British Tommy
Member
LMAO!!!!!!! :laugh:[hirr]leto;1372710 said:well i never! You just made me drop my parasol and no gentlemen about to pick it up... With me in my corset.
Cheers!
Leto
I do enjoy your posts Leto
LMAO!!!!!!! :laugh:[hirr]leto;1372710 said:well i never! You just made me drop my parasol and no gentlemen about to pick it up... With me in my corset.
Cheers!
Leto
Yeah, I'm thinking maybe you shouldn't bend over to pick it up either......:OHNO:[hirr]Leto;1372710 said:Well I NEVER! You just made me drop my parasol and no gentlemen about to pick it up... with me in my corset.
Cheers!
Leto
Well, the travel lube anyways. I doubt the steelbox can fit a whole mego-sized barrel of MSL.He wants that steel box to keep his tubes of spicy lube in.
Naw, those are bogus. The ones from Libyan VIP's are the real deals.I keep getting emails from VIPs in Nigeria offering to send me large checks if I will just cash them and send them $500 from the proceeds. Sounds like a good deal and maybe they are helping the orphans.
I'm reluctant to answer because fellows like Zonso keep popping back in here to poison the atmosphere of the forums by insisting that discussing such questions in a detached manner is somehow "proof" that doing so makes anyone who participates a raving, ranting enemy of The Company.What do folks think will be the result if CMN comes out in the next few months and it's boofed? Not as bad as CMSF, say, but still with some major odd behaviors or bugs? Will that matter or do y'all think people will just sign on resignedly for another long slog?
-dale
Award yourself two gold stars for that questionWhat do folks think will be the result if CMN comes out in the next few months and it's boofed? Not as bad as CMSF, say, but still with some major odd behaviors or bugs? Will that matter or do y'all think people will just sign on resignedly for another long slog?
-dale
I don't think that will happen, except perhaps for AI and individual soldier behavior, and those will be boofed to some extent, even if they work as intended, by the limits of modern hardware and where the state of the art AI is at.What do folks think will be the result if CMN comes out in the next few months and it's boofed? Not as bad as CMSF, say, but still with some major odd behaviors or bugs? Will that matter or do y'all think people will just sign on resignedly for another long slog?
-dale
The things I am concerned about wouldn't be fixed in patches, so if it's not it then I go play something else. I'm not very emotional about it. For sure I won't go try to go to their forum and discuss it, I had my taste for this year already.What do folks think will be the result if CMN comes out in the next few months and it's boofed? Not as bad as CMSF, say, but still with some major odd behaviors or bugs? Will that matter or do y'all think people will just sign on resignedly for another long slog?
I think hes right and If you read what BF say and have been saying all along CM games are played mostly single player. Heck I play mostly single player and I used to be a hugely prolific PBEM player (had 50 games on the go at the same time once).[hirr]Leto;1378007 said:The key aspect of the discussion is and always shall be, the business model. If your business model is targeted at putting together an exceptionally pretty, click mad, explosive, well scripted single player play alone module system: you need the game to respond to the desires of a much larger group of wargamers than a smaller group of competitive head to head grognards. This means that replayability, QB's and "fun factor" involved with competitive aspects of the game will not be a driving focus of the design. I suspect this is exactly the type of design that was well documented in CMSF: do the campaign single player, and then on to the next module and then the next... sell sell sell.
For those of us who actually play the game for a fun factor that is sustained from competitive wargaming (which I believe is a very small but vocal minority) and deadened by over simulation, one may end up a bit disappointed.
I think you have to realize that WE are not the ones that BFC are waiting for... to order the game that is... its the reticent majority of constricted time computer game players that seek instant gratification and couldn't be arsed to wait for an opponents pbem.
If you can come to terms with the facts above, I think you will be ok.
This does not mean there will be competitive wargaming and ladders popping up... there just may be... but the feel and outcome of this new paradigm of competitive wargaming may not be of a similar flavor as the old CMx1 series.
At the end of the day, these guys want to make money. Second place to this is game design philosophy (the game that we wanted to build). But lest not be fooled, there will never be a concession by anyone from BFC that the above two ranked factors are anything but switched around to reflect the exact opposite of what I have stated.
Cheers!
Leto
Yes, but like most of the things they say, I don't believe them. And if they really believed it they wouldn't have designed a game engine that is inherently crippled for solo play.I think hes right and If you read what BF say and have been saying all along CM games are played mostly single player.
I completely agree. I just think that that business model is somewhat flawed. I think that the vocal minority really helps with spreading the word. And I don't think that the single player, episodic content, crowd is big enough to support a 5-7 employee dev team. And with a more technical 1-1 engine they are going to need to spend more time with engine issues rather than concentrating on, big bang for the buck, game play mechanics and issues.[hirr]Leto;1378007 said:The key aspect of the discussion is and always shall be, the business model.
...
I actually believe that the opposite may be true. From criticism I have seen here and other sites, it seems they have tried to give too many features and maybe spread themselves thin in the process. Whether or not I agree with that assessment, that is one I have seen trotted out plenty. It is one of Drososh's bigger concepts. That they have tried to appeal to too many different types of players in too many ways to the point of not having a true focus. Too use your quote as a base...they are trying to hit too many different 20%'s.I completely agree. I just think that that business model is somewhat flawed. I think that the vocal minority really helps with spreading the word. And I don't think that the single player, episodic content, crowd is big enough to support a 5-7 employee dev team. And with a more technical 1-1 engine they are going to need to spend more time with engine issues rather than concentrating on, big bang for the buck, game play mechanics and issues.
And I believe that they are being seduced by the "80/20" rule:
A lot of software developers are seduced by the old "80/20" rule. It seems to make a lot of sense: 80% of the people use 20% of the features. So you convince yourself that you only need to implement 20% of the features, and you can still sell 80% as many copies.
Unfortunately, it's never the same 20%. Everybody uses a different set of features.
Quoted from: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000020.html
Righteous!!!!p.s Currently not completely sober, for whatever that is worth d.s
I agree and don't believe what they say either. Like you, I am convinced they know that they truly believe that the game is mostly played multiplayer and that is why they intentionally crippled solo play (although I'm stil trying to figure out in what way they crippled solo play...I trust you that they did..even though I don't know how...)Yes, but like most of the things they say, I don't believe them. And if they really believed it they wouldn't have designed a game engine that is inherently crippled for solo play.
-dale
I believe dalem is referring to the scripted AI rather than the "dynamic" AI.I actually believe that the opposite may be true. From criticism I have seen here and other sites, it seems they have tried to give too many features and maybe spread themselves thin in the process. Whether or not I agree with that assessment, that is one I have seen trotted out plenty. It is one of Drososh's bigger concepts. That they have tried to appeal to too many different types of players in too many ways to the point of not having a true focus. Too use your quote as a base...they are trying to hit too many different 20%'s.
I agree and don't believe what they say either. Like you, I am convinced they know that they truly believe that the game is mostly played multiplayer and that is why they intentionally crippled solo play (although I'm stil trying to figure out in what way they crippled solo play...I trust you that they did..even though I don't know how...)
Oh. Well, I've had far more engaging solo play with that crippled system then I had with the CMx1 model in each of the 3 CMx2 games I've played. Especially when playing solo as a defender. If he has had less satisfying experiences then I have then I suppose it is a matter of "to each their own".I believe dalem is referring to the scripted AI rather than the "dynamic" AI.
I feel most comfortable with my NDA speaking to this....My criticism/observation of the lack of focus is I think beginning to soften. I meant it with regards to CM:SF, particularly on release - the introduction of RT seemed a little crass. Understandable from a business point of view - a large untapped market, after all - but crass given the focus of company-level tactics.
We see now that there are more features coming in, but I think they are starting to get more of a - I don't know if the word is focus, but of course, I have no insight into the internal discussions. You would be better placed to know, though not of course to comment due to NDA. The focus I sense is simply a return to the roots, and we saw that even with CM:SF. We called it "back-pedalling" on this forum in our less generous language. Another interpretation would be a deliberate focus to return the game to a more "CMX1" flavour and feel. Perhaps you can comment on that aspect for us.