The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

BulletMagnet -> The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 12:23:23 AM)

ok this is for everything you want to get off your chest...reguarding oobs,various teams,etc....



Rune Iversen -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 1:09:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BulletMagnet

ok this is for everything you want to get off your chest...reguarding oobs,various teams,etc....


Thank you sir. You are too kind [:D]



Voriax -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 1:13:18 AM)

*whine*

[sm=00000023.gif]

Voriax



JJKettunen -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 1:34:26 AM)

*bitching and moaning* [:@]



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 1:36:20 AM)

Where's my Combat Leader?

Oh.. is this only for Steel Panthers bitching and moaning, oops so sorry :)



rbrunsman -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 1:39:15 AM)

I wish they wouldn't link point values to this "availability" concept that popped up with Pz Leo's H2H version. Point values should be strictly related to combat effectiveness; the way it used to be. It's impossible to have a balanced PBEM battle otherwise. i.e. 3000 pts v 3000 pts should be an even match.[:@]



JJKettunen -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 1:43:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rbrunsman

I wish they wouldn't link point values to this "availability" concept that popped up with Pz Leo's H2H version. Point values should be strictly related to combat effectiveness; the way it used to be. It's impossible to have a balanced PBEM battle otherwise. i.e. 3000 pts v 3000 pts should be an even match.[:@]


Hear! Hear!

With that said, you will be banned soon. [:D]

*bitching and moaning* [:@]



Charles2222 -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 2:50:14 AM)

From the locked thread which I never became involved with:

(from Tombstone)
quote:

But, nothing changes the most important factor here, which is that there are those people who are working on the oobs and those who are not. The way it is supposed to work is that we voice our concerns and give our suggestions... period. They are in no way required to respond or rationalize their decisions... they don't even have to tell us what their decisions are.


The prior leads me some leverage to say what I'm going to say.

I want to emphasize that what I will describe to you may have been a case of a renegade OOB team member, or if not that a former OOB team member. When once questioning a particular aspect of the OOB's one person put it to me the "put up or shut up" routine, and I just want to know if this is a general OOB team 'elitist' mentality.

As per Tombstone's quote above, he appears to be of the thinking, as I am, that ALL comments are welcome (however I may have said welcome confused with the general forum welcome to comments aspect), yet with the incident that occured to me I was given invitation to join the OOB team. With my declining such I was basically told that my comments were then unwanted, as though only the OOB team's comments counted. I wonder how many of you have had this treatment. Is there just renegades out there sticking their chest out or is this their overall attitude?

I certainly have no problem with OOB team people having more say-so to a team which I'm not even part of, but if I'm told that all comments are welcome, then the rules change all the sudden if you're not part of the clique, I have a problem with such dishonesty, and that in and of itself would convince me, should I desire to join the OOB team, not to do so. Perhaps it was just a shallow attempt to defeat a very valid point I had, as there certainly wasn't any counter-argument.

So, is the welcome mat really something that's yanked under your feet if you don't want to be a team member? And do the ones that "really" get listened to within the OOB team itself, have some other form of unstated cliqueism such as "must have been a member of the military"? A clique is just fine and dandy with me, but at least have the guts to state it up front.

Anyone else seen this? Comments?

edited to add this: This event occured approximately 18 - 24 months ago.



Major Destruction -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 3:25:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22


When once questioning a particular aspect of the OOB's one person put it to me the "put up or shut up" routine,


I hope this was not something that came from me. If so I am sorry.

I have always tried to accomodate any ideas and suggestions.

The OOB team has always worked in the background. I rarely visit this Forum except when I'm goofing off. The team apppoints members to monitor the forums and report to the team. That is the reason why it appears the team is not interested in the forums but that is only an appearance. All the time I spend answering posts to the Forum is time I lose making edits. The other members have the same time constraints. I hope you understand this is not a deliberate attempt by the team to enter some kind of elite.

Whenever I have been offered assistance I accept it willingly. We never have enough help. In the last 6 months, I have been offered more help than ever before. I would be crazy to reject it.

My hope is that this edit will be the best ever. Errors and blunders happen all the time. the team has worked very hard to find and eliminate the errors. No doubt, as is always the case, new errors creep in. Its the Gremlins at work.

But whenever a valid concern is raised it is discussed by the team members responsible for the edit. Sometimes, as evidenced by Kevin in a previous post, those suggestions get lost in the works and we need to be reminded. Sometimes we do not know how to best fix a problem or the time is not available to fix everything. For example, I probably will not have time to make edits to the Greece OOB that I would like.

So if you have a suggestion or comment, please post it here. Expect a reply, just don't expect one immediately. And as Kevin has mentioned, please keep reminding us until you get a * reply.

