Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Tcp/ip

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Tcp/ip Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Tcp/ip - 1/5/2003 2:28:17 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Since the game isn't scheduled for release anytime soon, there should be ample time to implement a TCP/IP option !? : )

I'm sure you can come up with some way to tweak the engine to accept it!!

Please : )

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Post #: 1
- 1/15/2003 11:26:12 PM   
SamRo

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 3/23/2002
From: UK
Status: offline 		I thought it was yes for WITP & a pach for UV???

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 2
- 1/16/2003 9:52:06 AM   
David Heath


Posts: 3274
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Staten Island NY
Status: offline 		There is no current plan for TCP/IP at this time.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 3
Why no TCP/IP?? - 1/19/2003 1:25:20 AM   
2Stepper


Posts: 948
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: North Burbs of Omaha
Status: offline 		Greetings,
I've been trying to follow the forums on this much anticipated game and am a bit shocked as to why TCP/IP isn't even being considered? :confused:

Both Uncommon Valor and this game are brilliant in their concept and in this day and age of broadband communications it should be a simple task to make a peer-to-peer communication work insofar as sending/receiving the game file that's currently emailed.

You certainly wouldn't have to run the game on a server of any kind. It would simply be a matter of having the two gamers setup the game where one is host and the other is joining that particular game. In the age of broadband if you could get the game file down to 2mb via compression and then send that bugger it should be easy... I know you folks that built the game will have a TON of happy fans, me included. Cause while I LOVE the game, it falls short when you consider that to play out one turn via email is nearly as long as it took to fight the actual war... :eek:

Please don't take this as a slam on the game. It's not. I, as an appreciative customer feel like a great opportunity is being missed. Since we're looking at another 9month wait on WITP, please consider it? Because I can tell you seeing Gary Grigsby's classic Pacific War come to life like this in Uncommon Valor is a real treat... I'd just like to play it effectively with friends online...

Just some constructive criticism for the staff...

thanks, and regards:cool:

_____________________________


"Send in the Infantry. Tanks cost money... the dead cost nothing..." :)

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 4
TCP/IP - 1/19/2003 11:09:40 AM   
gus

 

Posts: 237
Joined: 3/16/2002
From: Corvallis, OR
Status: offline 		Hi 2stepper

While TCP/IP would be a 'nice to have' feature it is not a must have for games like WitP and UV. I know there are some speed players out there who would really love to have it but if my PBEM games are any indication 1-4 turns per day appears to be the norm and the time I and my opponents spend on each turn varies from 10-30 minutes, so I don't know how useful TCP/IP would be if you have to wait around for 20 minutes per turn on average. Many of us have multiple PBEM games going at any one moment in time and IMO having multilple UV TCP/IP sessions going simultaneously is simply not possible IMO given that UV was not designed to be a server. Also it is not a slam dunk to simply code this into the game as you imply as it would require extra time to fine tune and debug. Also adding 'trivial' features like this at the end of the developement cycle is one of the hallmark faux pas in software development circles. While it is true that most turn based games include this feature, I am sure it was designed in from the beginning and wasn't slapped on at the end of the development cycle as would be the case here.

What I would rather see is a more elegant PBEM system that would allow me to save each turn and combat replay as separate entities (so that I can go back from time to time and refer to them as necessary). Currently I have to do a more file management than suits my taste.

Gus

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 5
Re: Why no TCP/IP?? - 1/19/2003 4:39:13 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by 2Stepper
[B] and in this day and age of broadband communications it should be a simple task to make a peer-to-peer communication work insofar as sending/receiving the game file that's currently emailed.

[/B][/QUOTE]

*sigh* there are still a lot of ppl whom are forced to be on dial-up!:mad:

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 6
Agree in principle, but... - 1/19/2003 10:21:05 PM   
2Stepper


Posts: 948
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: North Burbs of Omaha
Status: offline 		To Gus...

Admittedly it may be a nightmare for the guys to do anything with TCP/IP at this point... Not to mention the fact that I have to concede a certain love for the ability to just sit and play, and not have to fart around with a clunky interface like email to send and receive my game files... On that note I'd have to agree. The interface for the PBEM aspect is weak to non-existent. As to the time it takes to making a turn though, I'm not so sure I agree with you...

