ASL Veteran Posted June 20, 2009 Author Share Posted June 20, 2009 You have a bigger pen!s than me because you think you can beat me at a video game. Congratulations. You winner. It looks like Mishga is on board with making a scenario. I have provided her with the 'muse'. Other than what Mishga asks me specifically, the scenario will be entirely her own creation. When she's done with it I'll send it to you and if you are 'ahem' up for it you can choose to play the scenario as either side. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted June 20, 2009 Author Share Posted June 20, 2009 Now, back to a specific point that ASL Vet brought up... It is true to say that SOME things which the scenario designer has to do inherently favor either solo or mult-player. Setup Zones are the big one. For good solo play it is often, though not always, necessary to restrict the AI's Setup Zones so it doesn't do something which would conflict with the AI Plans and/or play balancing issues which no AI (or Human Player) could ever anticipate. But for multiplayer these restrictions can be too, er, restrictive Ultimately, what I want to get into CMx2 is a specific and regimented system for identifying if a particular scenario is optimized for: 1. Head to Head Play 2. Human vs Red AI Player 3. Human vs Blue AI Player 4. All forms of play Now, once this is established it is theoretically possible to tie these optimization flags to things like multiple Setup Zones, Victory Conditions, etc. For example, l could make a scenario and optimize it for Human vs. Blue AI Player. But I could also include Setup Zones specifically for Head to Head Play. In this case the scenario would be flagged optimized for: 1. Head to Head Play *and* 2. Human vs. Blue AI If the player decides to go solo then the Setup Zones with #2 would be used, otherwise the Head to Head Play Setup Zones assigned to #1 would be used instead. If the player choose to do Human vs. Red AI (i.e. not optimized) then he gets what he gets, which might be perfectly fine or not. The thing is the scenario designer didn't do something specifically to cater to it, so it's not necessarily the best way to play that scenario. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that people like this idea and want to see it in the game. I know I do But I have no idea when it might make an appearance. The good thing is that CMx2's ability to morph instead of break with the passage of time and feature requests means this idea will likely appear at some point. Steve Steve's post has the ASL Veteran stamp of approval (pulls out medallion stamp) "Kerchunk" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted June 20, 2009 Author Share Posted June 20, 2009 I can think of a fair few scenario's that will be more to your taste, ASL, when the module rolls in. The testing and scrutiny aspect is not taken lightly to ensure a quality, realistic yet fun scenario ends up in the hands of the customer. With that said, mistakes happen and can be missed, we are after all but human, but you should enjoy the end product. Stick with us for a little while longer. Hmmm, I'm seeing a 'we' and an 'us' in there. It appears that you have been entirely absorbed into the BFC collective. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 "It appears that you have been entirely absorbed into the BFC collective" The old term used on the boards "Borg spotting" wasn't a euphamism. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 The only difference would be that the 'Scenario Master' would be in charge of reviewing and approving any scenarios that have been produced by the beta testers. The Scenario Master would have a free hand in making any modifications and adjustments to all those scenarios and once the beta tester submitted the scenario to the Scenario Master the scenario would then 'become' the Scenario Master's (although the original maker would still get full credit in the briefing for the design of course). What a truly horrible, horrible suggestion. . Take out your 'Scenario Master' <shudder> and the rest of your post is pretty close to what actually happens. Your scenario is reviewed by your peers but nobody TOUCHES your stuff. Anyway, just wait and see what the new module brings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 ...but nobody TOUCHES your stuff. The one exception to that rule is for the Campaign. If the campaign coordinator says "Jump" the designers say "how high?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted June 20, 2009 Author Share Posted June 20, 2009 What a truly horrible, horrible suggestion. . Take out your 'Scenario Master' <shudder> and the rest of your post is pretty close to what actually happens. Your scenario is reviewed by your peers but nobody TOUCHES your stuff. Anyway, just wait and see what the new module brings. You are thinking of things from an artist's perspective and I'm thinking of things from a business perspective. Just as authors have editors for their books that get published, so too a scenario designer should have a 'scenario master' overlooking their work if it's going to be put out on the CD. It's for quality control purposes and to ensure that the product meets whatever standards BFC wants to impose. It doesn't mean that the scenario master necessarily would make alterations, but that they could if they deemed it necessary (or at least sent it back for revision). Having one person overseeing all the testing and balancing for all scenarios adds consistency in an area that really requires it. It's just a simple 'gateway' concept which is pretty common out there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Hmmm, I'm seeing a 'we' and an 'us' in there. It appears that you have been entirely absorbed into the BFC collective. I was referring to the Scenario Designers and getting something together that would be more to your preferred ideal. Sorry if you took it the wrong way as a BFC statement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Just as authors have editors for their books that get published, so too a scenario designer should have a 'scenario master' overlooking their work if it's going to be put out on the CD. It's for quality control purposes and to ensure that the product meets whatever standards BFC wants to impose. What makes you think that this doesn't already happen? