Battlefront's Theatre of War

[JudgeDredd]

Yoozername
 
I don't really know you from adam, but it appears Hertston, Marc and Erik have it right...this seems to be just another post, by you, to attack BF and, probably more specifically, Dorosh. You've been doing it constantly on the SM:SF thread and now this?
 
Give it a rest m8. So you dislike the last two iterations of BF games...so you won't buy another one until patch z....so you won't pre-order....we get it...but leave it.
 
I bought  ToW and CM:SF. I was very dissappointed with ToW and not so with CM:SF - but I'm not on a hounding mission.
 
It's boring now. Why not just go and buy another game that you will enjoy or, if you already have one, play it. Theres' not need to carry on trying to (successfully or otherwise) to discredit BF.

[Yoozername]

Hey!  Your posts invalidate everyone and everything!  Congradulations!

[JudgeDredd]

Well, thank you. I wasn't being so sweeping about your posts, but far be it for me to tread on your toes.. I've only really  seen you active in two threads....this and CM:SF. That isn't to say you haven't posted elsewhere, just that your venom towards TOW, CM:SF and in particular BF is kind of "null and void"ing your other posts.
 
We get your pissed at buying CM:SF and now (or earlier?) ToW....but there must be something else you can get on with. It's pointing towards obsession now.
 
If my post seems as if it is trying to invalidate yours, then I apologise. That's not my intention. My intention is to point out that you are flogging a dead horse here.
 
 

[Yoozername]

I didn't buy CM:SF.  So please stop using the 'we' thing. 
 
You (that's you) have nothing to say about the topic here, but rather prefer to grand-stand about a percieved topic?  Well done!
 
 

[Plodder]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I didn't buy CM:SF. So please stop using the 'we' thing.

You (that's you) have nothing to say about the topic here, but rather prefer to grand-stand about a percieved topic? Well done!

Then that gives you less reason to slag it and BFC if you haven't paid for it. Your anti-BFC agenda and inane rants are getting tiresome..

[Yoozername]

Sorry.  I am trying to develop this thread into a discussion.  Its obvious that elements that have not come to terms with their teenage years feel the need to drag it down.

[JudgeDredd]

Well, I was going to retorte in your ilke, but the old addage applies....never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
 
Congratulations...you have indeed beaten me with experience.
 
Unlike you, I have purchased both and am therefore probably more knowlegeable in regard to your post. But once again, your post isn't really about discussing the future of wargaming, is it?
 
Really, another BF bashing thread is not required. [8|]
 
Just in case I do read your single track mind incorrectly and you do actually give a crap about the future of wargaming for BattleFront, I personally believe BFs products will be good for some years to come. Sure ToW and CM:SF aren't as good as people hoped, perhaps they've let you down...I don't know. I personally believe it will be a sad place for that developer to go...they've got a good stock of products...and I hope more to come.

[Plodder]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Its obvious that elements that have not come to terms with their teenage years feel the need to drag it down.

That's rather rich coming from a person who's been banned numerous times from the BFC forums. You are nothing but a troll. Good bye.

[Yoozername]

Lets me guess.  In your personal life, you are scared to say ''scuse me'.  But you derive a wonder-buzz from grandstanding here?
 
I never read through your posts.  Do me the same honor.  Unless this fills a void in you.

[Plodder]

Actually, I've got excellent social skills, you, on the other hand, really need to take a chill pill. Maybe you should go post over at the Steakhouse where you can slag off BFC to your heart's content. Just don't be suprised if they call you for it..

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Username is a troll.

His method and goals are one in the same, to tie up the forum through repetition and dissembling.

Proof?

All any of you have to do is ignore him, whereupon, he will begin to post in response to himself, as he did on another Matrix forum here:

tm.asp?m=1103864&mpage=2&key=

It's a little game that Lewis plays with his audience, unwitting as they might otherwise be.

He'll go on bumping up his threads so long as Matrix allows it, something that they seem increasingly reticent to allow. [:-]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Plodder]

Yeah, I suppose we'd better not give him more fuel...