I own, though no longer play a sci-fi game called Birth of the Federation that was in all respects turn based and had lots to accomplish each turn. It however worked perfectly well with either 10 min turn limits or it was just understood that your counterparts may take a while... My point in bringing that up is that while a TCP/IP connect may be bordering on ludicrus with the amount of moves you make in the entire theater I think it would have been and still is prudent to do it for UV. As personally I've never taken longer then 10 mins to trounce through a turn...

Who knows, perhaps they're going to spoil us with that UV patch for TCP/IP, and while I'd love to see it for WITP, it would be difficult. Like you, I sincerely hope that they improve the PBEM interface... At any rate though, I Love the potential of the game as I've burned up many an hour against the computer playing UV... WITP should be equally involving...

cheers...

p.s.... As for those that still suffer under the boot of Dialup? :( You have my sincerest sympathies... Someone would have to put a gun to my head to go back... ;)

_____________________________


"Send in the Infantry. Tanks cost money... the dead cost nothing..." :)

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 7
- 1/20/2003 5:55:47 AM   
Veldor


Posts: 1531
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: King's Landing
Status: offline 		I see very little value in having TCP/IP supported in UV/WITP. I, like most, play at least 2 games + at anyone time, usually playing my turn in one while I wait for the other to send back.. I tend to go 25-35 mins per turn and would never wait that long for someone else.

In the business world we use what's called a "MAPI" interface to send e-mail directly from within an application. I would see something like that far more usefull as then you would never have to leave the game to send a turn off via e-mail. Not sure how doable something like that is for gaming, but like I said its done in the business world all the time. It just passes the info through to any standard mail client like Outlook etc.. Probably wouldn't work for a lot of the email programs people use(yahoo etc) but for those that really wanted it, Outlook integration at the very least should be a breeze..

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 8
- 1/20/2003 8:00:51 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		TCP/IP would be a welcome addition, not for everyday use, but for when you wanted to race past turns with little or nothing happening - or when big battles took place! Then both players could see the combat at the same time and pass comments on it all. Spending an entire evening with the same game would be great! Now it usually takes hours between turns.

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 9
- 1/20/2003 12:10:05 PM   
Knavey

 

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline 		Have you guys even played UV? You can't race past turns where there is nothing happening. You might have 2 turns in a 30 turn period where very little is happening, but they STILL take 30 minutes plus to do.

You are NUTZ if you think a player is going to sit around waiting on you to finish your turn where nothing happens.

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 10
- 1/20/2003 1:06:52 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Knavey
[B]Have you guys even played UV? You can't race past turns where there is nothing happening. You might have 2 turns in a 30 turn period where very little is happening, but they STILL take 30 minutes plus to do.

You are NUTZ if you think a player is going to sit around waiting on you to finish your turn where nothing happens. [/B][/QUOTE]
......................................................................................................

If you presume anything, you should speak your mind and add 'this is what I think' as an end to your presumption and then ask others for their opinions...

'NUTZ' is what Gen 'Nuts' McAuliffe answered the Germans when they asked him to surrender Bastogne ;)

I've played a few hundred turns UV pbem, and more than half of them got done in less than 15 mins.

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 11
- 1/20/2003 5:22:05 PM   
Hoplosternum


Posts: 690
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: Romford, England
Status: offline 		Hi,

I think it is unfortunate that there will be no TCP/IPX connection as I would have liked to play this over a LAN. It will not be a big loss but I would have thought it may broaden tits appeal, allowing it to be played by LAN and over the internet directly. I like PBEM but the slow pace and long time commitment (games last months) don't make it suitable for everyone. The UV game files are not huge even for a dial up modem.

I would have thought it would have been possible for one computer to act as 'the server' and both players input their turns at the same time and once both have planning stages being 'ended' the combat turn/report generated by the server from both players plans. Rather than the Japanese then the US player planning their turn in series as happens in traditional UV. This would greatly reduce the waiting time. Such a system has been used in many other turn based games in the past but how easy it would be for Matrix to do I don't know. The previously mentioned Birth of the federation is one.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 12
- 1/21/2003 6:45:54 AM   
Veldor


Posts: 1531
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: King's Landing
Status: offline 		I guess you do make a great point. TCP/IP doesn't really make any sense to me based on the current way UV plays out... but I see no real reason why it couldn't change to allow for both players to enter orders simultaneously... thereby giving much more credibility to a TCP/IP online solution. You would only be waiting the difference in time between your orders and your opponents, which for the most part, with many players would be much more acceptable..

