Dislike the new Editor change (naming units)

[LongLeftFlank]

Steve, I know you couldn't possibly care less about supporting any uses for CMSF not involving a conventional Allied land invasion of Syria, but this change is in fact inconvenient for some of us who are putting the game to other uses (e.g. Iraq).

Sure, there are workarounds but you really need to work on that dismissive attitude. Meade is a loyal member of the community and has earned better from you.

[meade95]

As LongLeftFlank has pointed out - With regard to the new naming requirments since patch 1.30, there are workarounds......and as I mentioned last night...after more playtesting with NATO. While name changes aren't as they use to be.....Changes to squads names do appear within the Icon box, they just do so in a different place, smaller format and takes a little more time when playing to recognize these edited unit names.

There are also some additional C2/HQ element situations that will now pop up now, I suspect. As one will have to create / use complete new Platoons more often than needed as was prior (at least with how I was using the name edited units).

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, this is understood. The primary problem here is that Charles went about this quite straight forward. The testers pointed out that they couldn't name their Leaders, Charles said "sure you can", and then he noticed that there was a bug. Because it was never the intention to allow naming of Squads/Teams/Vehicles it didn't seem like a problem to fix the bug in the most straight forward manner. Which meant losing the functionality for naming Squads/Teams/Vehicles.

Now that it's clear to us that people HAVE been using this feature, and that there is "legitimate" functionality to it, we're looking into what it will take for people to have their cake and eat it too.

To be clear, we did not purposefully remove functionality. We fixed a bug, which had the undesirable effect of undoing a previously available function which, although not intended, was used by some people for "legitimate" purposes. Rarely do bug fixes lead to such a situation, but it does happen sometimes. Now that we know that this is one of those exceptional times we're seeing what can be done.

Also to be clear, hyperbole never makes a favorable impression with us. Nobody will ever convince us that the removal of this feature, for whatever reason, negates the entire value of everything else that is in the game. It's a non-starter. On the other hand, the calm and rational posts in this thread are listened to and taken seriously. If we do change something it is because of the latter type of feedback, not the over-the-top bluster.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Well, I'm glad people decided to wear their Underpants of +2 Maturity.

Makes for a much better thread.

Also to be clear, hyperbole never makes a favorable impression with us. Nobody will ever convince us that the removal of this feature, for whatever reason, negates the entire value of everything else that is in the game. It's a non-starter. On the other hand, the calm and rational posts in this thread are listened to and taken seriously. If we do change something it is because of the latter type of feedback, not the over-the-top bluster.

On that note, I hope tracer bouncing off terrain will NEVER happen, because it will make the entire game crap and make kittens lose their cuteness. If it is at some point included in Normandy I will NEVER PLAY THIS STUPID SERIES EVER AGAIN!!!!!

*sits back and waits for the results of this cunning use of reverse psychology*

[Dietrich]

[ben Stein-style deadpan] BFC, please fix or do sumfink. [/ben Stein-style deadpan]

[Battlefront.com]

But if we put tracer bounce back in, then I'd not have to hear about it missing any more. And I've kinda grown used to that

We're looking into the possibility of having CM:SF use the "old" method and all games forward using the "new" method. Having either game system use both, simultaneously, isn't going to happen any time soon as that would require a significant amount of new code. Basically, the bug fix was existing code changing the wrong text string. To have two different text strings changed independently of each other requires new code that we don't have time for now.

The one problem is that NATO, and anything made before v1.31 comes out, is using the "new" method. So if we revert to the "old" method in v1.31 then there could be some collateral damage for the stuff made using v1.30. We're seeing if this matters any to our stuff that shipped on the disk.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

But if we put tracer bounce back in, then I'd not have to hear about it missing any more. And I've kinda grown used to that

Ah! But I've grown so used to asking for it that at this point I'm not sure you guys implementing that feature would actually stop me from asking for it. And besides, who am I kidding? It would just be shockwaves next.

And you might say the latter gives you no upside for giving in to my frequent harassments, but you'd be trading up. Shockwave pestering is proper vintage!