FINALLY repositionable waypoints, or...?

[19Kyle72]

Will Battle for Normandy finally have the long-promised, but never delivered, repositionable waypoints that I last asked about here (http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1209166#post1209166), or is that a feature still in the works "to be delivered" at some future indeterminate date?

Because, obviously, indeterminate dates suck, and certainly won't lead to a sale to this potential customer.

[mike_the_wino]

IF CM:BN doesn't have this it will be broken.

[19Kyle72]

Well, from the looks of what's been written on this thread http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=95291 (which I somehow missed earlier today) that the repositionable waypoints are a "no show" for Normandy.

I wish that we'd get an official declaration on this, as it's clear that I'm not the only one that's been pining for its return ever since the original Combat Mission series.

Can anyone supply a "solid" answer to this question one way or the other?

Thanks in advance.

[MikeyD]

the long-promised, but never delivered

Positionable waypoints were never promised by anyone. One of a 100+ things on a long term wish list is not exactly a promise. Besides, if it ever got into the game I can imagine all the whining "I touched the screen with my cursor and accidentally moved my waypoint! The game's unplayable!"

[19Kyle72]

Positionable waypoints were never promised by anyone

I'll take that to mean "Yes, they're NOT delivering on a repositionable waypoint system for Normandy."

Okay. Thanks for that (once again) disappointing bit of news.

[born2lose]

I'll take that to mean "Yes, they're NOT delivering on a repositionable waypoint system for Normandy."

Okay. Thanks for that (once again) disappointing bit of news.

I do have to ask myself why are some many little things such a big deal to people, in the scheme of things looking at all the effort BFC have put into this latest edition of the game to make a big issue over somehting as small as move able waypoints i think is a bit much. especially when the game isnt even out yet.

But hey maybe i am unique in the fact i judge the product as a whole not just on one feature and i at least want to wait to play it first before passing judgement.

But then again maybe i am just feeding the forum trolls who knows !!!!!!

[theFightingSeabee]

It's not anywhere near a "game-breaker". The game still kicks ass.

[umlaut]

OK, now I have to ask. I can no longer hold my tongue, because I really don´t get this movable waypoints debate. I´ve only been playing CM:SF for a couple of months, so maybe I´m missing something, but I really can´t see the problem in CM2.

I could understand the problem, if we were talking CM1 games, where the command delay increased significantly with the number of waypoints. But in my experience the command delays in CM2 are so tiny that if your waypoints has become "outdated", you simply delete them and make some new waypoints. I know that is what I do - and I´ve never missed the movable waypoints yet in CM2. And I actually thought I would, when I began playing.

So unless there´s something I´m missing, I really don´t see what all the fuss is about?

So far I´ve only played CM:SF in veteran mode, mind you. Has this something to do with playing in elite or iron mode?

[stikkypixie]

OK, now I have to ask. I can no longer hold my tongue, because I really don´t get this movable waypoints debate. I´ve only been playing CM:SF for a couple of months, so maybe I´m missing something, but I really can´t see the problem in CM2.

I could understand the problem, if we were talking CM1 games, where the command delay increased significantly with the number of waypoints. But in my experience the command delays in CM2 are so tiny that if your waypoints has become "outdated", you simply delete them and make some new waypoints. I know that is what I do - and I´ve never missed the movable waypoints yet in CM2. And I actually thought I would, when I began playing.

So unless there´s something I´m missing, I really don´t see what all the fuss is about?

So far I´ve only played CM:SF in veteran mode, mind you. Has this something to do with playing in elite or iron mode?

It's just a preference thing. I only order one or two waypoints most of the time. If I make a mistake during a more complex order than I just delete the last waypoint.

But I guess you give lots of waypoints at a time, don't use direct hotkeys or are just a perfectionist who likes to get things *just* right than it can be a big deal.

I have trouble picturing how adjustable waypoints would work, because unlike CMx1, you won't be able to shift them by tiny amounts (not that mattered that much in CMx1 with all the abstractions), but they would jump to another action spot.

[Paulverisor64]

I would like re-configurable waypoints as it worked well in Combat Mission x1.

However I think that this really is just a safety net feeling as making mistakes with waypoints in Combat Mission x1 meant a lot of command delay. Since mistakes no longer mean command delays it appears that now this really isn't a huge issue.

The only drawback that I now see that could drive someone crazy is if they waypointed all the way across the map and discovered that they made one mistake towards the beginning. For this reason perhaps the use of waypoints eventually will be scaled quite a bit back.

[TheVulture]

I have trouble picturing how adjustable waypoints would work, because unlike CMx1, you won't be able to shift them by tiny amounts (not that mattered that much in CMx1 with all the abstractions), but they would jump to another action spot.

