BF, You Blew It

[ChrisND]

You "wargame only" people aren't as brilliant in comparison to the rest of the populace as you think you are.

I find the irony of some of your posts in this thread very amusing, as you are making sweeping generalizations of people that you were previously accusing of making sweeping generalizations. :cool:

---

How about some of you chill out just a bit? Being unpleasant isn't going to change anything but make this place less appealing to be around. Maybe, just maybe, we could even stop insulting each other over a game.

[yllamana]

Auto pause would be great. Playing something bigger than a tiny scenario online isnt fun. The game simply wasnt designed to be played that way. Even if you are fast enough to study the terrain, the treeline that will hide your tank, the hull down positions, the cover arcs, the ammo count, the ammo types, etc etc and win, you will ultimately have LOST all the fun that CM is about.

What is CM without the numerous small combat vignettes, the little stories and the lovely details? The squads advancing in the wheatfields under a low afternoon sun, the first contact and the sporadic exchanging rifle shots, the melees with the grenades flying..or watching a PAK hidden under the shadows of a tree, reloading and firing round after round from first person perspective..All that is lost in a non stop game environment where you barely have the time to go lower.

I guess its time for a new sig line

I totally agree with this and feel the same way. CMx2 is a million times more fun in WeGo because even if you can pull off playing in real time you miss almost all the detail doing so.

Part of the fun of the Combat Mission games is watching the replays back from all the different angles, zooming in and locking to units to appreciate that detail. It also lets you see the game from the angles it looks best at - close up - instead of the ones other games focus on and do better.

Lack of TCP/IP WeGo with replay is a huge black mark against the game and I don't really see why the engine wasn't designed from the start to incorporate it.

[Sgt Joch]

Maybe, just maybe, we could even stop insulting each other over game.

What? Heresy!!!!

Actually, compared to some game releases I have seen, including CMSF, the negative reaction so far is very mild. You can tell this is mostly an older crowd chasing after each other in their wheelchairs...

[ChrisND]

Actually, compared to some game releases I have seen, including CMSF, the reaction so far is very mild. You can tell this is mostly an older crowd chasing after each other in their wheelchairs...

I used to read the World of Warcraft forums. THAT place... that was something else. I think the default position there was to hate the other poster.

[WineCape]

I guess then I can scratch those potential invitees off the RoW tourney that hates playing by PBEM, as opinioned here.

[C'Rogers]

I'd be really interested why having TCP/IP WEGO would be a problem

Out of curiosity, this would interest me as well. Beyond that though, I don't see how it matters. Either they can do it, or they can't. Doesn't matter whether it is impossible or simple lack of ability, if they say something can't be done that's pretty much it.

I suppose another programmer (or lay person even) could point out a flaw in their thinking, I just find that highly unlikely.

[LemoN]

I guess then I can scratch those potential invitees off the RoW tourney that hates playing by PBEM, as opinioned here.

Thanks, keeps my inbox free.

EDIT: It's not that I wouldn't be interested in ROW, I just won't participate if it's PBEM only.

[Wodin]

AI's usually fine when they're on the defense, but they will ALWAYS suck on the offense. It didn't matter if BFC had 500 programmers working for them, I don't see AI being able to handle wargames on the same level as a decent human for at LEAST another decade.

Plus winning in SP, while definitely fun (I look forward to the SP campaigns), just doesn't give anywhere near the satisfaction of beating a human opponent.

Well as far as CMSF went a well made scenario would make mince meat out of me even after playing CMSF for two or three years...CMBN will be no different for me...it's one of the few games where I have no massive probelm with the AI...but again it relies on how well made the scenario is...Paper Tiger makes superb campaigns with a massive challange...

I knew what to expect from this game due to CMSF and it was mentioned countless times for people to download the demo to see what they think..if they didn't like it then forget CMBN....as someone sadi CMBN doesn't do everything but what it does do it does extremely well indeed...

I believe a thread with feature request is far better than maonign about how this is missing or that..why not just ask for it...though I'm sure it's already been asked for by the CMSF crowd countless times already so it's not like they are not aware...

If I was a beta tester I too would get protective over this game...they put countless hours into it and just because people aren't getting exactly what they want they come here complaining instead of asking for it in the future as it would enhance the game...I mean come on the title to the thread is highly emotive...

I really think it wouldn't have taken much time to download the CMSF demo to see what it was like before pre ordering or even getting all excited over this game...

Still I'm sure there are enough people who enjoy what it has to offer at the moment and look forward to future improvements and modules...the rest will go off somehwere else for their tactical fix maybe CoH or something, but I've played them all and nothing gets close to Cmx2 esp for infantry fighting, however if there is one out there I missed please tell me as I want it....

People do need to re read the thread where BFC said it isn't perfect and it's just a game...

[Gamer4ever]

I agree that the lack of TCP/IP WEGO is a huge bummer, but we knew this since years so I can't see this to be such a huge shocker.

