2nd Expansion Same Old Questions

[[hirr]Leto]

As an examplie, if said people wanted to believe that a watermelon could be crushed by sheer numbers of educated and intelligent people piled upon it, your above statement would be falsified... making you look a little silly... well, silly-er.

I guess it would too if your "example" bore any relevance whatsoever to my post.

Looks like you didn't get it...

Cheers!

PT

You thought I was trying to be relevant?

LOL @ "I don't get it".

Sheesh, lighten up people.

Cheers!

Leto

[Battlefront.com]

Ron,

CMx1s' QB system is hailed as some holy chalice now, yet I recall having to use a 3rd party many, many times because of its limitations. Funny to think that's what was done eh.

Very well put Or as the old saying goes, "be careful for what you wish for because you might get it". And yes, almost always the person claims afterward "that isn't what I asked for" just like when Agent Mulder asked the jinni for world peace and the jinni removed all people from the world

It is normal for people to judge what they have against what they imagine. CMx1's QBs were great, but people found problems with them. They imagined something better. When you guys got the CM:SF QB system you, for the first time, had two concrete systems to compare against. Apparently, it turns out, most of the complaining about the original QB system wasn't as serious or widespread as we were led to believe. So we got a larger dose of feedback which convinced us that a third system was needed. Going back to an exact duplicate of the CMx1 system would be idiotic since, without any doubt, people would complain about it. Even the ones who have said "just give us the old system and I'll be happy". I bet my life on it

Therefore, it is absolutely pointless to try and convince us that the CMx1 QB system is some sort of Holy Grail which everybody wants to see return in its same exact format. It's definitely not a Holy Grail no matter how thick and how rose colored the glasses may be. It was a good system, better than CM:SF's in many ways, but it isn't perfect in many significant ways. Therefore, we will introduce a third QB system which we feel will be better than the existing two you have to play with. Not perfect, since that's impossible, but better.

Steve

[[hirr]Leto]

Hmmm... is the Search feature of this Forum broken? It must be since I've covered this topic in excruciating detail many times over the past two years. Oh well, might as well cover it again

The CMx1 QB system was never intended for CMx2 for four reasons and two reasons only:

1. There were strong, consistent, and often heated anti-Cherry Picking discussions.

2. There were strong, consistent, and often heated arguments about point values.

3. "as is" the old QB system didn't work with the command and control system at the heart of CMx2. The primary reason for that was Cherry Picking.

4. With the greater fidelity of the CMx2 terrain system a random map generator was deemed impractical for us to develop. Meaning, we could spend a LONG time making it and still wind up with a very disappointing end result.

Note that there is no mention of the typical rumor mongering conspiracy theories, for example that we purposefully reducing game replayability, that we were clueless about the importance of QBs to many customers, etc. That's because they aren't based in any sort of fact. As others have said, simply repeating the same rumors over and over again doesn't make them any more real than the first time.

As with most rumors, the origins tend to be rooted in a misinterpretation of fact. Often that misinterpretation is "deliberate" in that people twist the facts to suit their own preconceived notions. An example of this is the "Battlefront purposefully dumbed down QBs to make more money." Completely not true. If anybody wishes to correct me on this they are welcome to, but I'd much rather hear your theories on how the world is controlled by the Illuminati first since you probably can make a better case for that

What is true is that we have said many, many, many times that we over delivered for the CMx1 games for the amount of compensation we received and therefore we weren't going to put in the same amount of breadth (most often thought of as vehicles) in any one CMx2 game as we did in CMx1. Reducing the depth of game features is not part of our plan. It wasn't the plan for QBs, for sure, but it quickly became apparent that despite our best intentions that is exactly what happened for that one feature. We acknowledged that within a few months of the release of CM:SF and pledged to fix it for Normandy because there is no way we could slap something together and stick it into CM:SF. Several months of redesign, recoding, and testing are needed.

Getting back to some deliberate changes we made...