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted June 21, 2009 Author Share Posted June 21, 2009 What makes you think that this doesn't already happen? I don't know what happens. Obviously I'm not privy to the internal workings of BFC. I can only judge by what I see. If you double check my initial post about a scenario master though it was prefaced with the following orginially posted by me: As long as we are playing 'fantasy BFC Human Resources Rep' then I'll go ahead and spell out what role the 'Scenario Master' would have in my imaginary high rise BFC office located in mid town Manhattan on 57th and Lexington In other words, I was just tossing stuff out there without any regard as to the current structure since I wasn't making a comparative statement. In any event, Birdstrike already basically confirmed my opinion with his earlier response. If what I proposed was being done currently then Birdstrike wouldn't have felt compelled to say that my proposal was a horrible idea . Either you are operating under a different set of rules than Birdstrike is, or you are being deliberately obtuse. Scenario design either is or was (pre Brit module) decentralized with each designer doing his or her own thing with testing done by peers. He emphatically stated that nobody touches each designer's stuff. What I spelled out was something different entirely. My suggestion imposed a centralized structure on scenario design with all testing carried out by the scenario master and his or her selected testing teams. In other words, the scenario designer (other than the scenario master) wouldn't be involved in the testing and tweaking process after the scenario was submitted to the scenario master as 'complete' by the designer. There haven't been any scenario masters listed as employees on the website so unless Steve is fulfilling that function himself (he may be), then my proposed structure would be a change in the way things are done now. There is no way that I could know one way or another if that would be the right 'fit' for BFC because I haven't seen the operation. It's just a standard centralized way of doing things that may or may not be an improvement over how it's done now. Of course this whole discussion is rather pointless anyway since I'm sure Steve has his own ideas how to run a business, and he's been doing okay so far . I'm just an efficiency nut at work and I can't help myself sometimes. By the way, regarding your common sense statement earlier, humans thought it was common sense for thousands of years that the sun went around the earth. We all know how that turned out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted June 21, 2009 Author Share Posted June 21, 2009 I was referring to the Scenario Designers and getting something together that would be more to your preferred ideal. Sorry if you took it the wrong way as a BFC statement. lol, no, I wasn't taking it that way at all. Your statement sounded like you were now one of the CMSF beta testers and that you would no longer be able to play scenarios with the peasants . This was disappointing because I haven't finished laying the wood to you in Rahadnak Valley Search. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Not Birdstrike, Paper Tiger. Where on earth do you get the idea that I confirmed your opinion that no vetting takes place in my 'horrible idea' post? I was talking, (and I thought quite clearly too) about your proposed 'Scenario Master' making changes to our missions and ownership of the scenario passing to him, a point which you must have understood when you responded to it with your 'artistic/business perspective' post shortly afterwards. Now, I don't know how it was done before I joined the team for the Brit module but BFC absolutely DOES vet peer reviewed scenarios submitted for inclusion in the module with a view to maintaining consistency in their product. Perhaps NOT to your unbelievably high standards for inclusion of course. Is that clear enough for you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 In any event, Birdstrike already basically confirmed my opinion with his earlier response. If what I proposed was being done currently then Birdstrike wouldn't have felt compelled to say that my proposal was a horrible idea . No, you only think it confirmed your opinion. Scenarios are vetted by people other than the scenario designer, who then makes changes based on feedback. And of course, Battlefront has final say in everything. There are standards to meet. You don't want a scenario design master, you want the scenarios to meet your standards. The problem is the way that scenarios and the editor are structured, a given scenario may not always be able to be optimized for play for both sides AND H2H. If you've ever attempted to build a scenario using the editor, you would understand this. So what is needed is changes to how scenarios are built through the editor. I for one would like to be able to dictate separate forces/setups for a scenario based on which player is controlled by the AI or if it is H2H, so that the designer can account for imbalances that might otherwise be unavoidable. By the way, regarding your common sense statement earlier, humans thought it was common sense for thousands of years that the sun went around the earth. We all know how that turned out. Now who is being obtuse? