Jump to content

Captain_Colossus

Members
  • Content count

    1,788
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Captain_Colossus

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

4,968 profile views
  1. 24/7 Server

    that's all well and good, but with 24/7 servers, how would you guarantee serious players, sort of serious players, not so serious players, emotionally immature players, players with vendettas, players who don't or can't work with teams, players who only have 10-30 minutes at most time to commit, and assorted what have you. honestly, what makes you think the outside world is ready to play steel beasts at the entry fee of at least $125 cash money (or somewhat cheaper second hand)?- assuming you're taking the side of the 24/7 server which is why i ask. when i played other online games, you got all those type of players- which was ok, because that's what you expected, you wouldn't or shouldn't play those games if you hoped to get something different. it wouldn't make sense. where does this sense that most or more people out there want to play steel beasts as opposed to the other top selling mmo games out there but for some reason aren't here already come from? even with the cheaper time limited licenses, my subjective sense is that the public appetite isn't as large for steel beasts, which may be saying something. do i understand it? no, i like steel beasts after all, i can't imagine what it is not to like it, but then i think golf is boring and enough people like it. i think even if steel beasts had free to play models it still wouldn't attract the serious players you want to have. it's not a 'fault' of steel beasts by any means, the market isn't as broad, it's more of a hobbyist interest rather than general public. first, out of the few online games i played in the past, even the most popular at the time, battlefield 2, which was very easy to pick up and play and had a system in place to encourage cooperation still had lots of open servers that were empty, or were mostly empty at certain times. the user base of battlefield 2.0 was much larger than steel beasts, and even still you had lots of empty 24/7 servers running. then after the expected shelf life expired, increasingly you saw only empty servers most of the time and you got the sense the gig was up, the public's attention span had moved on. second, and related to the first point, i don't presume to speak for esim, but from their own statements to the public they have said that public sales of the software is a small percentage compared to their professional customers. so there you have it- you can infer from that their existence by and large doesn't come from relying on revenue from the general public, if it did, this whole thing would have likely went a different direction, may have closed shop by now or warped into some gamey travesty by someone else who picked up the rights. so you can't really depend on having this large user base show up on the 24/7 servers, because i don't think it exists. what steel beasts does well it does different- and what it does different by its very nature tends to attract certain types of players who commit to or associate with dedicated clans and groups of players with the same specialized interest.
  2. 24/7 Server

    all simulations can be played anyway you want to provided that the code allows it.when talking about multi-player, there are community standards which set rules about the 'right' and 'wrong' way to play, not on some deep meta level but implicit or explicit agreements to make sure everyone knows what to expect. otherwise cheats and exploits may enter into it, or people can violate rules and codes of conduct, or turn everyone else's experience into something less enjoyable when they hijack the session to do something for kicks. so in the context of this discussion, the reasoning is that there is a 'right' way that steel beasts would be played, since players dropping in, making a mess of a scenario and dropping out again may just ruin all the prep time and actual game time invested in the session.
  3. 24/7 Server

    for what it's worth- you picked a path and you followed it rather than hedging and trying to appease the entire consumer market. insofar as the 5 year attrition rate on your average startup is notoriously brutal, you probably beat the odds in the software world. you've been around longer than microprose, even though microprose developed many more different games with higher returns (and losses). you could have done things entirely differently and been successful at it and still things could have went south and you may have been acquired by different publishers selling off your back catalog, and then finally reduced to a web domain (whoever owns the rights and the name to microprose these days has a bare bones website reminiscing about all the good times, seems to imply that microprose is still around, but you quickly figure out this site is a mere placeholder with some effort put into a couple of clickable libraries, it's otherwise meaningless): http://www.microprose.com/
  4. 24/7 Server

