LOL no comments on CM: SF 1.06

On Feb 7, 6:34 pm, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg... DeleteThis @NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <CnWrR4kQHQwE89T3W6de3zTT3... DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
> fakeaddr... DeleteThis @hotmail.com says...
>
> > >Seems to me some people just have to complain about something, no
> > >matter what is done to appease them. I take pains to rid my life of
> > >people like that - they are higher-maintenance than a pageant
> > >contestant, and almost as effeminate.
>
> > The wannabee programmer goes 'look at me, I just came up with this
> > cool new way to open a menu by hitting the space bar!'. The good
> > programers go 'Gee, windows has a standardized method of right
> > clicking to open a context menu. I think that I'll write my program to
> > do that and work the way that people expect!'
>
> > Is it a big deal, no. It just shows a lack style and experience on
> > their part.
>
> And they already had a functioning unit-access-interface design based on
> exactly the convention you describe. A good programming team would have
> raised a dozen objections along the lines of, "Wait a minute; why -
> exactly - are we changing this!?!? What benefit does the user get from
> just removing an expected feature and replacing it with *nothing*!??!
> What problem are we solving by making this change? Who dislikes this
> existing feature?"
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "Baghdad got hit by two bombers today, but neither of them committed
> suicide. The al-Qaeda attack involved strapping remote-controlled bombs
> to two girls with Down's Syndrome, and detonating the devices when they
> walked through the market."
> - Ed Morrissey
> "Retards led by sadists; The Religion Of Peace(TM) in action.
> - Giftzwerg

The main issue is the intricacy of the options available. You must
admit that there are many more options available to the user in this
version than any previous, and there is a certain amount of pain that
goes into designing an interface and a working screen that allows
access to everything without completely overwhelming the user. I think
they were trying to appeal to a wider-range of gamers with this
interface, not just the old-timer hardcore gamers., but that's just my
opinion, and not based on anything other than conjecture and my
experience working with an updated UI for an old(er) game type (ATF to
AATF UI).
 >> Stay informed about: LOL no comments on CM: SF 1.06 

On Feb 7, 3:55 pm, von Schmidt <von_schm....RemoveThis@mail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 8:37 pm, Raging Tiger <RagingTi....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Nice to see that Huffing Pussy has not lost his DerekS*-like
> > > appreciation of customer feedback.
> > > I've got a one finger move for ya right here...
>
> > > -von Schmidt
>
> > I guess that would make sense...IF I WORKED FOR BFC!
>
> > Since I don't, and I purchased this game, I'd say my opinion is just
> > as valid as yours, so go huff your own orifice
>
> No matter that you're connected with Shrapnel rather than BFC.
> If you act like a prissy dev, you get lumped in with the prissy devs.
> Post like a wargamer and I'll treat you like one.
>
> Mind you, I do love you handle: it offers so much scope! Prissy pussy,
> yowling kitty etc etc
>
> -von Schmidt

I'll go over this very slowly one more time so your head doesn't
explode...I do not work for Shrapnel, I am an independent contractor
and I work for numerous game DEVELOPERS, not game PUBLISHERS. We
tracking? Good. As for your fixation on my name, You can call me
pussy or variations of it all day long, I kind of like it. It
basically just shows that you are too busy talking about it instead of
getting inside of it. Maybe you don't roll that way, but whatever your
leanings, your infantile displays when it comes to me are boring
everyone. I guess what's important is your self-esteem, though, so
have at it...we're done, since you have nothing to add to any
discussion but schoolyard names and giggling to yourself.
 >> Stay informed about: LOL no comments on CM: SF 1.06 

> > Mind you, I do love you handle: it offers so much scope! Prissy pussy,
> > yowling kitty etc etc
>
> > -von Schmidt
>
> I'll go over this very slowly one more time so your head doesn't
> explode...I do not work for Shrapnel, I am an independent contractor
> and I work for numerous game DEVELOPERS, not game PUBLISHERS. We
> tracking?  Good.

IIRC you only mentioned your "connection" (ie freelancer, contractor
whatever) to Shrapnel, not to any other wargaming unit. So OK: you're
a free agent. Fine.

Anyone, that is not the point. My observation is that so far you seem
to work hard to find excuses for *any* dev design decision.
And at the same time you're putting down customers (ie *gamers*, not
necessarliy *your* customers) who voice a complaint.

 As for your fixation on my name, You can call me
> pussy or variations of it all day long, I kind of like it. It
> basically just shows that you are too busy talking about it instead of
> getting inside of it. Maybe you don't roll that way, but whatever your
> leanings, your infantile displays when it comes to me are boring
> everyone. I guess what's important is your self-esteem, though, so
> have at it...we're done, since you have nothing to add to any
> discussion but schoolyard names and giggling to yourself.-

MIOAW!
Bad kitty!