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 I agree with Normal Dude. Expecting a single scenario to apply equally well to all situations all the time is not about quality control. A Scenario Tzar won't fix anything at all, unless you include gumming up the works and stifling creativity As I already stated, and Normal Dude just rephrased, what is needed are some tools for the scenario designer to OPTIONALLY make a scenario cater to more than one type of play. This is one of the downsides of CMx2 vs. CMx1. In CMx1 there was one victory condition; take/hold flags. There was one AI; take/hold flags. Simple, straight forward, and IMHO extremely boring after a while. The briefings would describe all kinds of creative stuff that you were expected to do and why you needed to do it, but once you got into the game it was "take or hold flags" and never anything but that. Yawn The problem, as I see it, is that like so many other things in CMx2 the variety is a bit mind boggling to some. Comfortable as CMx1 might have been, it was a straight jacket. Now we've taken that off and given the player choices between a variety of different types of jackets. For someone who only likes wearing one thing, like a thermal lined red plaid shirt, then he's going to find it annoying when he reaches into a closet and comes out with a red turtleneck because the light in the closet isn't so good. What we have to do is NOT try and have a closet with only one type of clothing, but have a great variety with a much brighter light fixture. We'll get there, eventually, but for now the icons and short description text are the players' first line of defense (if you will) second is to read the briefing and see if it sounds like the sort of fight you want and then, if not, exit and go to another one. Annoying as that might be, it's less annoying and time consuming than playing something you suspect might not be what you want to play. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 lol, no, I wasn't taking it that way at all. Your statement sounded like you were now one of the CMSF beta testers and that you would no longer be able to play scenarios with the peasants . This was disappointing because I haven't finished laying the wood to you in Rahadnak Valley Search. I really miss our Rahdnak scenario fight but being as it is I am testing some stuff for BFC just now and the patches being different I cannot continue. We had some great banter going back and forth along with the grenades and do hope to continue soon. Hcroft and I had a little battle going on too which I hope to get turns going for. Mark Ezra was pounding my Syrians silly so that might be one battle I hope to never be able to finish I tried to get two games running at once but being a bit of a technical troglodyte I never managed but soon....sooon....the blood and bullets will once again be in full flow 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 I really miss our Rahdnak scenario fight but being as it is I am testing some stuff for BFC just now and the patches being different I cannot continue. We had some great banter going back and forth along with the grenades and do hope to continue soon. I tried to get two games running at once but being a bit of a technical troglodyte I never managed but soon....sooon....the blood and bullets will once again be in full flow Why not just install multiple copies? I have about 6 on my machine (from CM:SF Betas to the CM:SF production version, USMC Betas and production and now three different UK Betas) to be able to check how things work in various versions (and indeed to play longish battles that might not be completed before the next version comes out with possible file save issues). You can either have multiple shortcuts on the desktop "pointing" to the different versions or just open the relevant".exe" file from the Explorer window. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted June 21, 2009 Author Share Posted June 21, 2009 I suppose you mean hire somebody, give him a cubicle, a salary and a company T-shirt, and let him design scenarios all day. That would definitely have some benefits - a consistent product for one thing. But on the downside is you'd have a consistent product! To make a decently warped scenario takes a decently warped personality. JonS could never design one of my scenarios, I could never design one of George Mc's. Our imagined cubicle worker couldn't possibly come up with 30-40 different scenario designs off the top of his head that would be worth playing. Damn, I guess I shouldn't have attempted to expand on what we were discussing here. Paper Tiger: Do'h - sorry about the renaming buddy. Normal Dude: Geez buddy - go make whatever you want. I'll just skip those when they come out. No need to lose any sleep over it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Mark, It won't let me install from the disc once a copy is already installed. I was told I could copy the entire directory of Combat Mission but I never seemed to get that working properly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Normal Dude: Geez buddy - go make whatever you want. I'll just skip those when they come out. No need to lose any sleep over it. Please do. I would lose sleep at night knowing your refined sensibilities were being offended by the mere presence of my monstrosities. Or instead we could drop the snide battle and you could actually address the last few responses. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Mark, It won't let me install from the disc once a copy is already installed. I was told I could copy the entire directory of Combat Mission but I never seemed to get that working properly. Mate, Send me a PM (or an email) and I can talk you through it - if you like. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted June 21, 2009 Author Share Posted June 21, 2009 Please do. I would lose sleep at night knowing your refined sensibilities were being offended by the mere presence of my monstrosities. Or instead we could drop the snide battle and you could actually address the last few responses. I was trying to let the issue drop. For whatever reason you seem to be taking great offense at my extremely mild criticisms of the scenario offerings from the CD. The fact is that nobody who has made a scenario offering on any of the CDs has had to 'sell' their scenarios on their own merits. Not you. Not Paper Tiger. Not George MC. Nobody. You may have your buddy look it over and say 'yeah, looks great' but the market hasn't told you whether your stuff is good or not. The customer is unforgiving. Steve has to deal with public criticism of his and Charle's work on a daily basis. Steve knows whether his work is good or not because people choose to buy it or not buy it. For the most part he has handled criticism well and he has developed a thick skin. The fact is that when I buy the next module I will be paying for whatever you decide to put on there and I don't have a choice about it. If I want to buy the Brits module I am buying every scenario on there