BF, You Blew It

[Volodnikov]

Tripwire Interactive does, the developers of Red Orchestra.

[Sivodsi]

-but from where I'm standing it looks like almost all the pieces are already in place if you were designing it with it in mind from day one. On its own real-time TCP/IP should be significantly more difficult to implement than feature-complete (not this nonsense about no replay) WeGo play.

Out of curiosity, yllamana, what is your occupation? How old are you?

Curiosity, that's all

[chrisl]

I might respond to the other post later, but your somewhat insulting post aside - if the engine was designed from the ground up to have TCP/IP WeGo, why do you constantly refer to it as some herculean feat that will drain huge amounts of resources from everything else? I mean, you already have multiplayer WeGo. You already have TCP/IP real-time play. I obviously don't know the intricacies of your engine, but from where I'm standing it looks like almost all the pieces are already in place if you were designing it with it in mind from day one. On its own real-time TCP/IP should be significantly more difficult to implement than feature-complete (not this nonsense about no replay) WeGo play.

He's not coming out and saying it quite this way, but BFC only has two coders. They're pretty amazing coders, but they still have a finite amount of time. Everything that takes coding takes time for one or both of them, and the priority is on getting the game play down first (which is what makes and breaks the game). Adding a feature like TCP/IP WeGo may not be a herculean effort, but it adds enough to delay to the release (due to design, code, test, and debugging) that they made a decision not to implement it in this iteration. But it sounds like they did design CM:BN with the necessary hooks for TCP/IP WeGo so it can be added without too much pain later, but it's an economic decision to get the game out with the game play that will make the hardcore wargamers happy, and then spend the time adding bells and whistles (e.g. TCP/IP wego) later.

It's not that they don't want to do it, but they have to pick and choose how to spend their time, and they have to get the game released if they want to continue to be able to eat.

[silverstars]

Just as an aside, does anyone have any experience where other software companies have explained the criteria and philosophy of their product, market analysis and business models to an open forum community to the same extent that Battlefront does?

Particularly to a thread that says "They Blew it" ?

Not really. Nor have I yet come up with a reason why someone who walks up to someone working on a project for 3 to 4 years, looks at it, says, "Why doesn't it have this? Without that, the whole damn thing is pointless!", and wonders why hes receiving a less then amicable response. Personally in same situations my response would come in two words, one of them being "Off".

For my two sheckles tcpip WEGO is something i highly desire, and is something i think will make it easier for me to get other people i know to play the game. But i havent stopped playing CMSF for the lack of it, and i damn sure aint going to hold off from CMBN for lacking it now.

[yllamana]

This may be too much. Im on your side but i don't see a problem with UI, couldn't care less if there are some fancy animated menus and the game has all the polish it needs.

As always, YMMV. But you can buy a game for $10 off Steam and it'll have better presentation right off the bat than a CMx2 game. I mean, seriously? A static background picture that doesn't even take up the screen, making it immediately look like the game is running in some kind of postage stamp resolution? A completely inefficient UI that isn't even suited for real-time play and ignores genre conventions? Unwieldy camera controls?

I can get past that sort of thing. I think the game is really cool, so I just look past it. But that doesn't mean everyone else will, and some of these things - the UI in particular - make the game less fun to play for everyone.

These are things that contribute to whether someone will buy the game. That menu is the first thing people see when they start the game or the demo, and if that, the first impression of your game, wasn't important enough to get right, who knows what corners you cut elsewhere?

And "but they cost resources!"? Please. Not having them costs you resources by getting people to not buy your game.

The UI is another thing. Personally, I don't feel it's well-polished. I'll take the camera controls as my example. If I play Starcraft I don't have to screw around with the camera all the time. I don't have to wait while it turns for five seconds to see what I want. The controls for moving it are crisp, precise and accurate. Or I could bring up Myth, since its camera controls are very similar to Combat Mission's, yet work far better. All this stuff goes together in making people decide to buy or play your game or not.