Only true for infantry. Vehicle waypoints can still be placed the same as in CMx1 in any position within a tile.

As for whether they are important, it is really a question of playstyle. Some people would never use the feature. Others might use it all the time. Whether it is mechanially necessary is secondary to whether it fits in with the way you interact with the interface, and learning to make do without it has involved chaning their playstyle into something that they don't like anywhere near as much. One thing you learn from software usability studies is that different people will go about the same basic task in radically different ways, and think about it with completely different mental building blocks.

[Sitting Duck]

...I could understand the problem, if we were talking CM1 games, where the command delay increased significantly with the number of waypoints. But in my experience the command delays in CM2 are so tiny that if your waypoints has become "outdated", you simply delete them and make some new waypoints. I know that is what I do - and I´ve never missed the movable waypoints yet in CM2. And I actually thought I would, when I began playing.

So unless there´s something I´m missing, I really don´t see what all the fuss is about?...

Maybe you're missing something...or not. I'm not sure if it's the game engine so much as the era of the battle - more specifically the command and control being modeled.

Remember, the CM2 engine you are playing now (CM:SF) is set in more modern times than the upcoming release (CM:BN). It's my understanding that modern command delays - especially for US forces - is comparatively smaller in modern battle scenarios than in previous eras. Assuming that's correct, the command delay for "deleting and creating new waypoints" in a modern setting (for US forces) would likely be less than in a WWII setting.

As I understand it, CM:BN will be the first time that the CM2 engine will be played in the WWII era. My expectation is that command delays for "deleting and creating new waypoints" will likely be significant - longer than in CM:SF. The attraction for the ability to simply moving existing waypoints was reduced command delay.

Perhaps a beta tester can tell us one way or the other w/o violating the NDA. If there is no significant command delay for "deleting and creating new waypoints" in CM:BN then the issue is one of convenience only. That's not to say it's irrelevant for usability, but shouldn't have too much impact on battle outcomes.

[Jon L]

The command delay system isn't returning in CM:BN.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1222552&postcount=16

[stikkypixie]

Maybe you're missing something...or not. I'm not sure if it's the game engine so much as the era of the battle - more specifically the command and control being modeled.

Remember, the CM2 engine you are playing now (CM:SF) is set in more modern times than the upcoming release (CM:BN). It's my understanding that modern command delays - especially for US forces - is comparatively smaller in modern battle scenarios than in previous eras. Assuming that's correct, the command delay for "deleting and creating new waypoints" in a modern setting (for US forces) would likely be less than in a WWII setting.

As I understand it, CM:BN will be the first time that the CM2 engine will be played in the WWII era. My expectation is that command delays for "deleting and creating new waypoints" will likely be significant - longer than in CM:SF. The attraction for the ability to simply moving existing waypoints was reduced command delay.

Perhaps a beta tester can tell us one way or the other w/o violating the NDA. If there is no significant command delay for "deleting and creating new waypoints" in CM:BN then the issue is one of convenience only. That's not to say it's irrelevant for usability, but shouldn't have too much impact on battle outcomes.

If I recall correctly there will be no command delays. Remember that conscript Syrian soldiers did not suffer any command delay either.

[Paulverisor64]

Sitting Duck: The thread that you are looking for in terms of Command Delays is here. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94476

The short answer is no, but I do appreciate that a better way of implimenting Command Delays was discussed by Steve in this thread for down the road.

I do agree that Command Delays would be much more substantial in a WWII based game compared to a modern day game. I guess we'll see if this results in an aura of unrealism.

[aleader]

Positionable waypoints were never promised by anyone. One of a 100+ things on a long term wish list is not exactly a promise. Besides, if it ever got into the game I can imagine all the whining "I touched the screen with my cursor and accidentally moved my waypoint! The game's unplayable!"

It was a great feature in CMx1 that a lot of us liked using and I don't recall a lot of 'whining' that it was in those games. We're customers and we have the right to request features that we like without the sarcastic retorts. Wargamers...is it any wonder it's the smallest of all the niches?

[19Kyle72]

My reasoning for why I greatly prefer repositionable waypoints has nothing to do with command delays.

It has to do with what meatheads the AI can be when it comes to utilizing the terrain optimally.

As I stated before, I am MORE THAN HAPPY to take a loss due to a true tactical blunder that I make because of my shortsightedness, or out of the fog of war.

What I do NOT appreciate, AT ALL, is when I take a loss that is inexcusable, like plotting a waypoint that you THINK goes around a rubble pile so that maximum speed is achieved from going from Point A to Point B, only to watch as your braindead unit decides to go through the debris pile anyway, and then, because of the slower velocity, gets hit by a RPG.

These "blunders" aren't blunders on MY part, and they certainly wouldn't be blunders that any real driver would commit, especially when it's done over and over and OVER again.