so my only suggestion was that every scenario that comes on the disk be at least playable by everyone who purchases the Brits module in whatever way they please. Almost none of the scenarios from CMSF or Marines are playable head to head and many of them aren't even complete from the Red side if I want to play Red vs AI. What you are trying to tell me is that I'm supposed to buy whatever you give me and I'm going to like it regardless. My response to that is: Steve, let's get some minimum standards here so that everyone who pays good money for your Brits Module can play every scenario offering that comes with the CD in whatever way they choose to play it. If I want to play Red vs AI then I want to play every scenario as Red vs AI - after all I did pay for them. If I want to play Blue vs AI then I want to play Blue vs AI in every scenario. If I want to play head to head, then I want to play head to head in every scenario. I wasn't making a snide remark about your scenarios. I was stating a fact. If your scenario isn't playable head to head then I'm probably not going to play it. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings but I'm not in the business of making people happy for something that I pay for and don't like. If I had a choice I probably wouldn't pay for it at all, but I don't have a choice so all I can do is skip it. I hope that's clear enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 What you are trying to tell me is that I'm supposed to buy whatever you give me and I'm going to like it regardless. Nope, not what I was trying to say. What I WAS saying is that due to the nature of the editor, every scenario cannot be optimally played in any way you want to play it, i.e. Blue vs. AI, Red vs. AI, PvP, in response to sentiments similar to this: If I want to play Red vs AI then I want to play every scenario as Red vs AI - after all I did pay for them. If I want to play Blue vs AI then I want to play Blue vs AI in every scenario. If I want to play head to head, then I want to play head to head in every scenario. If I want to buy the Brits module I am buying every scenario on there so my only suggestion was that every scenario that comes on the disk be at least playable by everyone who purchases the Brits module in whatever way they please My response to that is: Steve, let's get some minimum standards here so that everyone who pays good money for your Brits Module can play every scenario offering that comes with the CD in whatever way they choose to play it. I also offered what I believed to be a solution to fix this, which didn't involve adding another choke point to the development process which also wouldn't fix it to boot. Instead of responding to this (or Steve's affirmation), you simply ignored it with a dismissive comment. You'll have to forgive me if that doesn't exactly put me in a diplomatic mood. I wasn't making a snide remark about your scenarios. I was stating a fact. If your scenario isn't playable head to head then I'm probably not going to play it. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings but I'm not in the business of making people happy for something that I pay for and don't like. I have absolutely no problem with this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowMotion Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 I think it may be difficult to make a scenario equally playable from either side against the AI or H2H. It would be nice though if scenarios could mention what kind of play it is intended for. Some scenarios now show this info on the screen where you select a battle to play. Like: "(play as blue only)" Most don't, so you have to start the battle and read the briefing hoping it is listed there or just make a guess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 SlowMotion, I think it may be difficult to make a scenario equally playable from either side against the AI or H2H. I completely agree with emphasis on "equally". This isn't just CMx2 related, it's true for any other game I've ever played. The best Quake maps to play multiplayer on are set up specifically for multiplayer, not for solo play. Likewise, solo play would be quite boring and uneventful on some of the multiplayer maps. Things like "hideyholes", secret passages, weapons stashes, etc. are needed in large quantities in MP games, whereas the same quantity in a solo play level would take all the fun out of playing. Think of a campaign in CMx2. While it is possible to make a campaign playable by a Human on both sides, there's really not the same sort of challenge for one side as the other. One side is supposed to win, the other is supposed to lose. One side has the same forces from battle to battle, the other doesn't. And trying to make a campaign that doesn't have these elements would suck from a single player standpoint. Suck, suck, suck Therefore, as I've said many times now, the problem isn't that there is too much variety... the problem is there isn't enough consistency of communicating to the player what scenarios are optimized for what. Right now it's up to the scenario designers to make notes about that in their scenarios, but that's a work around like CMx1's work around of pre-battle intel was. Better to integrate these things into the game, like pre-battle intel, instead of leaving it up to the whims of scenario designers. There's plenty of other things in the editor for whims Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Playable either side against AI or H2H. Think of all the 'real world' tactical permutations out there. How many of them would be considered 'fun' for both sides? Special forces, for example are suppposed to rely on stealth, but playing H2H within a timeframe would involve one side trying to not be seen while the other goes about his business making believe they don't know they're out there. Or searching for a hidden weapons cache - one sides hides as best they can while the other side pokes in as many corners as they can. Sometimes a certain tactical situation can only be represented in an entertaining manner from one perspective. To demand universal H2H-ability means having to shun a wide range of tactical puzzles for the player. 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.