    you keep ignoring what has been said and reduce it to 'if you build it they will come'. your position: add a 24/7 server, and the community will balloon. is that a fair understanding? i think it is. problem: prediction is you will have an empty 24/7 server because the large user base wouldn't appear. i think this has been explained well enough. do you understand you aren't the first person to come along and say some form of this and it never happens? for example, add more vehicles that are not so american or german centric, add more vehicle interiors, add xyz feature, and that's the missing ingredient which would bring in all these new players. well, it doesn't really happen like that. each new release draws in people who are areadly interested in a simulation of combined arms tactics, which looks to be a lot fewer than the run and gun crowd who go play those other games. with each new release there also seems to be some users joining the community commenting that steel beasts wasn't what they expected it to be- usually they expected it to be more of a 'game', and they drop out and you don't hear from them again. it really comes down to the matter that steel beasts isn't the type of game everyone wants to play, whether there would be a server allowing more people to join or not. the people you want to attract are already playing the games that they would most likely to prefer playing, and it shows by their behavior.
  5. 24/7 Server

    i think the technical issue comes rather attached with the audience, separating the two would be like trying to separate wet from water. mmo type games running servers 24/7 where players can drop in and drop out by their very nature attract those types of players to begin with. that sort of gameplay is what the audience is after. leaving just the technical or financial investments out of it, imagine more sophisticated steel beasts scenarios requiring breaching and clearing minefields, for example, and imagine getting unknown players without any familiarity with the plan or the task just to perform it or coordinate with it. the types of players who want a 24/7 server to go up against lots of players aren't looking for that experience to begin with per se, unless the task was extremely simplified, like press a hot key, and any unit deploys a mine dozer and can instantly clear an obstacle. in other words, steel beasts gameplay is much more attuned to planning, and time commitments that mmo games don't quite expect of their audiences. it's just the way it is, it's not out of arrogance that this is mentioned, it's out of a realistic sense of two different game styles which are separate for a reason. before steel beasts 2.0 was released, i got interested in red orchestra and battlefield 2.0, and those were fun- but of course the game styles were different from steel beasts, and were very much designed from the get go to have the type of mmo experience where players can spawn in and out and resurrect and this sort of thing. sure. steel beasts was not quite designed like that to begin with- that's the problem. it goes both ways- if you attempt to turn steel beasts into mmo type game, i think it would miss something in the translation, i would rather play those types of games if that's what i was after. likewise i didn't play battlefield to spend as much time planning as i do in steel beasts, the two play styles are different for a reason. as such, the ability to enter and drop with anonymous players is not just a consequence of different game designs- they are necessary for different play styles, the projected audience informs those types of play mechanics and vice versa.
  6. 24/7 Server

    there have been different versions of this over the years, i.e., bring a challenger 2 tank in, or bring a t-72 in, or more equipment that isn't so american or german focused, and you'll have lots more users bum rushing to play steel beasts. this never really seems to actualize the way it is predicted. you probably always gain more new players with each new release of steel beasts, but it doesn't necessarily correspond to the specific thing that people tend to base their conclusions on. i think people who make these kinds of statements may be well meaning, but they are projecting; in other words, it occurs to them if they like a thing, that must be how lots of other people feel about it.
  7. grass texture obsolete?

    i see the issue- i didn't realize that there is more than one theme version of these files (using a desert theme, object #48 appears tan and resembles harvested wheat bundle, that's how i was overlooking it)- tanks.
  8. grass texture obsolete?

    unless somehow my installation became corrupted, it appears that steel beasts no longer uses the below file to render grass, that is, you cannot paint terrain with this type of grass in the map editor. is this a choice to stop using it or did something in the program inadvertently change not to recognize it? this file is called grasses.dds and still lives in the installation directory. the grass in the left pane is a nice looking texture to have and i would like to see it back.
  9. 24/7 Server