We did in fact remove Cherry Picking because it was both railed against by a fairly significant number of people AND because it posed problems for the C2 system. We figured we could kill two birds with one stone and also save ourselves some development time by not having Cherry Picking. Obviously we made a mistake by listening to what appears to have been a vocal minority. Which indicates why it is so dangerous to listen to people who complain about something... often times they don't represent the majority of players, despite their protestations that they do. Even a thousand people complaining on this Forum doesn't necessarily translate into a majority block.

The solution we have combines the ability to Cherry Pick with the ability to still have structured forces. It should address most of the concerns anti-Cherry Pickers have while at the same time allowing for a similar degree of historically impossible forces as was possible in CMx1. At the same time it will work with the underlying C2 model and historical plausible forces.

The second deliberate move was to eliminate a point value system for each purchasable item. Again, there was endless whining, complaining, and arguments stirred up about the values we chose. Since we already used a scientific (quantifying) system, and we knew that coming up with something significantly better wasn't likely, we got rid of it. We do not think this is a mistake and therefore CM: Normandy's QB system will also lack visible point system. However, we agree that the current system is too quirky and therefore have a better system in mind that we feel gets us a more consistent valuation of relative unit worth than the old or the current systems ever could. Since that is what people want/need, it doesn't matter what form it takes if the new system gets the job done better.

There is no chance of us doing a random map generator. Zero. What we are instead doing is combining CMx2's existing ability to use premade maps with a new system which allows smaller premade "Mega Tiles" to be assembled on the fly into new maps. This is a system which borrows from board and miniature wargames. User made Mega Tiles will increase variety even more.

Well, that's about it

Steve

That the original CMx1 gave away too much (in vehicles, etc) for what you paid, I agree and commiserate with and I have no problem with BFC trying to make a good margin on their efforts (be it with modules or whatever). I wasn't around for the QB wars, or any of the others, so this has no bearing on my thinking, and I really could care less. I just want a game that is as fun to play as CMx1. Hopefully that is not asking for too much.

If you say that you've found a way to make the QB system better, we'll have to go with that until we actually see it; and then the legions of doomsayers, witches of eldrick and black hearted demons of hell who have nothing good to say about it can deride it to pieces and then the same old wars can ensue where the CM beta boys and BFC take up sword and shield to battle the forces of darkness with their powers of sweetness, light and truth (or care bear powers.... whatever the case).

For me, I am looking forward to the new game, and will buy it, or not, based on my consumer criteria.

It's really that simple.

Thanks for the update!

Cheers!

Leto

[Battlefront.com]

Leto,

I wasn't around for the QB wars, or any of the others, so this has no bearing on my thinking, and I really could care less.

Well, that's not quite true because apparently you don't like the existing QB system which was, in no small part, the result of those "QB wars" you weren't a part of. So you should care about the discussions since we obviously listen to what players say they want, which is sometimes not what they actually want

I just want a game that is as fun to play as CMx1. Hopefully that is not asking for too much.

No it isn't too much to ask, though you have to remember that "fun" is relative. There are plenty of people who find CM:SF "fun" as is. Some have even said they never played CMx1 QBs, so they don't care that the current system isn't like the old one. Since "fun" was never tied to QBs for those people, making the best or the worst QB system is irrelevant. But to others, like you, it might be central. Which is why we have always said, and we will always say, that trying to please everybody equally is impossible, therefore we expect some people to be disappointed with whatever we do no matter what it is. We have a far better time accepting this than the people who are disappointed

If you say that you've found a way to make the QB system better, we'll have to go with that until we actually see it; and then the legions of doomsayers, witches of eldrick and black hearted demons of hell who have nothing good to say about it can deride it to pieces and then the same old wars can ensue where the CM beta boys and BFC take up sword and shield to battle the forces of darkness with their powers of sweetness, light and truth (or care bear powers.... whatever the case).

