BF, You Blew It

[Hukka]

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.

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.

I agree totally absolutely 100 % completely! I doubt BF really knows how many play CM online (or would play if tcp/ip wego would be present). I know couple of people who will buy it, when the tcp/ip is in. Not before.

If there was a proper tcp/ip wego (with replay) and a working lobby system, there would be LOTS of online players. Maybe some day... Anyway, I keep supporting BF and buy all the modules, because that's the only way we could get a proper wego again someday.

I don't like how the need for this feature is played down all the time here. It was THE feature that made CMBO very very special.

[heckler_rider]

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...

Not a long shot at all.....I have a anodized black heckler (Marzochhi 666 and Fox DH). It's 7 years old and seen its share of wear and tear!

Ill bring it back to the topic.....if the Germas had real bikes for their bycicle troops then they could have launched over the hedgerows'

[Johnny Canuck]

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.

. . . .

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

CM's multi-player system has been and still is very kludgy (and that's an understatement). It's no wonder that their MP figures are low. It's unfortunate that BF doesn't appear to have the funds, expertise or drive to implement a user friendly multi-player matchup and game play system. If they did, I'm sure we'd be seeing much higher multi-player figures.

In any wargame I've ever played, the most immersive/fun was when I was playing with/against real people.

Oh, and I hope you succeed as well. To NOT have pauseable RT or WEGO in their multi-player is very unfortunate indeed. You could even optionally add a timer to the pause capability (sort of like chess).

[sfhand]

A couple of observations based solely on personal experience.

When discussing gameplay or features ones personal experience is just as valid as anothers - not talking about historical/realism aspects of the game here, e.g., unit availability or capabilities.

PBEM games don't have to last weeks. (If the opponent is willing to make themselves available for a TCP/IP wego game they have the time to make themselves available for dedicated PBEMing - which while taking marginally longer than TCP/IP wego due to file wrangling can still be done in a relatively reasonable amount of time if one is adept at file wrangling)

Would I welcome TCP/IP wego? Yes. Is the lack of TCP/IP wego a deal breaker for me? No!

[aka_tom_w]

This may be off topic, maybe it deserves its own thread, but I would like to make a case here to help folks understand the development and evolution that the "AI" as undergone since CMx1 (CM:BO CM:BB and CM:AK). Back then it was realized that most of the player so of this game play single player against the AI Most of the time. (This is a FACT and its not open for debate.)

WITH that in mind the discussion focused around how to make the AI better. NOW, when you get the new game AND you play against the scenarios that come with the game, you may begin to realize "Things Have Changed".

This should not be news, but the thing to remember is all attack and defend plans in ALL scenarios and campaigns that will ship with that game have been designed by a sneaky clever human opponent who has mastered the Scenario Editor enough to program and script the AI response of the opposing faction. (For QB Maps there are attack and defend plans for the map, but the AI does not know what actual units each player will purchase, so for QB's the AI response has to be more "generalized")

Why am I ranting? Because those they say the AI is not good enough, don't have the full game in front of them and long for a head to head match WITH TCP WeGo against a human opponent. OK I would like that too...... BUT I can and DO play TCP real time and find it fun, and not too taxing. For many of the most vocal here, it seems TCP RealTime is simply not an option. Well look what else you can do with the game, you can come on here and complain about it (that's what seems to happen most of the time) OR you can Mod the graphics, OR you can Build some new maps, OR you can design a new scenario AND program/script/design the Attack and Defend plans for both sides to see how other folks like your tactics.

AND you can even PLAY the game, head to head, on one computer, (hot seat) OR Via PBEM or Wego Vs the AI (which as you have just learned may be considerably more cleaver and cunning than you may have suspected because in human designed scenarios (NOT QB's) a clever devious designer may out smart you (or out flank you) with his clever plan.

AND so after all of that (not to mention the GAME LOOKS spectacular and plays FANTASTIC) what we have here is mostly a lot of "noise" about one aspect of the game that the vocal minority want to complain about, "I can't play TCP Wego"

Build a bridge and get over it!

[Sledge110]

A couple of observations based solely on personal experience.

When discussing gameplay or features ones personal experience is just as valid as anothers - not talking about historical/realism aspects of the game here, e.g., unit availability or capabilities.

PBEM games don't have to last weeks. (If the opponent is willing to make themselves available for a TCP/IP wego game they have the time to make themselves available for dedicated PBEMing - which while taking marginally longer than TCP/IP wego due to file wrangling can still be done in a relatively reasonable amount of time if one is adept at file wrangling)

Would I welcome TCP/IP wego? Yes. Is the lack of TCP/IP wego a deal breaker for me? No!