Yes, PBEM is horrible and RT is way too fast and stressful, but really, the SP is great too!

Seriously, I can't stress the complete and utter crapness of PBEM enough...

What!???

No We-Go for TCP/IP? No way!

BFC are you crazy??????

IMO, BFC had something really great and now you're letting it go? Just to be like everyone else?

I am sorry to say it, but it looks like Combat Mission has become a clickfest game with the so-called "real-time" mode of play. I was VERY glad to see We-Go return, but to leave it out for TCP/IP just doesn't make any sense.

I pre-ordered the game to once again enliven my weekends with lively multipayer games, but alas that isn't going to ever happen?

That is too bad.

[sburke]

You know - I tried that a few days ago in a thread titled "Multiplayer Issues" (or similar) and i had 3-4 responses to basically the same issue. Chances are Battlefront didn't even see it. There's a much better chance getting attention using a controverisal title.

I won't and can't say what you have seen isn't true and again I just wish everyone would take it down a notch. I saw the title to this thread and frankly avoided it for quite some time and then figured eventually you see some really good stuff in it once the initial flames die down. As to not getting a reply from BF, well they are pretty busy on the game and the number of threads popping up on items is pretty high. Part of it may be that perhaps BF feels they have already answered it enough times. The engine is actually quite old now just not this theater/period.

As an alternative to just putting controversial (and I would actually not consider this thread title controversial, I would include it under the insulting category to be honest) titles on threads is to simply PM the BF folks direct and ask if they can put a sticky up with a succinct reply even if it is just a link to a previously stated case.

Where I think you are seeing some of the reaction on this particular items is again the engine isn't new, the particular feature has not been part of it and there is a certain feeling of -"stop trying to rain on our parade, the feature hasn't been here for 4 years and isn't specific to CMBN - do your research and comment not on CMBN, but on the CM2 engine - elsewhere." I am not saying that is necessarily correct or helpful, but there are many many comments about the game that reflect a lack of research on the commentator as if they have found some brand new glaring hole. If I was completely brand new to this product I would have spent quite a bit of time looking at forums on CMSF and trying the demo before I would plop down $60 on a pre order. Kick the tires as it were before complaining my car is an automatic and I wanted a stick AFTER I order it.

[kulik]

CMBB manual pg. 8:

“Action in CMBB is paused to allow for player input. We feel it is conductive to players’ development of thoughtful and realistic strategies, rather than the “click fest” that some fully “real time” games can become.”

...sorry but somebody had to mention it.

[Johnny Canuck]

CMBB manual pg. 8:

“Action in CMBB is paused to allow for player input. We feel it is conductive to players’ development of thoughtful and realistic strategies, rather than the “click fest” that some fully “real time” games can become.”

...sorry but somebody had to mention it.

If the RT multiplayer is pausable like the single player is, then great. If not, then it's a damn "click fest", and they should be <remaining comment withdrawn by author>.

[Sixxkiller]

Why are you guys trying to turn CMBN into Starcraft in the first place? Isnt that kind of the reason you like CM games?

But CMBN is what it is. I wish they could put everything in for everyone, but hey, this isnt Blizzard. Infact, I seem to remember Blizzard changed some stuff in SC2 and how well did that go over? Oh ya, not as well considering people still play SC1 over SC2.

But I am gonna now tell you guys something as well about behind the scenes at BFC. When the testers or staff want something to be changed or fixed or what we have deemed as cant live unless it's this way, we dont lash out at Charles, dont call each other names, dont disrespect the people who have more weight in getting it done. We ask like adults, we argue our points, we get a response, we live with the results. Not even Steve gets all his suggestions or wants from Charles.

[LemoN]

Why are you guys trying to turn CMBN into Starcraft in the first place?

What? :confused:

[Battlefront.com]

12 pages before I even logged on today. Well, I'm not going to go through all these posts because, after a quick skim, there's nothing new being said here.

We would love to be all things to all people all the time at the same time. But that's impossible. Therefore, we focus on the most important aspects of the game first and then build on it from there.

WeGo TCP/IP fanatics... ask yourself this... would you be so amped up to play Combat Mission via WeGo TCP/IP if the game itself was crap? Definitely not. Which means we have done things in the right order by concentrating on the game itself first and other things after. The list of "other things" is massively long. Better multiplayer options are certainly some of the most important elements in that long list, though I would not necessarily say it is the most important.

I think if it came to a vote whether we should add moveable waypoints or RealTime Pause I'm pretty confident moveable waypoints would win. Why? Because EVERYBODY moves units around, WeGo and RealTime, therefore EVERYBODY has an interest in changes to movement UI. Whether people think it's really important or not is a separate issue. The amount of our customer base who plays multiplayer, however, is significantly smaller than the total.

Therefore, we did not "blow it" by failing to improve multiplayer options this time around. It's simply a matter of us only being able to do so much for any given space of time. And looking at what we've achieved with CMx2 on the whole, I think we've delivered more great stuff than anybody else has ever delivered to wargaming PERIOD. Complaints need to be kept in context in order to be taken seriously.