As much as i would love autopause in the realtime mode (if not tcp/ip wego) to get back to the old competetive wargaming days of mine. I wouldn't care less if this game has it if there wasn't things like foxholes, water, mortars, AT guns... which make the game what it is today and make me want to play it in the first place.

It's always worth noting - especially if you're a game developer - that all these complaints, and really pretty much all complaints about your games in general, are only made because people care about your game and think it's cool. If they didn't care then the complaint would never be made. This is especially so about this topic, since most players are saying hey, I think this game is really cool and I want to give you my money, but it doesn't let me play the way I want and that makes me sad.

That said i can't think of any more crucial features that i would desperately need to enjoy the game.

Now it all comes down to how the game delivers its qualities to me and let me fully enjoy itself, and thats the point where things like multiplayer modes come in. Till now (CMSF) the bottleneck for fun the game can deliver to me was somewhere else, now its here, CMBN from the demo feels so good that i want to play it online and pure realtime and PBEM doesn't suit me (believe me i tried both).

I agree with this, too. CMSF was there for me, though - I wasn't super inspired by the concept at first, but the game turned out to be really neat and fun, especially after reading a bit more about modern warfare. The big killer was the limited multiplayer modes.

Out of curiosity, yllamana, what is your occupation? How old are you?

Curiosity, that's all

I'm a programmer, or a software engineer if I'm feeling fancy. I'm only in my 20s, though. I missed the days of yore where people played wargames on boards and first met them on computers.

He's not coming out and saying it quite this way, but BFC only has two coders. They're pretty amazing coders, but they still have a finite amount of time. Everything that takes coding takes time for one or both of them, and the priority is on getting the game play down first (which is what makes and breaks the game). Adding a feature like TCP/IP WeGo may not be a herculean effort, but it adds enough to delay to the release (due to design, code, test, and debugging) that they made a decision not to implement it in this iteration. But it sounds like they did design CM:BN with the necessary hooks for TCP/IP WeGo so it can be added without too much pain later, but it's an economic decision to get the game out with the game play that will make the hardcore wargamers happy, and then spend the time adding bells and whistles (e.g. TCP/IP wego) later.

It's not that they don't want to do it, but they have to pick and choose how to spend their time, and they have to get the game released if they want to continue to be able to eat.

My reaction is actually more to another thread where he said that it would take a great deal of resources and asked if people would be okay with TCP/IP WeGo with no replay. That doesn't scream "designed from day one" to me, which was the source of my question. I would've thought TCP/IP WeGo would be right up there in the minds of someone setting out to design the CMx2 engine, so it was a surprise.

[Magpie_Oz]

Not really. Nor have I yet come up with a reason why someone who walks up to someone working on a project for 3 to 4 years, looks at it, says, "Why doesn't it have this? Without that, the whole damn thing is pointless!", and wonders why hes receiving a less then amicable response. Personally in same situations my response would come in two words, one of them being "Off".

For my two sheckles tcpip WEGO is something i highly desire, and is something i think will make it easier for me to get other people i know to play the game. But i havent stopped playing CMSF for the lack of it, and i damn sure aint going to hold off from CMBN for lacking it now.

As you yankees are want to say "I'm hearin' ya ! "

[chrisl]

I'm a programmer, or a software engineer if I'm feeling fancy. I'm only in my 20s, though. I missed the days of yore where people played wargames on boards and first met them on computers.

So in 6 years we should expect your competing game with TCP/IP Wego?

My copy of Squad Leader (and the first editions of all the gamettes) is sitting on the shelf about 5 feet away from me...

[LJFHutch]

Tripwire Interactive does, the developers of Red Orchestra.

I kind of lost interest in Red Orchestra when they included a bunch of arcade features in HoS, if I'm playing with those kinds of annoying features I'd rather have an enormous production value and well populated servers like BF3.