Thast not the point.

Its not only, that PBEM needs more time and user interaction. With TCP-Wego its a totally different feeling of the game. Playing Mail is for shure not the same as playing via TCPIP.

Example:

A Porsche and a Käfer can drive both, but its not the same feeling for the driver and not the same level of Quality. What BF is doing now, is forcing the Porsche driver to use his old Käfer

again.

Käfer: http://www.fensterzumhof.eu/bilder/v/Various/berlin-beetle-vw-kaefer-auto.JPG.html

Porsche: http://www.luxury-first.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/porsche-911-gt3.jpg

To come to an final statement: Email Wego is not and never an option or alternative for TCPIP-Wego.

[sfhand]

...Back then it was realized that most of the player so of this game play single player against the AI Most of the time. (This is a FACT and its not open for debate.)...

You and I are on the same page in this discussion, however, that MAY have been true back then (I haven't seen the results of any studies to support the contention) but here we are 10+ years later and things have definitely changed technology wise to the point where I would suspect a great many more people are playing MP today than in the past.

[sfhand]

Thast not the point.

Its not only, that PBEM needs more time and user interaction. With TCP-Wego its a totally different feeling of the game. Playing Mail is for shure not the same as playing via TCPIP.

Example:

A Porsche and a Käfer can drive both, but its not the same feeling for the driver and not the same level of Quality. What BF is doing now, is forcing the Porsche driver to use his old Käfer

again.

Käfer: http://www.fensterzumhof.eu/bilder/v/Various/berlin-beetle-vw-kaefer-auto.JPG.html

Porsche: http://www.luxury-first.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/porsche-911-gt3.jpg

To come to an final statement: Email Wego is not and never an option or alternative for TCPIP-Wego.

That is your opinion and valid as such, but as one who has played both it is not my opinion, which is equally valid in the same ways yours is.

[noxnoctum]

Just my 2c:

The reason BFC doesn't see more people playing multiplayer (and I am almost positive that whatever their "estimate" is it's way lower than reality), is because they don't invest more in multiplayer features.

I'm going to bring up IL-2 again. The game is a decade old but still has on average ~500 people online at any one time in a player made lobby (Oleg did not include a multiplayer lobby in IL-2). If it had not been for that, the multiplayer community would have died, period, and their sales would have suffered over the years. I'm in a squadron of about 15 people and out of those only 4 or 5 bought the game at release. Everyone else it's everything from 2003 to 2009 (me) to the latest guy who bought it in 2010.

The AI in IL-2, while not as immediately obviously sucktastic as CM's (I don't blame BFC for that, challenging AI for a wargame is impossible to code IMO, unless you just give them a ton of extra units, but that's not better AI), does indeed offer very little challenge once you get decent at the game. Even the people who DO play against the AI almost ALWAYS do so through "coop" (i.e. a band of humans vs a larger group of AI). Why? Because even if you do want to shoot down bots it's more fun to do so with other humans screaming at you over teamspeak to split-s before you get railed by 20mm!

I really completely agree that the sentiment that "multiplayer players are the minority" (which I'm sure is the case for CMSF---like others I didn't play multiplayer---except for maybe 4 games over like 4 years?---not because I don't like playing against humans, but because the MP options were so poor) acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's like saying "The majority of Mass Effect players only play singleplayer". Well no ****! That's because there IS only singleplayer!

Look at games like Men of War. Definitely not anywhere as realistic as CM, but it is certainly much harder to get into than CoH for example. Honestly I gave up on it because of its UI. (I disagree with whoever was trashing CM's UI btw... once you know all the hotkeys it really doesn't matter... though I do agree the camera controls are clunky, but I can get past that, especially in a TBS environment)

The game is hard to get into because it's much less forgiving than other games and because of its, frankly atrocious UI. BUT, it has a multiplayer lobby and good multiplayer options, and so, it's quite popular even though it's not well polished at all!

I think CMSF in its current state is far more polished, and I'm sure loads of Men of War players for example would be more than happy to switch over to CMBN if it had better MP options.

Like I said, self-fulfilling prophecy.

