BF, You Blew It

[Gryphonne]

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.

Assumption is the mother of all f*** ups. And the assumption here is no different to be honest. I have ten gaming buddies in my group that have played CM1 multiplayer with me for many years sometimes even on a daily basis without ever having posted on the forum or even having read the forums in the first place OR having played in ladders (additional note: they haven't touched single player at all). And in fact, how can we even assume that most online gaming is done in ladders in the first place? so trying to extrapolate things from that is moot.

CM simply doesn't have an option to "guess" the number of players that play online unless you've done extensive market research in the shape of surveys/interviews; and even then.. Neither is there some sort of central server conglomerate such as battle.net where they could easily compare the number of average online players vs. the total copies sold. So with all due respect, they don't know anything remotely sure.

[rune]

Sorry Gry, going to totally disagree with you here. Lets use 30,000 copies sold, and they see 1% play online. OK, lets multiply that by 10%, after all, you have 10 gaming buddies. Assume that every single person who plays has 10 gaming buddies and guess what, it STILL isn't that big a number.

Add in they have years of expertise in their field, marketing and sales, and that they still exist while so many others have gone the way of the dodo bird, i would surmise they indeed have a good understanding of their audience.

So, going to respectfully disagree with you here.

Rune

[Tuomio]

I hate that there is no solid way of playing decent multi player battles currently.

Because of this i will not buy/play CMBN before this feature is implemented....10 hours i spent yesterday with the Demo does not count! Actually the counting will begin tomorrow, because i have to try a new brilliant tactical maneuver in the Bocages today, but after that, it´s bye bye!

[Gryphonne]

Sorry Gry, going to totally disagree with you here. Lets use 30,000 copies sold, and they see 1% play online. OK, lets multiply that by 10%, after all, you have 10 gaming buddies. Assume that every single person who plays has 10 gaming buddies and guess what, it STILL isn't that big a number.

Add in they have years of expertise in their field, marketing and sales, and that they still exist while so many others have gone the way of the dodo bird, i would surmise they indeed have a good understanding of their audience.

So, going to respectfully disagree with you here.

Rune

Well, then we agree to disagree I'm just saying it's impossible to know how many online players there are. Even if you see 1% online, that doesn't tell you anything as for example, I'm not even part of that 1% having never played in a ladder of somesort. I come from a scientific background so I have a little trouble with baseless assumptions here and there

I'm not saying BFC doesn't have a friggin clue about what they're doing, and they know very well what their users need and what they want and they can seperate their needs and wants just fine; but again, i'm simply disagreeing with baseless assumptions here. I for one am very glad they are around and I have no idea what else I would play if they weren't here. Staying stuck to SC would be less than ideal in any case

Regardless, what I am trying to do here is make a case for pausable RT or TCPIP WeGo. And making it for a module rather than a next family title because CM: BOTB is so far away again and I'd like to play CMBN in a more enjoyable type of multiplayer. Nevertheless, I am very happy about Steve's reply that it is on the drawing table and I hope to see it sooner rather than later

[dieseltaylor]

Rune - Why have you chosen 1%? You say that is hypothetically because of what BF sees - which rather snookers the rest of your argument.

We know that the MP market is more than 1% of 30000 - that is 300. Easily 300+ players have been through WeBoB in the last seven years. And then add the other on-line clubs, and the people who do not use on-line clubs because they play with friends and I think it is a substantially bigger figure than you extrapolate.

In a sense it does not matter hugely as people here are buying it and however it is used is fine. However the good vibe argument I advanced - clubs with multi-players generate traffic and knowledge more than solo players.

PS. I bet you evens money Edison said he was selling to single buyers : )

[Gryphonne]

Rune - Why have you chosen 1%? You say that is hypothetically because of what BF sees - which rather snookers the rest of your argument.

We know that the MP market is more than 1% of 30000 - that is 300. Easily 300+ players have been through WeBoB in the last seven years. And then add the other on-line clubs, and the people who do not use on-line clubs because they play with friends and I think it is a substantially bigger figure than you extrapolate.

In a sense it does not matter hugely as people here are buying it and however it is used is fine. However the good vibe argument I advanced - clubs with multi-players generate traffic and knowledge more than solo players.

Not only that, this game can only be purchased over the internet, so in that respect, every player is a potential online gamer An assumption, but still

[rune]

OK, for those who thing adding multiplayer in is trivial or multiplayer per side is trival, going to type this once. Unless you have coded, you have no concept on how hard it would be. Since I do have experience in this, let's see what I can come up with fast.

1. The reason for big files, is the amount of information that must be shared. Did the Sherman see the Panther or didn't it? Multiply that times every unit seeing every other unit. Why would you send all that information? because the game has many random elements. You cannot process part on computer a and part on computer b, because you may get different results. The reason for the convulted way in cmx1 is because during testing, I found EXACTLY that. PC A killed the Panther, while PC B missed. So therefore, the data MUST be transferred.