We expect this to happen, for sure. Even if we stuck the CMx1 QB system into CM: Normandy, without a single difference, this would happen. If there is one thing that can be counted on in this crazy world, it's wargamers complaining

Steve

[[hirr]Leto]

Leto,

Well, that's not quite true because apparently you don't like the existing QB system which was, in no small part, the result of those "QB wars" you weren't a part of. So you should care about the discussions since we obviously listen to what players say they want, which is sometimes not what they actually want

Steve

I wasn't around for the cherry picking and QB wars on BFC forums back in the early days. I started playing CMx1 back in 2005 at the Blitz wargaming club, and we had no issues there with the QB system, as we worked out issues before games started, used Redwolf rules, or friendly ROE's. I'm now at WeBoB and I see no issues with it there either. The cherry picking complainers must have been a very vocal and minority as you say.

We also played a pile of scenarios, which I actually prefer to the QB's. I think if you can set up a system where you can get good scenario makers (and I mean the top notch designers) to make CM2 scenarios, a la the millions of scenarios that were produced for CMx1 (and they are STILL being produced), then you've slam dunked this one (Cm2 Normandy). I am not sure what the incentives, tools and environment required for scenario making are in CMx1 or CMx2, but I have talked to some neutral scenario designers for CMx1 that didn't really like some of the features of CMSF map editing etc., but I don't know much about that as stated previously.

"Good" criticism is necessary to your endeavors, but I suppose the "wars" will continue, and sadly so... bias always reigns supreme.

Cheers!

Leto

[Battlefront.com]

The problem with a game like CMx1 is that it has so many features that can be used in so many ways that the combinations people use are quite staggering. Some people loved Cherry Picking, others hated it. Context is quite important.

In your case rules were developed, external to CMx1, to control the potential for "abuse". Which is fine, but that requires players be organized and willing to follow voluntary constraints. Kicking them out of a club acts as its own deterrent or solution, depending on what happens. So the problems were there, just worked around in a collective way.

This sort of arrangement doesn't work for games between strangers, which is the type of player that was complaining about Cherry Picking the most. Someone is looking to play a QB, find someone on the Forum who is also looking, and they go off and play. They don't know if they have incompatible expectations unless they have a detailed conversation beforehand. Without a common language for what is/isn't acceptable, this tends not to work out well when the two players are quite far apart in their personal definitions. This is not true for features which have definite settings within the setup procedure.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, I meant to answer this one:

I am not sure what the incentives, tools and environment required for scenario making are in CMx1 or CMx2, but I have talked to some neutral scenario designers for CMx1 that didn't really like some of the features of CMSF map editing etc., but I don't know much about that as stated previously.

Yeah, this has been covered hundreds of times already Making scenarios in CMx2 is necessarily more difficult than CMx1 because CMx2 scenarios are much deeper and the terrain much richer by design. That depth and richness can not exist without additional effort on the part of the scenario designer. Which of course turns off people who want to be able to bang out a scenario in an hour or so.

As with everything CMx2 related, we are going for quality over quantity. Remember, many of the scenarios created for CMx1 are junk because the threshold for making scenarios is so low. In our opinion a well made CMx2 scenario is worth two dozen CMx1 scenarios. I personally believe that the quantity of top quality scenarios for CM: Normandy will be on par with any CMx1 game for a similar period of time. I also believe that the best of the CM: Normandy scenarios will beat any CMx1 scenario hands down. Even when the authors are the same

So... do I expect thousands of scenarios for CM: Normandy after 10 years? No. Do I care as a player? No, because even a few hundred is more than I could possibly play. Do I care as the game's developer? No, because there will be plenty for people to keep people happy and happy is all that matters.

The work I've seen so far from a handful of scenario and campaign guys is stunning. When the guys with only interest in WW2 get into CM: Normandy I'm sure that base will expand in a good way.

Steve

[MeatEtr]

Don't mind Leto, he likes to get lippy every once in awhile.

Sad to hear the anti-cherry pickers won the battle afterall.