Come on now, a nick like that is just asking for comments. It's a bit
pompous, isn't it?

OK then. My take on CMSF 1.06 is that is is laudable that BFC keeps
supporting the game and listening to customer comments. By all
accounts this patch is a huge leap forward.
However, their attitude could do with a reality check. since this
particular title was unfortunately not up to the standard of their
previous work.

Regards,

-von Schmidt
 >> Stay informed about: LOL no comments on CM: SF 1.06 

In article <0f7c87fc-0af3-4cc2-9d83-
79d197e3b30a RemoveThis @e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, RagingTiger RemoveThis @gmail.com
says...

> > And they already had a functioning unit-access-interface design based on
> > exactly the convention you describe. A good programming team would have
> > raised a dozen objections along the lines of, "Wait a minute; why -
> > exactly - are we changing this!?!? What benefit does the user get from
> > just removing an expected feature and replacing it with *nothing*!??!
> > What problem are we solving by making this change? Who dislikes this
> > existing feature?"

> The main issue is the intricacy of the options available. You must
> admit that there are many more options available to the user in this
> version than any previous, and there is a certain amount of pain that
> goes into designing an interface and a working screen that allows
> access to everything without completely overwhelming the user.

But my question here reflects Frank's point; the long-established OS
convention for the left-click is "select this", while the long-
established OS convention for the right-click is "instantiate the
context menu for this." The almost-as-long-established products
Battlefront already produced - CMBO, CMBB, CMAK - all used exactly this
expected and conventional scheme. You clicked on a unit to select it,
you right-clicked to bring up the context menu and give orders to it.

If, as you suggest, the operative issue was more intricate options
available in the new version, doesn't that suggest a right-click
bringing up a larger menu? Or a menu that (like a bookmark list in
FireFox) allows the user to slide-click through an organized /
categorized list?

My point - and everyone else's point - is that Battlefront originally
replaced the "right click => context menu" with *nothing*. Then, when
user complaints reached a crescendo, they re-implemented the context
menu ... but did it with a spacebar-click.

Dumb. Really dumb.

> I think
> they were trying to appeal to a wider-range of gamers with this
> interface, not just the old-timer hardcore gamers.

But to what "range" of gamers - *exactly* - is a "spacebar-click" some
sort of intuitive or conventional move?

Again, Frank's point is well-taken; users across the whole Planet Earth
are used to the "left-click selects - right-click opens context menu"
convention.

Unless the programmer has some compelling reason to change this ... why
change this?

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Baghdad got hit by two bombers today, but neither of them committed
suicide. The al-Qaeda attack involved strapping remote-controlled bombs
to two girls with Down's Syndrome, and detonating the devices when they
walked through the market."
- Ed Morrissey
"Retards led by sadists; The Religion Of Peace(TM) in action.
- Giftzwerg
 >> Stay informed about: LOL no comments on CM: SF 1.06 

On Feb 8, 6:48 pm, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg... RemoveThis @NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <0f7c87fc-0af3-4cc2-9d83-
> 79d197e3b... RemoveThis @e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, RagingTi... RemoveThis @gmail.com
> says...
>
> > > And they already had a functioning unit-access-interface design based on
> > > exactly the convention you describe.  A good programming team would have
> > > raised a dozen objections along the lines of, "Wait a minute; why -
> > > exactly - are we changing this!?!?  What benefit does the user get from
> > > just removing an expected feature and replacing it with *nothing*!??!
> > > What problem are we solving by making this change?  Who dislikes this
> > > existing feature?"
> > The main issue is the intricacy of the options available. You must
> > admit that there are many more options available to the user in this
> > version than any previous, and there is a certain amount of pain that
> > goes into designing an interface and a working screen that allows
> > access to everything without completely overwhelming the user.
>
> But my question here reflects Frank's point; the long-established OS
> convention for the left-click is "select this", while the long-
> established OS convention for the right-click is "instantiate the
> context menu for this."  The almost-as-long-established products
> Battlefront already produced - CMBO, CMBB, CMAK - all used exactly this
> expected and conventional scheme.  You clicked on a unit to select it,
> you right-clicked to bring up the context menu and give orders to it.
>
> If, as you suggest, the operative issue was more intricate options
> available in the new version, doesn't that suggest a right-click
> bringing up a larger menu?  Or a menu that (like a bookmark list in
> FireFox) allows the user to slide-click through an organized /
> categorized list?
>
> My point - and everyone else's point - is that Battlefront originally
> replaced the "right click => context menu" with *nothing*.  Then, when
> user complaints reached a crescendo, they re-implemented the context
> menu ... but did it with a spacebar-click.
>
> Dumb.  Really dumb.  
>
> > I think
> > they were trying to appeal to a wider-range of gamers with this
> > interface, not just the old-timer hardcore gamers.
>
> But to what "range" of gamers - *exactly* - is a "spacebar-click" some
> sort of intuitive or conventional move?
>
> Again, Frank's point is well-taken; users across the whole Planet Earth
> are used to the "left-click selects - right-click opens context menu"
> convention.  
>
> Unless the programmer has some compelling reason to change this ... why
> change this?
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "Baghdad got hit by two bombers today, but neither of them committed
> suicide. The al-Qaeda attack involved strapping remote-controlled bombs
> to two girls with Down's Syndrome, and detonating the devices when they
> walked through the market."
>                                                - Ed Morrissey
> "Retards led by sadists; The Religion Of Peace(TM) in action.
>                                                - Giftzwerg

