Moon Says that CM x 2 Normandy Coming in 2009

[Redwolf]

My remit was clearly defined and limited. As the test and success conditions for the DX bug were both very clear, finding and QA'ing that one problem held little risk. I felt and still feel that it was a very wise choice to focus on it, especially considering the possible scope of the fix itself at the time. I do understand your disappointment - I'm a gamer too, after all, and like to see bugs fixed - but the QA overhead was intentionally very controlled. Any gameplay fixes would necessarily have required exponentially more testing for regressions, even though the added development time would likely have been linear.

What BFC said previously is that touching anything, no matter how small, will trigger most of the effort anyway.

The PBEM compat issue also sneaked into CMAK 1.04.

I can't comment on the code, and I also haven't looked at that specific area. I'd be interested to see how difficult the fix would be, but would venture that if it were easy it would be done already.

But the fix has already been made in CMAK, and CMAK behaves identically WRT fortifications and generally combat mechanics around victory point counting.

I have no knowledge how easy it was to make the fix between CMBB and CMAK (other than speculating it is a simple piece of skipping some math). But there is no way that you can convince me that it would have been difficult to backport to CMBB if touching the code anyway.

I don't have any control over which problems BFC chooses to tackle, I just do some of the occasional tackling. In the case of the 1.04 patch they specifically targeted the Vista DX problem. However, I would imagine that if a broad base of support could be shown for the fortifications fix they would consider doing so.

I think you must be either joking or didn't play CMBB on a regular basis. This is the CMBB bug. I can't imagine there could be any more support for fixing it than there is.

Furthermore there is no question by anybody about what the right fix is. It is as plain a bug as it can be. Not to mention the fix is in CMAK.

The only reason why there wasn't a huge outcry is that most people didn't realize what is going until much later - which was a result of BFC not publishing how victory points were counted. We had to reverse engineer that. Which happened late enough that it was IIRC between 1.02 and 1.03 and BFC shut the door on 1.03.

Subsequently not too many players are actively aware of the issue, but they sure all got their victory points counted wrong when playing attack/defense with fortifications.

Again, there's a lot more regression testing needed with gameplay issues than with technical ones with a limited scope of occurrence, so I can't make any guarantees.

Well, now we are back at having to do QA and re-loading distribution mechanism if anyone touches the code for any reason.

All I can say you missed out on a whole lot of $5 sales here. That could have added up pretty good. The way it is many people played CMBB on Vista fine anyway (2x AA and turn on application control), kept a XP PC or went away never learning about the Vista fix.

The fortifications fix would have been the bigger market.

In addition BFC wouldn't have been accused of charging money for an OS compatibility fix. They could at least claim a "real" fix.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Well, when I mentioned that SG was not a military veteran, Dorosh took it upon himself to question my military service. Which I was honest about and posted. So by Dorosh's own 'principles', maybe he can enlighten us about his single income bachelor lifestyle? I am all ears.

 

[PhillipCulliton]

Edit: removed superfluous quote.

Just because you talk to him about the colour of his Weasel (insert joke here) or what his wife does for a living (I think we call that a two-income household in Canada) based on what you just posted, none of that indicates you would have access to his personal banking information or know about the state of the company's finances, which is the issue at discussion here.

Never did I state that I knew the details of anyone's financial situation, nor as you correctly surmise would I reveal those details if I did. I said, to paraphrase accurately, that I was fairly certain he wasn't independently wealthy or holding down a lucrative second job. In other words, that he works for a living and that his work is for BFC. Which, as I've repeatedly stated, was inference and conjecture, not fact. The issue we *were* discussing - as opposed to the one you seem to be addressing at the moment - is whether or not I (or Elvis for that matter) might possibly have more than zero information on which to draw said inference - you set the bar very low. I think both of us have shown satisfactorily that we could definitely have more than zero information.

I'm not pushing anyone to believe anything. I see, however, why it is "beyond" you - you are now in undiscussed territory. Show me where I said I had access to their bank statements, where I had access to their personal financial information, where I said anything like the words you're attempting to put in my mouth, anything I might have to "stop". What's beyond me is how you can continue to get away with this, and why you just keep on burning bridges.

That said, I can see how I could have my reputation harmed by your word-twisting. I am, after all, using my real name. All it takes is one errant Google search, eh? So I won't be posting here any more, beyond my reply to Redwolf's recent post. Anyone who wants to contact me - feel free to PM me here or at BFC and we can take up a conversation via PM or email. It was good meeting everyone, including yourself, Michael, and someday when I get a nice fat paycheck I still plan to pick up a copy of your book - it looks like quite the ASL resource.

 

[PhillipCulliton]

What BFC said previously is that touching anything, no matter how small, will trigger most of the effort anyway.

The PBEM compat issue also sneaked into CMAK 1.04.

In this case they apparently managed to sidestep the bulk of that effort. Please PM me about the PBEM compatibility issue.

But the fix has already been made in CMAK, and CMAK behaves identically WRT fortifications and generally combat mechanics around victory point counting.

I have no knowledge how easy it was to make the fix between CMBB and CMAK (other than speculating it is a simple piece of skipping some math). But there is no way that you can convince me that it would have been difficult to backport to CMBB if touching the code anyway.