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Oleg,

It's simply a desire for this to not turn into a Battlefront-bashing forum. That reflects on us and we have no desire or interest to bash Battlefront or any other wargame developer. If you want to discuss a game and the pros and cons, that's fine, but turning that to disparaging a developer or publisher is where we draw the line. This is simply a matter of courtesy as what we allow here not only reflects on us but could be expected to be used as an excuse to do the same to us elsewhere. I think it's best for everyone if we stay away from that.

If you want to criticize a publisher and don't want to do it on their own forum, there's always the Wargamer or Usenet (or a variety of smaller news sites or gaming group forums).

Regards,

- Erik

Sorry Erik but I have to disagree with you to a point. If/when a game is bad it reflects on a company no matter what, bad is bad and it's the whole that is responsible for it. To discuss it is to disclose that the company did a good or BAD job of it. You just can't get around that when you are talking about a game. It's like Paradox, I like some of their "games', but, I loathe their distribution of them when they are incomplete and not finished asking a full retail price for an unfinished product. Same goes for Battlefront I like some of their games and I don't like others, it is Battlefronts fault I don't like some for the reasons I state. Once again you just can't get around this what YOU CALL Bashing when one doesn't like something in a game or how the company develops it or releases it. Hell, I don't even like the high prices that you guys have. Myself I call it FEEDBACK not bashing. It's always in the eyes of the perceptionist I guess. You see things as bashing and I see them as FEEDBACK.

[Bodhi]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
You see things as bashing and I see them as FEEDBACK.

How does disparaging Battlefront on a Matrix forum become feedback for Battlefront? Maybe, as Erik indicated, that type of "feedback" needs to be in a Battlefront forum.

[JudgeDredd]

I have no doubt you would call just about anything feedback, RH, because you do not seem to know the difference (like Yoozername) between bashing and feedback. There is a difference...seperated by a gulf, and yet still you fail to see the difference.

Feedback is, generally, a well thought through, coherent post describing good and bad points in a game.

Bashing is constantly posting "This game is sh!t. This company is sh!t. This community is sh!t"

See the difference? Didn't think so.

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Depends.  If the person that reads thinks it is true, then who it is said about looks bad.  If the person that reads it feels it isn't true, then the person that said it looks bad.

Sorry, but you're not getting it.

The fact it appeared on another publisher's forum (= the competition) where the "accused" publisher can't defend himself - and where the home advantage of the other publisher plays a role leads the neutral observer, who doesn't have a bone in the fight, to conclude that the "accused" publisher isn't getting a fair "trial". And that the publisher who lets this happen is playing along with this, is - in essence - also not playing fair.

Not a good idea.

Come over to Usenet - neutral ground - and say whatever you like about anyone - just make sure you can back-up your statements with proof or the natives will eat you alive.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

...games like RO are the future (game that has nothing to do with either Battlefront or Matrix, of course). So I see where this guy comes from. And for what I did see TOW and CMSF do suck (even though that's not the point). Oh and BTW some Matrix games suck too [;)][:D]

Why are you posting matters of opinion as if they are matters of fact?

TOW and CMSF's massive suckage IS a matter of scientifically verifiable fact, isn't it?

[:D]

Mate I think it's fairly obvious everything posted here is just one man's opinion (the poster's)......

The blondes avatar have really influenced your intelligence.
For worse [:D]

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Username is a troll.

His method and goals are one in the same, to tie up the forum through repetition and dissembling.

Proof?

All any of you have to do is ignore him, whereupon, he will begin to post in response to himself, as he did on another Matrix forum here:

tm.asp?m=1103864&mpage=2&key=

It's a little game that Lewis plays with his audience, unwitting as they might otherwise be.

He'll go on bumping up his threads so long as Matrix allows it, something that they seem increasingly reticent to allow. [:-]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

Yes I used the forum as a place to post automotive facts about the T34. Garsh, you have uncovered my deepest darkest secret. On a forum about wargames and tanks even. Alert the media.

But please explain why you feel the need to be such a 'yahoo'? Are you sure that is not the real problem here?

