idea...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

idea...

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> idea...

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

idea... - 5/3/2005 9:58:14 AM

rotor911

Posts: 40
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline

Since WIF is not "Pbem friendly" and "face to face over IP" has so few appeal (problems with time zones for finding a schedule acceptable for all persons, constant connection problems), why not a server based solution? Of course, only the state of the game would be kept on the server, the game logic would still be on the players PC .
The advantage of using a server is that only the players involved in a particular phase would have to be online at the same time : say, during an impulse, Japan and Russia could play the land phase together if fighting for Vladivostock, Germany, Italy and Great Britain at another time for slugging it out in the desert. Once everybody would have finished his/her activities, the system would advance to the next impulse or phase.
As of the functioning, a player would start a game on the server, stating if it would be public (everybody can sign up) or private. Thereafter, he would be a kind of commish, being able for instance to replace an absentee if need be.
Money? Well purchasing the game could maybe buy you 1 year access or something like that then you would have to pay a small fee. Anyway, even with only 2000 players :), the cost per player would be very small. I'm not even sure that it would require a dedicated server, maybe a shared account with perl or php at 30 or 40 $ a month could suffice..
What do you think of it?

Post #: 1

RE: idea... - 5/3/2005 7:41:44 PM

coregames

Posts: 470
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline

I don't understand all of what you said, but from what I did, it might be workable, but still a very slow way to play. My opinion about internet play and CWiF is that most of the people who are clamouring for PBEM for this game are those who haven't played WiF over-the-board, and therefore don't understand the dynamic that makes it so exciting. Those with over-the-board experience understand that drastic changes would be required to make it PBEM suitable, and much of the thrill of playing would be lost. I think TCP/IP would be the preferred method if the game is to be faithful to WiF, due to the intense interactivity for the non-phasing side. Some discussion in this forum has taken place about the possibility of having two modes of play; a faithful mode, for TCP/IP (or on a server as you suggest), and a more streamlined mode, requiring far less (if any) interaction from the non-phasing side, for PBEM.

I'm certain many of us WiF fans would agree that any news on the status of this project would be welcome at this point, as long as the news wasn't that they had decided not to develop MWiF after all.

(in reply to rotor911)

Post #: 2

RE: idea... - 5/4/2005 4:46:18 AM

Mziln

Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline

I think this is what you mean.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rotor

Since MWIF will not be "Pbem friendly" and "Face to Face over IP" has little appeal (due to problems with time zones for finding a schedule acceptable for all persons, constant connection problems, and etc.). Why not a server based solution? Of course, only the state of the game would be kept filed on the server. The game sorce code would still be on the players PC.

The advantage of having the game server based is that only the players involved in a particular phase would have to be online at the same time.

Examples:

During an impulse, Japan and Russia could play the land phase together if fighting for Vladivostock.

While Germany, Italy and Great Britain could be on at another time for slugging it out in the desert.

(1) Once everybody had finished his or her activities, the server could advance to the next impulse or phase.

As to functionality, a player could start a game on a server, stating if it would be public (everybody can sign up) or private. Thereafter, he would be a kind of commissioner, being able for instance to replace any absentees if need be.

(2) Cost? Well purchasing the game might reserve you a 1 year access or something like that. Then you would have to pay a small fee (monthly, quarterly, simiannually, or annually). Anyway, even with only 2000 players , the cost per player would be very small.

I'm not even sure that it would require a dedicated server, maybe a shared account with perl or php at $30 or $40 a month could suffice..

What do you think of it?

(1) If you think about it. This impulse based version could be done without a server. Except it violates rule 3.1 Sequence of play. But a server based "looking for temporary players" might be an option.

(2) Arn't there available sites that provide this for free?

A good effort

< Message edited by Mziln -- 5/4/2005 4:57:46 AM >

(in reply to rotor911)

Post #: 3