I think I like the idea.. But I'm doubting we will see such a thing in the initial WITP release.. or in any UV update soon to come...

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 13
- 1/21/2003 7:15:37 AM   
2Stepper


Posts: 948
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: North Burbs of Omaha
Status: offline 		Took a lil bit for the exact notion I was after to sift out in the forum but this is essentially it. Both players would enter orders at the same time... Any wait time would be to the one player who needs to take longer to complete his/her turn, followed by the transfer of the "game file" for lack of a good word. Then the results would play out essentially at the same time. Since the results of the turn are the same in a PBEM game using that process, it would in essence be the same then.

I guess we'd have to ask a designer why this was never considered, but in theory it seems to work. I do have to admit one thing though since proposing this notion. The only game between WITP and UV that this would likely work well for is Uncommon Valor since it's more regional in scope. I suspect the length of turns would be considerably longer in WITP, but even then I couldn't see longer then 15-20 mins to make my moves... so again, you can understand why the lack of TCP/IP support baffles me... :confused:

With luck perhaps it'll be adapted... perhaps not. In the least I hope there is a fine interface for PBEM... Because while I'll likely burn up considerable time in single player mode on WITP, my friends and I that enjoy UV now dont bother with PBEM as the time to result is far to slow...

regards

_____________________________


"Send in the Infantry. Tanks cost money... the dead cost nothing..." :)

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 14
- 1/24/2003 5:09:42 AM   
marc420

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 9/23/2002
From: Terrapin Station
Status: offline 		Am I wrong in thinking that there will be scenarios for WITP that don't involve the entire scope of battle from Hawaii to Austrailia to China to Alaska?

If you think of something like a Midway scenario or a invasion of the Phillipines scenario (pick US or Jap invasion), then this idea of TCP/IP seems to fit better.

Particularly when this simultaneous order phase idea is added in.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 15
- 1/24/2003 5:44:59 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		And Birth of the Federation was such a success... :rolleyes:

The addition of TCP/IP will just throw another wrench into a game, delaying it, making it more buggy, etc....

The problem with games today is that they incorporate too many features. These features result in complex code. This complex code now has a MUCH greater chance on being buggy. Present day games tend to be much more buggy primarily because they are so large. They are so large because every feature beneath the sun is added (when it usually is not necessary).

I would have LOVED if BotF would have scapped its TCP/IP feature and have done the following...

#1. Eliminated that **** memory leak.

#2. More time spent on ship types (gets really boring with the few given in the game).

#3. More time playtesting the basic game (i.e., balancing problems) instead of spending it on a feature that was rarely used.

BotF had a lot of potential, but is a horrible example for what WitP should follow since it was a terrible game that wasted too many valuable resources on unecessary features. It is the prime examle that TCP/IP should NOT be included in this game. (this all said by an owner of a copy of BotF, as well as someone heavily involved in editing and modding of this game, so I know what I am talking about).

PBEM is the best possible mode in multiplaying WitP. I am sure that the Matrix group is spending a lot of their effort on making PBEM games as informative and effective as a single player turn. I remember all of the effort that they put toward the PBEM feature of PW, which may have its own flaws, but is infinitely better then PW without a PBEM feature (i.e., no VCR playback, no passwords for files, etc...).

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 16
- 1/24/2003 5:55:43 AM   
Veldor


Posts: 1531
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: King's Landing
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
[B]The addition of TCP/IP will just throw another wrench into a game, delaying it, making it more buggy, etc....

The problem with games today is that they incorporate too many features. These features result in complex code. This complex code now has a MUCH greater chance on being buggy. Present day games tend to be much more buggy primarily because they are so large. They are so large because every feature beneath the sun is added (when it usually is not necessary).

[/B][/QUOTE]

"Code" as you call it these days is suppose to be modular and highly re-usable. Coding for TCP/IP would be re-usable amongst all their games if done right... And if it was only usefull in a few, then they could sub-license out the "engine" for that feature from another party... Either way its money, but money that will eventually have to get spent for some game somewhere they are making.. therefore can be added to any game.