Seriously though, wouldn't it be possible to have both options, cherry picking(unit points) and a more defined not as cryptic C2 system(groupings)?

And remember, QBs are like a sandbox, I like to know exactly what toys I'm bringing to play with.

[Battlefront.com]

The anti-cherry pickers won the battle, but not the war

Yes, it is possible to have Cherry Picking as an option. That wasn't for CMx1 because there was no alternative system. CM:SF went the other direction. The new system is designed to have both. An obvious concept, of course, but one we didn't feel we had the time or need to make for CM:SF, so we skipped it. For CM: Normandy it's one of the prime non-setting specific features we're adding to the game engine.

Steve

[ASL Veteran]

Oh, I meant to answer this one:

As with everything CMx2 related, we are going for quality over quantity. Remember, many of the scenarios created for CMx1 are junk because the threshold for making scenarios is so low. In our opinion a well made CMx2 scenario is worth two dozen CMx1 scenarios. I personally believe that the quantity of top quality scenarios for CM: Normandy will be on par with any CMx1 game for a similar period of time. I also believe that the best of the CM: Normandy scenarios will beat any CMx1 scenario hands down. Even when the authors are the same

So... do I expect thousands of scenarios for CM: Normandy after 10 years? No. Do I care as a player? No, because even a few hundred is more than I could possibly play. Do I care as the game's developer? No, because there will be plenty for people to keep people happy and happy is all that matters.

The work I've seen so far from a handful of scenario and campaign guys is stunning. When the guys with only interest in WW2 get into CM: Normandy I'm sure that base will expand in a good way.

Steve

Well spoken. I'm looking forward to the future offerings from those who were just recognized.

[MeatEtr]

The anti-cherry pickers won the battle, but not the war

Yes, it is possible to have Cherry Picking as an option. That wasn't for CMx1 because there was no alternative system. CM:SF went the other direction. The new system is designed to have both. An obvious concept, of course, but one we didn't feel we had the time or need to make for CM:SF, so we skipped it. For CM: Normandy it's one of the prime non-setting specific features we're adding to the game engine.

Steve

Great to hear, thanks for the info. So when did you say we can try out the new system?

[Paper Tiger]

but many people have conjectured that it had to do with its inability to capture any more dollars for BFC, and thus the new module system

So since you've both read and responded to Steve's lengthy post, we can both agree that this statement is preposterous. You've got it now, right?

And, no, I didn't think you were trying to be relevant. You were just trying to ridicule my argument and thus dismiss it. I do actually have plenty of respect for your intelligence. It's obvious that you don't have any for mine.

cheers!

PT

[[hirr]Leto]

but many people have conjectured that it had to do with its inability to capture any more dollars for BFC, and thus the new module system

So since you've both read and responded to Steve's lengthy post, we can both agree that this statement is preposterous. You've got it now, right?

And, no, I didn't think you were trying to be relevant. You were just trying to ridicule my argument and thus dismiss it. I do actually have plenty of respect for your intelligence. It's obvious that you don't have any for mine.

cheers!

PT

Sigh.

Right after Steve came to your defense by stating that in no way did QB's get tossed out because of dollars, he made this statement leaving room for the intepretation of contradiction:

"What is true is that we have said many, many, many times that we over delivered for the CMx1 games for the amount of compensation we received and therefore we weren't going to put in the same amount of breadth (most often thought of as vehicles) in any one CMx2 game as we did in CMx1. Reducing the depth of game features is not part of our plan. It wasn't the plan for QBs, for sure, but it quickly became apparent that despite our best intentions that is exactly what happened for that one feature. We acknowledged that within a few months of the release of CM:SF and pledged to fix it for Normandy because there is no way we could slap something together and stick it into CM:SF. Several months of redesign, recoding, and testing are needed."

