE time, so if we don't have time right now in the schedule for TCP/IP WeGo without replay, then we certainly don't have time for it with replay.

But I'm keeping my spirits up about CM:N. Even when Steve says there is no way a feature will be put in I'm not ruling it out - see FOW trenches - and he hasn't said tcp/ip wego with replay is out of the question, he just said it wouldn't be in the initial release. I'm pretty sure I will happily play whatever they release.

We do try to under promise and over deliver. But I can say for sure that TCP/IP w/Replay will not happen for the initial release of Normandy. There's no chance of it since it's not even on our schedule (i.e. we won't even try to code it). There is a very good possibility that the "compromise" system (TCP/IP WeGo without replay) won't be in the initial release either.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Well hate to break it to you but that's not how reviewers see it.

It doesn't matter that they started from scratch...You always add, don't take away.

Which is why we don't put much stock in what reviewers have to say Reviewers are too often like customers... unreasonable and uninformed about the reality of game development and how to satisfy overall customer needs and wants. Everybody wants everything and they want it now. We get that. But reality doesn't really work that way, so we are comfortable doing what we can, when we can, for who matters most to us. An individual reviewer, or customer, may hit upon something that rings so true that we drop everything to address the criticism. Or he might not. We take everything on a case by case basis.

Remember, we are under no obligation, in any sense of the word, to include everything from all previous games in all future games. No game company works that way. There are lots of reasons to do things differently than the previous go around. Sometimes things aren't included because they no longer make sense, sometimes things aren't included because they are no longer technically possible, sometimes things aren't included because we didn't have time for them, sometimes things aren't included because too few people care about it to make it worth putting it in, etc.

QuickBattles are a prime example of this. The CMx1 style system was imperfect and customers hammered on us about those imperfections over and over and over again. We listened. It's not our problem that AFTER we changed things people said "hey, you know all those years of bitching I did? Well, I really didn't mean it".

As it so happened, the CMx1 C2 system required a different approach to force building than CMx1. So we could NOT just duplicate the CMx1 system in concept with new code. We were also short on time as the underlying game technology took us a lot longer to build than we had wanted to (about 1 year more). Therefore, we decided to kill three birds with one stone... a more simplistic QB system that addressed several major complaints about the earlier one, worked with the new C2 modeling, and didn't take months to code. Obviously that didn't work out so well So the new system works more like CMx1, but does work with the C2, and yet addresses three major fundamental complaints about the CMx1 system. And it took us several months to make it happen.

I remember when CMSF first came out and was getting hammered by the press (getting reviews in the 4-5 area) a lot of people came out and said "Well they're not wargamers, they're just ADD addled kids who don't 'get it'!" Wrong. CMBB got upwards of 9.0 in most mainstream gaming publications, like Gamespot, IGN etc.

And yet CM:SF has sold almost as much as CMBB and more than CMAK

It's just really really bad form to take stuff out from previous games just because you feel like reworking it. Sure, add stuff if you feel like it (real time), but for god's sake don't remove something that already worked near perfectly!

Unreasonable, uninformed, biased, and technically unachievable goals are not an action plan, but rather a recipe for disaster. Which is exactly why we have to take reviewer and customer comments with a grain of salt. Reviewers and customers can dream the impossible dream without any ramifications. We, on the other hand, have to build the damned thing. Dreaming is the quickest way to death in the games industry. We don't dream, we design. Sometimes we take a comment to heart and act on it with all our energies, other times we ignore it for one or more reasons. That's why we're still in business and you're still getting games from us.

BTW,

I want TCP/IP WEGO with Replay too, but I'm sure 90% of the customers wouldn't have waited what 2-3years to get the product at all, just because that and QB's were in it.

Exactly right. Plus, why should one tiny majority's pet feature request be the thing that holds up the release? Why shouldn't every pet feature from every tiny majority's wish list hold up the release? The obvious reason is because the game would NEVER be released even if we did somehow have a never ending source of development money. Which we don't

This is really the core of the issue. Some people are so emotional about something very narrow that they lose perspective. Part of the perspective lost is that there are OTHER people have strong emotional wants/needs that often conflict with what each wants. Let me illustrate...

Noxnoctum, what would you say if I told you that have CM: Normandy ready to go out the door with TCP/IP WeGo and replay? Would you want us to ship it now? I presume the answer is "yes". But what if a different customer insisted that we not ship the game until it had 10x10km maps or better non-playable terrain? What if that customer says we shouldn't ship the game until his pet personal favorite feature was included? What gives you the "right" to demand we ship the game right now and NOT when that other person "approves" of the release state? What gives that other person the "right" to demand that you not get what you want until he is given what he wants?