I understand that they need to prioritize gameplay first... but I saw in there Steve mentioning graphics. No one really cares about graphics except for high school kids who buy every call of duty game released. The vast majority of people playing PC games realize that gameplay > graphics every time. So I would put forth that graphics in CMBN and shiny explosions etc. should be at the very BOTTOM of the list. Crysis is a shining example of this. Although it was lauded by critics and many players for like... a week... MANY people now view the game as basically just a tech tool to push your computer to its limits and see how it fares. The enjoyment you get from good graphics wears off very quickly. How else can you explain the LOADS of people playing Starcraft 1 up until Starcraft 2's release last year? It was a decade old game, and many new, shinier RTS games had come along, but it still had a massive amount of people online at any given moment. Had it not been that SC1 offered good MP options, it would have died probably within 3 years, and Blizzard would have lost all the sales they made later. (and yes they made plenty of sales of SC1 years after its release)

You ask any PC gamer what their top 10 games of all time are and 90% of the time at least half of those games will have been released before 2001. Certainly the case for me, and thing is, I STILL play those "ancient" games, even though they have horrible graphics by today's standards.

I REALLY firmly believe that if CMBOB comes out with a full multiplayer lobby + wego tcp-ip and RT with pause it will attract a LOT of new customers. For one, it won't get thrashed by mainstream review sites for lacking something that most take for granted in 21st century gaming. (and don't give me that "Gamespot etc. are just stupid mainstream sites that don't care about wargaming"---they gave CMBB a 9.1 and editor's choice---to put that in perspective that's a higher score than they gave Starcraft 1 and the original X-com, and is close to the 9.4 that Half Life 1 got---all 3 of those games are considered some of the best PC games to ever be released, so they do "get it")

So if BFC has to put something on the backburner to get proper multiplayer options into the CMx2 line of games I suggest they make it fancy animations and graphical enhancements. Those things are great, but right now, we can't even enjoy them in RT . (even SP RT where you can pause every 5 seconds---it's more fun to actually watch a guy shooting his garand and reloading it then just seeing him freeze framed firing )

[Sledge110]

AND so after all of that (not to mention the GAME LOOKS spectacular and plays FANTASTIC) what we have here is mostly a lot of "noise" about one aspect of the game that the vocal minority want to complain about, "I can't play TCP Wego"

Build a bridge and get over it!

I dont think so.

1. "not to mention the GAME LOOKS spectacular"

That is for shure not true. A lot of games looking much more fantastic. Just take a look at men of war and you know, what is looking fantastic. (We just talk about the look. not the gameplay and for me personally the grafic is not important)

2. "plays FANTASTIC"

Sry, but the game dont plays fantastic without TCPIP-Wego. Ok, it will be nice but never fantastic.

3. "I can't play TCP Wego"

That is an massive problem. AI sucks, like AI always sucked and will sucking the next 50 years too. AI is nothing against a human player.

4. "Build a bridge and get over it"

I did it with preordering the game. The bridge is called TCPIP-Wego till the next Addon.

[drbassie]

Wow, I got about half way through this thread (that's a heck of a lot of posts for a thread started 28 hours ago).

I'll just say, being a a newbie to the CMx2 gameplay, that I didn't know there wasn't a WEGO TCP/IP feature anymore. I pretty much took it for granted that the game wouldn't LOSE a feature. Oh well. I'd like to see it in there for sure. After playing the demo I can tell you I probably won't be doing the RT. I like my good old WEGO. It's a real shame I can't play my mates using it without PBEM.

[Zatoichi]

This is getting pretty tiresome in my opinion.

BFC have said they want to put various MP features into the game in the future. OK, so they're not in CMBN, but the intention is there.

Complaining that these features aren't in CMBN is pretty redundant by now surely?

I'm not saying everyone is complaining, and there have been plenty of interesting and informative posts/ideas, but seriously, Steve has posted his thoughts on this, his reasoning on priorities and something of the roadmap for future inclusion. You may not agree with any of this, but it won't change anything. This horse has been flogged enough now, surely?

[noxnoctum]

This may be off topic, maybe it deserves its own thread, but I would like to make a case here to help folks understand the development and evolution that the "AI" as undergone since CMx1 (CM:BO CM:BB and CM:AK). Back then it was realized that most of the player so of this game play single player against the AI Most of the time. (This is a FACT and its not open for debate.)

WITH that in mind the discussion focused around how to make the AI better. NOW, when you get the new game AND you play against the scenarios that come with the game, you may begin to realize "Things Have Changed".