Although the logic is tortured throughout this statement with intentions not meeting up with actions, it can still be very much interpreted as evidence to support my previous statement... I don't have a lot of stock in that, as I don't really care what BFC's motivations or intentions were as I was simply more interested in outcomes (workable, functioning QB's a la CMx1 back in the game). But I can see how others could. Moving to a module system where the breadth of what was offered in the original CMx1 can be incrementally doled out and captured within another set of revenue streams is simply good strategy... especially with QB's back in. Thus the term 'preposterous' simply didn't fit the context from my less than adroit and obviously politically incorrect and insensitive point of view.

But as I posted my statement as a framing of rumours that I had heard, but did not subscribe to them myself in a wholehearted and zealous manner, I really don't have much intellectual debate capital in it, outside of someone simply dismissing it as 'preposterous'.

I am finding this whole back and forth a little perplexing, with terms like 'intelligence' (of which I have little) and 'respect' (of which I usually curry very little from anyone, thanks for that reminder MeatEatr! lol) bandied about; especially as Steve has offered us some information that suggests they have reinstituted a workable QB system within their new line of CM2 games and "modules' to come.

Maybe let's focus on that?

Cheers!

Leto

[Battlefront.com]

Oh good Lord above

Right after Steve came to your defense by stating that in no way did QB's get tossed out because of dollars, he made this statement leaving room for the intepretation of contradiction:

Sure, if someone has reading comprehension problems or problems letting go of misinformed or agenda driven thinking... you're absolutely correct, my statement does leave room for interpretation and contradiction. But for those who can sufficiently understand English and don't have an axe to grind, there is no room for misinterpretation and contradiction. Let me demonstrate:

1. "What is true is that we have said many, many, many times that we over delivered for the CMx1 games for the amount of compensation we received and therefore we weren't going to put in the same amount of breadth (most often thought of as vehicles) in any one CMx2 game as we did in CMx1."

This has been a very consistent statement made by us since about 2005. The key here is understanding what "depth" and "breadth" mean in the context of CM. Depth = detail of the game itself, Breadth = quantity of stuff and scope covered. CMx2 has far more Depth than CMx1 on all fronts, but each individual release has a lot narrower Breadth compared to a single CMx1 release.

Now, KNOWING that the axe grinders would start trying to pick this apart to mean that we saw QBs as "Breadth" and not "Depth" I put this sentence in next:

2. "Reducing the depth of game features is not part of our plan."

And knowing that the axe grinders would still try to continue their conspiracy theories, developed from their own agendas and not from facts, I added this as the next sentence:

3. "It wasn't the plan for QBs, for sure, but it quickly became apparent that despite our best intentions that is exactly what happened for that one feature."

I don't know how clearer I could have stated that we did NOT intentionally "hobble" QBs in an order to get more money out of you guys through Module sales. We made the QB system for CM:SF because we thought it was a better direction for the system itself. Clearly it wasn't quite right and so we committed, long ago, to make it better and more like CMx1. It really is that simple.

So please... tell me how this can once again be spun back into a conspiracy theory that we cut out Cherry Picking for financial reasons when I just clearly said that wasn't our intention? I'm honestly curious where I could possibly have been more clear and less ambiguous.

The funny thing is that *if* our theory was we were going to lose out on Module sales by having a CMx1 style QB system, why on Earth would we be putting in a CMx1 style system for all future CMx2 games? Talk about people making contradictory logic statements!

On top of that the premise is flawed from the start because I doubt we'd lose many sales if we had no QB system at all. Oh sure, people might say they wouldn't buy CM without it, but I don't believe that at all. Whether you guys believe it or not is irrelevant because WE believe it. Meaning, if we REALLY thought that we needed to "hobble" QBs for sales reasons we would not be putting a QB system at all, not to mention improving it. Since CM:SF has a QB system in it *and* all future CMx2 games will have an even better one, clearly we do not believe QBs harm our sales.

To summarize, like most things in life the most easy, simple explanation is the one that is the most accurate:

1. Cherry Picking was controversial for a significant, apparently small, group that was very vocal about it.

2. Cherry Picking ran into problems with the new C2 system, which CMx1 didn't have.

3. Our conclusion was that we could avoid doing a complicated Cherry Picking system and make people (overall) happier at the same time.