*I deleted the word 'satisfactory'. [;)]



harlekwin -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 3:39:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

From the locked thread which I never became involved with:

(from Tombstone)
quote:

But, nothing changes the most important factor here, which is that there are those people who are working on the oobs and those who are not. The way it is supposed to work is that we voice our concerns and give our suggestions... period. They are in no way required to respond or rationalize their decisions... they don't even have to tell us what their decisions are.


The prior leads me some leverage to say what I'm going to say.

I want to emphasize that what I will describe to you may have been a case of a renegade OOB team member, or if not that a former OOB team member. When once questioning a particular aspect of the OOB's one person put it to me the "put up or shut up" routine, and I just want to know if this is a general OOB team 'elitist' mentality.

As per Tombstone's quote above, he appears to be of the thinking, as I am, that ALL comments are welcome (however I may have said welcome confused with the general forum welcome to comments aspect), yet with the incident that occured to me I was given invitation to join the OOB team. With my declining such I was basically told that my comments were then unwanted, as though only the OOB team's comments counted. I wonder how many of you have had this treatment. Is there just renegades out there sticking their chest out or is this their overall attitude?

I certainly have no problem with OOB team people having more say-so to a team which I'm not even part of, but if I'm told that all comments are welcome, then the rules change all the sudden if you're not part of the clique, I have a problem with such dishonesty, and that in and of itself would convince me, should I desire to join the OOB team, not to do so. Perhaps it was just a shallow attempt to defeat a very valid point I had, as there certainly wasn't any counter-argument.

So, is the welcome mat really something that's yanked under your feet if you don't want to be a team member? And do the ones that "really" get listened to within the OOB team itself, have some other form of unstated cliqueism such as "must have been a member of the military"? A clique is just fine and dandy with me, but at least have the guts to state it up front.

Anyone else seen this? Comments?

edited to add this: This event occured approximately 18 - 24 months ago.




Charles I am not a member and if you are speaking of when I invited you into the Tiger Team I am sorry but I never told you to shut up. I asked for some cites not the same thing. A disparate range of views and goals can be genuinally a GOOD thing to have in a scrub as long as there is open vetting and healthy cross-x and oversight.

I WAS sincere and I was saddened at the time.

Imagine what YOU would have thought had Ammo and I been working in secret and silence.

That is why I am back.

regards,
sven



Frank W. -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 1:45:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rbrunsman

I wish they wouldn't link point values to this "availability" concept that popped up with Pz Leo's H2H version. Point values should be strictly related to combat effectiveness; the way it used to be.


i donīt agree[:@][:@][:-]



JJKettunen -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 3:48:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rbrunsman

I wish they wouldn't link point values to this "availability" concept that popped up with Pz Leo's H2H version. Point values should be strictly related to combat effectiveness; the way it used to be.


i donīt agree[:@][:@][:-]


And why is that?



Charles2222 -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 3:56:08 PM)

Others have versed their opposition to the idea that the OOB team doesn't respond, but I have not, but it's easy enough to get all the seeming opposition mixed up. If the OOB team in general had the attitude which I mentioned, then ignorance of posts put towards them would further back that position, IF. You mention that time spent responding, and perhaps reading the posts as well (my interpretation) could also cause more problems as you see. Nobody likes mentioning something numerous times (therefore possibly building up to some morass that we've seen here - the people who write about ideas and errors are spending their time absolutely free too. It may be a lower calling to not do the dirty work of keying, but then again it isn't effortless either) still not getting a response. Has anyone ever bothered to think that if the posts were read, a better and easier manner of doing the very thing we're doing may come along from those very posts? I don't htink every OOB idea should be responded to per se, but then again it does appear that either they've been ignored in large part (perhaps read but not responded) or people are frequently exaggerating their case. Over time, people may forget that their concern was even replied to and all they might remember was that they still have that concern on their mind too.



Charles2222 -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 6:20:22 PM)