Now, those of you who can play this game, and not have any issues with these NEEDLESS blunder-events happening, well, I salute you and your ability to ignore such a NEEDLESS gaff.

For me, however, it chafes me to no end. Because when one of these NEEDLESS and ridiculous blunders occur in game, I reload. And then wait. Wait. And wait for it to reload (this is "fun," right?). Then, what's even more "fun" is that I have to go and delete a whole set of waypoints, re-plot them, and then stare in the hopes that I nudged it "just right."

Here's the real kicker for me. If I nudged it just enough so as to ensure that the AI doesn't do something obviously stupid, I'm still chafed. Why? Because I'm frustrated at the amount of time I had to waste because I just couldn't SIMPLY grab and drag that waypoint over a couple of meters. And what happens if my nudge doesn't work? Yeah, you guessed it, I'm chafed again, because I have to reload, delete, and reposition those waypoints again.

Fun? Nope. Does it feel "tactically smart?"

Are you kidding me?

How can one "enjoy" one's smart decision making when your AI gets itself killed by doing something truly stupid?

And to be clear, I'm PERFECTLY fine with the AI doing stupid things when its fear is ratcheted up, or at a state of full blown panic, BUT I do take issue when it's happening during the opening moves, when a single round hasn't been fired yet, and your maneuvering as quickly as possible around OBVIOUS areas of ambush and the AI decides to casually drag itself through rubble right in the midst of that OBVIOUS ambush zone.

And I'd be PERFECTLY happy to sit through the long reloads, if I didn't have to delete all of the waypoints to nudge the one that I want to adjust a bit.

I want to point out one REALLY obvious reason why I so badly want the capability to simply readjust a waypoint. There was this awesome WWII game that was released a number of years ago. And they decided that it was important, for a number of VERY good reasons, to supply their customers (and more than likely returning customers) with a feature that would make them appreciate the game a lot more because of how thoughtful it was of the players' needs.

For some reason, this same company left this feature out of its latest release, but they said numerous times that they "would" implement it. No, they didn't pull out a bible, and photograph themselves placing their right hands on it to make a "promise" that they would do it, but they did say that they were going to do it. And if not by the release of "Patch C," then after it was integrated into Battle for Normandy, and then it would be later incorporated into Shock Force.

And now it's perfectly clear that it WON'T be in Battle for Normandy. But who knows, maybe in a later patch, right? Excuse me if I don't hold my breath for that, and excuse me if I don't pull out my credit card to buy the game either.

But the fact that I'm here, asking again if the feature will be in the game, and I'm WILLING to buy the product if it's there, proves that I do appreciate what the company gets right (very right, in fact), but to me, that doesn't overlook what's been done wrong.

I'm not some d@mned troll "looking for trouble because it's fun," I'm just a frustrated customer who is upset that the game and its modules that he purchased is NOT getting the support that was said they were going to get, nor is this feature in their newest product, which I'd be happy to buy if it had this feature in it they said that was going to be in it.

And one last point: the repositionable waypoint feature was stated in a way that distinguished it from the usual "Wish List" of things that they'd like to add. Go back and look at what was said. It's that distinction, paired with everything above that's got me so irritated.

Bottom line: if a feature is declared to be put into a product, or will be put into a product, it better be there.

Now, if Battlefront ever follows through on this, I'll be supplying my credit card numbers.

I'm certainly willing to put my money where my mouth is.

[Noba]

Bottom line: if a feature is declared to be put into a product, or will be put into a product, it better be there.

Now, if Battlefront ever follows through on this, I'll be supplying my credit card numbers.

...and until then to will continue to demand that the game is programmed to your personal wishes. Good luck with that one, I look forward to more entertainment from you.

Noba.

[19Kyle72]

will continue to demand that the game is programmed to your personal wishes

Wow. It amazes me how many of you COMPLETELY miss the point.

They do NOT have to program anything "for me." Yes, that IS stupid, which is why I'm NOT thinking it.

But it says a lot about YOU that you think that I'm formulating my thoughts that way.

So, let me try, ONE MORE TIME, to make this PAINFULLY OBVIOUS to those of you who are missing the great big red target that's one stinking meter in front of your overheated M4's.

THEY said that they were going to put a feature in.

And THEY said it MORE THAN ONCE.

THEY are NOT doing it.

And you're blaming ME for THEM NOT following through on what THEY said!

Now THAT is ignorance on a cosmic scale!

If it makes you feel any better, I'll award you First Prize in Missing the Obvious.

And if you ever lose your keys... Check your pockets. I can hear them jangling from here.

[ChrisND]

THEY said that they were going to put a feature in.

And THEY said it MORE THAN ONCE.