I don't know the "why", but instead of automatically chastizing them
for it, why not pop on over to their forums and ask the thought
process behind it? Again, I am not disagreeing with you on the "right-
click" paradigm, and I in fact support it with some added caveats.
Until you hear it from the developer, it's all conjecture. I don't
think they come here for the same reason I am somewhat hesitant to
respond to some people here - not many WANT to hear what developers
have to say if it doesn't align with what they WANT them to say.
 >> Stay informed about: LOL no comments on CM: SF 1.06 

In article <e1a5cf65-1e34-411e-ac53-522de08bbd01
@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, RagingTiger.TakeThisOut@gmail.com says...

> I don't know the "why", but instead of automatically chastizing them
> for it, why not pop on over to their forums and ask the thought
> process behind it?

Here you have me, of course, because my ilk of punter tends to have too
short a half-life on web-based developer boards to get any sort of
question whatever answered. I tend to fall victim to the "Oh, dear,
here's a guy who thinks our new game just sucks!!"

And that, in and of itself, is an answer. The same folks who refused
all input on the question of whether a simple OOB function should have
been part of their design tend to dislike any input on whether the
right-click should instantiate the traditional context / orders menu.

> Again, I am not disagreeing with you on the "right-
> click" paradigm, and I in fact support it with some added caveats.
> Until you hear it from the developer, it's all conjecture. I don't
> think they come here for the same reason I am somewhat hesitant to
> respond to some people here - not many WANT to hear what developers
> have to say if it doesn't align with what they WANT them to say.

I'm standing behind Frank and his boys; the right-click menu is a
hugely-established convention. If <some programmer> is flouting this,
then he'd better have a damn good reason.



--
Giftzwerg
***
"Baghdad got hit by two bombers today, but neither of them committed
suicide. The al-Qaeda attack involved strapping remote-controlled bombs
to two girls with Down's Syndrome, and detonating the devices when they
walked through the market."
- Ed Morrissey
"Retards led by sadists; The Religion Of Peace(TM) in action.
- Giftzwerg
 >> Stay informed about: LOL no comments on CM: SF 1.06 

"Left click for select" and "right click for sub menu or information" have
long been the recommended conventions in both the Windows and Macintosh
human interface guidelines docs for developers. One can get into a "chicken
or egg" discussion on which came first the guidelines or prior usage by
early game developers but those are the conventions.

Going off on a tangent ... "right click" on a Macintosh is officially
"control key + left click" since one of Steve Jobs continuing and longest
running bits of stubbornness is that mice for Macintoshes' should only have
one button. The first thing many (most ?) Mac users do after buying a new
Mac is to discard the Apple mouse and buy a 3rd party two button mouse which
uses the right button to implement the "control key + left click". I have a
box full of unused Apple mice. (Yes I know, the newish Apple "Mighty Mouse"
supposedly has an area on the right top surface that is supposed to act as a
right button but it didn't work reliably on the new Mac that I just got).

Best regards, Major H
MajorH.TakeThisOut@satx.rr.com
 >> Stay informed about: LOL no comments on CM: SF 1.06 

> But Vinzenzo why this "hang the Pedro" menthality?

The problem is that... there is not only a problem. CM:SF is like on of
those cases shown on "House MD" where unrelated pathologies overlap to cause
the big disaster.

First, the game itself was a step backward compared to CM:BO. True, the
original CM had its problems, but the novelty of the game concept compared
with its sheer moddability and replayability was enough to make people happy
while waiting for the fixes. Eve the sheer demo was played again and again.
CM:SF fumbled on the contents, the interface, the setting... It was not
"Steel Pathers" following "Typhoon of Steel", but the other way around: if
you put aside for a moment about the modern graphics (something no wargamer
was screaming about *over* other features), it is CM:SF who actually looks
like the father of CM:BO.