The problem isn't complex code, it isnt inexperienced or unskilled programmers, its a lack of adequate troubleshooting ability. Your average programmer is just no **** good at it, nor is there ever an adequate error reporting engine or solid modular design and architecture.. Too many changes from non-technical people cause your "code" to be sloppy and otherwise just plain bad. And then your not good enough by yourself to find the true problems with it. Then the rush for added features causes more to be built on a less than perfectly stable platform, and so on..

Its not in the complexity, its in the management... A good software company can pull it off, regardless of their size.. They just have to value the right pieces of the development process.. Most do not..

I consult on topics like this if you were wondering....

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 17
- 1/24/2003 6:02:51 AM   
2Stepper


Posts: 948
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: North Burbs of Omaha
Status: offline 		Marc,
I totally agree. While the selfish part of me would still like the idea of TCP/IP in WITP, I still suspect it's far too large to support it what with the amount of information you have to manage as the overall commander. Personally I for one wouldn't have a problem with the wait regardless, but because it would be a while I could understand why it wouldn't be adapted. However with scenario based battles like UV and another others they make based on this engine, I just can't see NOT having it... :confused:

Course I'm biased also... Still, I suspect if they went the extra mile and at least incorporated the OPTION of TCP/IP in addition to PBEM, I think most folks would be willing to run with it... Even if I had to wait another year to get it in an "overall" patch of the game.

UV has been out for about 9 months now and personally I'd love to see a TCP/IP patch for it at the end of the line when the developers move on to other things... Course I'm also a purist of action and such and would still like to see a graphic depiction of a catastrophic kill of a ship from an air or ship based attack. They didn't happen often, but they did happen. Where you'd see a ship just get enveloped by an explosion then nothing... but I digress... :D

At any rate, I'll always hold out the hope for a simultaneous style order phase and TCP/IP connection PC to PC in the future of UV and/or WITP... It's where the game SHOULD be...

respectfully...


Oh, and Jeremy? I LOVED BoTF... IN SPITE OF the bugs in the game... Yep, it had a few developmental problems.. several in fact, but I love empire building games... it wasn't so much the content of BOTF I was using as an example as it was the simultaneous orders for one turn... While I don't pretend to know how intense the code for it would be, in theory at least it would work well as that one aspect of BOTF worked brilliantly! IMHO of course... :cool:

cheers...

_____________________________


"Send in the Infantry. Tanks cost money... the dead cost nothing..." :)

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 18
- 1/24/2003 6:10:53 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		I think that BotF had very high potential, but too much was attempted on this project, and almost nothing was perfected. It broke many barriers and is a model for future Empire Building games. However, the inherent problems have driven off 90% of its community. I occasionally start editing again, only to be befuddled by the impossible to break problems in the game.

My argument that even the extra addition (i.e., just to have the option) will detriment the game as a whole. Its inclusion would take time away that could be spent perfecting the general code of the game, playtesting, bug searching/fixing, which is realistically much more important then additional features. I really wonder how great Birth of the Federation would have been had they spent the time dedicated to TCP/IP with fixing the crashes and memory leaks.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 19
- 1/24/2003 6:19:33 AM   
Veldor


Posts: 1531
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: King's Landing
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
[B] I really wonder how great Birth of the Federation would have been had they spent the time dedicated to TCP/IP with fixing the crashes and memory leaks. [/B][/QUOTE]

See my post above...But one really has nothing to do with the other. If they were smart, at least the core of the TCP/IP engine was "borrowed" from some other project..and probably done mostly by a group with specific knowledge in that area... The crashes and memory leaks are due to the other issues I mentioned...

Sometimes a bad game is simply a bad game... Think about it this way... If you build a skyscraper and you do a totally shotty job on the foundation and first couple floors (not that I know anything about skyscraper design) but I'm guessing it wouldn't much matter how "Perfectly" you did everything else your whole skyscraper is eventually gonna come crashing down... Hard to re-engineer the whole thing once its fully erected without tearing the whole thing apart.. Some games suffer similar fates, bad design and architecture from day one, abandoned standards, and so on.. Means its nearly impossible to fix later on..

