BF, You Blew It

[Sgt Joch]

It's not the game but the multiplayer that is fatally flawed for many.

It is not fatally flawed for many, it is fatally flawed for very few.

The majority of CM players play SP. the minority play MP.

In the MP minority, the vast majority play WEGO PBEM, a small minority play tcp/ip.

No one over the past 4 years has raised the lack of tci/ip wego has being more than a minor irritant. On the other hand, everyone agreed that the lack of "cherry picking" of units in QBs was a "national crisis" which is why CMBN will come with a brand new QB system.

Everyone here, including BFC, knows the tcp/ip wego "crisis" will fade away, like snow in july, in a few weeks.

[Kwazydog]

Just a suggestion for those wanting faster turn around on pbem play for now.

Add your player to msn and you can just drag and drop the pbem file into the chat window...they will have the turn in a couple of minutes depending on internet speeds and you can chat in the mean time.

Dan

[freeeman]

that is quick and a great answer.. what is the file size limit of msn?

and

What are the typical file sizes of a save?

and

What is your favorite color?

sorry thats from some sick Brit humor

bonus

name the movie for a prize?

[Krilly]

Oi.

Where 's this Guy been hiding

[LemoN]

name the movie for a prize?

Monty Python the meaning of life, WAIT NO! MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAI- AAAAHHHHHHHHHH!

[noxnoctum]

I actually did play all the thief games. They were in fact some of my favorite games of all time, however that was partly because they were so unique. The graphics may not have been that good but honestly, neither was the AI. Still they were a blast.

However this wasn't a disagreement over game engine versus graphics. CMBN has both. The issues was MP versus graphics and that is a completely different discussion. Again you are claiming to speak for the "vast majority", I don't see that reflected in the posts though. Instead I have seen repeated statements of the quality of the graphics and the immersion that then brings in the game. Maybe I am just seeing them because they agree with my own views, but by the same token, maybe you aren't seeing them because it doesn't jive with yours. Either way apparently BFC feels that the majority of the people who represent their base like em or they likely wouldn't have spent the time.

Then why did so many stay with CMBB/CMAK and its aged graphics over CMSF? Cause they preferred the gameplay of WW2 over the graphics of CMSF.

I really don't think most wargamers have graphics at the top of their priority list or they'd all be playing Crysis, etc.

[Migo441]

What Kwazydog said.

I can appreciate that the people who want TCP/IP WE-GO have a favorite mode of play just like everyone else. But count me among those who are confused how and why PBEM is an inadequate substitute.

Yes, it's slower. But how much slower? If the opposing players have the time blocked out for TCP/IP (as they must) don't you essentially have what you're asking for right now? With broadband and file-sharing technologies, what's the level of inconvenience with PBEM?

[Krilly]

Then why did so many stay with CMBB/CMAK and its aged graphics over CMSF? Cause they preferred the gameplay of WW2 over the graphics of CMSF.

I really don't think most wargamers have graphics at the top of their priority list or they'd all be playing Crysis, etc.

It's the synergy.

Like a tank. It's about the right combination of subject, graphics and depth. (instead of mobility, protection and firepower).

Finding good combinations is hard to reach and logical when reached. Like for example the T34.

let's hope THE CMx2 series Will prove the Same. I find the first signs promising

[A Canadian Cat]

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

I am sorry to hear that WeGo over the internet is not supported by please don't encourage them to take away PBEM. Quite literally I could not play this head to head with my friends without it. If there was no PBEM I would not bother to buy the game. My prime computer time is at a totally different time of day to my favorite human competitors. Live play over the internet would just not be possible except on special occasions.

Lets encourage BattleFront to support more options rather than less for play between humans. I'll add my desire to have WeGo be playable over the internet.

In fact I don't understand why its not available? PBEM can handle WeGo which means turns can be sent and read in a "batch" of information. RT can be played over the internet which means the game can handle inter-computer communications. Sounds like all the puzzle pieces are in place to allow WeGo over the internet. Is the issue about testing resources? I'll hazard a guess that LemoN would volunteer to test it out. And if my computer time / timezone is compatible with his I'll gladly participate too. Just say the word.

Ian

[Erik Springelkamp]

Yes, it's slower. But how much slower?

About two times slower, and a little more, as in TCP/IP WEGO you both plot and review at the same time, while in PBEM you take turns. Loading the new game file each time also takes time.

However, you can always spam the forum while you are waiting for your turn.

[freeeman]

red no blue

aaaaauuuuhhh

whats your favorite cm title

byond overlord no wait aaaaaauuughgh

[StellarRat]

Nox and others pushing the multiplayer equals huge crowds for CM:SF, one question.

Why didn't CMx1 sell better?

I mean, it had TCIP WeGO. Shouldn't people have been going crazy for it? I mean this was before the better graphics, before the real time options, before SP campaigns, so why is BFC happy with the sales of CMx2 if these things shouldn't matter?

And again, if they wanted to push multiplayer, shouldn't the addition of real time MP be more important than no TCIP WeGo?

I don't think MP games that last 2-4 hours are ever going to be a big seller. I enjoy them, and look forward to their eventual inclusion, but I doubt the mass market appeal. Nox sites IL a couple times and its continued group of 500 players. That's nice, but even if that is 500 new people buying it every year, it won't come close to covering the costs of making a game.

Citing IL2 as an example is silly anyway. It's a real time flight sim. The exact thing people are complaining about.

[silverstars]

Citing IL2 as an example is silly anyway. It's a real time flight sim. The exact thing people are complaining about.

From the way people talk about the frame rates for the new Il-2 game, it might as well be turn-based.

[sburke]

Then why did so many stay with CMBB/CMAK and its aged graphics over CMSF? Cause they preferred the gameplay of WW2 over the graphics of CMSF.

I really don't think most wargamers have graphics at the top of their priority list or they'd all be playing Crysis, etc.

I still feel this is kind of Apples to oranges. I played both CMSF and CMBB/CMAK as I prefer the WW2 period, but wanted the engine of CM2. Everytime I'd open up CM1 games it was always with the feeling that I can't wait for the day ww 2 is on CM 2. CM1 just doesn't allow you to employ tactics as realistically as CM 2. The side effect to that design change is a graphical major leap ahead. I noted this incident in an earlier post where I had a PF team take out a sherman. The turn started with one of the team members gunning down an engineer breach team. His buddy then took out the sherman and the two of them gunned down the crew as it bailed. There is a synergy here to the 1:1 design of CM2, the ability of individual team members to target different objects and the icing on the cake is the graphical quality which played out like a directed scene in a movie for me. That is worth the $60 I plopped down and then some. It isn't that I have to have that level of detail, but you gotta admit, it is just so darn cool. I don't think that it means the graphics have been prioritized, but they take advantage of what already exists in the engine.

CMSF also didn't play on MACs. granted side issue, but it did impact some players not going to Cm2.

I don't mean to harp on this nox, and I realize MP is important to you. I am not trying to say that MP is a dumb request or anything along those lines, I am just questioning the stance that the "majority" want what you want. There is nothing wrong with having a desire, but you can't just keep repeating that it is what the majority want and assume because you say it that it becomes true. I am not assuming that is not true just because of what particular items I want in the game, but because the guys who are running the business say so and I have to assume they know their customer base well enough to know what makes sense to prioritize. We can disagree with them about that, but in the end it is their business, they disagree and they don't want to risk what they feel is a functioning system that allows them to do what they want and keep getting paid for it. Hard to argue with that.

[LemoN]

Citing IL2 as an example is silly anyway. It's a real time flight sim. The exact thing people are complaining about.

Wait, CM:BN is a flight sim? :eek:

[Sledge110]

What Kwazydog said.

I can appreciate that the people who want TCP/IP WE-GO have a favorite mode of play just like everyone else. But count me among those who are confused how and why PBEM is an inadequate substitute.

Yes, it's slower. But how much slower? If the opposing players have the time blocked out for TCP/IP (as they must) don't you essentially have what you're asking for right now? With broadband and file-sharing technologies, what's the level of inconvenience with PBEM?

Oh yes for me its totally a inadequate substitute. If i play a game, i take 1-2 hours or sometimes longer and want to be in the game and enjoy the ww2 reality feeling. I dont want to copy files, press alt+tab or restart game after every turn. I want just have maximum fun in a defined timeslot. I dont want to play 2-3 games at the same time, for filling up the waiting time.

I want:

- enter a lobby

- meet player there

- join a Wego game

- play the game till end without interuption

[TBlaster]

What Kwazydog said.

I can appreciate that the people who want TCP/IP WE-GO have a favorite mode of play just like everyone else. But count me among those who are confused how and why PBEM is an inadequate substitute.

Yes, it's slower. But how much slower? If the opposing players have the time blocked out for TCP/IP (as they must) don't you essentially have what you're asking for right now? With broadband and file-sharing technologies, what's the level of inconvenience with PBEM?

Answer: Simultaneous Turns! While I'm working on doing my turn, my opponent is working on his. If we play via PBEM one of us is always waiting on the other player. This not only makes the game last a lot longer but is actually boring for the player that's waiting for the other player to finish their turn!

[TBlaster]

It is not fatally flawed for many, it is fatally flawed for very few.

The majority of CM players play SP. the minority play MP.

In the MP minority, the vast majority play WEGO PBEM, a small minority play tcp/ip.

No one over the past 4 years has raised the lack of tci/ip wego has being more than a minor irritant. On the other hand, everyone agreed that the lack of "cherry picking" of units in QBs was a "national crisis" which is why CMBN will come with a brand new QB system.

Everyone here, including BFC, knows the tcp/ip wego "crisis" will fade away, like snow in july, in a few weeks.

Do you have numbers to back this up? Does Battlefront have numbers to back up their usage statistics? How can they tell who is playing multiplayer?

[Rocky Balboa]

They'll get around to adding TCIP/WeGO eventually. When they do I'd like to see a timer feature option for each turn. Players decide up front how much time they will have to plot each turn, viewing the replay uses the same timer so if you spend too much time viewing the replay then you have less time to plot your moves. When the timer reaches 0 then battle calc begins.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Do you have numbers to back this up? Does Battlefront have numbers to back up their usage statistics? How can they tell who is playing multiplayer?

Steve told many times that he knows that this is so.

[Migo441]

OK. Yep, I agree that TCP/IP we-go would be a smoother, faster, and just generally more cohesive gaming experience than playing PBEM in a blocked out time.

With TCP/IP, one gamer still sits around waiting for the other guy, but only to the extent of the difference in the plotting durations and not for the entire length of the plots for both players. Got it.

That said (and there's no way for me to know the percentage of players this is a hot-button issue for), I can see where Battlefront will prioritize other features that can benefit everyone, e.g., movable waypoints.

Personally, I'm amped for co-op play which might appeal to yet a smaller subset of players? Maybe some day... (fingers crossed) But all-in-all I think there's more than enough to be happy with right now.

[TBlaster]

Steve told many times that he knows that this is so.

The only way to my knowledge how this could be possible is if CM would send that information to a battlefront server everytime someone initiated a multiplayer session. If this is the case, then yes, they have good data.

[MikeyD]

I've got to admit the TCP/IP zealots are a hoot to read.

[Erik Springelkamp]

The only way to my knowledge how this could be possible is if CM would send that information to a battlefront server everytime someone initiated a multiplayer session.

And you are an expert on marketing knowledge?

[Gryphonne]

I've got to admit the TCP/IP zealots are a hoot to read.

I have to admit that all the other fanboys and zealots are a hoot to read. Seriously, why do people have to piss on other people's opinions on this forum all the time? :') I wonder where this trend came from, cause it's friggin annoying and deconstructive if anything. Replies like the above add absolutely *nothing*.