Why micromanagement in a company-level game is not desirable

[Michael Dorosh]

Speaking of micormanagement...

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=85927&page=4

DOes this remind anyone of the blue bar arguements from Steve. His logic is almost irrational at this point. I think he is misunderstanding C3K on purpose. C3K's design seems pretty elegant to me. I only know a little coding in C+, but what he is suggesting makes sense.

C3K's idea is awesome.

c3k: <brilliant suggestion>

Steve: duhhhhwhat happens if you put a HOLD on all the Javelins for a unit and a T-90 comes into full view?

c3k:Well, let me try to explain it again. I select target A and I use a HOLD to restrict all Javelins. Now, I can only use HOLD AFTER I've selected a target. Next, your T-90 comes into view. The TacAI is still operating. It chooses the T-90 as the higher priority target. That wipes out the target A which I'd selected. As soon as that target A is deselected, all HOLDs get erased.

The instant the TacAI assigns a new target, there are no HOLDs!

So, you asked what happens? The same thing that happens right now. Except, my squad will have some Javelins left to fire at the T-90 instead of wasting them on that empty building they were firing at just before the T-90 emerged.

To emphasize: TacAI assigned targets NEVER have a HOLD.

There are no extra steps for the vast majority of player interactions. However, you CAN add a step to limit what ammo/weapons are available to the TacAI for the target you have chosen. So, if YOU don't click TARGET or TARGET LIGHT, there are no HOLDs.

Internally I envisage the HOLD as simulating an out of ammo condition for that specific weapon/ammo. That way the TacAI retains control of the unit and what it shoots at. As soon as the TacAI spots a threat/target which has higher priority (or should be shot at), it snaps a TARGET or TARGET LIGHT (just like it does now) on the new threat and that erases all HOLDs.

Steve: I only have a few secs available (read: this doesn't remotely sound like I can twist it yet to make it sound like it was my idea)...

That's what I mean by tedious (read: so I'm going to call it names even though it is anything but)...

Having a feature that isn't smoothly implemented is not much better than leaving it out completely. (read: I have no idea how to implement it, but I'll just assume we are too stupid to implement it smoothly even if the fanbase can envision it)

Gotta run now, (read: I am going to ignore this concept for at least 6 months, and when everyone has forgotten about it, get Charles to slip it into the game and then take full credit for the idea myself, per my personal SOPs.)

 

[Redwolf]

That guy is pretty tenacious. You sure it isn't me?

 

[thewood]

Now that you mention it, I have never seen you and C3K in the same thread together.

 

[dalem]

No, he's just out of his depth when it comes to programming details. Charles has several times implemented exactly what people on the forum wanted while Steve said it's not possible or will make a mess.

That too.

-dale

 

[Peek]

read: I am going to ignore this concept for at least 6 months, and when everyone has forgotten about it, get Charles to slip it into the game and then take full credit for the idea myself, per my personal SOPs.[/COLOR])

Correction - slip it into the next game. It looks like SF is fast becoming an orphan.

 

[thewood]

Orphan is right. Steve knows CMSF should never have been released with some of the things missing and haven't been corrected. Instead of actually putting them in, they keep pushing Normandy as the holy grail for all missing features. None will make it back to CMSF. He said it would be after they have finished WW2 that they will return to modern and put in all the missing things, but they won't go into CMSF as an engine.

That is what finally pushed me over the edge. Listening to the sycophants rationalizing away how CMSF will be left incomplete and that was the plan all along. Just the complete lack of honesty and integrity in the roadmap and the release of CMSF is the main issue at BFC.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Orphan is right. Steve knows CMSF should never have been released with some of the things missing and haven't been corrected. Instead of actually putting them in, they keep pushing Normandy as the holy grail for all missing features. None will make it back to CMSF. He said it would be after they have finished WW2 that they will return to modern and put in all the missing things, but they won't go into CMSF as an engine.