4. CM:SF was released and we figured out that we made a mistake in listening to what we now consider to be a minority. This mistake resulted in a decrease in game enjoyment for people that we did not anticipate nor wished to have.

5. Recognizing that we made a mistake by listening too much to a vocal minority, we very quickly (within a few months of release) pledged to fix the problem for all future CMx2 games. But not CM:SF because the development effort was too big. Heck, we still haven't even started coding the new QB system and it's nearly 2 years after CM:SF has been released. And obviously we've been doing a lot of other things since then

So there you go. There should be ZERO room for misinterpretation or contradiction. Not that I think this will put the issue to rest for those who wish to keep it alive. They have a lot invested in their world views and will likely continue to create their own reality. Which is fine with us because they have taken their fantasy world off to a place where reality doesn't need to bother them with such trivialities as facts, logic, self-respect, and positive attitudes. Since they're irrelevant in every way imaginable, I don't even bother reading their tripe any more. It was good for a laugh or two at first, but it got boring and completely predictable. In fact I already know what those guys will say about this post and I haven't even hit the post button yet

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW Leto,

But as I posted my statement as a framing of rumours that I had heard, but did not subscribe to them myself in a wholehearted and zealous manner, I really don't have much intellectual debate capital in it, outside of someone simply dismissing it as 'preposterous'.

I do understand this and in fact believe you. However, based on what I saw back in February in the Alternative Reality Zone it appears you sometimes act as a sort of Medium to communicate with those who either can't post here (because they've been banned a dozen times) or because they don't want to have their views effectively challenged. Because I don't visit that place any more I can only presume that you are once again trying to intersect detached conversations from two separate places. Therefore, you are investing yourself into the situation in another way since you are, in effect, a messenger. Which I have no problem with as long as it doesn't become too distracting.

Just remember that all they can do is pick apart statements and create spin from them to reinforce their agendas. On the other hand, I have full and complete knowledge of the truth. I've stated quite clearly that CM:SF QB design had nothing to do with financial considerations/implications. It can't be stated more clearly than that and it is 100% truthful. Anybody who calls this into question is making a bolder statement about their own credibility, not ours.

Steve

[c3k]

Hmmm, personally, Steve, your statement leaves me confused, amazed, and hurt. The ONLY way to salvage anything at all would be for you to personally email me a pre-release copy of version 1.2 (plus a free copy of CMAFGHANISTAN! and CMUK). Really, that's the only way to make up for it....

Thanks for the detailed explanations.

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

I'll see what I can do about that, but I wouldn't be truthful if I said that chances look good that we can do as you ask

Steve

[Lethaface]

Well, the credit card wasn't really nice to me this year, so perhaps, you know, you could look me up as well?

Ive bought all your games since I joined BFC and even ToW2 AND I will do in the feature so ... give me some freebies. Now!

Im dutch after all

MAn! I got these cheeseburgers man... Some double Cheeseburgers! for you! you know?

[[hirr]Leto]

BTW Leto,

I do understand this and in fact believe you. However, based on what I saw back in February in the Alternative Reality Zone it appears you sometimes act as a sort of Medium to communicate with those who either can't post here (because they've been banned a dozen times) or because they don't want to have their views effectively challenged. Because I don't visit that place any more I can only presume that you are once again trying to intersect detached conversations from two separate places. Therefore, you are investing yourself into the situation in another way since you are, in effect, a messenger. Which I have no problem with as long as it doesn't become too distracting.

Just remember that all they can do is pick apart statements and create spin from them to reinforce their agendas. On the other hand, I have full and complete knowledge of the truth. I've stated quite clearly that CM:SF QB design had nothing to do with financial considerations/implications. It can't be stated more clearly than that and it is 100% truthful. Anybody who calls this into question is making a bolder statement about their own credibility, not ours.

