MikeyD Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 You do have to laugh at those "still an abstracted system" trolls on RockPaperShotgun. OF COURSE its an abstracted system! It's a frickin' computer program! For it to not be abstracted you'd have to dress in cammies and cross the Syria-Iraq border with a gun in your hand. Have these people watched "The Matrix" movies so many times they can no longer tell the difference between reality and 'abstracted' computer sims? :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 deleted per user request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Why do you care? Get a life. Oh, very nice example of trolling. Why do I care? I think that people should be held to a basic level of courtesy and clarity of communication, even on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSX Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 You do have to laugh at those "still an abstracted system" trolls on RockPaperShotgun. OF COURSE its an abstracted system! It's a frickin' computer program! For it to not be abstracted you'd have to dress in cammies and cross the Syria-Iraq border with a gun in your hand. Have these people watched "The Matrix" movies so many times they can no longer tell the difference between reality and 'abstracted' computer sims? :mad: Mockery of a valid argument simply serves to prove their point. While I agree that every PC game ever is abstracted your counter Troll implies that because they stated that, they are stupid and know nothing. Which of course isnt the case here. I think those 'Trolls' as you label them are merely giving a valid opinion of what they see and experience in the game. CMSF is all about infantry and the infantry in CMSF bear little resemblance to 'real life' infantry in their actions and reactions. How could they? Its a PC game and they have to be abstracted after all. Unfortunately until BF or someone else arrives at true 1-1 representation of infantry; couples this with some realistic IA (Immediate Action) Drills carried out by them, and combines this with a few basic infantry formations, what we have right now is the best system to be arrived at so far. Until we reach CM perfection there are always going to be those that will have an opinion contrary to yours, if you want to label them 'Trolls' because they dont particularly agree with your point of view thats your choice, but definitely one that I would disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 CMSF is all about infantry and the infantry in CMSF bear little resemblance to 'real life' infantry in their actions and reactions. How could they? Its a PC game and they have to be abstracted after all. Unfortunately until BF or someone else arrives at true 1-1 representation of infantry; couples this with some realistic IA (Immediate Action) Drills carried out by them, and combines this with a few basic infantry formations, what we have right now is the best system to be arrived at so far. Until we reach CM perfection there are always going to be those that will have an opinion contrary to yours, if you want to label them 'Trolls' because they dont particularly agree with your point of view thats your choice, but definitely one that I would disagree with. Is it? I certainly never got that impression - I bought it on the basis that I had played the CMBO, CMBB and CMAK titles but am at heart interested in the modern period. To me therefore the combination of a publisher with a good reputation and 'previous' publishing a game in the modern era seemed to be worth a punt. Although far from perfect, CMSF is a punt I'm glad I made. Infantry behaviour is far from perfect as an example but expectation management is required here. This is not an FPS it is a wargame yet people want CMSF infantry to behave like that in an FPS. I've been a fan of OFP, ARMA and I'm sure I will be a fan of ARMA2 - the first of which was rightly recognised as being the outstanding game of the genre. Having played the first two and read the reviews of ARMA2 the AI still gets slated. I've lost count of the times I've ordered a squad member to do something and they've taken about the dumbest means of accomplishing that task - and this is an FPS remember. So its a wargame - remember as little as 10 years ago we were playing games in two dimensions and our infantry were rectangular counters - in fact Gary Grigsby is still knocking games out in a two dimensional form. CMBO, CMBB and CMAK were released in 3D and what a difference that made. I remember putting together a scenario in CMBO depicting KG Peiper's attack on Stoumont during the Bulge. This is a place I have visited. Playing the scenario and locking my view to the lead Panther barrelling down the La Gleize-Stoumont road made me think ... its like I'm actually there. What a leap forward. Infantry modelling in those games was a move forward but was still not perfect. So - remember this is a wargame not an FPS and CMSF is an improvement on anything that was done before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 But... but... the wristwatches on individual soldiers don't display the correct time! How can we be expected to enjoy such a flawed game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 deleted per user request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 It was honest enquiry. Why post here in response to something on a different site rather than there? If you believe that I persecute you, perhaps you should look at which of your posts I respond to in that manner. If you claim not to be a troll, why do you tell me to get a life, or allude to my "personal issues"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 deleted per user request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 If it was an honest "enquiry", when I answered you, why did you continue to harass me? Because you were being rude. If it isn't personal, why don't you go around harassing other people about every little stop-shortage in their posting quality? I'm sure that I do, but I rarely get this kind of reaction. If you were supposed to be harassing people about their posts, even after they answer your "honest enquiry", why aren't you a moderator? You didn't answer. You insulted me. To reiterate, why did you post here rather than on rockpapershotgun where it was relevant, or at least explain that you were responding to that in the first place? Why is it not enough for me to simply ask you to stop doing it? Because you keep dropping in personal insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 deleted per user request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Adam, I have given you a warning, so obviously - based solely on what has been posted in this thread - as a moderator of this forum I have taken side with flamingknives that your post here was "rude". I don't know nor care what baggage you two are bringing to the party, but based on what has been posted here you have crossed the line while flamingknives has rightly pointed out that your response was uncalled for. The choice therefore is not flamingknioves but yours to continue this debate and eventually receive an Infraction, or not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Can I just recap this thread with the following video. Except you guys aren't as cute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Elmar: Too funny... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 (I am actually siding with Adam. He was not rude until he got "annoyed" (for lack of a better english word)) I want to expand on his statement. Some people do not realize that CMSF is a (obviously necessary) intermediate step to "full" 1:1 modelling, with houses having individual rooms as the most prominent example. It is a start, better IMHO than to stick to a lumped squad model or taking a break of 10 years to develop the "full" 1:1 model (and go out of business while doing so). It is a compromise and it is better than to wait for something that perhaps will never come ... More specifically, I do not understand why proper house fighting drills should be implemented or would make any sense in an engine that abstracts away the interior of buildings?! Best regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Hmm, as far as interior room modelling goes, I like the abstraction better than an interior blueprint. (Yes, there are issues: balconies; cracks between wall sections; doors on one side of interior walls; etc.) When I'm manuevering a battalion (or heavily reinforced company), I don't want to have to tell a team NOT to go into the bathroom, but take the LIVING room. I want to direct them to watch THAT direction; the specific room doesn't matter to me. Once we go down the road of interior rooms, then there'll be a bunch of other issues that'd crop up. Just my .02.... Thanks, Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 deleted per user request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 While I agree that a detailed interior modeling of the buildings is probably beyond the supportable inside the game engine, it is a little weird to see troops moving up "invisible" stairwells to the floor above or the roof. It comes across like some kind of zany mime performance. It also gives the impression that the troops are fighting over the possession of a series of stacked boxes in the more elaborate building constructions. It's also interesting that even though the most minimal of interior items are not modelled inside of buildings, the vehicle models have quite complex interior views and you rarely have any reason or opportunity to see those at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 All that beings said, I can understand that CMSF can't be called on to model close quarter combat inside of structures the same way that some first-person shooter can which is based entirely on simulating that type of event. I believe CMSF falls firmly in the niche of a mid-level scale simulator. The good news is that I think it will work nicely for the WWII environment, as opposed to the current Syrian modern-day one where scale is maybe just a tad smaller than it needs to be closely simulate some of the armor warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 --- You don't think I was being more than accomnodating to this guy? Seriously, ban the account if you have to. I don't really care anymore. I'll keep telling him to sod off as long as he persists in this kind of crap. I answered him politely. I'll tell anyone who persists on bothering me after I've answered them once already to go sit on a pike. If "provocation" and post-policing is acceptable, but defending oneself from said behaviour is not, this isn't a place I wanna be at. Adam, despite us having had some pretty fundamental disagreements about CMSF, I'd hate to see you go over something as trivial as this. Having said that, I do think you are taking FKs comments far too harshly. I think he was right in his comments in so far as that your post seemed out of place. Your 1:1 comment was incongruous with the thread and it wasn't till after you clarified I knew what prompted your post. Even then I think it rather strange you just picked up a conversation from there and placed it in this thread despite not being directly relevant. You got called on a minor error, you took the criticism entirely too much too heart and suddenly kittens were pucking all over this thread. But we love you anyway. Stay dude. Of all the reasons to leave, this isn't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 deleted per user request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 deleted per user request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lethaface Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Adam, Your forgiven for using my post without asking for my consent, and drawing me into this catfight I guess that FlamingKnives original remark could have been a lot more friendly then 'So what', the same can be said about your reply. I dont know why my comment wasn't served off like that, I guess my posts are not worthy enough to ignite a reaction. After reading the AAR at RPS (and reacting there) I wanted to thank MikeyD for the bump and thought it was appropriate to react about the article (including comments) in this thread, which is, after all, about said article. FlamingKnives has a point though about our posts, they might be unclear to others who didn't (just) read said article. Although I agree with you in that I can't really be bothered if my posts are unclear for others (at times, and this is one of them), there are several more tactical options for letting others know about that. Just like there is a difference in telling someone to leave, or to go rott in hell (no other posters targeted by this statement, by the way). Oh and changing your location from what you have now into 'Holland' might help as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Since this discussion continues I re-iterate, that I still side with Adam: his original statement was not offensive to anyone (was it?) and he made clear where it belonged to in the follow-up post. The rest was/is just a collective waste of time, or so I think. Best regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Moon, either ban me or re-evaluate how you go about analyzing these things. Adam, I have replied to your email already that I don't have to do neither. It's your free choice to participate in this forum or not, and if you want to stop doing that, you can simply do so at any time. No ban is required at the moment as far as I am concerned. As for "analyzing"... I think you have the wrong impression about what I do as a forum moderator. In your post above you have quoted all sorts of posts except the one that earned you the warning. I won't repeat it here, but there is a little yellow card icon next to the one that was used to issue the warning. FYI: A warning is not an infraction. It's a warning that you're close to getting an infraction if you continue along the same vain. You haven't (so far). It also has nothing to do with banning or anything else. You need to actually get like 10 infraction points before an account is banned. Anyway, with the warning that I have issued, the case is closed. If you will continue bringing it up in this thread, it will earn your infractions for just doing that, and it doesn't matter at all to me what else has been said or to whom or about what. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts