QB pricing oddities?

[JonS]

That would be teh MBT

[Battlefront.com]

That's our job. As Childress sarcastically but correctly said, the market will decide.

Who is the market? Two or three guys beating on the same drum until something is changed? Because we can change it to please you guys, no problem. But I promise you, within a few hours of releasing a patch there would be a difference of opinion about the values set.

It's far too early to be making judgements now,

Agree, but it doesn't stop people form judging

Although the CMx1 games were not perfect with regard to unit costs between different unit types (turretless TDs vs. tanks, for example), I felt it was nearly spot-on regarding units within the same category

And I bet many don't agree.

JonS said it best... it's easy to change a value, it's absolutely impossible to change it to something that people won't continue to argue over (or as a result of the change, argue over something else).

Steve

[herr_oberst]

Can someone give me an idea what the difference between strict and loose?

Thx

jonpfl

Strict is the wife... loose are the women you ogle...

Seriously, points are points... spend them as you will. In a QB, decide on a force composition that is acceptable, and if you're the Amis, bet on encountering a big cat. You'll come up with something effective. They can't hit what they can't see. Even in CMBO, there were ways to deal with them as the Allies. Once they're ID'd, you use the terrain. Of course, if you're playing a meeting engagement on a virtual pool table, you're screwed, so agree to (insist upon?) a map preview before selecting.

Masochists may chose a blind computer-pick, which also has its place, it all depends on what you are up for.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Who is the market? Two or three guys beating on the same drum until something is changed?

If it really is only 2 or 3 guys, no worries. If there's an issue there will be more. That's how it is for anything else in the game. If it was 2 or 3 guys questioning machine gun performance nobody would care.

Because we can change it to please you guys, no problem.

I like this part

And I bet many don't agree.

I would take that bet

JonS said it best... it's easy to change a value, it's absolutely impossible to change it to something that people won't continue to argue over (or as a result of the change, argue over something else).

You can never please everyone, but if that were the goal you would never have made Combat Mission in the first place so we can dispense with that worry.

I was involved in most of those QB points discussions back in the day, and the truth is that the amount of controversy there was has been vastly exaggerated. Many of the debates were about issues surrounding the QB point system such as the CMx1 rarity and changes in the amount of points in the armor category the German player was allocated. With regard to the performance/price of units there were really only a couple of issues that ever gained much traction:

1. German turretless TDs (including the CMBB "Super Stugs" although that was more a debate on gunnery modeling that QB point values).

2. SMG squads and automatic weapons in general.

I don't recall if any significant change was ever made to the first, but I remember that at some point SMG squads were bumped up in price as a result of those discussions. The forums were not invaded by angry ladder players demanding it be changed back. As I recall, it was well-received. So no, I don't accept the view that discussing QB point values are futile because it's all just a matter of opinion and any number is as good as any other. Reasonable people can make judgements on such things. It's happened before

[slysniper]

I can see why Steve has no interest in adjusting points for QB, just look at the attitude of the comments from those that think it is wrong. How they think they have the answers.

There is no answer for a perfect point system, it cannot be fixed in the present concept, no matter what.

I do like the concept of a stock market method with the point value changing by purchase habits. Great concept, but now a game would need to be programmed for just that type of use, not going to happen with this game.

The real issue is the QB players take pride in thinking they are better than those they beat in a game because of their tactics and that they have played as fair of an battle as possible and that they are proving their skill.This concept is false.There is no meeting engagement that is balenced when two guys purchase units from different armies on any given point system.

One player, has more skill in unit selection, or terrain maps will be one sided at times, one armies equipment will be superior to the other and so on and so on and so on. Face it, one player has a advantage wheather by skill in purchasing, by which side he plays or by shear luck.

If you want to be the great QB player of all time because of your tactical skills on the battlefield, then you better play blue on blue, might as well have the exact same units and make the map symetrical while your at it.

(I do not see great demands for this type of fairness)

So get off your high horse that panthers are now too cheap and that american tanks cost too much and do not match up well or whatever other unit pricing has been mentioned that some have issues with.

And for any manhood issues out there, if you are a great tactician, you will know it, for one reason, you will only get joy in winning battles when you know that the advantage is to your opponant and you have won the battle anyway, that is when one can claim some skill as to their own tactical game play abilities.

[kklownboy]

Well to even think of adjusting the QB without the full TOE of all the country's/modules would be wrong. The DATA set right now is too small. The "Random" Rarity would be a good addition.

As for a "Market" approach, well only for "ladder freaks" and Tournament noobs.

[Childress]

There is no answer for a perfect point system, it cannot be fixed in the present concept, no matter what.

No, it can't, You're right. And, in the Cm1 games, Battlefront tried. They really tried.

I wish they had settled on the formation concept of picking one's own forces. The player would pick a platoon of 'medium tanks' or 'heavy artillery'. He gets what's available according to probability modified by chance.

A mid level commander would never have the authority, control or leisure time to determine down to the production date of a particular Sherman the precise composition of the force applied to any mission the higher ups assign to him.

[LemoN]

One possible solution would be if BFC would allow a select group of people to adjust point values.

That way there could be a mod that is downloadable while basically leaving the hassle of debating and adjusting the point values to the community.

This way any whining will not be directed at BFC but at the guys who created and maintain the mod.

[Sgt Joch]

No, it can't, You're right. And, in the Cm1 games, Battlefront tried. They really tried.

I wish they had settled on the formation concept of picking one's own forces. The player would pick a platoon of 'medium tanks' or 'heavy artillery'. He gets what's available according to probability modified by chance.

A mid level commander would never have the authority, control or leisure time to determine down to the production date of a particular Sherman the precise composition of the force applied to any mission the higher ups assign to him.

That was the whole idea behind the CMSF QB concept, get away from the endless haggling over point values and move to a system where players pick realistic formations.

Sure it had problems, but Steve had said they could have perfected that type of approach. However, everyone wanted CMx1 type "cherry picking".

So here we are back to square one, haggling over point values.

[Childress]

However, everyone wanted CMx1 type "cherry picking".

Not 'everyone'.

As it stands the player exerts more control over the composition of his forces than a decorated commander like Joachim Peiper. But, as you say, Vox Populi....

My only beef is the mind numbing repetition that- inevitably- ensues. The Rarity restrictions do help. Somewhat.

[Battlefront.com]

If it really is only 2 or 3 guys, no worries. If there's an issue there will be more.

Which is the heart of the problem... there will ALWAYS be more. Tweak it one way, make some happy and make some others unhappy and some others are still unhappy. Tweak it another way and different people, same effect.

You can never please everyone, but if that were the goal you would never have made Combat Mission in the first place so we can dispense with that worry.

Right... which is why I keep saying we're not going to get into chasing our tails about pricing.

I was involved in most of those QB points discussions back in the day, and the truth is that the amount of controversy there was has been vastly exaggerated.

The fact that people are STILL brining up pricing issues for a 10 year old game says it isn't exaggerated. The point isn't about how rude or angry people are... it's about the fact that there is no one right answer, therefore no one right solution. This is what QB price complainers absolutely don't understand.

There were many, many issues about pricing that were argued about over and over and over and over and over and over again. Listing turretless penalties and SMGs is just the tip of the iceberg.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I can see why Steve has no interest in adjusting points for QB, just look at the attitude of the comments from those that think it is wrong. How they think they have the answers.

Correct. It's like when a politician stands up before a crowd and says:

"Who here hates taxes?!? Who here thinks we should get rid of the deficit spending?!?"

The answer back is almost always "yes" on both counts. But try and find a solution to either and see where that gets you In this case someone is standing up and saying "who thinks StuGs are priced wrong?!?" then throwing it back at us to fix it as if it's a simple issue of changing a variable. It's akin to "we can get off of our oil dependency if we just drill more". Fundamentally flawed concepts don't produce very good actual results

I do like the concept of a stock market method with the point value changing by purchase habits. Great concept, but now a game would need to be programmed for just that type of use, not going to happen with this game.

It's a flawed concept anyway. People tend to buy things based on a variety of reasons, price being one of them. "Gamey" guys will go for the best perceived value for the price, others will buy what they feel is more fun. The two might be completely different and that will affect any data gathering effort. It's like looking at pricing of beer based on buying habits. I don't have a problem paying $10 for a 6 pack, but then again I don't buy beer to get drunk as quickly and cheaply as possible.

No, it can't, You're right. And, in the Cm1 games, Battlefront tried. They really tried.

That we did!

I wish they had settled on the formation concept of picking one's own forces. The player would pick a platoon of 'medium tanks' or 'heavy artillery'. He gets what's available according to probability modified by chance.

Tried that with CM:SF, but it was rejected so totally that we decided it wasn't worth rounding off the rough edges of the system.

One possible solution would be if BFC would allow a select group of people to adjust point values.

That way there could be a mod that is downloadable while basically leaving the hassle of debating and adjusting the point values to the community.

This way any whining will not be directed at BFC but at the guys who created and maintain the mod.

It's been proposed many times before and we don't like the idea because it would likely make things worse, not better.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

I can see why Steve has no interest in adjusting points for QB, just look at the attitude of the comments from those that think it is wrong. How they think they have the answers.

The real issue is the QB players take pride in thinking they are better than those they beat in a game because of their tactics and that they have played as fair of an battle as possible and that they are proving their skill.

So get off your high horse that panthers are now too cheap and that american tanks cost too much and do not match up well or whatever other unit pricing has been mentioned that some have issues with.

And for any manhood issues out there...

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion. Apparently you have a few of them yourself. It's how you present them that matters. I don't see any QB players condescending towards other groups of player. I do see a lot of incoming fire coming the other direction. Looks to me like you're the one who needs to get off his high horse.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I wish they had settled on the formation concept of picking one's own forces. The player would pick a platoon of 'medium tanks' or 'heavy artillery'. He gets what's available according to probability modified by chance.

You can do this in the game right now. Buy a Panzer Battalion with force quality set to "Typical" and sometime you get Panthers, sometimes you get Pz IV. Do the same with a US medium tank battalion and you'll get a hodgepodge of different vehicles. Of course you can edit them further down to the last detail if you wish, but you don't have to.

It would be nice to have some optional restrictions on how much editing you can do, buy clearly having a QB points system does not preclude picking by formation.

[JonS]

VAB,

I think you'll have more success by coming up with a workable, generally agreed set of house rules to govern QB purchases than you will trying to convince BFC to implement the impractical and unworkable.

Despite the fiddling with points values in CMx1, it still needed the "Short 75" and whatever other external rules that were used. Perhaps you could start by using those as a base, and modifying them for CMBN?

Regards

Jon

[slysniper]

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion. Apparently you have a few of them yourself. It's how you present them that matters. I don't see any QB players condescending towards other groups of player. I do see a lot of incoming fire coming the other direction. Looks to me like you're the one who needs to get off his high horse.

I must admit I do have a attitude toward QB type players, you are correct there. And yes it shows in my comments.

The funny thing is I enjoy playing QB type battles once in awhile also. I just handle the fact that there is always a few best combination of things to purchase for the type and date of battle you are playing. no matter how well the points are balenced, there will be advantages found and exploited by the players, given time, there will be detailed writings as to why you should buy certain combinations of units.

It will not change, and questions as to proper point assignment will never leave. Thus to see it already being discussed is sad,the game is still young as to players using it, we really do not know how well it is going to work in its present state until given time for players to use it in many combinations.

I just think Steve has the correct frame of mind in that adjusting the points does not adcheive anything.

Now if there is a major flaw in points being assigned that was in there accidently from how he determined to value units, yes that should be corrected. but other than that, it was his design, his abilities and his expearence as to what he felt would work well. He should have confidence in them choices and stay true to the point value system that was designed.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Which is the heart of the problem... there will ALWAYS be more. Tweak it one way, make some happy and make some others unhappy and some others are still unhappy. Tweak it another way and different people, same effect.

Right... which is why I keep saying we're not going to get into chasing our tails about pricing.

The fact that people are STILL brining up pricing issues for a 10 year old game says it isn't exaggerated. The point isn't about how rude or angry people are... it's about the fact that there is no one right answer, therefore no one right solution. This is what QB price complainers absolutely don't understand.

There were many, many issues about pricing that were argued about over and over and over and over and over and over again. Listing turretless penalties and SMGs is just the tip of the iceberg.

There is no debate about the merits of CMx1 QB points. Gryphonne and I referenced it in our initial comments, but we are in agreement. There has been no significant controversy over the point values on individual units in years.

I don't agree that any point value is as good as any other unless everyone in the world can agree on it. That's not an argument in favor of the current point values, that's an argument for have no point values. But they are in the game, and my feeling is if it's worth having in the game it's worth doing well. I'm not particularly worked-up over any of the point values in the game at this point, but I am mildly alarmed at the sentiment expressed here that what they are doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter they shouldn't be in the game.

Anyway, that's all I have to say on it. Until my next post

[Vanir Ausf B]

VAB,

I think you'll have more success by coming up with a workable, generally agreed set of house rules to govern QB purchases than you will trying to convince BFC to implement the impractical and unworkable.

Certainly true in the short term, at least. I have some ideas...

Despite the fiddling with points values in CMx1, it still needed the "Short 75" and whatever other external rules that were used. Perhaps you could start by using those as a base, and modifying them for CMBN?

... along those lines, although the Short 75 and related rules had nothing to do with the CMx1 QB points system. I'm wondering what the various gaming club and ladder sites are going to come up with.

[Childress]

You can do this in the game right now. Buy a Panzer Battalion with force quality set to "Typical" and sometime you get Panthers, sometimes you get Pz IV.

This works only for solo play, no? There's no way of verifying that your opp has chosen a 'typical' force and not three platoons of Stugs and a rocket battery.