This should not be news, but the thing to remember is all attack and defend plans in ALL scenarios and campaigns that will ship with that game have been designed by a sneaky clever human opponent who has mastered the Scenario Editor enough to program and script the AI response of the opposing faction. (For QB Maps there are attack and defend plans for the map, but the AI does not know what actual units each player will purchase, so for QB's the AI response has to be more "generalized")

Why am I ranting? Because those they say the AI is not good enough, don't have the full game in front of them and long for a head to head match WITH TCP WeGo against a human opponent. OK I would like that too...... BUT I can and DO play TCP real time and find it fun, and not too taxing. For many of the most vocal here, it seems TCP RealTime is simply not an option. Well look what else you can do with the game, you can come on here and complain about it (that's what seems to happen most of the time) OR you can Mod the graphics, OR you can Build some new maps, OR you can design a new scenario AND program/script/design the Attack and Defend plans for both sides to see how other folks like your tactics.

AND you can even PLAY the game, head to head, on one computer, (hot seat) OR Via PBEM or Wego Vs the AI (which as you have just learned may be considerably more cleaver and cunning than you may have suspected because in human designed scenarios (NOT QB's) a clever devious designer may out smart you (or out flank you) with his clever plan.

AND so after all of that (not to mention the GAME LOOKS spectacular and plays FANTASTIC) what we have here is mostly a lot of "noise" about one aspect of the game that the vocal minority want to complain about, "I can't play TCP Wego"

Build a bridge and get over it!

The fact you're even mentioning how it looks is comical to me.

Who gives a crap about graphics? Seriously? Many of the best selling games, mods, etc. of all time had substandard graphics. Tripwire Interactive, which has a forum completely swarmed by realism fanatics who are bothered that there is even going to be the OPTION to have more "gamey" features in RO2 (though they're ENTIRELY optional), listen to their community often, and shaped their mod that turned into a retail game mostly based on feedback they were getting. Just one quick little example? There was a general outcry for a built-in game mode to turn off death messages and the scoreboard entirely... and as a result, that's what we'll be getting in RO2 (server side option, obviously there will be more "arcade-like" servers as well). Also, they've implemented a suppression system based heavily on the fact that people were ranting in gigantic threads for a suppression system. Actually, they modeled their suppression system for RO2 based largely on the success that a mod for RO1 had with its suppression system. (many people wanted it so as to minimize unrealistic behavior---since you can't ever have "fear of death" in a computer game, the closet thing you can do is have a system where a player who has swarms of bullets around him HAS to duck and cover because he can't fight effectively while he's getting hundreds of MG42 rounds thrown around him)

Now RO has sold over half a million copies and CONTINUES to sell copies (TWI has reported this as a fact) despite the fact that its graphics are TERRIBLE compared to modern shooters. But people stick with it because of the GAMEPLAY.

Another completely different example is Killing Floor, a mod-turned retail game that Tripwire produced. It sold like hotcakes (it was actually outselling the latest Call of Duty game and Left 4 Dead---its main competitor---at one point)... despite the fact that its graphics looked like they were from 2005.

Most PC gamers, even those who play zombie games lol, realize that gameplay > graphics any time. (personally I prefer Left4Dead, but it certainly isn't because of the better graphics)

And sorry, but no AI in the world can compare to the feeling of playing a human. I don't think there's a person on earth who would disagree. The only reason you would play AI is if

a) You have no time for multiplayer and have to play the game in small 10-15 minute sized bites.

You're really bad at the game and so prefer to stick to playing an easy opponent

c) You don't have a decent internet connection (how many people does that apply to nowadays? Seriously?)

The AI does decent on the defence... but even then, it has ZERO flexibility. It's much more obvious when they're on the offensive though. Even though the initial "plan" the scenario designer made might have been brilliant, we all know that plans go into the garbage bin the moment contact is initiated. Very few of my CMBB QBs played out according to my initial "plan". It's a human being's ability to adapt that makes playing against one much more fun.

[noxnoctum]

This is getting pretty tiresome in my opinion.

BFC have said they want to put various MP features into the game in the future. OK, so they're not in CMBN, but the intention is there.

Complaining that these features aren't in CMBN is pretty redundant by now surely?

I'm not saying everyone is complaining, and there have been plenty of interesting and informative posts/ideas, but seriously, Steve has posted his thoughts on this, his reasoning on priorities and something of the roadmap for future inclusion. You may not agree with any of this, but it won't change anything. This horse has been flogged enough now, surely?

I think most people are upset that BFC fails to see that better multiplayer options = more people playing online = more sales. Especially in this age where everyone has DSL and cable internet connections. I mean damn, my family even had a high speed DSL connection in Morocco when I was there a few years ago.

[Johnny Canuck]

I think most people are upset that BFC fails to see that better multiplayer options = more people playing online = more sales.

I think that sums it up perfectly.

[Zatoichi]

I think most people are upset that BFC fails to see that better multiplayer options = more people playing online = more sales.