You just hope companies that make mistakes like that "learn" from them... but in many cases I see the same software companies putting out the same level of unstable and crappy games one after another...

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 20
- 1/24/2003 9:33:44 AM   
2Stepper


Posts: 948
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: North Burbs of Omaha
Status: offline 		PRECISELY Veldar...
I actually wasn't Kudo'ing BOTF at any point (despite enjoying it) so much as I was using it's multiplaying setup as a model to work by. The simultaneous order phases being the premise... Not so much about the game itself.

This is what I find would be a nice option in UV, and/or WITP... I often wish I WERE a programmer so I could fully grasp the depth of programming code and what goes into it... all I'm really saying is that having this option for TCP/IP either at the outset or at the end of the line as a final patch would be a wonderful way for those of us with time to put into a game to appreciate. The PBEM works well for those of us with AMPLE (weeks to months), to spend on a single game... Whereas some of us die-hard gamers like to tear through games in a week or two tops... (No comments about having no life please! :p LOL!) :) Because while I understand fully about what you're saying with the problems in todays games... if Matrix WERE to undertake this in time or eventually I'm certain they'd take the time to do it right... They certainly have a WONDERFUL game engine... (cept for my FLASH "ship-kill" graphic (earlier post)), I couldn't be happier with the game overall... I just think it would be a nice way to either finish what they have (Uncommon Valor), or spoil us with it in WITP... I mean come on programmers, is adding the code for a TCP option that hard? Especially when we're only talking about trading off the game file once both players are done with their move.... Just a thought...

respectfully...

_____________________________


"Send in the Infantry. Tanks cost money... the dead cost nothing..." :)

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 21
- 1/24/2003 10:06:31 AM   
Veldor


Posts: 1531
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: King's Landing
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by 2Stepper
[BI mean come on programmers, is adding the code for a TCP option that hard? Especially when we're only talking about trading off the game file once both players are done with their move.... Just a thought...

respectfully... [/B][/QUOTE]

It's not that its particularly hard... But it's a skill set they probably just don't have. Your essentially "network-enabling" a game that is otherwise ignorant of the internet, networking, and so on. That's a specialized task. It's not as if they simply temporarily divert a few programmers to that task, they'd probably have to bring someone new onboard, or a high-priced consultant such as myself to do it for them.

The cost would probably not be worth it from the standpoint of a single game. This only because PBEM is still viable for these types of games. However, if the "code" would be similiar enough between games they could essentially TCP/IP enable their entire product line with 95% the same code... This assumes some other continuity amongst their products that probably isn't there..so in the end the simple answer is still...

It's just not worth the cost, given the marginal benefits...

So while I wouldn't mind it myself, at this point, I can't really blame them, their time and money is probably best spent elsewhere at this point "in the game" no pun intended...

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 22
- 1/24/2003 7:33:32 PM   
Hoplosternum


Posts: 690
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: Romford, England
Status: offline 		Well as Birth of the Federation just won't go away in this thread :) I will just add my own experience. I bought the game with high hopes but soon lost interest. But as I now play a lot over a LAN I am always looking for turn based strategy games. We dug up BotF and now play it a lot. Sure it has faults but the simultanous turns really speed the game up compared to a Civ type game.

It is not a serious omission for me but I doubt my friends would buy this game (or UV) without this feature. Matrix may lose at least two further sales over this :) So there is a small market for LAN enabled games even in this type of hard bitten wargame market. We have all spent the time trying to play the Boardgame of Pacific War (last summer) so the interest is there.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 23
My feelings exactly... - 1/25/2003 8:31:26 AM   
ajhiggins

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 1/15/2003
From: Central Arkansas
Status: offline 		A simultaneous turn set up is a must IF a TCP/IP feature is to make it into either WitP or UV.

I know several players who will gladly buy the game to play in a LAN environment but won't play it any other way. I for one will buy it regardless but to say MORE options will detract from the marketability of this(or any) game seems, IMHO, to be a silly assessment.

Its true, more features do inspire more bugs but where do you cut it off? Single player or PBEM Tic-Tac-Toe...I bet thats got almost NO bugs and its a real fun game too.

If the features are there and they are implemented right, the bugs can be squashed eventually.