Excellent, you should be able to furnish us with the appropriate quotes then!

And even if you do... the lack of perspective being displayed here is really quite astonishing.

[LongLeftFlank]

I can sympathize with Kyle, although I have no expectation that this useful feature will (or ought to) be added.

My particular pet feature would be an additional layer in the Map Editor that allowed a scenario designer to (optionally) map out specific "Pathways" along routes that he deems that units are likely to take. For example, these Pathways could lie along major roads, in out-of-LOS gullies or stream banks or reverse slopes, or hugging long walls: whatever the designer deems useful for that particular map/scenario. Creating this layer would always be optional; in the absence of Pathways, the player uses the status quo method of selecting waypoints one by one (lots of clicks).

The Pathways would be invisible to the players, but when a player (or the AI) clicks a Waypoint that is on a Pathway, the pathing AI would then automatically "snap" the unit's path to a "pre-clicked" route that followed the Pathway to that point.

Enough rambling: here's a visual showing the concept:

As CMSF is now, when you click a single waypoint, the unit goes more or less straight there -- Line (1).

Under this proposed "snap to Pathway" system, when you click once on a major highway where a Pathway is present, the Pathing AI will instantly select a "default" route that (2a) takes the shortest path to the Pathway and then (2b) maps a route along the Pathway to the designated Waypoint, automatically creating the needed intermediate waypoints. Far less clicking / game delay / frustration for the player who 80% of the time simply wants his tanks to follow the road or his infantry to hug that stone wall/treeline like they would most likely do in RL.

And if you really did want your unit to avoid the road and take the straight beeline instead, you'd simply clear your orders out, then select a new Waypoint in open ground just short of the highway, then click a second Waypoint on the highway itself.

No idea what programming conniptions would be involved to create this functionality, but it doesn't seem much more complex than the existing pathing AI. And rather than Charles trying to create some kind of hideously complex one-size-fits-all road-following algorithm, the creation of these Pathways is left totally in the hands of the scenario designer. At worst, the player is left with the status quo; at best, he gets a map that is a lot easier to maneuver around, letting him concentrate on the fight.

Just blue-skying here of course. You like?

[Michael Emrys]

You like?

Would scenario designers be willing to put in that much extra work? Not being sarcastic here; I honestly don't know.

Michael

[LongLeftFlank]

It depends on the scenario: a lot of maps are dominated by a main highway for example. An example that comes to mind is that video tutorial on tactics that jnt62006 did for Cain & Abel. He did nearly a minute of solid clicking just to get his Warriors and Challies to stick to the highway. That's the kind of busy work I'm trying to remove here -- again, it's left entirely up to the designer. For some kinds of "non-linear" scenarios, it won't be worth it.

For Normandy, there are fewer autobahns, sure, but if the Bois de Baugin AAR fight had been played in RT via network with little pausing available, I could readily imagine either Elvis or JonS wanting a quick and reliable way to shove vehicles or a bunch of infantry along those dirt tracks without too much clicking. As I envision it, you the designer are simply presetting the intermediate clicks for them -- it really doesn't seem like much extra work at all.

I for one would happily build this kind of pathing into my scenarios. I think others would as well. Anyway, just a thought. I've always thought anything BFC could do to reduce the micro/clickfest would be a huge help along the migration path to realtime.

This could have some very salutary effects on the behaviour of the AI controlled units as well. If you give an Order and the objective square lies along a protected Pathway, that gives the AI a preferred route to use rather than the risky beelines it will often select when left to its own devices.

[sfhand]

The Vulture, in post #11, pretty much summed up the situation as I see it. I don't feel there is a bigger advocate for movable waypoints than me yet it saddens me a great deal to see the issue framed as it has been in this thread. I'm pretty sure the game developers/designers understand the issue much better than various posters on the board, since they put movable waypoints in CMx1 in the first place. After seeing CMBN, in beta form, I will stick to my word and not second guess their design choices. Hopefully the day will come when movable waypoints are back in the game but I will not let their absence deter me from playing one of the best games out there - it hasn't stopped me from playing CMSF (all flavors).

[born2lose]

I do have to ask myself why are some many little things such a big deal to people, in the scheme of things looking at all the effort BFC have put into this latest edition of the game to make a big issue over somehting as small as move able waypoints i think is a bit much. especially when the game isnt even out yet.

But hey maybe i am unique in the fact i judge the product as a whole not just on one feature and i at least want to wait to play it first before passing judgement.

But then again maybe i am just feeding the forum trolls who knows !!!!!!

I standby what i said earlier re this post but maybe remove the bit about Trolls,

There are always going to be things that people expect in a game but i think its how you ask which makes the difference and i think the tone of the request and follow ups is way out of proportion to what is being asked and its efffect on the game.