Oh, I think BFC realise this may well be the case, but from what Steve has said, they wanted to get the engine in a good enough state to warrant the increased MP functionality at a later date.

Or to put it in your terms, bad game with great MP = less people playing = less sales = no more BFC = no more games.

[TBlaster]

Put up an official poll - ask how important TCP/IP WEGO is for your user base compared to things like moveable waypoints, flamethrowers, etc. I think there is more interest in multiplayer than you may think.

[noxnoctum]

Ya but that's kinda ignoring all the potential customers that WOULD buy it and be on these forums rabidly recounting their war stories if the game already had good multiplayer options .

Honestly, I'm curious if we could get some kind of "multiplayer fund" going. I know I'd donate at least $100 if it meant tcp-ip wego in the next module. I bet that's the case for many others too. The way I see it, once that's in, I probably won't be buying any other games for a LONG time. Between Combat Mission, IL-2, Red Orchestra 2, and Starcraft 2 (it's a blast, just in an entirely different way than Combat Mission), I really won't have the need to buy anything else, except for sequels/add-ons/modules to the four games mentioned above .

Besides, wasn't there some Swiss guy with disposable income who seemed very eager to donate money to BFC on here a few days ago? I wish I could remember the thread he posted in.

[Sledge110]

I think that sums it up perfectly.

Same to me.

I know a lot of wargaming-cracks in skype, steam or Teamspeak, who are playing the TW-series, Men of War and other great tactical stuff. But they are not so crazy like me, that they would search hours for an opponent in forums, websites or chat. They want to enter a lobby and join a game.

I know that some of them would love CM, but actually it is not possible for me to convince them or just to try it, because i am on myself not convinced in the MP-Functions of this game.

Its the same procedure as TOW was launching. I bought 2 Copies and will never buy TOW again, because the MP was useless crap (maybe they fix it now, but that dont interest me longer after this horribly release). I can not say, that BF fails so legendary in multiplayer like in TOW, but they are on a good way.

[MajorJerkov]

How long has it been known that the game will only have RT/Wego options? Like CMSF?

If since the announcement of the game, then all this last minute clamoring for change is for naught. They said it might come down the road, thats really all you can hope for.

[Sledge110]

How long has it been known that the game will only have RT/Wego options? Like CMSF?

If since the announcement of the game, then all this last minute clamoring for change is for naught. They said it might come down the road, thats really all you can hope for.

No. I can hope for another wargame company too

[sburke]

I think most people are upset that BFC fails to see that better multiplayer options = more people playing online = more sales. Especially in this age where everyone has DSL and cable internet connections. I mean damn, my family even had a high speed DSL connection in Morocco when I was there a few years ago.

Just my 2c:

The reason BFC doesn't see more people playing multiplayer (and I am almost positive that whatever their "estimate" is it's way lower than reality), is because they don't invest more in multiplayer features.

I understand that they need to prioritize gameplay first... but I saw in there Steve mentioning graphics. No one really cares about graphics except for high school kids who buy every call of duty game released. The vast majority of people playing PC games realize that gameplay > graphics every time. So I would put forth that graphics in CMBN and shiny explosions etc. should be at the very BOTTOM of the list.

Can you define most people as honestly I can't say the response on the forums has shown most responders being upset about this. I do see a very very vocal few. Nothing wrong with that, but to assume the mantle of a "silent majority" needs a little more data.

I for one don't see this as the hot button item and I do like the graphics and no I don't purchase call of duty (and I am a looong way from high school unfortunately). Those graphics are really important to those of us who like the immersion factor in WEGO (and have been constantly cited on the forums). RTS style inherently leaves you unable to appreciate the detail in the same way, but that doesn't mean others of us do not like them. Personally I think your dismissal of the graphic quality basically says to the vast majority of posters that what we like doesn't matter. In the same vein an insistence that somehow the MP portion is what the majority wants is simply an assertion. BFC is not going to change their business model off that. This has worked for them for over a decade and sales indications from what they have seen will allow them to continue in this direction.

Don't try and do a Babu on BFC and have them open an Indian restaurant.

[MajorJerkov]

No. I can hope for another wargame company too

Good luck with that.

[noxnoctum]

@sburke

Go play Thief 2: The Metal Age (no it's not a "shooter", not even close), and come back and tell me graphics have anything to do with immersion.

And I highly doubt the vast majority on here are as concerned with graphics as you seem to be.

[Zatoichi]

@sburke

Go play Thief 2: The Metal Age (no it's not a "shooter", not even close), and come back and tell me graphics have anything to do with immersion.

Yeah, and while you're at it, tell us how good the multiplayer options are too.