Steve

1) I don't post at the 'alternate reality' any longer, as I have been accused of being a witch and politely left town while the pitchforks were working on the burning pyre. I am not a medium, translator or messenger.

2) I think there is a misunderstanding of English on both ends as I have only stated that I can see why some people may think that you dropped QB's in the module system so that you would only have games that kept people's fascinations for 6 months (industry standard you said once?) and that BFC could get more money for the amount of work they put into the game. I personally do not subscribe to this line of thinking IE. QB's, but I do believe that the modules systems were created to capture more $$ for BFC, ergo, more games for us... which is a good thing. I also honestly saw no issues with Cherry picking nor felt that the QB system in CMx1 was anything but well put together.

3) I understand your disdain with criticism on the game, as you've weathered quite a vicious storm (some times rightly, most of the times wrongly), but if you keep looking for conspirators and agent provacateurs where there ain't, you're only doing yourself wrong (and perhaps proving some disdainers right). I have no agenda other than my own... when I know what that agenda is, I will nail my manifesto to the forum door. You have my word. In the meantime, I will post here on things that interest me.

: )

But as I see this has all gone pear shaped, and I feel the itch of hemp rope around my wrists and the ticke of straw up my backside, I will retire from posting in this thread again, hoping some semblance of utility and rationality will exert itself into the conversation.

Cheers!

Leto

[Thomm]

The new QB system is not so much the problem (for me, obviously) than the fact that the parts of it that I enjoy most (tiny/small battles) are broken as there are sometimes no troops at all (when tanks are chosen) or just support platoons (ATGM platoon) that should only be added piecewise to "normal" platoons. If this could be addressed, it would be a step forward.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Lethaface]

After having some troubles with it I couldn't be bothered with it anymore. I don't miss anything though, since I never played cmx1

I never really enjoyed skirmishes on other games, when played against the AI. However against other humans they do offer extended replayability when the regular scenarios run out.

The amount of scenarios for CMSF is so big though, that ill never even play all of em, so you dont hear me complaining

[MeatEtr]

I'll see what I can do about that, but I wouldn't be truthful if I said that chances look good that we can do as you ask

Steve

Hey what about me? I'm a nice guy and my mommy always told me I was special. I'll be looking forward to receiving my free copy of Marines+Brits module bundle in the mail.

Everyday from here on out I'm gonna run out to my mailbox with much anticipation.

[mike_the_wino]

Everyday from here on out I'm gonna run out to my mailbox with much anticipation.

At least you will get exercise, it won't be a complete write-off.

[Battlefront.com]

Leto,

1) I don't post at the 'alternate reality' any longer, as I have been accused of being a witch and politely left town while the pitchforks were working on the burning pyre. I am not a medium, translator or messenger.

Congratulations on getting run out of there. In my opinion that is a mark of pride Actually, I'm not surprised to hear this. Even back then I saw you got a hard time for not towing the party line.

OK, then it looks like all that's going on here is cleaning up some of the poop that you stepped in before they got out the long knives on you. I'm happy to oblige.

I think there is a misunderstanding of English on both ends as I have only stated that I can see why some people may think that you dropped QB's in the module system so that you would only have games that kept people's fascinations for 6 months (industry standard you said once?) and that BFC could get more money for the amount of work they put into the game. I personally do not subscribe to this line of thinking IE. QB's, but I do believe that the modules systems were created to capture more $$ for BFC, ergo, more games for us... which is a good thing. I also honestly saw no issues with Cherry picking nor felt that the QB system in CMx1 was anything but well put together.