You guys know the cliché's:

"Nothing ventured, nothing gained..."
&
"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."

There has to be a way that wouldn't bog this game down with bugs and keep it on schedule...I'd HOPE there would be anyway.

_____________________________

"Don't worry about the bullet with your name on it, worry about the shrapnel addressed to 'occupant'!"

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 24
- 1/25/2003 10:49:11 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		In regards to BotF, imagine the sales had the game not been a piece of garbage? It might have a 'life' in TCP/IP but this in no way makes up for the lost market due to the cruddiness of the game. Game developers MUST decide what their game is dedicated toward. When they put too many options in games, especially with all of the pressure to release ASAP, quality is usually cut.

So, the number that will buy the game due to TCP/IP being added will be totally dwarfed by those who love the genre, or will play it because it is a solid game over it having X or Y feature. These people will play this game for the next 10 years (like what we did with the old PacWar game). BotF will only last until the next TCP/IP empire building game arives (which I believe it did today, in MOO3 going gold).

The amount of sales that will be gained by adding this feature are miniscule, and do not appear to be the target audience of Matrix Games (i.e., wargamers over TCP/IP players which are not necessarily mutually exclusive). It is comparable to adding an option for you to go down and control individual battalions for those who like CC, or individual soldiers for those who like Medal of Honour. Realistically, Matrix games could clean up trying to pander to all types of gametypes, however, in the end people will be frustrated due to the limitations that complex games add (since they have everything, but are supurb in nothing).

This argument has been around since WitP's conception. People saying that they will sell more copies of "X" option is added to the game. This is true, they probably would sell more copies, initially, but the sales will suffer in the long run due to reviews showing the true nature of the game (like what happened to BotF, which was removed from the popular selling shelves pretty soon after the problems were brought into light and dropped into the discount bin). Imagine the sales of BotF had they skipped TCP/IP and focussed on the problems and crashes in the game? It would have been a worthy successor to MOO2.

When I think of all of the epic games out there, PacWar, Wing Commander, etc., etc.,... They were all relatively limited and had a limited scope. Their devleopers did not side track themselves into areas that they were not familiar with, nor were interested in and ended up with a solid product, that has been in use for a decade (something virtually unheard of in computer software). I see Matrix games not necessarily out to get rich, but to make products that fit a certain genre that they themselves love. If they were out for just $$$ they would be producing the easy to make and high selling first person shooters.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 25
- 1/25/2003 11:06:15 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		I have been to many LAN parties over the years, have played games online with high speed, and I KNOW that these games that are played are generally average, and last only until the latest version comes out. These games, "Age of ****" series, space fighting sims, Mech sims, etc., etc., etc., work on a system of pushing out game after game to keep the community interested. War in the Pacific will probably be the pre-eminant Pacific War game for the next decade. It does not need to gain an uninterested market (i.e., those that buy for features, not topic) purely for making a few extra sales.

The release of MOO3 was delayed for a month+ due to problems with TCP/IP. These aspects DO affect the quality/duration of development of games. Had Quicksilver had less power over their producers they would have been forced to release the game before its completion (like what happens with many games in the past few years).

Unfortunately, what you state is not a case of "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars", but rather ends up being "If you try and please everyone, you end up pleasing no one."

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 26
I respect your point of view... - 1/25/2003 11:12:07 AM   
ajhiggins

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 1/15/2003
From: Central Arkansas
Status: offline 		Hey Jeremy Pritchard:

I respect your thoughts on this but I think you're gravitating to much toward the fact that, in your opinion, BotF was a bug filled piece of crap and therefore anything ANYONE programs trying to do the same thing MUST, by this logic, be a piece of crap.

Whether BotF was in fact a piece of dookie is really up to those who played it. I personally wasted MANY hours with it and played it on my LAN with up to 4 of my friends on several occasions. It was great! Granted, the memory leak sucked rocks but you just had to save regularly and reboot every 20-30 minutes.

Now, BotF's shortcoming in this area (that is the networking problems), is more a reflection of its developers and production crews inabilities rather than the viability of the technology in question.

I mean, its been HOW LONG since BotF came out? I would hope that the industry has taken a few steps forward and gotten a bit more in touch with the advantages and limitations of the TCP/IP protocol.