2. Multi-multi-player would require a server on BFC's side. Something has to record and sync the game play between multiple people. this means the price of a hefty server and band width. Since no one here would pay to play multi-player [they should have built it in the cost of the game, i hear it now] they have to try to get to breakeven point. However, is there is someone out there you has plenty of spare cash, please forward it to BFC.

3. Coding time vs results. 2 coders, each one has X amount of hours per day. New Engine, with multiple changes even from CMSF [QB selection, temperate zones, bridges, water, how the ai handles each, etc etc. So, do we add the Panzer IV f6 with nav thingy or start on tcp/ip with pause? tcp/ip with pause takes appox 14 days to code, [guessing] 2 more weeks of testing and fixing. so one month of code time where NOTHING else is added. Is it worth the time? Would it delay the release of the game or module? What income do I live on while coding something that has no return? Or can it wait till a slow time to add in?

4. It was in CMX1 not CMX2, you dropped it. No, it is a new engine, it wasn't put in. See above.

5. "release the game now" "can't you give us it now and we can play while you finish" "what, you didn't include xyz, the game is flawed" Bottom line, watch what you wish for. You can't please everyone, but it is their livelyhood at risk, not yours. Since they outlived most wargame companies, again, maybe they know what they are doing? Oh that is right, BFC sold out to the military and won't be around. [Rolls eyes]

So, if you think it is nothing to add code in, and you haven't coded, then maybe think before you type. If it was easy, it would have been in already.

Sorry for the rant.

Rune

[Kauz]

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...

This is a forum for Combat Mission ...

That means for me:

Combat Mission is a round-based strategy simulation based on WW2 scenario

So i never recognized games like strike or shock force or whatever it is called...

these games changed the gameplay and changed the scenario (no WW2) so they are not in tradition with my CM1-3 games.

It is compareable to what happened to the old "Battle Isle"-series from Blue byte.

Battle Isle 1-3 had in generally same scenario/look and same concept/gameplay.

But "Battle Isle 4: Incubation" only stole the name of the series.

And this tendency i see with "CM:BN"....:

it looks like they take concepts of the CM:SF (which isn´t a part of Combat Mission series for me - so i never played it-) and combine it with the WW2 scenario/the look of "Theater of War".

Well i can live with more detailled grafics (every single soldier simulated and more details ).

But for example i can NOT live with the lack of the turn-based TCP/IP multiplayer feature.

The game is mainly based on this element.

So if you mean with "...times move on..." that entropy is growing and all things going to be worse by and by....then you are correct.

In this case i really have to live with it and the "BF"-firm-strategy means "My way or the highway!"

Buuuut.....i always have a little hope that i have influence and can make lobby work .....

I know that a do not have the slightest chance ... but i have to try it once seriously.

Mostly forums are only a little promotion-tour to jolly some fans along. They hope this is a force multiplier for getting more customers.

Well....that is OK....like this the world works...

But if the company finally doesn´t care about the opinions/critics/hopes/wishes they will loose forum members and then customers by and by.

So i am going to give my suggestions and representations and if there is no serious reaction/answer/discussion or argueing especially by company members this whole thing here is waste of time.

It's as if you were talking to a brick wall...

[rune]

Add up all the players on all the ladders, how many are there? A few hundread? I even factored in each and everyone of the 200-300 had 10 buddies that players but never posted. We all know that is certainly not the case. the bottom line I am making is that BFC does understand their numbers, numbers no one outside BFC has seen.

Ok just saw you had about 300 users. Even tho some of them are duplicate users I am sure, lets us still use every single player had 10 people that didn't play but played multi-player. Lets add 200 for all other web sites. 500 users each having 10 players, 5000 multi-player users. Still a very small percentage of users.

But for making it a part of a module, I am all for. I have been lobbying for wego and multi-multi player since cmsf was in alpha code. I too would love to see it earier rather then later, but I realize the majority of players play single player. At a wargame store I go to, I know of at least 25 people who played CMBO, of which 3 tried multi-player. The number is lower then normal, I am sure, but the fact remains, the game is played by an older crowd [lots of miniature players at my local store] who have little interest in single player. I love multi-player, but not a ladder fan, i play for enjoyment. None of us are wrong, we all play the way we want to. just think that some are overly optimistic on the numbers of multi-players out there.

All that being said, I continue to lobby internally for something for the tcp/ip crowd. be it pauseable tcp/ip, wego , SOMETHING. here is to hoping I succeed.