I wouldn't try! I honestly don't know. However, if the logic were spread all over the place - and the code for the two structured differently - it might be difficult to pull it off. I don't know if that's the case or not.

I think you must be either joking or didn't play CMBB on a regular basis. This is the CMBB bug. I can't imagine there could be any more support for fixing it than there is.

Furthermore there is no question by anybody about what the right fix is. It is as plain a bug as it can be. Not to mention the fix is in CMAK.

The only reason why there wasn't a huge outcry is that most people didn't realize what is going until much later - which was a result of BFC not publishing how victory points were counted. We had to reverse engineer that. Which happened late enough that it was IIRC between 1.02 and 1.03 and BFC shut the door on 1.03.

Subsequently not too many players are actively aware of the issue, but they sure all got their victory points counted wrong when playing attack/defense with fortifications.

Not joking - I played CMBO primarily. When I played CMBB and CMAK it was almost always solo QBs. I was... very busy from 1998 or so up until this past year.

Well, now we are back at having to do QA and re-loading distribution mechanism if anyone touches the code for any reason.

True, which I suppose is just a fancy way of saying "I don't know how long it will take and resources are tight as is". I can't make that call, though, so that's all I've got.

All I can say you missed out on a whole lot of $5 sales here. That could have added up pretty good. The way it is many people played CMBB on Vista fine anyway (2x AA and turn on application control), kept a XP PC or went away never learning about the Vista fix.

The fortifications fix would have been the bigger market.

In addition BFC wouldn't have been accused of charging money for an OS compatibility fix. They could at least claim a "real" fix.

Well, more $5 sales would certainly have been nice for BFC, I'm sure.

I'll talk with Steve about the fortifications fix.

Thanks for the questions, and also the other "thank yous" for the patch. I'm glad people got some use out of it.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Never did I state that I knew the details of anyone's financial situation, nor as you correctly surmise would I reveal those details if I did. I said, to paraphrase accurately, that I was fairly certain he wasn't independently wealthy or holding down a lucrative second job. In other words, that he works for a living and that his work is for BFC. Which, as I've repeatedly stated, was inference and conjecture, not fact. The issue we *were* discussing - as opposed to the one you seem to be addressing at the moment - is whether or not I (or Elvis for that matter) might possibly have more than zero information on which to draw said inference - you set the bar very low. I think both of us have shown satisfactorily that we could definitely have more than zero information.

But you haven't done that at all. Hypothetically speaking, Steve could be drawing money from all kinds of sources - Charles could be supporting him. More likely, so could his wife. Or his parents. Or an online gambling habit - maybe he's a whiz at poker. My point is you have ZERO way of actually knowing without seeing the financial statements. Neither would I or anyone else. That's capital Z capital E capital R capital O. All you know is that you've seen him in his place of business and exchanged pleasantries - what? Once a week? Twice? Even if you've done that 52 times a year, it means nothing as far as drawing a definitive conclusion.

I'm not suggesting that Steve is living some weird double life or lying to you, I'm simply suggesting the nature of fact. As an historian, it's what I deal in. And you learn not to take things for granted.

Nor am I suggesting you've made unreasonable assumptions. We live our entire lives making assumptions. Sometimes at our peril; usually not. Everyone who went to bed in Haiti a few night ago assumed their house was not going to cave in on them. Was it their fault that it did? Or that they didn't sleep in the street instead of a perfectly good house? Occam's Razor gives a pretty good shave after all these years.

Besides, if you follow him, you know what the fictional Dr. House says in every episode.

 

[Elvis]

That said, I can see how I could have my reputation harmed by your word-twisting. I am, after all, using my real name. All it takes is one errant Google search, eh? So I won't be posting here any more, beyond my reply to Redwolf's recent post.

Talk to you soon Phillip. It is probably for the best. Sometimes it seems there are a few guys here that want to keep the population down.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I think that SG was Dorosh's imaginary man-friend for some time. He is jealous of Phillip's actual real world relationship.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Talk to you soon Phillip. It is probably for the best. Sometimes it seems there are a few guys here that want to keep the population down.

Quality, not quantity, Elvis.

But I wouldn't read too much subtext into any of the discussions. They are what they are. Not everyone is as :devious: as you are. :laugh:

 

[KenRich]

But you haven't done that at all. Hypothetically speaking, Steve could be drawing money from all kinds of sources - Charles could be supporting him. More likely, so could his wife. Or his parents. Or an online gambling habit - maybe he's a whiz at poker. My point is you have ZERO way of actually knowing without seeing the financial statements. Neither would I or anyone else. That's capital Z capital E capital R capital O. All you know is that you've seen him in his place of business and exchanged pleasantries - what? Once a week? Twice? Even if you've done that 52 times a year, it means nothing as far as drawing a definitive conclusion.

I'm not suggesting that Steve is living some weird double life or lying to you, I'm simply suggesting the nature of fact. As an historian, it's what I deal in. And you learn not to take things for granted.