*

The thing is, I suspect a lot of the players who would be turned off by the [admittedly] poor presentation wouldn't stick around anyway. If you can't get past the menu then you're almost certainly going to have issues with the core game. However, yeah, improved presentation would be nice, I know I was initially turned off by it, but that's because I had literally no idea what the heck CMSF was, judging by the cover and title I actually thought it was a budget arcade, RTS indie game I had no idea of the realism or depth, the game certainly didn't have that look to it (the cover art and title with the lightening bolt through it).

[Volodnikov]

I kind of lost interest in Red Orchestra when they included a bunch of arcade features in HoS, if I'm playing with those kinds of annoying features I'd rather have an enormous production value and well populated servers like BF3.

If you mean the radar and other gamey interface features, it was stated that they can be controlled in the server options, or off by default in the "hardcore" mode. I was disappointed when I saw those things, but at least they are confined to the "relaxed" realism setting.

[Smithers]

Did you ever read a thread and just wonder what the hell some people just feel they have to prove? While i am trying to learn the game and enjoy what is in store with full release,there is a group that just plain ain't happy.

Single-player just ain't good enough. Alright,I can understand that I too am looking forward to playing pbem. Then we hear,noway is pbem acceptable! It's too damn slow! Fine and dandy,they totally loose me here but they have the RT option,except that is not what they want as is now either.

So we have weird mind bending conspiracy theory about Battlefront trying to sabotage itself on this game. It simply is perplexing......

[yllamana]

So in 6 years we should expect your competing game with TCP/IP Wego?

My copy of Squad Leader (and the first editions of all the gamettes) is sitting on the shelf about 5 feet away from me...

If I ever make a game with a single player WeGo-like system and multiplayer I promise the WeGo-like system will also work in multiplayer. Realistic wargames aren't really one of my central interests, though, so it's not likely I ever would. It looks like there might be a niche for someone there though! Realistic wargame that prioritises fun multiplayer gameplay over fidelity of simulation!

I find simulation really interesting in general and I have a big soft spot for extremely cute tiny tanks, which Battlefront is the recognised industry leader in producing.

The thing is, I suspect a lot of the players who would be turned off by the [admittedly] poor presentation wouldn't stick around anyway. If you can't get past the menu then you're almost certainly going to have issues with the core game. However, yeah, improved presentation would be nice, I know I was initially turned off by it, but that's because I had literally no idea what the heck CMSF was, judging by the cover and title I actually thought it was a budget arcade, RTS indie game I had no idea of the realism or depth, the game certainly didn't have that look to it (the cover art and title with the lightening bolt through it).

I agree. That's why I take issue with parts of the core game too - mainly in its presentation. I think it's all part of the same general dealie though.

I would really like to be able to sell CMBN to my friends. The presentation and lack of solid multiplayer support sort of preclude anything more than being really enthusiastic about it to them and them maybe halfheartedly trying out the demo. That makes me sad because it's a really great game!

Anyway I think it's a big deal with the in-game presentation especially because in this case it's really easy for the fidelity of the simulation to be lost due to stuff like having to be a million miles off the ground most of the time for awareness of the whole battlefield. At that point I feel like you're missing out on most of what the game has to offer, and that's sad! That's why I'm such an advocate for better presentation/UI in general and for multiplayer WeGo/more multiplayer modes in particular (the replay alleviating many of the presentation issues by letting you zoom in on particular bits of the battlefield and watch the detail). The game looks way better in the closeup cameras anyway.

So we have weird mind bending conspiracy theory about Battlefront trying to sabotage itself on this game. It simply is perplexing......

It was actually a figure of speech. I feel they are sabotaging themselves, shooting themselves in the foot, as it were. It doesn't mean they're sitting there going "lololo what other ways can we find to ruin the game." It just means they're doing it to themselves and it's avoidable.

[Zatoichi]

Do some people want WeGo TCIP? Yes.

Do some people want pausable RT Multiplayer? Yes.

Has Battlefront said they want to add these features? Yes.

Hmmm, seems pretty straightforward to me.

[dieseltaylor]

CMx1 was always catered around single player. Heck, we didn't even have TCP/IP at all when we shipped CMBO. And since single players are STILL the majority of our customer base, and likely always will be, we're continuing to cater to our majority customers with features that even the MP customers need in order for them to enjoy the game.