Second, there was the rushed launch. Well, I'm inclined to forgive
Battlefront for this: they stood behind the game, are patching it, and took
the flak (and the economic impact) for the initial bugginess. I'm not even
interested to learn if it was Battlefront or Paradox the one to blame: I
only hope that either one of them or both next time will be smarter.

Third, add the "God" syndrome. "We can't fail". Like (to keep our
parallelism with "House MD") a weakness of the immune system, this
"underlying condition" can lead to any sort of troubles, from stupid DRMs,
to the refusal to add simple requested features (see the "right button
refusal complex" on the American Journal of Medicine), to situations where
your brain reacts only to the wrong stimuli (i.e. those coming from
sycophants).

At the end, all these pathologies combined led to the disappointment called
CM:SF. How do you heal them? By tackling them all - at least where it is
possible. It is now too late to change the basic design, the setting, and to
add again for free the level of contents that the previous CM games offered
*EIGHT YEARS AGO*, so, there goes the hope to cure your first pathology.
Battlefront stood behind the game, and patched it: this is recognized. The
"God Syndrome", however, is an hard nut to crack: even if we can see some
improvements, it still causes damages (cough, right mouse, cough...)

And sycophants are a Raging... external condition. Nothing that the
costumers or Battlefront can do anything about (even if I sometimes wonder
where ended up those guys who attacked TOAW III on Battlefront's forum - out
of sheer sadism, of course ) ). At the end of the day, what one can do in
these situations is to send his own "wake up" call to the developers. If
good advice is rare, good advice for free is even rarer. If they do decide
to clean their asses with mine, fine: LEGO Star Wars II is a much more
accomplished and fun game than CM:SF, so my nights will not be lonely
anyway.
 >> Stay informed about: LOL no comments on CM: SF 1.06 

> The problem is that... there is not only a problem. CM:SF is like on of
> those cases shown on "House MD" where unrelated pathologies overlap to
> cause the big disaster.
>
> First, the game itself was a step backward compared to CM:BO. True, the
> original CM had its problems, but the novelty of the game concept compared
> with its sheer moddability and replayability was enough to make people
> happy while waiting for the fixes. Eve the sheer demo was played again and
> again. CM:SF fumbled on the contents, the interface, the setting... It was
> not "Steel Pathers" following "Typhoon of Steel", but the other way
> around: if you put aside for a moment about the modern graphics (something
> no wargamer was screaming about *over* other features), it is CM:SF who
> actually looks like the father of CM:BO.
>
> Second, there was the rushed launch. Well, I'm inclined to forgive
> Battlefront for this: they stood behind the game, are patching it, and
> took the flak (and the economic impact) for the initial bugginess. I'm not
> even interested to learn if it was Battlefront or Paradox the one to
> blame: I only hope that either one of them or both next time will be
> smarter.
>
> Third, add the "God" syndrome. "We can't fail". Like (to keep our
> parallelism with "House MD") a weakness of the immune system, this
> "underlying condition" can lead to any sort of troubles, from stupid DRMs,
> to the refusal to add simple requested features (see the "right button
> refusal complex" on the American Journal of Medicine), to situations where
> your brain reacts only to the wrong stimuli (i.e. those coming from
> sycophants).
>
> At the end, all these pathologies combined led to the disappointment
> called CM:SF. How do you heal them? By tackling them all - at least where
> it is possible. It is now too late to change the basic design, the
> setting, and to add again for free the level of contents that the previous
> CM games offered *EIGHT YEARS AGO*, so, there goes the hope to cure your
> first pathology. Battlefront stood behind the game, and patched it: this
> is recognized. The "God Syndrome", however, is an hard nut to crack: even
> if we can see some improvements, it still causes damages (cough, right
> mouse, cough...)
>
> And sycophants are a Raging... external condition. Nothing that the
> costumers or Battlefront can do anything about (even if I sometimes wonder
> where ended up those guys who attacked TOAW III on Battlefront's forum -
> out of sheer sadism, of course ) ). At the end of the day, what one can
> do in these situations is to send his own "wake up" call to the
> developers. If good advice is rare, good advice for free is even rarer. If
> they do decide to clean their asses with mine, fine: LEGO Star Wars II is
> a much more accomplished and fun game than CM:SF, so my nights will not be
> lonely anyway.

I may agree with you somewhat... (esp. setting

But I also agree to some degree with Oleg Mastruko. CM design of one minute
pause action made me go YAWN pretty soon although I admit that behind that
is a great gaming system.
PBEM was a chore - you had to send more emails than in TOAW.

So contrary to many grogs I actually don't mind that they introduced RTS
mode.

Many grogs despise that mode

I didn't bought the game nor I will do but I kind of liked the demo.


Mario
 >> Stay informed about: LOL no comments on CM: SF 1.06