Since you volunteered this information, and not I, although I had pretty much forgotten who it was, it's likely you are the one whom I encountered in said manner (though I seem to recall someone else joining in, such that the majority of the discussion may have been with you, but the "put up or shut up" may have been from the other). Whomever I encountered did not take kindly to my rejecting joining the team, and the idea was that unless I put up by joining, then my comments would be ignored. We've seen plenty of ignorance regarding the posts so I do wonder if this isn't some sort of elitist mentality about 'those doing the work' who shouldn't have to listen to the 'whiners'. Even if I joined I wouldn't want to think of myself as some elite who was one of the only ones brave enough to put some effort in; the dirty work. Even so, as I mentioned in the prior post, it's not like those spotting these things require no effort at all and the team members are gallant live-savers. The idea seeme to be the team has not as much time to respond to posts and so on. Remember, the opposite is true. If the OOB team isn't responding, then who is that that responds to newbie questions and so on? Isn't doing that sort of thing important, or is it non-important just because they don't organize as a team? I, for one used to do that quite a bit, but after the OOB team treatment, and other factors I'm sure (not having an V.8 doesn't help) there's been a decline, but, effort nonetheless. If answering newbie questions was so much fun everybody would be doing it, and to further back that statement there are plenty, helpful nonetheless, who will just say for people to read the n=manual as though their asking is some intrusion. It's good to know that the manual has good information, no doubt, but it's also important that the question is answered with the most direct outer-manual experience that can be given in many instances as well. Even, the horrid unforgiveable mode of merely having a small conversation can about the same, can in some cases do a lot more for the game than a mere 'check your manual'. Want hard facts? Sorry this all fits into a more philospohical point, perhaps one which may be considered irrelevant.



Charles2222 -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 7:29:43 PM)

Just a guess here, but a number of you have complained about the OOB team doing the OOB"s by 'feel'. Perhaps this OOB team is a backlash from the previous 'hard facts' teams of the past. 'Hard facts' alone, nor 'feel' alone, suffice.



panda124c -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 8:47:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rbrunsman

I wish they wouldn't link point values to this "availability" concept that popped up with Pz Leo's H2H version. Point values should be strictly related to combat effectiveness; the way it used to be. It's impossible to have a balanced PBEM battle otherwise. i.e. 3000 pts v 3000 pts should be an even match.[:@]



Ok I'll bite, just exactly how do you measure 'combat effectiveness'? The hardware itself or the people using it, or a combination of both, and how do you determine the values for each part?

This should start this thread cookin'. [:D]



JJKettunen -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 8:55:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pbear

Ok I'll bite, just exactly how do you measure 'combat effectiveness'? The hardware itself or the people using it, or a combination of both, and how do you determine the values for each part?

This should start this thread cookin'. [:D]


It has been done in earlier versions. There are formulas for it.



rbrunsman -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 9:12:16 PM)

Frank W, WHY do you disagree?

PBEMs rely upon being able to pit equally matched forces against each other. The old "buy point" system ensured that. The new system takes out all sense of balance for PBEM. It would take much trial and error (and argument) for two players to arrive at what is to be considered an equal battle. Two players who don't know each other and just want a quick matchup cannot do so any more if this "availability" point system is adopted. The "historical accuracy" crowd (I guess) would argue that this new point system forces players to buy appropriately. But why should "appropriate" purchases be the Holy Grail of PBEM battles. As long as the points are equal then everyone can further refine their desires from there. This new system absolutely cuts out the players like myself, who aren't a gung-ho about historical accuracy. I just want a fair matchup.

No one else is hurt (that I can think of) to leave the point system the way it was. The new system harms PBEMers and does nothing special to further the game.

Draconian dictation of "historical" accuracy serves what purpose?[&:]



Frank W. -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 9:15:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rbrunsman

I wish they wouldn't link point values to this "availability" concept that popped up with Pz Leo's H2H version. Point values should be strictly related to combat effectiveness; the way it used to be.


i donīt agree[:@][:@][:-]


And why is that?


a) the rarety thing donīt works correct

b) some nations ( US + USSR come to mind ) had
much more men + machines as the axis so this
should be modelled to certain decree.

say a T34 should NOT cost the same as pzIV.
look up the H2H pricings i find them quite
okay...



Frank W. -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 9:23:16 PM)

quote:


Draconian dictation of "historical" accuracy serves what purpose?[&:]


after all itīs a SIMULATION, not just
a game...IMHO.

but to be honest i find a much more hotter
problem in SPWAW ( be it the normal version
or the H2H one...):

the national characteristics ( i think this
is what itīs called ) are somewhat screwed:

play a game in 42 with the germans against
anzac or so... you will see waht i mean.

i think the anzac/commonwealth forces were
NOT that bad as in the game, also the germans
were not THAT supermen even in these times
in which the germans still had mostly good
troops, unlike 44+45....



FNG -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 9:25:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

a) the rarety thing donīt works correct

b) some nations ( US + USSR come to mind ) had
much more men + machines as the axis so this
should be modelled to certain decree.

say a T34 should NOT cost the same as pzIV.
look up the H2H pricings i find them quite
okay...


