Last CMSF patch?

[thewood]

Did anyone see anything about this. I was wondering if I missed it. Is there going to be one to fix some of the issues that came up in NATO? They aren't earth shattering, should probably be fixed.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Did anyone see anything about this. I was wondering if I missed it. Is there going to be one to fix some of the issues that came up in NATO? They aren't earth shattering, should probably be fixed.

I expect BFC may take a day or two of time off now that CMBN is released.

The last I heard any discussion, some CMBN engine changes may be made retroactive, some may not. If so, then obviously another patch would be necessary to do so. If not, I don't know if there are plans for other patches or not. To be honest, I think it is probably low down on the priority list, but could change soon now that CMBN is out. Will be interesting to watch - might be a summer project?

One other thing to note - the decreased forum traffic in the CMSM side. If there is little demand for another patch - what incentive is there to provide it? I would expect BFC to follow the money.

 

[thewood]

Steve had said right after NATO came out there would be another patch (1.33 or 1.4). But have heard nothing and that going on what, six months. The incentive is there are still a few things that BFC admits are broken. Are they just going to abandon any people that showed some loyalty to the series and it was not easy to show that loyalty.

btw, I think it was already stated that there would be no new features brought back in to CMSF.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Steve had said right after NATO came out there would be another patch (1.33 or 1.4). But have heard nothing and that going on what, six months. The incentive is there are still a few things that BFC admits are broken.

To be technical, that's not an incentive to fix them. That's just an admission of a problem. They did the same with CMBB and CMAK. They acknowedged stuff was broken and said flat out "but we don't have time to fix it - we're moving on."

Are they just going to abandon any people that showed some loyalty to the series and it was not easy to show that loyalty.

They did three times before. And they were up front about it.

btw, I think it was already stated that there would be no new features brought back in to CMSF.

They stated they would try. They didn't promise.

 

[thewood]

No Steve stated there would be one when pressed on the Pf issue.

 

[Geordie]

I think it's one more patch. Someone over there mentioned it lately. There was also mention of a CMA patch.

 

[Rule_303]

I suspect that their top priority will be to get patch 1.01 out for CMBN, making whatever tweaks might stand between the game and a good review. Like dumbing down the armor accuracy and speed a tad, although I've lost track of what the current betting line is on that.

 

[Batou]

Too bad they didn't fix QB's in CMSF and add user selected or just better force selection, one would think that after three expansion packs they could have done some work on QB's. It still suffers from some odd force selection and eliminate force size with map size, no way to play a small force on a medium or large map in QB's.

 

[thewood]

Only from reading the forums, it appears the wierd force selection is still there. It's just that now, you have the option to choose your forces.

 

[Geordie]

Force selection is still there but you now have the ability to add single units. So you still have to select a core unit that you whittle down much like in the editor. But, you don't get a whole random unit dumped on you. If this system were to be applied to cmsf it would be a game changer for many.

 

[thewood]

Here is post copied from kjag about patching features from CMBN to CMSF from a couple years ago...

"Battlefront.com
Administrator
Member # 42

posted December 18, 2007 01:37 PM

We intend to release a v1.06 patch within a few weeks. We need to fix a couple more of the pressing issues (low walls was the most important) and get it tested. Remember, rushing the last part of testing is why the low wall problem is there in the first place We also have to allow for an extra week just because of the Holidays. The problem with volunteers is that they can't be forced to work, the little buggers!

We HOPE that changes to CM:WW2 can be made available to CM:SF customers. At least some of the major structural changes. It may not be possible, though. I suppose if we have to put a lot of effort into getting the CM:SF data to work with the improvements we might roll them into a Module or an "upgrade". Time will tell.

My point here is that if we can pass new stuff backwards with little effort (no mistake about it, there will be effort involved) we will do so at no charge. If we have to devote significant resources to reconciling the old with the new, then we're going to have to ask for something in return. Not to worry though, it will be very reasonable if it comes to that. For one, I'm hoping we can just give the stuff away free

Steve"


Link:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/u...429;p=8#000196 (sorry, just noticed this is a link to the old board...I'll try to track down the new link.)