I am however done with this topic. Its clear what I think means little. I will be buying this game regardless of this feature.

In short, we can just say you feel one way and I feel another. That's the great thing about America, we can at least agree to disagree.

Have a great day!

_____________________________

"Don't worry about the bullet with your name on it, worry about the shrapnel addressed to 'occupant'!"

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 27
- 1/25/2003 11:21:47 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		True, but I am not American :D

PS. If you guys are still into BotF, check out the following websites. PLEASE continue to post (if you are already members), as I would love to see interest to rise up again so maybe someone with the skills could fix some of the problems within the game.

http://stcd.proboards9.com/

http://members.aon.at/zelli/main.htm

[shamelessplug] (check out in the downloads for Multi-pack 1.9, and Texture Mod 1.10 which I was involved in making) [/shamelessplug]

And do a search (my link is now dead) for TrekRealMod.

I loved the game, spent probably twice as much time on it then you (playing and modding), and believe that it was SO close to virtual perfection, but the limitations in the game were just too overwhelming. They did try to do too much (TCP/IP, 3d space battles) while they would have been better off using the top down MOO2 space combat and have only e-mail gameplay and more time focussing on gameplay problems. The game had some amazing features though. The way that the galaxy worked (square based vs. sector based of MOO-MOO2), the minor empires, clever addition of the Borg, etc., results in the game still being on my hard drive (albeit only for modding purposes as I do not have the heart to delete everything I did for it!). However, I cannot recommend that anyone should buy the game, as I feel that Hasbro does not deserve their money for wrecking this potentially great game.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 28
I lied I guess... - 1/25/2003 11:39:15 AM   
ajhiggins

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 1/15/2003
From: Central Arkansas
Status: offline 		I can't drop it...and I was just takin a wrister at your goal, eh with that "America" comment. :)

Thanks for this links. I will check them out. And just so ya know, I have pulled out the BotF AGAIN...**** you! j/k ;) Gonna waste MORE valuable time.

I agree, BotF was really close and if it weren't for Hasblow, the devs said they could have gotten it out 200% better with only a few more months. Also, didn't Hasblow drop the project completely after a couple of months, cutting the team's last BIG patch fix? I remember seeing something about that.

And again, I agree, the 3d Battles were WAY too much and not necessary for the scope of that game...of course, I am a huge fan of "text" based games, so, fancy graphics means squat to me.

Well, back at ya...really, have a good weekend and I am Praying for the Sens.

_____________________________

"Don't worry about the bullet with your name on it, worry about the shrapnel addressed to 'occupant'!"

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 29
- 1/26/2003 7:46:11 AM   
Hoplosternum


Posts: 690
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: Romford, England
Status: offline 		Jeremy,

I understand what you are saying about it being a disipation of effort to try and make the game TCP/IP enabled. You know more about this area than I.

However please don't lump those of us who are asking for this in with the RTS brigade ;) Most games that are not designed for multiplayer follow a you go then I go approach. This includes most computer wargames from the Battleground series to Clash of Steel. As you develop a more involved game (with longer turns) these become less and less viable as face to face (LAN) or live Internet games even if they had such a functionality put in. But UV / WitP appears to have been designed so that both people can do the time consuming orders at the same time. So a LAN type game would be a playable option.

I think there is a market, not with the RTS / casual gamer, but with the committed wargamer for this. I really miss playing my old boardgames with my friends but space considerations and the long set up times etc. etc. mean we rarely try them now. Instead it's LAN games. I am sure there are plenty of others in my situation. Most wargames just don't lend themselves to a LAN type of play. They are you go - I go formats and thats just too much waiting around for a long game (even though we put up with it when we played the boardgames :) ). I think it is this traditional format that has stopped most wargames ever being considered for TCP/IP or making that functionality redundant if it was attempted not the lack of demand.

Still I will drop this now. I too do not want this to hold up the development of the game. But perhaps for WitP 2 :) they will consider adding this. I don't think this is just a throw away chrome option but something that opens the game up for new customers. PBEM with people you don't know is not an option that suites everyone. Some wargamers want to play against their friends and not have that taking a year or so via a turn or two an evening PBEM.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Tcp/ip Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.141