What about the future of multiplayer? Definitely a RealTime TCP/IP pause feature will get into the game sooner rather than later. TCP/IP WeGo is desirable and probably practical, so we're going to look into that too.

Steve

[LemoN]

Thanks for the reply Steve!

Just one question, would the "sooner rather than later" mean that it would be patched into the game or would that mean it's being added via a module / new game?

[Gamer4ever]

Thank you Steve for your kind words.

I will breath easier.

I can't wit til we can d/l the full game.

[Battlefront.com]

Not even Steve gets all his suggestions or wants from Charles.

Heh... the testers do have a good sense of this, however they've not seen the original design specs I drew up in 2004. Let's just say I'm still hopeful that before we die of old age I might get most of them into some game or another

Einstein and Hawking would no doubt agree that gamers tend to have some pretty flawed concepts of both space and time

Steve

[noxnoctum]

You saying we need to bend space and time and create a wormhole to get tcp-ip wego/RT with autopause ?

And Six not sure what you're saying about us "trying to turn the game into SC2". That's exactly what we DON'T want. It was brought up simply as a comparison. And SC2 is wildly popular, it's a tiny minority that have stuck to SC1. Blizzard did an excellent job of taking SC:BW and basically adding small but significant improvements (the biggest of which I'd say is the ability to select more than 12 units at a time lol). Most of the people still playing SC1 are doing so because their computers can't handle the sequel. No "game modes" or anything of the sort were left out in SC2 that were in SC1. On the contrary, the SP campaign was much more dynamic (not really "dynamic" but gave you some options), we now have "cliffs" and cliff-hopping units which add another strategic layer to consider, boulders, crazy new units etc. The only thing one could possibly be pissed about is if someone REALLY REALLY misses an old unit (like the Lurker for example) that was replaced by a new one, balance (Blizz releases a patch practically every week though so this is constantly being corrected, though it will likely take a year or two for it to be truly balanced) or have some weird thing for 2d graphics only games. Also battle.net initially sucked but is up to par and way better than the old one now. Blizzard acts fast. (granted they have a ton of resources)

Anyways, thanks for posting steve, and ya if you could answer Lemon's question that'd be great. Definitely glad to hear tcp-ip wego is back on the table again.

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the reply Steve!

Just one question, would the "sooner rather than later" mean that it would be patched into the game or would that mean it's being added via a module / new game?

Unknown. In general we do not patch in major features. However, nothing is written in stone either way. And no, lobbying for it sooner won't help. We already know (and have for years) what the interest level is. We know what it is people want and that they want it yesterday, so we already "get it". But there's other things to consider when making decisions and lobbying can't be allowed to interfere with what is best for CM's customer base on the whole.

Steve

[Karac]

But I am gonna now tell you guys something as well about behind the scenes at BFC. When the testers or staff want something to be changed or fixed or what we have deemed as cant live unless it's this way, we dont lash out at Charles, dont call each other names, dont disrespect the people who have more weight in getting it done. We ask like adults, we argue our points, we get a response, we live with the results. Not even Steve gets all his suggestions or wants from Charles.

Besides couple of post, I belive there is a lot of constructive criticism here. No WEGO i MP is a huge step back and Your camparison with SC can be a bad prophet. Something was changed (removed) and it might turn out to be a bad decision. Hopefully it will be added at some point in the future.

I know BF wanted to make a game for more gamers than only CM1 fans but making shortcuts is not always the best idea. Anyhow, I support BF all the way and still waiting for my copy of the game:)

Steve

Thx for Your reply. Puts things in a better perspective:)

[LemoN]

Unknown. In general we do not patch in major features. However, nothing is written in stone either way.

Hmm, that's not really reassuring.

[Battlefront.com]

Hmm, that's not really reassuring.

It is not my job to falsely reassure people. As I said, there's a lot of things on our infamous ToDo List and we're just coming off an intensive 3 year development cycle. We're not yet willing to nail down what comes next because we want to remain flexible.

Put another way... you guys expect us to do things we never said we'd do... so we're not really all that anxious to commit to detailed timelines.

Steve

[Ranger33]

Thanks for the input Steve, good to hear that at least you guys have this stuff on the table. I know I don't speak for everyone, but some sort of pause in RT multiplayer is at the top of my list of things to see implemented. My list is pretty short though since everything I've seen in the demo is spectacular. I don't even use pause that much in SP, but for those occasional emergency situations where you need to shift several units around at once, it can be the difference between success and failure.

[noxnoctum]

I'd say the biggest reason for an autopause in RT would be so you can spend a few minutes checking the LOS on your hidden AT guns, tanks, etc and making sure your infantry is properly behind cover and so you can examine the terrain more closely to find small defilades and such to use to your advantage. As well as being able to command more than one platoon at once.