In the past I was a partisan of letting the comp chose both sides but ran into resistance from some players. (You know who you are!) Currently, QB auto-select spews out hordes of anti-tank guns. So this may be an option for CBMN 1.01.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yeah, that's why I said it would be nice to be able to put restrictions on how much editing can be done. This would probably require modification to the UI. I gather from comments made on the forum it is not going to happen before the Bulge game.

I would also like to see a return of some kind of Combined Arms force-type setting. Then again, changes made to that setting in the CMx1 games were the source of more complaints than the individual unit prices, so I'm not holding my breath.

The biggest obstacle I'm running into coming up with workable multiplayer guidelines is having to rely on the honor system. There's just no way around it unless someone smarter than me comes up with something.

[Broken]

It's a flawed concept anyway. People tend to buy things based on a variety of reasons, price being one of them. "Gamey" guys will go for the best perceived value for the price, others will buy what they feel is more fun. The two might be completely different and that will affect any data gathering effort.

Steve

Even so, in CMBO there were a few items with prices so out of whack you guys did adjust them. Pupchens for instance.

[drtechno]

Everyone agrees that there is such a thing as a perfect combination of temperature and humidity. No one agrees what that perfect combination is. Therefore: angst over the aircon setting.

Changing the values probably is trivial. Figuring out what to change them to is not.

EXACTLY. And more to the point (and I agree with Steve here), there is NO correct value because someone will always find a problem with whatever is chosen. I love it and I don't "game" the system by trying to calculate Power/Point ratios for everything and choosing only "good" items. I like to play with poor choices sometimes because it might be reflective of what was available at that time and what happened to be involved in a particular battle.

I find it boring that every MP game I play you can count on the opponent to ALWAYS select Panthers if possible.

Thats why I loved the randomness rarity factors. That was fun.. Who cares if you can't select the optimal unit for a particular fight. Life is not always optimal. Thats what makes the game fun.

[Chad Harrison]

I would also like to see a return of some kind of Combined Arms force-type setting.

I just posted this in another thread, but with the speed that threads are moving post-release I figured I would post this in here.

BFC, any plans to bring back somekind of 'Combined Arms' point allocation restrictions?

In other words, 'Mixed' is great for being able to throw whatever into your QB force, but theres no limit. As the AI is currently showing with the bug, you can have a force of all AT guns. Or, all tanks. Or all MG's.

So any plans for somekind of limit for certain groups? Under the new QB system, maybe there could be a percentage limit on 'Mech Infantry' and 'Armor' groups?

Thanks in advance.

Chad

Edit: Forgot to mention, point values seem good to me. No huge issues in my opinion.

[MOSwas71331]

Unless you're designing a scenario, why not let CMBN pick the forces? Real commanders of small units can request higher HQs for particular support when those HQs give them missions to complete, but, if they get anything at all, it will be what those HQs provide.

Consequently, I consider it more realistic to take what I get and make the best of it. Rather than spending a lot of time tailoring my force mix, I'd rather focus on making the best of what I've got.

I well remember a QB German defense in which I received a group of six 20mm Flak guns. Those guns were able to cover all the approaches into my position and disable many of the attacking Shermans. Even though my defense was overwhelmed in the end, I enjoyed the hell out of that QB.

[jep]

EXACTLY. And more to the point (and I agree with Steve here), there is NO correct value because someone will always find a problem with whatever is chosen. I love it and I don't "game" the system by trying to calculate Power/Point ratios for everything and choosing only "good" items. I like to play with poor choices sometimes because it might be reflective of what was available at that time and what happened to be involved in a particular battle.

I find it boring that every MP game I play you can count on the opponent to ALWAYS select Panthers if possible.

Thats why I loved the randomness rarity factors. That was fun.. Who cares if you can't select the optimal unit for a particular fight. Life is not always optimal. Thats what makes the game fun.

My dear sir, you are incorrect. We have only one working point based purchase system and that is called the currency. Essentially, more people buy something more expensive it should be.

Panthers and tigers are huge game killer. Every sensible player purchases them, which in turn forces the allied player to chooce the British with Fireflies. The basic problem is that the German army stuff is high quality enough to force the allied player to adapt. Triple the price of the Tigers and Panthers and we will have more balanced battless.

I personally don't understand the ruckus related to US rockets. Nobody really bother with rockets because the rarity points are needed to counter german heavy panzers (M10 tank destroyes). That is if you even play with US forces. German heavy rocket artillery has considerable bigger impact on the game. Not only are they effective the german player can always not buy big cats since he knows that the allied player can buy nothing cheaper german armors (or even panzerschrecks) coud not kill.