Don't you see how ludicrously egocentric it is to insist that we do things your way at the expense of the way the majority wants?

I think we should give BFC the benefit of the doubt here. I doubt they take stuff out just to piss us off. I also think that some of their decisions are driven by economical demands and not what they or us want. After all, CMx1 was pretty much perfect in what it did, yet sales went down with each game ...

Correct. We didn't purposefully say "we're leaving out x and y feature of CMx1 just to piss people off" As stated above, we have our reasons for each and every "missing" feature in CMx2 that was present in CMx1. Just like we have our reasons for not trying to milk a dying cow so that an ever smaller audience would not have to adjust to something new. We don't expect people will always agree with everything we do (in fact we expect they won't), we just hope that we have made the right decisions which in the end make the largest amount of people happy with what we produce so that we can keep making more games. So far that strategy is working out wonderfully.

Steve

[MarkEzra]

1940's Packard= Classic. 2008 Ford= Not so much. BFC's determination to continually improve and advance their product...priceless.

[gibsonm]

1940's Packard= Classic. 2008 Ford= Not so much. BFC's determination to continually improve and advance their product...priceless.

Just make sure you buy with AMEX.

I just picked a couple of US cars (none of which I'd call "classics" BTW)

If I replaced "Ford" with "Ford GT40" would you be happier?

[noxnoctum]

Reviews and reviewers have a limited impact on sales. I learned this lesson years ago when one of the worst reviewed games of all time sold like hotcakes for the company I used to work for. So much so that they made a sequel, which also got panned and also sold like hotcakes.

Steve

It wasn't this was it?

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/driving/bigrigsotrr/index.html?tag=result;title;0

[Battlefront.com]

Heh.. nope! This one:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/outpost2divideddestiny/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review

Apparently Gamespot didn't do a review of the original. It came out when the Internet was still pretty young, so that doesn't surprise me much. Those were the dark days of no demos and very little direct customer communications:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outpost_(video_game)

I had completely forgot about the premature reviews (a standard in the print magazine industry) which got the game's sales off to a good start, but it soon became apparent that the game sucked eggs and the magazines did a rare thing... they re-reviewed it. The Wiki article mentions a "backlash", which was an understatement The games magazines wrote articles about how much it sucked and how Sierra had duped the reviewers. They routinely called it "Outhouse" and other derogatory names. Yet sales continued going on strong. IIRC the game sold about 200,000 copies which, at the time, was a big deal. Most strategy games struggled to break 100,000.

Steve

[ASL Veteran]

Simply put, Outpost 2 is one of the most tedious, boring games to grace the market in a long time, leaving you very little to do but wait and watch.

But features don't make the game; gameplay is what really counts. That's where Outpost 2 falls flat on its face.

With a recommendation like that, why wouldn't I want to rush down to the store and pick me up a copy!!

[Battlefront.com]

I honestly don't know what it is, but across all mediums reviewers seem to be ignored when the warn people of a real stinker. Movies, books, TV shows, etc. I guess the person who said "there is no such thing as bad PR" knew a thing or two about Human behavior

Since our sales were as expected we apparently failed to make the game so bad that it would go on to sell a million copies

Steve

[Tactical Wargamer]

ARGH!!!

TCP/ip WEGO "without" replay!? i have to sit down for a moment...

oh well, change is everywhere, i have to take it

unfortunately i see no real point in haveing this system without replay as the replay makes the "point" behind it.

i dont know what to say anymore...

"At least not the initial release"

at least not all hopes are shattered. its like the replay is essential to WEGO, otherwhise its really no different to RT with fixed pause. you cant look up all the cool stuff and drool about you local victorys and failures. whatever, i know you know exactly what i mean as all was said X tousend times befor.

its just like i play this great game single player since its release and i really would like to play a human and i hoped for classical(with replay) TCP/ip WEGO for the normandy game so much. ...RT is no option for me, and PBEM, well its PBEM and doesnt make for a good game played over one evening in some, or some more houers.

now iam really sorry for this whining but i couldnt do else right now, i have nothing constructive to say right now but wasnt in the mood to not answer the thread i created.

"A solid and fun multiplayer CMX2 "will" attract a new base of players..."

it does already, for some it started with the release, for me it started right here and right now, feeling like something old wich needs replacement(heck iam 25)

thanks for the honest answer steve;

I would have to agree with no replay it makes it very less interesting. I guess RT with variable speed settings and Pauses would be nice. Beggers can't be choosers.