Dear Devs, can you please make more of the new sim features optional?

[Gizzmoe]

I just saw that the new "Weather affects the maximum speed of surface ships" feature in 1265.1 is optional, for good reasons, as Dimitris mentioned, it can potentially unbalance existing scenarios.

Other new features can unbalance them as well, especially the new radar and tracking system.

As much as I am in total love which all the new stuff you guys added in these last betas, for the sake of playability, make more of those hardcore changes optional, please

[boogabooga]

Agreed.

I would say especially for the new missile fly-out model. This feature greatly shortens practical engagement ranges, and older scenarios usually are not considering that in their WRA doctrine.

[Gainful]

I agree. Every time you guys add any new realism related features, please make them optional. Some of us enjoy a more casual gameplay experience.

[Easy301]

I don't like this idea one bit, I really think this would be incredibly negative to multiple facets of Command and would cause more harm than any amount of good it would provide. This is just my opinion of course and I'm not very good at expressing everything I'm thinking in a clear manner sometimes but I'll do my best.

There's a balance as to what should be optional, I personally think it's in a good place right now currently. Having every significant platform change that increases realism and accuracy be an optional setting I think would hold back growth and feature implementation in some respects and could be incredibly damaging to community content which is the foundation of a platform like CMO and has been since the Harpoon days.

Having a community-created scenario selection where every scenario uses a different set of realism and feature variables or just general features such as the new missile system would be an absolute disaster in my opinion.

From a player perspective you'd be having to learn multiple tactics and systems that behave incredibly differently per scenario (Ship OODA Values, Missile system, Radar rework.). It would be incredibly counter intuitive for a new player to learn, example: "Sometimes your Amraams will work like this but sometimes they won't, good luck." Instead of just being "Amraams work this way consistently in CMO because that's the way they do in real life." The latter phrase is how most features and additions to CMO should be viewed and looked at.

For an advanced player it's already going to be bad enough switching from and trying to determine which ship OODA values are in use in a scenario as it's possible to upgrade a scenario to the latest DB without the new values. I understand some features and changes HAVE to be optional because they can drastically alter the playability and balance of older scenarios unintentionally and preserving community scenario content is absolutely paramount for the longevity and growth of the game.

Then there's the fact that you'd be fielding a billion reports of issues with a scenario that's not really an issue it's just now you have 200+ scenarios that can use a different set up of the new realism system reworks and features.

I want and expect as a player that for the most part (some special setting aside; Submarine Communications, Terrain Features etc) that the realistic environment I play in has logic, rules and performance that's consistent. I shouldn't have to worry about, learn about,and execute fundamental changes in the way my F-14s engage with missiles each scenario because things like that should NOT vary based on scenario, they should function consistently based on realism with me having to make choices based on operational and tactical considerations in the scenario, and not which missile model the creator decided to use.

Then you'd have to worry about future features, and those future features would have to fit in and work with the various different models and feature sets that can be used optionally in a scenario. The way even simple features are added would have to be changed because you'd no longer be building features and changes based on consistent realistic variables but a multitude of them that may or may not be in operation depending on the scenario creator.

I won't get into the headache this would cause keeping the CSP in relatively functioning order and being able to make changes and fixes for the scenarios to make sure they still work correctly even for those creators that are no longer in the community.

Changes and fixes are implemented now for those creators no longer in the community because we know the realism or feature changes that broke or unbalanced them are feature that are activated globally for the platform and will remain so going forward. So the only change that can possibly work to fix that scenario is a change that ensures it's functioning and balanced based on the newly added feature or system rework. If those changes are optional we have no idea what the designers intent would be anymore.

There's certain changes that need to be optional to preserve community content, that's perfectly understandable and should absolutely be the case considering how important community content is.

Changes that rework a function, sensor, weapon or other system that drastically increases the functional realism of the platform and the environment/rules/logic of the platform should be implemented globally, universally and consistently. That type of implementation is required to build upon those changes. We won't see growth and evolution of those changes or at least as much if there's multiple optional variations of those changes. I.E the option of the Missie model. Eventually you'd have to pick and implement one as the primary model anyway if you want to improve and build off of it.

Players should know they are operating under the most realistic systems in the most realistic environment available, that generally shouldn't change based on what the scenario designer decided for all the reasons I stated above and more.

Feature A shouldn't function as X or Y based on what the scenario designer decided, it should function as realistic as the platform allows with scenarios built around that.

If something like the missile changes are causing frustration, misunderstanding, feelings that things aren't working right, etc even though it's suppose to be a positive addition to the game that drastically increases realism, we as a community should have open and constructive communication with the dev team as beta feedback allows to further explore what the issues are, and what tweaks or changes can be made to improve the transition and implementation of the system for the community and get it to a place we feel comfortable with.

I feel like people are asking for the missile system to be implemented optionally because it just doesn't feel like a good change right now. As realistic as it's repeated to be it's causing players a lot issues and unintended behavior that just isn't fun at the moment. Those should be addressed rather than making things optional.

We've had changes in the past implemented globally and it's been just fine. The bottom line is that I personally and respectfully think making things like realism changes to missiles,radar and tracking, sonar and anything else is a bad idea for many reasons.

We'd no longer be operating (or learning as a new player) in an environment where systems and features function with the intended realism consistently and regardless of scenario but an environment where the implementation of realistic mechanics and features may or may not be present or even partially present.

One last thing, respectfully of course.

I agree. Every time you guys add any new realism related features, please make them optional. Some of us enjoy a more casual gameplay experience

Choice is always better but one of those choices in a platform devoted entirely to realism shouldn't be the omission of realism, those looking for a more casual experience have more than enough options while playing a scenario in the editor.

This isn't an elitist "Mah realism" thing. It's that taking the casual approach to a platform built from the ground up based entirely on the standards of it's global and consistent implementation of realism aka. regardless if scenario, can severely hurt the game and especially it's community content far more than the addition of major realism changes.

Missiles should work like missiles, and tracking should work like tracking the same way in every single scenario. A consistent environment with consistent rules and logic in a platform like this is probably one of the most important things.

Saying that all future realism changes should be optional is in my opinion not a very good and destructive idea.

Excuse the spelling and Grammer, I'm away from my computer and had to type all this on my cellphone. I did go back and try and clean and it up but you'll probably find errors and issues still.

Regards,
Greg.

[alphali]

I completely agree with Easy, with the current rate of development and all the new additions, having all the new features optional is a nightmare for developers, new players, and even existing players. In addition to having so many toggles to think and know about (and fit in the UI without being insanely cluttered), you will have to think about all the different interactions between the different options, not to mention the effect on future development as that would increase dramatically the complexity of adding a new feature on top.

I think this is still in Beta and will take some time to update the old scenarios and for people to get used to the new realism features but for the long run, it's best to have only the absolute necessary as optional.

[Gizzmoe]

@Easy301 and alphali, maybe try seeing that suggestion from a different perspective, as a kind of compatibility option, so that people still can enjoy existing scenarios. Some of the new stuff simply unbalances existing scenarios. Imo it's not the right solution to say "Meh, that's just the way it is, lets wait until the scen designers update them". Give people an option at scen start, ask them if they wanna have certain options or not.

[Gizzmoe]

having all the new features optional is a nightmare for developers, new players, and even existing players.

And having all the new features non-optional would be nightmare for new players and existing players. Do you agree?

There are a few things that are optional already. The Weather thing for ships, the OODA changes, aircraft damage, realistic sub communcations, and others. If they would add the speed bleedoff and radar thing to that list, it would certainly be helpful to have.

[BDukes]

@Easy301 and alphali, maybe try seeing that suggestion from a different perspective, as a kind of compatibility option, so that people still can enjoy existing scenarios. Some of the new stuff simply unbalances existing scenarios. Imo it's not the right solution to say "Meh, that's just the way it is, lets wait until the scen designers update them". Give people an option at scen start, ask them if they wanna have certain options or not.

The game has always been a moving target and every designer knows it. Same with being a designer who posts stuff publicly. There is kind of an understood unstated agreement that things to do change and if you want to be public and current you have to own the change. This isn't something pounded into stone but built through practice.

As a scenario author, it's all a choice of what you want to do because you're a volunteer. It is ok to drop an old design and move to a new one. You don't owe players or devs an updated design. You're only as good as the interest you have in pursuing whatever. I don't want to play an updated scenario design that Skippy dragged his way into it like he did the TPS reports at work on Monday. I want something they're excited about so it's good. I say this as a designer and player.

As far as what the devs owe-it's just a fairly presented and documented heads up about what's changed. I think by having a beta they're doing most of it. Documentation should be better at release.

BTW big thanks to people who have no skin in the game but want to advocate. Where were you for that blur of a Game of Thrones ending! Very helpful

Mike

[Gizzmoe]

As a scenario author, it's all a choice of what you want to do because you're a volunteer. It is ok to drop an old design and move to a new one. You don't owe players or devs an updated design.

Yup. That's why many scenarios are not going be updated to reflect all the changes, thus we need options in the game to still be able to enjoy older scens.

[Gainful]

Calm down, you're getting waaaaaaay too deep into this, you didn't need to write a thesis about it. Don't worry, no one is gonna touch your sensor and performance settings. I enjoy realism as much as the next guy, but there are other things that would also be considered realism which some players might not desire but do not have any severe impact in scenarios the likes of which you seem to think of. Some of those things are already included in the 'scenario features' options. Like the realistic submarine comms, or the new weather system. I'm glad thats optional, I wouldn't wanna be forced to play with those settings on.

Most scenario designers will make their scenarios based on having a lot of the settings on anyways, so you will still get the full realistic experience. Its just that those of us who want an easier experience can simply go into the editor and remove the selected options. It doesn't break the scenario in any way.

[BDukes]

As a scenario author, it's all a choice of what you want to do because you're a volunteer. It is ok to drop an old design and move to a new one. You don't owe players or devs an updated design.

Yup. That's why many scenarios are not going be updated to reflect all the changes, thus we need options in the game to still be able to enjoy older scens.

Well, you did ask instead of demand. No harm in that.

[thewood1]

If it the ongoing development is a burden, stop updating. There are some people that don't fancy the beta releases for this reason. I'm sure Matrix could get you older builds. You could always go all the way back to CMNAO if that's your thing.

Instead of putting the burden on the devs, take control of the issue yourself.

[Gizzmoe]

If it the ongoing development is a burden, stop updating. There are some people that don't fancy the beta releases for this reason. I'm sure Matrix could get you older builds. You could always go all the way back to CMNAO if that's your thing.

Instead of putting the burden on the devs, take control of the issue yourself.

"Oh good lord stop. Does anybody ever like you?" - BDukes

[Easy301]

Calm down, you're getting waaaaaaay too deep into this, you didn't need to write a thesis about it. Don't worry, no one is gonna touch your sensor and performance settings. I enjoy realism as much as the next guy, but there are other things that would also be considered realism which some players might not desire but do not have any severe impact in scenarios the likes of which you seem to think of. Some of those things are already included in the 'scenario features' options. Like the realistic submarine comms, or the new weather system. I'm glad thats optional, I wouldn't wanna be forced to play with those settings on.

Most scenario designers will make their scenarios based on having a lot of the settings on anyways, so you will still get the full realistic experience. Its just that those of us who want an easier experience can simply go into the editor and remove the selected options. It doesn't break the scenario in any way.

I was stating my opinion and trying to provide somewhat constructive feedback, which you obviously did not read, it was not about "oh noez my sensor setting!". There is no need to be rude however, if you don't like it, don't read it. You don't have to be mean.

Every time a question is proposed and someone gives more than a paragraph of response around here, the go-to is "Wow, you really care that much!? It's not that big of deal."

No it's not that big of deal, and really does not matter at the end of the day, but that doesn't mean I can't try and promote constructive discussion about my favorite game. That's how games and their communities get better, but hey, who would want that?

You basically said exactly what I did, that some features should be and remain optional while things like sensor, weapon, etc changes and such should be global, you also have access to playing the scenario via the editor whenever you'd like to mitigate anything else you don't want to deal with.

[thewood1]

If it the ongoing development is a burden, stop updating. There are some people that don't fancy the beta releases for this reason. I'm sure Matrix could get you older builds. You could always go all the way back to CMNAO if that's your thing.

Instead of putting the burden on the devs, take control of the issue yourself.

"Oh good lord stop. Does anybody ever like you?" - BDukes

Is there a problem with that suggestion? Seems like common sense to me.

[Gizzmoe]

If it the ongoing development is a burden, stop updating. There are some people that don't fancy the beta releases for this reason. I'm sure Matrix could get you older builds. You could always go all the way back to CMNAO if that's your thing.

Instead of putting the burden on the devs, take control of the issue yourself.

"Oh good lord stop. Does anybody ever like you?" - BDukes

Is there a problem with that suggestion? Seems like common sense to me.

Yeah, you sweet innocent angel just wrote that as a well-meant advice... Your comment added nothing to this discussion, it's polemic. Of course everyone can go back to CMANO or even Harpoon if they wanted, there's no need to point that out.

[Gainful]

Sorry if I appeared mean, I'm not shunning you in any way. My point is the same, theres no need to worry as none of the core realism is going to be removed, just some extra features may be made optional which can be turned on or off depending on your realism preferences.

[thewood1]

"Oh good lord stop. Does anybody ever like you?" - BDukes

Is there a problem with that suggestion? Seems like common sense to me.

Yeah, you sweet innocent angel just wrote that as a well-meant advice... Your comment added nothing to this discussion, it's polemic. Of course everyone can go back to CMANO or even Harpoon if they wanted, there's no need to point that out.

Well no one mentioned so wanted make sure all options were open. Let me know what else you don't anyone to talk about.

[Gizzmoe]

Well no one mentioned so wanted make sure all options were open.

Yeah, options are always good. Personally, for my own gaming experience, I don't care if the devs add the options that I mentioned, I love all the new stuff, and if I want to play older stuff without bleedoff and things, I can use a second, older, version of CMO. I only have Steam, so that needs a bit of fiddling, but it's easy to do. You have the Matrixgames version, is it easy to keep different versions of CMO on the drive?

[BDukes]

Well no one mentioned so wanted make sure all options were open.

Yeah, options are always good. Personally, for my own gaming experience, I don't care if the devs add the options that I mentioned, I love all the new stuff, and if I want to play older stuff without bleedoff and things, I can use a second, older, version of CMO. I only have Steam, so that needs a bit of fiddling, but it's easy to do. You have the Matrixgames version, is it easy to keep different versions of CMO on the drive?

Sounds like all is well then. Glad that didn't blow up into a thing.