What gets me is the continual assertion that solo players are the main market. I really cannot understand how BF know how the sold copies are used. It might seem that I have as much knowledge as they have as to the playing community - and that is an incomplete picture.

Now whether BF see the use of the Opponents Forum as the marker of number of MP and that is it I have no idea. Me and my friends all bought copies but of the four local to me I am the only one who posts. They play rarely but never solo. In WeBoB there are around 150 members currently but when we have our scenario of the month against the AI only perhaps 10 players will have a go.

So if BF can kindly provide a methodology which seems to back up the solo player assertion I would be grateful - until then it is an unproven assertion.

Other than that I have no complaints on how they choose to run their business. : )

Incidentally I have always believed that the long term attractiveness of the game is a function of the enthusiasts who provide a buzz that to others indicate its a good purchase. In that respect multiplayer with lots of clubs probably generates more good vibes than a equal number or more of solo players.

The BF Opponent Finder has actually been like a graveyard for months. Possibly having permanent sticky links to clubs that offer opponents in all the relevant BF games may help casual browsers realise their is a vibrant community for the games they might be fancying.

[Wengart]

Number of copies sold compared to online presence. It isn't perfect but if BFC sold lets say 30,000 copies of CM:BN and they find 20 ladders each with 100 people that would be 2,000 players. Thats an impressive number of players, but its really nothing compared to the number of people who don't go online.

[silverstars]

As you yankees are want to say "I'm hearin' ya ! "

Well, being from where I am( American South, northern Florida to be specific) that specific turn of phrase doesn't get used very often, and to be honest being called a Yankee can be a shooting offense around these parts. But since you are posting out of Australia, i'll take it as a compliment.

[chrisl]

...in this case it's really easy for the fidelity of the simulation to be lost due to stuff like having to be a million miles off the ground most of the time for awareness of the whole battlefield. At that point I feel like you're missing out on most of what the game has to offer, and that's sad! That's why I'm such an advocate for better presentation/UI in general and for multiplayer WeGo/more multiplayer modes in particular (the replay alleviating many of the presentation issues by letting you zoom in on particular bits of the battlefield and watch the detail). The game looks way better in the closeup cameras anyway.

It also plays better if you spend a good amount of your time plotting your moves in close up. If you're spending most of the game up high, you're missing out on a lot of the tactical detail. CM is in many ways the computer implementation of the incredibly painful things people used to do with miniatures, where you need to stick your face (or at least a string) down on the 3D map/sandtable to check LOS. I was never quite crazy enough for miniatures. There's a whole lot to see at elevations 1-3 that matters for game play. I like to run through the movie once from 30,000 feet, but you really have to watch and plot each little firefight at the closer in views.

It was actually a figure of speech. I feel they are sabotaging themselves, shooting themselves in the foot, as it were. It doesn't mean they're sitting there going "lololo what other ways can we find to ruin the game." It just means they're doing it to themselves and it's avoidable.

I have to disagree-- I think they made the right choice because while TCP/IP wego is a natural and obvious step from PBEM, you can get pretty much the same effect by sitting at your computer and emailing back and forth (or using fileshare, since I guess the files can get enormous now). If you don't like the lag due to waiting for the other person to plot/watch, then play two games at once. If they were going to delay things any longer and spend more resources on stuff, I'd be more interested in an expanded OOB and things like flamethrowers, mines, barbed wire, flail tanks, assault boats, etc (some of those may be in there already) than in TCP/IP wego.

[Fetchez la Vache]

I just call all Americans "Septics". Rhyming slang. :-)

[yllamana]

What gets me is the continual assertion that solo players are the main market. I really cannot understand how BF know how the sold copies are used. It might seem that I have as much knowledge as they have as to the playing community - and that is an incomplete picture.

I'm curious about that too.