Nor am I suggesting you've made unreasonable assumptions. We live our entire lives making assumptions. Sometimes at our peril; usually not. Everyone who went to bed in Haiti a few night ago assumed their house was not going to cave in on them. Was it their fault that it did? Or that they didn't sleep in the street instead of a perfectly good house? Occam's Razor gives a pretty good shave after all these years.

Besides, if you follow him, you know what the fictional Dr. House says in every episode.

Drop it Michael. We can all see you've ended up with egg all over your face on this matter of PC having "ZERO" credibility when it comes to forming a view of Steve's personal work situation. I interact with many friends on a personal basis and I can state quite categorically that they only hold down one job, despite not having access to their personal banking records. You set a ridiculously high bar to jump over in order to save face on your clearly wrong assumption that Philip knew nothing of Steve's personal work situation.

 

[Geordie]

Id like to agree with the above. What I said before was that its all speculation and the very fact that BF are still in buisiness proves to me that they are making enough money to keep going on. Speculation is fine but as has been mentioned here already we dont really know. Michael is persisting in using his time and energy here to cast doubts on BF at every turn and its becoming quite repetetively boring.

Fact - BF are still in buisiness, which I would have thought would be a good thing.

I am also thoroughly disappointed that some posters here are refusing to act as the adults they are portraying they are. I do not want to see new posters attacked the minute they arrive on this board, no matter who they are. This was and is one of my main gripes about the BF forum and I dont want it here.

Act like adults please.

 

[Redwolf]

I didn't have time for a real reply yet but I certainly would like Phillip to stay. I was giving him some heat about touching the code without fixing a bug but it was just friendly nudging. Not to mention I'd like to continue the discussion.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Thank God there are some normal people here. I was starting to wonder. MD needs to get a grip on his sociopathic level of posting and control of whatever Normality he has left. To be honest, I think he has drifted from 'nutter' to 'Full-On-Crossthreaded-WingNut'.

 

[Elvis]

Quality, not quantity, Elvis.

Phillip has always come across as a quality guy to me and reading his posts on this forum has none nothing to make me think otherwise.

But I wouldn't read too much subtext into any of the discussions. They are what they are. Not everyone is as :devious: as you are. :laugh:

I'm afraid this is actually more revealing about you then it is of me.

 

[Geordie]

Thank God there are some normal people here. I was starting to wonder. MD needs to get a grip on his sociopathic level of posting and control of whatever Normality he has left. To be honest, I think he has drifted from 'nutter' to 'Full-On-Crossthreaded-WingNut'.

And by that statement above you put yourself firmly in the same mold that you accuse him of. Please try and stick to lucid discussions.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Drop it Michael. We can all see you've ended up with egg all over your face on this matter of PC having "ZERO" credibility when it comes to forming a view of Steve's personal work situation. I interact with many friends on a personal basis and I can state quite categorically that they only hold down one job, despite not having access to their personal banking records. You set a ridiculously high bar to jump over in order to save face on your clearly wrong assumption that Philip knew nothing of Steve's personal work situation.

I obviously don't see it that way.

Let's put it another way. If Steve wasn't making enough money off of CM games to live off the profits, would he post to the forums about it? Of course not. Would he tell casual acquaintances or business associates about it? I don't know the nature of Phillip's association, but even if Phillip knew about such a situation, would he tell us about it in open forum? Or even reveal it to anyone here privately, for that matter?

So Phillip says Steve is "doing fine." He would say that to us whether or not it was the truth. And that's a fact.

Right?

I interact with many friends on a personal basis and I can state quite categorically that they only hold down one job, despite not having access to their personal banking records.

No, you make reasonable assumptions about how much money they earn and how they make their living. And quite possibly you are right 100 percent of the time.

But people hide embarrassing things all the time.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23168113/

"You have chlamydia," my obstetrician told me as I lay on the examining table, six months pregnant with my fourth child. "You've got to talk to your husband." I was in total disbelief. "This is impossible," I protested. "We're both monogamous." But of course I knew that wasn't really true, and the doctor's words forced me to finally acknowledge what I'd suspected for a long time: My husband was most likely gay...I was 30 years old when this happened, and Chris and I had been married for 11 years.

Just one example. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just pointing out that very often in life, we don't know as much about people as we simply and smugly assume we do.

 

[thewood]

I wish I had started this thread I declare it hopelessly off topic and have it closed.

 

[British Tommy]

I wish I had started this thread I declare it hopelessly off topic and have it closed.

And I agree 100%
How about it Geordie??

 

[NUTTERNAME]

And by that statement above you put yourself firmly in the same mold that you accuse him of. Please try and stick to lucid discussions.

I am sorry but there is no way that his behaviour is in any 'mold'. It's insipid and reprehensible and he continues to belabor some useless point. It's embarrassing.

 

[Elvis]

I wish I had started this thread I declare it hopelessly off topic and have it closed.

(Is he really still arguing this point? Seriously? And it all started from an opinion I voiced....Again, I told ya so.)

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Phillip has always come across as a quality guy to me and reading his posts on this forum has none nothing to make me think otherwise.

I was speaking in general, not with respect to anyone in particular. Do you disagree with the proposition that quality trumps quantity?