Rune

[Other Means]

I think 14 days (x2) is way on the low side. To get reasonable file sizes they'd need a way to separate the map & the LOS map from the damage to the map , the units properties (there's a 1000 item array each) and the time scenario properties (how many - no idea) FOR EACH TICK of the engine (10th sec? 100th sec? Only send changes or send every time?), batch and transmit them all in a reasonable fashion over TCP/IP, load them, update the map and LOS map with the points above THEN expose it to input, store that input, de-interlace it all again, send it back to the calculating PC (for each tick), adding in the input to the first PC's player and then calculate the turn before doing it all again.

Or sumfink.

Either way, it's no easy task. I think (on zero information) that if they could have had it in for a months coding and testing they would have.

I also think (guess) there's no way it's going to be introduced in a patch. It's major functionality, not something you can "fix".

Me, I'm not bothered by it. In many hundreds of CM games I must have played 4/5 by WEGO TCP/IP. I'd get much more use out of an integrated PBEM handler.

[Zatoichi]

Talking to a brick wall? I can't imagine what that's like.

[Catacol Highlander]

Jeez - what an exhausting thread to keep pace with. So much feeling...

I understand the market, so do BF - so they have it right. I just wish better MP was in because it would make it a better game. That is utterly removed from any talk of online numbers, and increased (or not) markets: just becuase it would make it a better game.

If I understand the reply posts from BF I think they know that. So give it time - better MP facility will appear in the end during, what Rune describes, as "slow" time.

I look forward to it. Until then I'll play it as it is, and perfect my speedy mouse clicking skills. That actually fills me with dread, but so be it.

[rune]

kauz,

then make a specific case, and support it with facts. Telling someone it would be easy to code when you don't have a clue what is involved doesn't make your point.

Combat Mission is nOT a round based game. It was wego at one point, and is now wego AND real time. You were not here when CMBO was released, as the game was NOT based on wego tcp/ip. the game was released with NO multi-player, but was promised and delivered multi-player after the game was released. So, you are wrong there.

Saying a game is not combat mission because you didn't play it, is not an arguement, it is a closed mind. Is it a tactical wargame, yes. Can you play it single player or multi-player, yes, altho multplayer could use a feature it doesn't have for you. Were they all amde by BFC? Yes. So, it IS Combat Mission.

So, cut down on the rhetoric, make a case for your position. Battlefront has always listened to a well reasoned arguement. I know, I personally got German Rifle Grenades added to CMX1, along with many other features by making a case, list multiple sources [in the beta thread, I don't bother listing out 10 sources here, almost all times I don't even post about the change request here] Discuss, don't argue for arguement sake. You will find Steve and Charles and the crew have an open mind when you present them with facts.

Rune

[TrailApe]

Funny, I've got CM:BO, CM:BB, CM:AK and CM:SF with the Brits module and I've never felt the need to play multiplayer online.

I think (looking at the CM:BN demo) that everything is just peachy.

But what do I know.......

[silverstars]

"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

Seppo? Never heard of that one....sounds unflattering.

As for my preference Yank (in its Brit truncated form) is fine. Makes me think of British war movies, "We must confound Jerry at every turn" and all that. And Americans never use the term Yank, its always Yankee, or Damn Yankee.

And yes, this is all horribly off-topic, but considuring the original topic was a dead horse for 4 years now I dont mind terribly.

[Blackcat]

The Battlefront people are wargamers themselves, they enjoy playing their own product, but at the end of the day they have to make a living and that means sales.

I can't play real time and enjoy it, so I don't and won't; ditto for PBEM, though I am committed to a few games (prepare yourself Other Means). I loved the old WEGO TCP/IP and would love to see it back. However, its absence will not stop me, and many like me, from buying the game. What it will mean is that, as with CMSF, I will grow bored with thrashing the AI and so stop playing before I otherwise would. That is my problem not Battlefront's - they will have had my money and my grateful thanks for many, many happy hours of entertainment.

[Other Means]

I have assumed the brace position.

[C'Rogers]

Being people are throwing out their personal experiences, here's mine.

I've pitched Combat Mission to seven people, all who played more 'serious' games (simulations), if not wargames.

Only two of those seven actually kept playing the game.

Main complaint from the others?

Too slow.

So for all the arguments that BFC needs to appeal to the multiplayer crowd; they did. Just not the way you want, but a way that is in their opinion best for sales and also best for the game.

[LJFHutch]

So i never recognized games like strike or shock force or whatever it is called...

these games changed the gameplay and changed the scenario (no WW2) so they are not in tradition with my CM1-3 games.

That's not really fair though is it. There are others who would say that CM:AK and CM:BB aren't CM because CM is "about Normandy". Or CM is about any number of obscure things that aren't really core to CM.