It also plays better if you spend a good amount of your time plotting your moves in close up. If you're spending most of the game up high, you're missing out on a lot of the tactical detail. CM is in many ways the computer implementation of the incredibly painful things people used to do with miniatures, where you need to stick your face (or at least a string) down on the 3D map/sandtable to check LOS. I was never quite crazy enough for miniatures. There's a whole lot to see at elevations 1-3 that matters for game play. I like to run through the movie once from 30,000 feet, but you really have to watch and plot each little firefight at the closer in views.

I feel like the UI could do a lot more to help in that department, like having a terrain grid overlay. It leads into the complaints about the camera, really - getting a good view of the folds in the terrain is just awkward and you have to do a lot of it to play well.

I have to disagree-- I think they made the right choice because while TCP/IP wego is a natural and obvious step from PBEM, you can get pretty much the same effect by sitting at your computer and emailing back and forth (or using fileshare, since I guess the files can get enormous now). If you don't like the lag due to waiting for the other person to plot/watch, then play two games at once. If they were going to delay things any longer and spend more resources on stuff, I'd be more interested in an expanded OOB and things like flamethrowers, mines, barbed wire, flail tanks, assault boats, etc (some of those may be in there already) than in TCP/IP wego.

Oh, I can totally see how people would disagree - it's very subjective. As someone who wants to have fun playing the game but doesn't want to leave out her friends to do it, I feel solid multiplayer functionality is more important than breadth of other features. I'd rather have a game that I can enjoy properly with friends than one that has more features that I can't.

The part that confuses me is - why is this feature, one that people generally seem to be surprised isn't already in the game, so apparently difficult to implement that a full WeGo TCP/IP option hasn't even been mentioned as on the table*? Keep in mind it has been stated explicitly that the engine was designed from the start with WeGo TCP/IP in mind and that the game already has both real-time multiplayer and WeGo PBEM.

*the previous discussions mentioned how difficult TCP/IP WeGo without replay would be to implement, and I haven't seen any explicit mention of TCP/IP WeGo with replay from Battlefront since, even in this thread.

[Sivodsi]

What gets me is the continual assertion that solo players are the main market. I really cannot understand how BF know how the sold copies are used. It might seem that I have as much knowledge as they have as to the playing community - and that is an incomplete picture..

Well, BF know how many copies they sell, and they can count the number of people who join this forum, as well as those who play in online CM communities. You could extrapolate from this how much MP is going on.

Is it possible that there are some secret communities of players outside the above categories? Maybe there are whole CM villages of tightly knit enthusiasts who only play on local LAN and don't belong to any CM club or ever post in this forum. Occasionally I hear of some in the military who set up games with each other, and even I used to play on private LAN with a friend who didn't buy a copy himself.

But, be serious, how likely is this? Overall the fans of CM are too few and far between for this to happen - it simply doesn't have the same audience as Halo or world of warcraft (thank god). I suppose there might be some pirated copies of CM around, but I doubt it since its not really the game of choice for the youth of the day.

To back this up, all the CM clubs I've belonged to have members from all over the world, which I think says something about the nature of this game. How many other players are there in South Korea for example?

From this, I think Steve's assertion that their main audience are SP players is quite reasonable.

Of course, they might not have the same passion that those who play MP have, but at the end of the day the person who plays SP pays the same amount as the one who plays MP, and as pointed out above, there seem to be a hell of a lot more of them.

MPs such as ourselves are the vocal few, while SPs are the silent majority, I'm afraid, and small independent companies like BFT ignore them at their peril.

So, Diesel, how can you argue against the above?

[Magpie_Oz]

Well, being from where I am( American South, northern Florida to be specific) that specific turn of phrase doesn't get used very often, and to be honest being called a Yankee can be a shooting offense around these parts. But since you are posting out of Australia, i'll take it as a compliment.

"To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.

To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.

To Northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner.

To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander.

To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.

And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast. "

Sometimes i think it would be better to stick with "Seppo" but I'm not sure what you prefer

[Mattias]

"To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.

To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.

To Northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner.

To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander.

To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.