That is what finally pushed me over the edge. Listening to the sycophants rationalizing away how CMSF will be left incomplete and that was the plan all along. Just the complete lack of honesty and integrity in the roadmap and the release of CMSF is the main issue at BFC.

Yeh, but he didn't at the time. We still don't know what possessed him to change it all so dramatically, but only because he won't come out and admit why. Chasing a government contract? Temporary insanity? Brainstorms that just didn't work out? That whole puzzling mousepad with the hotkeys just says it all for me. Here we are a year and a half later with the blue bar and the space bar menu back in play and I just can't fathom what the hell he was thinking, and it gets harder and harder to do in hindsight the farther we get from that initial release. It really was exciting to see the new game engine at first though my underpowered rig of the day left me underwhelmed at the graphics. And I was quickly disenchanted with the gameplay and the lack of a tac AI. And I guess I didn't play often enough for the novelty of playing against a human opponent to wear off.

 

[Peek]

Instead of actually putting them in, they keep pushing Normandy as the holy grail for all missing features. None will make it back to CMSF. He said it would be after they have finished WW2 that they will return to modern and put in all the missing things, but they won't go into CMSF as an engine.

Yeah, Steve has been hinting that they will be modifying the targeting commands for Normandy. The ironic thing is a WWII game would probably work ok with the Target and Target Light commands as most vehicles of the day only have one or two weapon systems. It's in CMSF, where you have many vehicles with three weapons systems, where these commands come unstuck. Nobody wants to waste all their ATGMs area firing a barn.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Yeah, Steve has been hinting that they will be modifying the targeting commands for Normandy. The ironic thing is a WWII game would probably work ok with the Target and Target Light commands as most vehicles of the day only have one or two weapon systems. It's in CMSF, where you have many vehicles with three weapons systems, where these commands come unstuck. Nobody wants to waste all their ATGMs area firing a barn.

It's really amazing how much is still "on the drawing board" and won't, apparently, be backwards compatible to CM:SF.

• water
• bridges
• quick battle force selection (i.e. cherrypicking)
• target selection routines
• weather effects (i.e. rain)

Are the ones we know about or can surmise. Other stuff we hope to see includes

• engineering
• hidden fortifications
• some form of close combat/prisoners
• convoy/follow me driving

This is off the top of my head. How quickly will the CM:SF forums become a ghost town after the Normandy title is released? I wonder if they will split off into a new forum? I'm guessing they will and support to the old game will drop to nil rapidly unless they have some fresh coding talent or some delivery system in place to keep providing new content for them.

 

[dalem]

It's really amazing how much is still "on the drawing board" and won't, apparently, be backwards compatible to CM:SF.

• water
• bridges
• quick battle force selection (i.e. cherrypicking)
• target selection routines
• weather effects (i.e. rain)

But I believe some of these were left off for "time" reasons (water, weather) and some were deliberately phased out/designed that way by Steve-O (targeting, QBs).

I'm willing to bet that if you went back in time and gave Steve 2 Charles clones and another year, the initial release of CM:SF would have had weather and water, still lack QBs, and still have the "new" targeting scheme.

So I'm not sure if back-compatibility should be expected at all.

Are the ones we know about or can surmise. Other stuff we hope to see includes

• engineering
• hidden fortifications
• some form of close combat/prisoners
• convoy/follow me driving

This is off the top of my head. How quickly will the CM:SF forums become a ghost town after the Normandy title is released? I wonder if they will split off into a new forum? I'm guessing they will and support to the old game will drop to nil rapidly unless they have some fresh coding talent or some delivery system in place to keep providing new content for them.

Well to this point every new game release has birthed a new forum so I'd expect nothing different if they do a Normandy game. Traffic in each forum, in my opinion, completely depends on what they release for the Normandy game (i.e. stuff you listed above "fixed"/included) and how they release it: if it's the Steve/Huntarr/beta crew again doing all the yapping then who would want to spend any time on that forum anyway?