As far as I see it CM is a realistic depiction of combined arms warfare. Considering that CMSF, CMA and now CMBN are more realistic than ever (in that order I would imagine given greater amount of info on WW2 weapons, units and equipment?) they are more "Combat Mission" than the original Combat Mission

[Blackcat]

I have assumed the brace position.

Hopefully we will playing by the end of the week, Mr. Means. Mind you, given your vast experience with the game compared to mine, I fully expect to get stuffed the first time out.

P.S. You will no doubt be saddened to learn that I am still playing via mouse clicks rather than hot keys. The learning curve is just too steep and takes up too much gaming time.

[heckler_rider]

"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. "

You forgot the most important definition of Yankee

To Red Sox fans its a player from that evil empire in the Bronx

[George MC]

You forgot the most important definition of Yankee

To Red Sox fans its a player from that evil empire in the Bronx

Bit of a long shot - You a Santa Cruz mountain bike rider then? I've got me a Santa Cruz Heckler hence the query. Bit of topic...

[Hukka]

Seppo? Never heard of that one....sounds unflattering.

Seppo is a common first name in Finland. A bit oldish maybe.

[chrisl]

And this tendency i see with "CM:BN"....:

it looks like they take concepts of the CM:SF (which isn´t a part of Combat Mission series for me - so i never played it-) and combine it with the WW2 scenario/the look of "Theater of War".

...

But for example i can NOT live with the lack of the turn-based TCP/IP multiplayer feature.

The game is mainly based on this element.

That's kind of a funny statement. I started with CMBO when I was going to a conference where I'd have a lot of dead time and hadn't played games for a while but searched for "Computer Squad Leader", knowing that such a thing had been in the works. I found the CMBO demo (it was before the CMBO release), and was hooked there. The play options there were Wego vs. AI, hotseat, or PBEM opponent. There was no TCP/IP play of any sort (except email...). I actually looked forward to it when they announced it, but because most of my opponents were either in other time zones or had various other time commitments, I never played a single TCP/IP game, though I played a ton of PBEM.

As far as CM:SF not being CM, that's silly. It plays just like CM, except you have to be much more careful of your armor because everyone on the battlefield is carrying something that is 1 shot/1 kill against a large fraction of the armor. I didn't play it because it was PC only and I couldn't justify a separate PC just for that, and I have somewhat less interest in the modern era stuff. But I dl'd the demo and ran it under parallels just to see if it would work (it does) and get some practice with the UI before CMBN came out. It played just like I expected a CM game to, even after not playing for quite a while. The biggest problem is that I still have the hotkeys for various orders from CMx1 stuck in my fingers (I didn't know they were still there) and find myself reaching for the wrong key fairly often. I'll probably end up getting the full CMSF because it was a lot of fun, even just against the AI. CMBN is very much the CM I expect, with a lot of improvements.

What *I'd* like is multi-player per side via PBEM--player 1 manages US A Company sends file to Player 2, who manages US B Company, who sends it to player 3 who is running the German A company, who sends it to player 4 who is running the German B company. There's probably a way to do clever file structure to let both players on one side plot at the same time. I think it would make big battles much more entertaining, but I'm not going to worry that much about it-- it can always be faked by sending files around and agreeing not to mess with each others' units.

[Sledge110]

OK, i preordered 2 Kopies that game (one for me and one for my brother), even it have not the WEGO-TCPIP Function. I know two other guys who are waiting, but they dont want to buy, becasue there is no Wego-TCPIP.

But i only bought it, because i am a fanboy and want to give you to the financial abbility that u can implement this feature latestly in the next AddOn. And i dont mean a workarround pause option, i mean WEGO with replay in TCPIP!

TCPIP-Wego was the greatest thing i ever meet in wargame-history (and i am a wargame-freak). PBEM is for a lot of reasons big crap. Of course it works, but its only big crap in comparrison to TCPIP-WEGO.

I cant watch my man fighting online, because i need to get enough clicks per minute to win (like in SC2).....That totally destroy the great WW2 feeling.

If u say, that only a minority of player wants TCPIP-Wego than this a only result of the lack this feature. In 2011 noone will play per E-Email...........They want to play online the greates wargame which was ever made.

Other wargame developer dont sleep and have massive financiall ressources and menpower. Take only a look at Men of War. Of course its not so realsitic like CM, and in fact its just arcade, but it shows very, very, very well, that u can be really fast out of business, if a company decide to make a game who is similar to CMBN and support a NORMAL features like MP-Lobby and the best MP-Mod (Wego). I dont think u have a patent on this solution

Please excuse my bad english knowledge and i hope u understadn what i want to say: CMBN is without TCPIP-Wego not really CM and absolutly needed, or that was my last Dollar for you, because your existing adcantage to other companies is not so far as u think, and u lost a lot of that advantage in the last years.