And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast. "

I guess that explains why all Americans are so fat

/M

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Well, BF know how many copies they sell, and they can count the number of people who join this forum, as well as those who play in online CM communities. You could extrapolate from this how much MP is going on.

i have never played a single game against anyone in any of the CM communities. yet 90% of my CM games have been multiplayer and all the CM players i know play it as multiplayer (CMx1 TCP/IP).

i suspect 99% of my CMBN multiplayer games will be against the same guys i battled already 25 years ago in games like Kampfgruppe on C64.

[Kauz]

WHAT THE HACK !....no Multiplayer round based

I thought the lack of "TCP/IP round-based (WEGO)" playing option was a (retarded) restriction for the DEMO.

Now i have to read that this is a "(lack)-feature" of the "new" game and has something to do with that "Shock Force"- crap (i never played).

WHERE is my real "Combat Mission 1-3" gameplay?

Please call the game "Shock Force: Battle for Normandy" or "Theater of War: Battle for Normandy" ....but not "Combat Mission" only cause there is option to play round bases via e-mail

When i heard and read first of "Combat Mission: Normandy" i thought there would be finally after years a restart of the Combat Mission series.

I thought it would be an updated Game with better grafics and some new features like playing round based with more than 2 players (like 2 vs 2 or 3vs2).

But no.....no feature like that.....and as if that were not enough....they killed the Multiplayer option itself. :eek:

-PBEM:

OH no i am not supposed to upload 2-10 MB for every round and wait the hours for loading the map

-and NO....i do not believe that implementing the Multiplayer feature would be a problem .....

quite the contrary i believe they had problems to erase this feature from the game

[dieseltaylor]

Sivodsi - Obviously knowing how many are sold is a big help. I can only go by the number of people in clubs as a starter. Obviously the main English speaking clubs are known to me and I know there are Spanish speaking and German/Polish clubs, and I believe French.

BF possibly have done some research on clubs and club membership. But as you correctly observed a sale is a sale, so possibly they never have the need to research.

As I mentioned three of my friends also have the CM*1 series but they play almost exclusively MP and never go online to play and never follow the Forums. That they will be buying CMBN will be because of the MP aspect - and also because I told them it is out. Before I joined a club I played several dozens of games with my brother and my friends who never frequented the Opponent Finder - which to my mind is perhaps BF's imperfect gage on multi-player numbers.

Would we be playing CM WW2 series at all if it were purely solo play. No. The AI is too stupid once you get to know its triggers.

Judging by the number of scenarios created for human play as opposed to AI only one might just have a suspicion that is where the motivation for keeping CM*1 alive comes from. AFAIR WeBoB has 14000 games recorded since June 2004 and that is actually a tad light as some types of game were excluded. Now how long will a game last if it does not have a fan club?

I can well believe though that CMSF was played primarily solo : )

[Wodin]

WHAT THE HACK !....no Multiplayer round based

I thought the lack of "TCP/IP round-based (WEGO)" playing option was a (retarded) restriction for the DEMO.

Now i have to read that this is a "(lack)-feature" of the "new" game and has something to do with that "Shock Force"- crap (i never played).

WHERE is my real "Combat Mission 1-3" gameplay?

Please call the game "Shock Force: Battle for Normandy" or "Theater of War: Battle for Normandy" ....but not "Combat Mission" only cause there is option to play round bases via e-mail

When i heard and read first of "Combat Mission: Normandy" i thought there would be finally after years a restart of the Combat Mission series.

I thought it would be an updated Game with better grafics and some new features like playing round based with more than 2 players (like 2 vs 2 or 3vs2).

But no.....no feature like that.....and as if that were not enough....they killed the Multiplayer option itself. :eek:

-PBEM:

OH no i am not supposed to upload 2-10 MB for every round and wait the hours for loading the map

-and NO....i do not believe that implementing the Multiplayer feature would be a problem .....

quite the contrary i believe they had problems to erase this feature from the game

Should have done some research then...times move on and all this rubbish was spouted out when CMSF was released...surely to god people will let it go...same old same old...yawn...