I disagree entirely. The points value of a given unit should be based solely on its relative effectiveness. It is up to players and designers to then decide how many points they want to play with to reflect historical *availability* and/or play with rarity on. To use your example, the fact that more T-34s were made than Pz-IVs should not have any impact on their relative values - it doesn't make any difference to the performance of one vehicle compared to another. If you want to reflect the historical numbers, change the amount of points you purchase with, don't fudge the unit costs. To do so completely screws PBMers (which I am not one of, I just see their plight).



JJKettunen -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 9:29:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rbrunsman
The "historical accuracy" crowd (I guess) would argue that this new point system forces players to buy appropriately.


At least I don't. Scenario designers can make historical situations and set unit prices accordingly. If you add a "rarity" factor to the cost, instead of basing it exclusively on combat value, then PBEM is irretrevably messed up.



JJKettunen -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 9:40:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.
b) some nations ( US + USSR come to mind ) had
much more men + machines as the axis so this
should be modelled to certain decree.


Why should this fact be forced to non-historical PBEM-battles? After all, balance is one of the most important factors in them.



VikingNo2 -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 9:41:28 PM)

Frank I see your points they have merit but by linking the units price to rarity it makes all players conform to something and cuts out flexibility. It would be much better to fix the rarity function of the game than price them linked to rarity the way that is sugested and done in 8.1, because now the Rarity Off button means nothing with the new pricing you will always have "ratity on". I have no problem with H2H pricing mind you. RR are a prime example a 75mm RR cost as much as a 88mm AA gun. Your thoughts please



JJKettunen -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 9:41:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

the national characteristics ( i think this
is what itīs called ) are somewhat screwed:


With this, I agree. National Characteristic are based on myths and anecdotes.



mattenhoff -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 9:43:07 PM)

Well, I'm played SPWAW since 1999 and PBEM for about a year. I support the efficiency <=> point cost formula.

It would be very nice to have, say Soviet vs. german game, have the same amount of points and know that the combat efficiency of these two forces are on the same level.

This is the very key to enjoying the PBEM. This way we could measure the men behind the PC's, compete each other!!! This is the very thing we wanna do! Compare each other as leaders.

Now you can have, say, 10 Tigers (perhaps about 2000 points) and easily scorch those about 20 T-34's, which amount to 2000 points (ok, these are quite rough figures)

So choosing an 5k points per side doesn't, IMO, assure an even and tough play (though it can sometimes be even, if the terrain and weather favor the Soviets)

I usually play the Soviets, and have experienced this many times!
I'd love to have this point system back (it was in 6.1, right?)


Then finally, the rarity by cost - philosophy. It's no good. Because: Any wise player is very selective. He buys the very best equipment he can. So, even a minor increase in cost will drop a demand for a unit dramatically - no one cares to buy it anymore. So the result is not rarity, but absence of that unit.

Ever seen KV-85's on map in PBEM? It's roughly equal to T-34/85 and IIRC, more expensive...



Frank W. -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 10:38:28 PM)

quote:

OI have no problem with H2H pricing mind you. RR are a prime example a 75mm RR cost as much as a 88mm AA gun. Your thoughts please


this is silly of course...i donīt mean this way of pricing...

but the pricing like H2H...

tiger e: 175 points
panther g: 178
mk IV h : 117

T34 M43 : 82
T34 /85 : 97

seems in my eyes okay, see the T34/85
is a bit better than mkIVh but still
a bit cheaper...



Frank W. -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 10:44:42 PM)

quote:

He buys the very best equipment he can. So, even a minor increase in cost will drop a demand for a unit dramatically - no one cares to buy it anymore. So the result is not rarity, but absence of that unit.


mhh... but is the goal of this !

or do you want only have sturmtigers
and kingtigers around ? so these must
be a) rare ( if rarety works ) or
b) much more expensive ( if doesnīt ).

even more expensive perhaps than there
combat value because of the rarety...how
much KTīs were produced ? not that much
i think...



JJKettunen -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 11:10:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

this is silly of course...i donīt mean this way of pricing...

but the pricing like H2H...

tiger e: 175 points
panther g: 178
mk IV h : 117

T34 M43 : 82
T34 /85 : 97

seems in my eyes okay, see the T34/85
is a bit better than mkIVh but still
a bit cheaper...


SPWW2 uses pricing based on overall capability only, no rarity factors involved. Double these prices by 2 for SPWAW:

Pz-IVh______58
T-34/85_____54

Now are there anything wrong with those figures?...



Charles2222 -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 11:12:39 PM)

Come on, you know the answer to this. In fact, I've never seen anyone from the multi=player crowd who gave a clearer statement that single players and multi-players are at odds gamewise. I've always understood that multi=play always detracted from my games (worse AI for a start), so surely you know the answers to your questions.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.40625