We can check this thread in a year or so, assuming there is a Normandy game out of BFC, and see if I'm right, but I think that no matter what they release it's going to hit with a quiet "sploop" as opposed to a healthy "splash!" and sink right to the bottom of the pond.

-dale

 

[Michael Dorosh]

We can check this thread in a year or so, assuming there is a Normandy game out of BFC, and see if I'm right, but I think that no matter what they release it's going to hit with a quiet "sploop" as opposed to a healthy "splash!" and sink right to the bottom of the pond.

Outside the ever-shrinking CM community, you mean? Sadly, I think you're right. It won't be "game of the year".

Man, remember the press CM:BO got, though.

Remember Operation Flashpoint getting the accolades too when it was released.

So what does a game have to do to make a splash these days? I don't believe it has to be a first person eye candy shooter, but it can't be broken and riddled with compromise in as many ways as CM:SF. I think we're really talking about super-detail here. And flexibility. And multi-player adapability.

And you know, OFP wasn't really the be-all, end-all; not for realism. Those goofy contact grenades, for example. But it had imagination, and a huge budget and design team, and they were banking that they could sell enough of them that having it open ended and mod-friendly wasn't going to kill it.

I guess we need to face it - BFC is not the "little company that could", they are just "the little company." Period. And not "the" little company, but "one of many little companies." Throw them on the pile with Mad Minute Games and all the rest.

 

[jwb3]

<bump>
for obscure personal reasons...

 

[Geordie]

How quickly will the CM:SF forums become a ghost town after the Normandy title is released?

Well as far as I can glean from talking to some of them, the CMN game has mostly the same Beta Testers. BF have only one coder as well.

So with no beta testers to work things out and no coders to fix things I imagine that SF will be dropped like a stone once CMN arrives. As it doesnt seem to be played by anywhere near as many guys as the other CM games I think it will all be put down to a great experiment to improve the new engine.

 

[thewood]

Back when CMSF was released, I said it was one giant beta test. Not because of the sorry-assed condition of its release, but because of all the compromises made in the engine. They chose an obscure army and an obscure location so that they could futz around with it and get the engine ready for WW2. I think the three big miscalculations by BFC were:

1) underestimating how long it would take them to get the CMSF engine ready
2) underestimating how pissed off core fans would be over above and the crappy release state
3) thinking the CMSF engine would be quickly translated to CMWW2. They have basically had to rebuild the engine and still have a lot of development work to do.

 

[Geordie]

Back when CMSF was released, I said it was one giant beta test. Not because of the sorry-assed condition of its release, but because of all the compromises made in the engine. They chose an obscure army and an obscure location so that they could futz around with it and get the engine ready for WW2. I think the three big miscalculations by BFC were:

1) underestimating how long it would take them to get the CMSF engine ready
2) underestimating how pissed off core fans would be over above and the crappy release state
3) thinking the CMSF engine would be quickly translated to CMWW2. They have basically had to rebuild the engine and still have a lot of development work to do.

Id go along with that. When they first announced the new system they said it would be about 2 years between games and 6 months between modules. Its certainly gotten beyond this now, even their modules are delayed and certainly CMN (Normandy) wont be out this Summer.

 

[thewood]

I have to imagine thier cash flow sucks. That may be why they're so prickly.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I have to imagine thier cash flow sucks. That may be why they're so prickly.

You mean a million hits on their website doesn't translate into cash on the barrelhead? I'm shocked.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=87070

Couldn't find an open thread on the campaign model in CM:SF but this thread seemed germaine as you can equally apply the "problem" discussed at BFC today to micromanagement.

Regard:

Trident-za: I'm busy with mission 3 of the Marine module, and I have a question. I know the briefing says that AT assets are thin on the ground, but what exactly is the point of starting the mission with an AT crew that has no ammo at all? Am I missing something: is there a spot where they can replenish ammo? Otherwise I'm totally dumbfounded by what exactly I can use this unit for.