Yes, this is where we get into interpretations. There is, almost always, a group of people that think we are nothing more than greedy venture capitalists with no care for our products or our customers. Just money. If you are in the game biz this is normal. It's hard to imagine, but some even claimed this back in CMBO/BB/AK days! Oh well, why should we be exempt from this when it seems all companies have this sort of anti-establishment group nipping at their heels

Now for the subtle part... we did not deliberately design CMx2 to give people a 6 month vs. 10 year gaming experience. Instead we deliberately avoided doing things which we did not see as being economically viable for us. These decisions had the side effect of making it more expensive for players to get the same Breadth out of a CMx2 game that they had in a CMx1 game. Since we gave people about 9 years too much re-playability with each CMx1 game we released, we didn't think it unreasonable to not purposefully do things which would put ourselves out of business. Fortunately the majority of people understand this and have no problem with this basic element of Capitalism.

But the new strategy goes way beyond our requirements for acceptable compensation. Our previous focus on quantity (Breadth) came at the expenses of attention to details (Depth). We had to cut tons of corners on things like animations, quality graphics, game features, etc. in order to provide that Breadth. We also couldn't afford to reinvest in new stuff because we were still trying to recover from the effort of the previous release. In short, Breath came at a cost which wasn't being covered by the one time purchase price. So either we cranked up the price of our games to $100+ or we broke them up into chunks which eventually would get us to the same place. Either way, customers have to pay us what it costs to make this stuff or we go out of business. With so few quality wargame companies around, me thinks we would be missed if we went under!

It's also funny to see people argue that we would deliberately harm re-playability and longevity in order to get people to buy more stuff from us. If someone burns out on one of our games in the first 4 months, what is the likelihood he'll purchase a Module? What's the likelihood he'll purchase 2 Modules? Probably not good

3) I understand your disdain with criticism on the game, as you've weathered quite a vicious storm (some times rightly, most of the times wrongly), but if you keep looking for conspirators and agent provacateurs where there ain't, you're only doing yourself wrong (and perhaps proving some disdainers right). I have no agenda other than my own... when I know what that agenda is, I will nail my manifesto to the forum door. You have my word. In the meantime, I will post here on things that interest me.

Agreed and I'm sorry for thinking what I saw going on months ago was still current. Since you were, basically, bringing their twisted thinking into this thread (you actually made that quite clear) I thought things were unchanged. Note that I never thought you were putting forth these ideas as your own. If I had you'd know

But as I see this has all gone pear shaped, and I feel the itch of hemp rope around my wrists and the ticke of straw up my backside, I will retire from posting in this thread again, hoping some semblance of utility and rationality will exert itself into the conversation.

All is well on my end. As I said before, even if you were a messenger it wouldn't bother me. You are handling yourself well within the rules and even spirt of this Forum so no problem from my perspective.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Thomm,

The new QB system is not so much the problem (for me, obviously) than the fact that the parts of it that I enjoy most (tiny/small battles) are broken as there are sometimes no troops at all (when tanks are chosen) or just support platoons (ATGM platoon) that should only be added piecewise to "normal" platoons. If this could be addressed, it would be a step forward.

Yup, we have a plan to fix this. In CMx1 this could happen too if you used Auto Purchase, but of course it wouldn't happen if you selected your own forces. If we did nothing other than add in Cherry Picking the problem you described would be at least no worse than it was in CMx1. Since we're putting Cherry Picking back that gets you back to where you want to be. But we have an idea for an additional option which should fix the problems with Auto Purchased forces.

Lethaface,

I never really enjoyed skirmishes on other games, when played against the AI. However against other humans they do offer extended replayability when the regular scenarios run out.

Correct. What we hope is that the new QB system will make skirmishes an option for you against the AI. This is the new Auto Purchase concept I mentioned above.

The amount of scenarios for CMSF is so big though, that ill never even play all of em, so you dont hear me complaining

heh... that's what I said a few pages ago. Too many choices actually can be a bad thing since it makes choosing what to play harder. In fact there is a whole academic school of thought about decision making which centers on the premise that consumers (in this case gamers) want a few good choices which are clearly understood rather than lots of choices which necessitate having to wade through information to make an informed choice. The retail giant Target actually is using these theories to compete against Wal-Mart. But I digress

Steve