It seems Steve was a little more positive about it then than now.

 

[Batou]

Only from reading the forums, it appears the wierd force selection is still there. It's just that now, you have the option to choose your forces.

You can't pick your forces in Shock Force QB's other than (US Army, Brits, etc.), it's been that way from day one and has never been fixed! Also force size is tired directly to map size, you can't select a small force on a medium or large map in QB's.

 

[thewood]

Sorry, I was talking about CMBN. I am an industry expert in the shortcomings of the CMSF QB system.

btw, you can pick type of force in CMSF, but its generic and not very good.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Rule_303 posted this excellent set of points here:

1. Well, they are a business and there's no real financial incentive for them to do that -- even a pay-for-download hotfix or whatever would likely only yield a couple thousand sales max from the remaining faithful -- what's that, $60k less costs to implement? Maybe less than that. I'd buy it personally, but I'm in a minority that like CMSF once I got used to the kludges.

2. Steve did make a valid point that extensive bootstrapping would likely alter or destroy much of the existing content (scenarios, campaigns, AI plans, etc). So you'd bifurcate the dwindling CMSF community into "bootstrapped' and "base version" owners playing what were in essence two separate games, with the former dependent totally on each other for content. Messy.

3. All signs point to the fact that the effort involved in backporting would be significant. They're clearly nowhere nearer their original dream of a robust "one size fits all" game engine that can plug and play Greek hoplites and Space Lobsters with minimal effort. I really don't mean that in a catty way -- they've done pretty well for a low budget one-programmer shop.

4. Less rationally, Steve also still seems to believe that at some point they'll finally turn the corner with the core engine and crank out a game every 18 months and a module every 6 months or whatever... So by that logic they also don't want a bootstrapped CMSF cannibalizing sales of their next modern warfare module. Not agreeing with that concept on any level, just saying it still seems to be a factor in their thinking.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Having said that, the effects on past "game balance" are debatable - I don't have a dog in the fight one way or another. I'm not so sure that CM:SF was ever designed to be played head to head to begin with. And I'm not positive that backporting CM:BN changes would result in wildly different game experiences in CM:SF even for one player play. You do see a minority - how big a minority, I don't know - maybe it is a majority - complain about rules changes in other game systems suddenly altering scenarios and campaigns already published. You certainly see it in ASL - "OMG the Bridge TEM is now +2, we have to redesign all the scenarios from scratch!!!". I've never been convinced that the situation is as dire as all that.

 

[Batou]

Rule_303 posted this excellent set of points here:

Sounds like they want to go the John Tiller route, just wash, rinse and repeat!.

 

[Rule_303]

I dunno if it's that dire.

There's a saying attributed (I think) to Donald Knuth that talks about 4 basic steps in programming in which step 4 is (loose paraphrase): go back and throw out steps 1 - 3 now that you finally know what it is you wanted in the first place.

 

[Scott Tortorice]

If BF was to retrofit CMSF with some of the enhancements seen in BN, especially the QB part, I would definitely consider re-visiting that title. I suspect others would too. The question is: would BF reap enough profit to justify the man hours? They might when you consider that you can get the Paradox version of the game dirt cheap and then "max it out" with the official patch and the subsequent modules. In other words, there is an initially cheap buy-in, which should prove tempting to the fence-sitters, followed by an almost guaranteed purchase of some, if not all, of the modules, which would benefit BF. In effect, CMSF would get a second bite at the apple.

As for this competing with BF's next modern title, I don't see that happening as it all but guaranteed that the next modern title will be in a very different theatre with different forces. Heck, retrofitting SF might even help them develop the next title in an experimental way.

 

[thewood]

Back in the day, several people tried to convince BFC that there was a memory leak in CMSF, to no avail and little derision from the beta crew. In fact I think it was discussed here a couple times.

Now I note some pointed it out in CMBN, and guess what, it appears BFC is right on it.

So why didn't they ever fix this in CMSF?

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97379