By the way, I once posted multiple pages of historical references to white phosphorous at BF. Its probably the greatest online collection of info regarding willy-pete on the website. I have also seen references to the T34 automotive page above.

Here is a clue. Its information. We live in the information age.

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
You see things as bashing and I see them as FEEDBACK.

How does disparaging Battlefront on a Matrix forum become feedback for Battlefront? Maybe, as Erik indicated, that type of "feedback" needs to be in a Battlefront forum.

They (Battlefront) generally browbeat that down. Even Dorosh, an over-enthusiastic poster of sorts, was attacked as unstable by Steve Grammont because he pointed out the failings of 1:1 modeling. Personally, I have to agree that the whole 1:1 fiasco was a primrose path that a dunderhead pushed into that game's design.

Battlefront has no problem throwing barbs at other companies and their products and business practices. Hopefully, with the backlash from the latest designs, they can drop some of the arrogance and concentrate on their products.

[madorosh]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Yes I used the forum as a place to post automotive facts about the T34. Garsh, you have uncovered my deepest darkest secret. On a forum about wargames and tanks even. Alert the media.

But please explain why you feel the need to be such a 'yahoo'? Are you sure that is not the real problem here?

By the way, I once posted multiple pages of historical references to white phosphorous at BF. Its probably the greatest online collection of info regarding willy-pete on the website. I have also seen references to the T34 automotive page above.

Here is a clue. Its information. We live in the information age.

I think it may be worthwhile to attempt to clear up a basic misunderstanding here on the value of random internet searches and the spamming of threads with multiple data dumps. Prince of Eckmühl, if I may be so bold as to speak for him, probably doesn't object so much to the posting of information as much as the posting of collections of raw data. There is a large difference in having an intelligent, respectful conversation among one's peers in an attempt to contribute materially to the knowledge base of any group, and simple random spamming of raw data.

In our instance we're talking about furthering the group knowledge among game developers. We see this at Matrix as well as on the battlefront forums; a historical question will be asked and someone with no particular expertise or knowledge of the subject will go onto Google and simply find all the information he can and spam it into the thread in an attempt to appear to be a subject matter expert. Unfortunately, that "Information Age" we live in has many imperfect vessels, the internet being perhaps the worst of all of them, given the access that dilettantes have to it. If someone who lacks the ability to properly screen the information before passing it on, the consequences that has on the recipient's ability to properly understand the subject matter is impacted.

Worse, there are indeed cases where more is not always better. Sources conflict. Some sources are better than others. If all one can do is randomly search the internet and report back the results of a blind search without making an attempt to weed out accurate from inaccurate, an accumulated mountain of evidence - or in our case, a blizzard of random posts - can actually create more harm than good. The amount of data is enough to dissuade anyone from reading it, and the fact it is undistilled and provided by someone with no schooling in the subject matter is enough to make one seriously consider looking elsewhere for information, or even make the design decision that it just isn't worth simulating in a game given the effort it would take to wade through that mountain of raw data. In the meantime, real subject matter experts may look upon such provisions of information, feel that the matter has been adequately covered, and not bother to weigh in with a more refined and useful answer.

I look at a thread like the T-34 thread linked to here, or the White Phosphorous thread, and all I see are random postings generated by a google search. My instincts in such a case are to seek out actual subject matter experts and to ignore the data dumps for what they are - of dubious value. I'm not sure game developers wouldn't feel the same. To that end, they seem counter-productive. And distractive. And if you lace them with personal comments about other posters and a combative posting style, they become a complete waste of time.

I wouldn't alert the media about that, either, but I hope it makes clear PoE's point. I don't think he's being a yahoo at all; in fact, I think he raises a legitimate concern about the quality of historical discussion. I think the Panzer Command threads have been made to suffer for exactly the reasons I outlined above. Threads spammed with google searches and abusive comments simply aren't valuable as references or even as entertainment. The "greatest online collection" of information on the internet is not that at all - if there is no context provided and no synthesis of the material by someone expert in the subject material, it simply isn't of use to anyone in anything but a superficial manner.