TheVulture: ...if my memory is correct the reinforcements include a javelin team that has no javelins to start (but you can acquire them from the AAVs) - made that mistake once running the team to a firing position only to then notice that they had no ammo on them.

Beta Tester: AIUI, the only way that could happen is if they are a core unit who've fired all their ammo in a previous mission. Fancy that, results and effects from one mission in a campaign carry forward into future missions! Who knew?

Trident-za: Aah OK, so this crew used all their ammo in the previous mission. OK, that makes sense....

==============================================================

This is my ongoing problem with what I consider to be a half-baked campaign model -

Here, we see a lack of intuitiveness regarding the features. The beta tester tosses off "who knew" in a snide aside, but honestly: yeah - who did know? Why would it be unreasonable to assume a certain level of logistical support between battles? It was certainly present in the Operations model - in fact, you got to pick what level of resupply was present for each side, from none to slim to full, etc.

Moreover, if the player is not to expect resupply of major ammunition types upon which the success of certain missions is going to hinge - wouldn't some kind of data screen between missions in addition to the mission briefings be an aid in understanding this? I can understand that campaigns are not fought like chess matches, with the luxury of knowing what battle you will fight one or two battles in advance - and there is a point to be made that providing too much information is unrealistic. But this only points once more to the Game/Simulation meter pointing once more towards the "sim" side of the scale.

 

[[hirr]Leto]

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=87070

Couldn't find an open thread on the campaign model in CM:SF but this thread seemed germaine as you can equally apply the "problem" discussed at BFC today to micromanagement.

Regard:

Trident-za: I'm busy with mission 3 of the Marine module, and I have a question. I know the briefing says that AT assets are thin on the ground, but what exactly is the point of starting the mission with an AT crew that has no ammo at all? Am I missing something: is there a spot where they can replenish ammo? Otherwise I'm totally dumbfounded by what exactly I can use this unit for.

TheVulture: ...if my memory is correct the reinforcements include a javelin team that has no javelins to start (but you can acquire them from the AAVs) - made that mistake once running the team to a firing position only to then notice that they had no ammo on them.

Beta Tester: AIUI, the only way that could happen is if they are a core unit who've fired all their ammo in a previous mission. Fancy that, results and effects from one mission in a campaign carry forward into future missions! Who knew?

Trident-za: Aah OK, so this crew used all their ammo in the previous mission. OK, that makes sense....

==============================================================

This is my ongoing problem with what I consider to be a half-baked campaign model -

Here, we see a lack of intuitiveness regarding the features. The beta tester tosses off "who knew" in a snide aside, but honestly: yeah - who did know? Why would it be unreasonable to assume a certain level of logistical support between battles? It was certainly present in the Operations model - in fact, you got to pick what level of resupply was present for each side, from none to slim to full, etc.

Moreover, if the player is not to expect resupply of major ammunition types upon which the success of certain missions is going to hinge - wouldn't some kind of data screen between missions in addition to the mission briefings be an aid in understanding this? I can understand that campaigns are not fought like chess matches, with the luxury of knowing what battle you will fight one or two battles in advance - and there is a point to be made that providing too much information is unrealistic. But this only points once more to the Game/Simulation meter pointing once more towards the "sim" side of the scale.

It also points to potential dumbness of the development team (who in the penumbral shadow of their own brilliance fail to realize that logic modeling is a necessary feature in the design process).

Cheers!

Leto

 

[Boff]

And you know, OFP wasn't really the be-all, end-all; not for realism. Those goofy contact grenades, for example. But it had imagination, and a huge budget and design team, and they were banking that they could sell enough of them that having it open ended and mod-friendly wasn't going to kill it.

A friend has just introduced me to OFP for the first time and I'm quite taken with it compared with COD and the like, the graphics aren't brilliant but the huge maps and varied scenarios make up for it IMO, plus there's a brand new version due out sometime this year. I know where I'd rather put my money. :yummy: