Close Combat Series :: View topic

CSO Versus CCS ?

through

Forum FAQ

[^/[Print]\]
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next :| |:
Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#41: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:48 pm
—

LiveFree wrote:

I'm new to CC and to this community. I don't know what happened in the past, and I don't want to know.

Well, if one doesn’t learn from the history we are all doomed to make the same mistakes again.
Maybe you aren’t interested in the past, but I am, combined with what’s happened at this very moment it gives a “clear” future picture, in this very murky water. It isn’t pretty but that subjective ofcose, but rather objective if one see the massive rejection of Simtec run CSO forum.

LiveFree wrote:

No one wants to be a part of community of players that fight and argue.

No that’s right, that’s why ppl left the CSO/simtec run forum and turned there backs on em, but that ought to have given a user-power statement that ought to echo for a lifetime, but no. Now they are invading CCS, and do for CCS what they so effectively done for CSO.

Said that, I belive in fighting for a couse, fighting to preserve a forum culture so unique as the one we have here at CCS, I though was important. But one can’t defend what not want to be defended. You know, don’t you agree….

I guess it will all come down to a decision by the main head, so what will it be. You tell me.

#42: thats Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:04 pm
—
thats what i dont get, i been here posting regularly since sep 04,and im slung into cso boys catagory purely because i said something was good! well shoot me...

ccs is the best cc site, has been for 4 years. pity about the recent colourfull language and rants though.

lets let this mini 'war' stop here and now.if ccs went down and we all went to cso it would be same?

we must stick together to keep our mutual dream alive,

.....Close Combat.

#43: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:17 pm
—
I was not talking to you here, If u cared to read who I qouted youll see that.

I have no stuff with ye Tack, though I dont share your taste in ALL games to a degree. So what, thats taste.

So, What does that have to do with anything? I may like what I like, and you may like what you like, and both express our critiqs and love for whatever. AND BE ABLE TO POST THAT.

But thats what was not alowed at CSO, and now its happening to CCS.

Quote:

if ccs went down and we all went to cso it would be same?

And one thing I don’t agree with is that statement; I would NEVER be a part of such a hostile run CSOSimtec web site with such low respect for the consumer thoughts and issues. NEVER…
Judging by your statement I guess you would. Thats fine with me.

#44: Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:35 pm
—
Tacky,

Simtek never claimed to have fixed pathfinding, they said it 'may' have been improved. So it's then a matter of opinion, and in my opinion it was just as bad as CC3. I played CoI, I played enough of it to know that there were some problems that weren't there in CC3 vanilla. I also played CC3 since the day it came out, just as you did. Addition of mod-swap? Well that's not impressive. MMCC3 never even worked for me, but it sounded neat. So let's face it, the main additions to CoI was pre-existing mods/tools, my point all along. Sure some other things were done but the majority of it was things you could already obtain. Matrix Games then price gouged in a very big way.

My point is, you raveled people up, saying how amazing it is on forums, and it wasn't that amazing. It was CC3+mods and somewhat 'rounded' out. You're too positive and your not critical enough. A tester is someone who is objective and, if anything, extremely critical. I suppose you had nothing to be critical of though, considering you don't test the price of the product, you test the product. But I think you got a little ahead of yourself and promoting CoI. I would have told people what it was. CC3+mods and tools and not worth $50. If you think it was worth $50, well you are just wrong.

My problem is with the price set by Matrix, not with the work done by Simtek. I'm sure if Simtek would have released it on their own, no one would have paid $50 for it. We would have paid what it was worth, Simtekers were CC'rs, Matrix Game people are businessmen. I don't object to making CC3 available to people, but I do object to unfair price set by Matrix.

Plus, I'm just having a go with you. 'Tacky the Blowhardy' sounds kinda kewl too.

#45: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:24 pm
—

Quote:

be a part of such a hostile run Close Combat Series (ed) web site

And haven't we seen that these past few weeks, as your precious ground has been invaded... mostly by people who were here before you were.... what a laugh.

#46: Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:25 pm
—
CCS has always been good at introducing new mods/and the CC Camera.

Other than that theres not a lot worth reading here.
It's not like an encyclopedia of how to mod CC exists here.

As was at CSO.

Just because your here now doesnt mean you'll be here later.

#47: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:28 am
—
Whomever that proclaims they will not able to continue with thier naysaying due to the influx of anti naysayers, I say to you.. "Cowards!" Closecombatseries.net.... the traditional home of the naysayers, created partially to naysay, will always be home to the brotherhood of naysayers. So to you naysayers out there who say the naysaying naysayingness of this site is on the brink of extinction, be not afraid! CCS will always be home to the naysayers!

On a more serious note.... We all know CoI, CCMT and probably D-Day will all totally fail here online... Ok maybe single player they sold 1000's of copies but none of them showed up here, except a maybe a couple.. We still should welcome the posters from ANY SITE to post whatever they want to. Short of some administrator saying to user X and user Y, "stop posting," there is really not much else to do. The moderation of these forums have been left to the four winds and it has worked out in our favour for four years. I see no need to change the direction in how this site is handled.

#48: wow Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:39 am
—
well done troger,
some civility and finally objective views. its like a different person! im glad both our views have been shared.

i agree to some extent I did overate CoI, but as u pointed out, i didnt pay for it,and i actually added to it,helped to fine tweek it,and maybe bacause i felt i 'worked on it',spent hundrens of hours testing all the beta's,i thought it was the bees knee's. in hindsight i'd give it a like warm reception. 6.5/10 today.
comparing previous games to today is difficult, like cc1,then it was love at first sight, 9.5/10,today 2/10,cc3 was 9.6 then, 5/10 now. cc2 for me personally was always 3/10,and cc4 was always 4/10,original ccv for years was 4.5/10,untill GJS!wow what a mod..

CCMT i give a 5 because it has no GC,but its packed with previews for future.i made almost no comments about ccmt.

Mooxe,
I agree with a forum with limited moderation, but where is the line drawn? i made a swear word and was PERNAMENTLY BANNED BY MY ISP ADDRESS! I WOULD STILL BE BANNED NOW! if i didnt change ISP i'd have NO CSO, NO CCS!!! thats not live, its drifting in space! CCS is No1 CC site!. but others can verbally abuse,swear and rant with no repucissions. fair?

i wont ask for moderation, i can deal with it, but it has set a precident.unwarrant abuse is OK.

#49: Author: ZAPPI4, Location: Belgium Liege

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:20 pm
—
Well the reasons than CCS seems liberal are :

- We didnt get time to sleep on PC and browzing each post to be sure to
read fair things and poite text.
- We didnt want CCS look like some other CC site, rude and in sort of
dictator moderating. Cause it's really hard to be right to know which post
seems agressif, unpolite etc.
and some more points exist about why CCS get low moderator.

Now Like i said, everyone is welcome on CCS, and i dont remind one time
during all this 4 years, than anyone complained to me about someone else.
The very first time appeared some days ago. even; i dont guess we never ban
anyone from CCS except Bots.

#50: Re: wow Author: mooxe,

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:08 pm
—

ANZAC_Tack wrote:

Mooxe,
I agree with a forum with limited moderation, but where is the line drawn? i made a swear word and was PERNAMENTLY BANNED BY MY ISP ADDRESS! I WOULD STILL BE BANNED NOW! if i didnt change ISP i'd have NO CSO, NO CCS!!! thats not live, its drifting in space! CCS is No1 CC site!. but others can verbally abuse,swear and rant with no repucissions. fair?

i wont ask for moderation, i can deal with it, but it has set a precident.unwarrant abuse is OK.

Tack you were banned by an automated script that filtered bad words on the surveys. Each time I went in to unban you, it rebanned you and I couldnt figure out why. The scripts that protect other portions of this site do not protect the forums. Anything goes in these forums.

#51: Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:16 am
—
I can only assume my post was dead on since you cant respond to it
And who exactly is we when Mooxe speakes?
Him and his 5 friends?
2 of whom never post?

Thus I rest my case

CCS is like CC.org.

Here today,probably gone tommorow.

May God help us CC fans.

Edit:Darn
I cant even remeber the name of the site that was supposed to be the whooo Haaa of CC.
Was it CC.net
CCfans.net?

hmmm............... kinda funny

#52: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:42 am
—

platoon_michael wrote:

I can only assume my post was dead on since you cant respond to it

Well since you need attention I suppose I can set aside five minutes to reply to your statement. (rolling my eyes at you) Your opinion is dead on what you believe. Who am I to try and make you believe something else? I honestly dont pay much attention to everyones opinions of this site, but I do pay attention to concerns and constructive criticism. The site speaks for itself and everyone interprets that differently.

platoon_michael wrote:

And who exactly is we when Mooxe speakes?
Him and his 5 friends?
2 of whom never post?

Many people live in this home, not just the naysayers!

#53: Author: Polemarchos, Location: Polemarchopolis

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:46 am
—
thanks platoon_michael...

well cowards is a hard (inappropriate) word... I am not a naysayer... i am open th change... but i dont see any point in buying licences, then incorporating ideas developing in the CC world, selling us our (ye CC mods, ideas are public goods) own ideas...

its like reprinting the bible... and charging money...

btw. how about i charge money now, for sitting around in archives to collect data for mods... or mod makers asking for a fee... that be great!!!

#54: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:01 am
—

Quote:

then incorporating ideas developing in the CC world, selling us our (ye CC mods, ideas are public goods) own ideas...

Then under that scenario all these suggestions should not be incorporated in CC

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=4685

#55: Author: Polemarchos, Location: Polemarchopolis

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:53 am
—
good point...but you misunderstand... the issue is selling new vine in old bottles... not drinking wine

i guess they can be used, but since it then was created by more guys than just the developers or publishers, you either give free copies to the guys involved, or make it half prize...

and ye whats wrong with publishing a PATCH, and charging 5-10$ (or Euro) for a pimped CC5... Name it GOLD or sth...

CC6 is completely different story.

#56: Author: Flamethrower,

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:05 am
—

Polemarchos wrote:

its like reprinting the bible... and charging money...

Book- The Holy Bible
Sales Rank- #1
Date- Approximate First Publication c. 1451-55
Author- Various
Copies sold- More than 6 Billion

#57: Author: QM, Location: Australia

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:08 am
—

platoon_michael wrote:

I can only assume my post was dead on since you cant respond to it
And who exactly is we when Mooxe speakes?
Him and his 5 friends?
2 of whom never post?

Thus I rest my case

CCS is like CC.org.

Here today,probably gone tommorow.

May God help us CC fans.

Edit:Darn
I cant even remeber the name of the site that was supposed to be the whooo Haaa of CC.
Was it CC.net
CCfans.net?

hmmm............... kinda funny

CC.net

Was owned and run by Pott

#58: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:45 am
—
Yah, thanx god CSO is up and running.

http://www.closecombat.org/forums/

And "men", keep up the "good" work you two do at CSO.

LONG LIVE CSO.

#59: Author: king_tiger_tank, Location: the Band and State of Kansas

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:25 pm
—
even though I'll sound like a mad fool, I say that we should get the rights to the game and have the modders be in charge of making the games, then we will have games that will not suck.

#60: tiger Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:58 am
—
a fantastic idea, its true.

but who has the $$$ to buy it?

maybe if the "evil empire" fails to deliver, all CCS could chip in a few hundren and buy the rights!

i know if i had garantee's,i'd part with 2 or 3 hundren for a "GOOD" game.

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next :| |: Page 3 of 4