    turn it around- ask the developers of war thunder or battlefield to scale their games into something different, and watch how fast that happens. so you insist that it can be done on this forum instead 'and there is no rule on earth preventing you from doing it'- well, the issue isn't whether it can or can't be done, after all, they could combine basketball with golf and it might still be a mess of a sport and a big waste of everyone's time at the end, but nothing that went against the laws of the universe after all. not a relevant point. first, these types of questions come up often enough but it is predictable each time they are asked as if no one has ever brought it up before. and i will argue that you are seeing exactly the type of people who want to play either type of games naturally attracted to them as they are- you don't need to entice people to play more steel beasts if only it had that sort of multiplayer experience, they would have been here already because they liked steel beasts if that were the case. if those games have comparably large audiences, it's because those games appeal to that type of audience, which is larger. therefore the medium is the message- simply, watch how people actually behave, and there is your answer. people who prefer the large scale multiplayer experience without the steel beasts code will naturally play those games without being cajolled. that's what a free market predicts, and that's what you're seeing. second, there is a certain idea that everyone should be able to have their cake and eat it too. in other words, why can't you make something that does it all, and the interesting point about this is how often that doesn't work. design decisions become compromised or muddled, and to borrow a cliche, the result often ends up doing no area particularly very well when it tries to do it all. some people get a kick out of steel beasts' instant action mode, i'll say it is my least favorite mode- as a pure action game, that seems to miss the point of what steel beasts does well. imagine steel beasts imported into simple, small maps where players spawn in and start the trigger pulling right away, players getting blown up every few seconds, re-spawning and doing over. that gets boring, just like steel beasts instant action gets boring, and it neglects most of the ingredients of what steel beasts was designed to do. getting a kill after spending time making plans is in its own way a lot more satisfying than having them come too easily- just like everything else, the easier or more abundant an experience is, the cheaper the satisfaction which goes along with it. this has been shown in experiments (in blind experiments, test subjects showed preference for a higher priced wine than a cheaper one, though they are tasting the same wine in either case), and i'm sure you can think of others. my recommendation is to play both types of games if you like both- play the multiplayer oriented action games when you need that fix, then move to steel beasts when you want something else.
  10. We love screenshots

    iran vs. iraq
  11. claymore mine not functioning (4.023)

    thank you
  12. claymore mine not functioning (4.023)

    i do not think the claymore will explode in ver. 4.023. after a forum search, i saw a prior support topic that in an earlier version of SB the claymore seemed to blow up and direct the blast radius in the east direction only. as of SB ver. 4.023 i cannot get the claymore to explode- cannot manually detonate when set to action with a trigger, or any other condition (eg., explode if unit x can see at least 1 enemy infantry unit in region y). i replaced the claymore with an IED and the IED works fine under the same tested conditions for the claymore.
  13. New Gaming Rig - Thoughts?

    i think the difficult matter is i could tell you how i would do it based on how i primarily use my computer, but i don't really know what you want to do with yours the only other reason we need to upgrade to run spreadsheets and word processors is because microsoft is imposing compatibility problems with new operating systems that they roll out, so let's get down to brass tacks- besides that you are upgrading to play computer games. my nine year old computer was top of the line offered as a dell gaming machine in 2010, notwithstanding the fact it was a single core cpu, didn't have dual or quadruple graphics cards, and it still works quite well for my purposes (i don't own dcs or arma 3, if those are meaningful indicators). the question is what type of performance do you intend to get out of what specific games you think you'll be playing- maybe specifically ask others what their machines subjectively feel like with arma 3 or dcs loaded as a comparison and then go from there.
  14. New Gaming Rig - Thoughts?

    cannot be done, you lose that game every time chasing a phantom. 'the future' is not a perceptible experience, there is only now- you could be enjoying your computer if you bought it now, or not enjoying it now. if the idea is to stretch your budget as far as possible into the future with buying the most expensive you could afford now, you could have bought something cheaper and invested the difference and then you would probably have more money to show for it over the long run (then eventaully upgrade again later).
  15. We love videos

    insofar as it is a feature to have trees of different heights, i can't think of why that is bad.
×