IP play vs Real time (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815



Message

obsidiandrag -> IP play vs Real time (12/11/2008 7:38:01 PM)

Now don't go killing me for this... I was thinking...

The reason IP dosn't work is kindof the same reasons PBEM takes so long (both of which are problems) -- see the forum on speeding up play

However... if there were a way to find players that have the same schedules (not time zones but actual time to play)...

What are the musings of having a server as the host of a game, players log in and out kindof like this forum so you can see who is on line..

You can set up a game with available players for that time.
You can discuss your diplomacy actions prior to phases with chats. (and keep amused while others are fighting battles) - even set up a texas holdem game
The server handels all the simultaneous phases like diplomacy.
Takes care of reloading combat files etc..
If someone has to log out they can put it on auto(AI), hand over control(to a current player or bring in another), or suspend until all are logged in again.

I know, I know (sorry Marshalle)

just a thought, what do the masses think..



NeverMan -> RE: IP play vs Real time (12/11/2008 10:06:07 PM)

I would love to see some company make a PC version of Empires in Arms that had IP play, but since Matrix has "exclusive rights" to EiA now, I don't think it will happen.

It's like Ford buying new great technology and then choosing to shelf it forever, kinda blows IMO.



obsidiandrag -> RE: IP play vs Real time (12/22/2008 9:21:41 PM)

I am not sure what I am thinking of is considered IP play though, more like web play.

Like many other games where you log into the host server who controlls the lobby where players are waiting for a game - or the games that abe going on can list if they need a player or not and maybe even the progress of each.

This way you could in essence play in several games at once by just waiting in the lobby and watching the status to see if it is your turn on each one yet.



mr.godo -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/8/2009 3:07:38 PM)

IP is not the answer. I used to think that it was unfortunate that they didn't include it, but now see that it would not be worthwhile. If you spend five minutes on your turn, you have to wait a half hour before you can do anything again typically. Even in the case where there's nothing in your turn, you would have to sit there and wait for something to do. I used to play a game like that: it was called a plastic injection molding machine. Press two buttons, wait 60 seconds, pull out part, repeat. Wait, that's not a game, that was a job!
Web based play would have some advantages. Google groups is kind of that already. All the game info is housed centrally. However, the real killer in this game is the pace. An alternative method to the email based file management system currently used now would not solve the problem with player turn dependance. That's the design of the game. igougo. I believe it would be possible to get seven people together for an hour or two to play, I don't believe it likely that you can get seven people together to play for an hour or two if they each contribute 1/7 of the time. If I play for an hour, I want to be doing something for that hour, which does not include waiting.
Several games is another way to make this viable, but I don't think I want to be playing several games simultaneously.



Jimmer -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/8/2009 4:37:15 PM)

While you are partly correct, Mr. Godo, that IP won't save the game, there is an aspect of it that could really help:

If the IP play had a notification method of some kind (probably several kinds), and if the game had an add-on (separate) component that runs in the background checking the server, then IP play would help a lot. I cannot begin to count the number of time I logged on to check if it was my turn, find out it was not, and then exited, only to find out later that the other guy finished his phase moments after I did.

If my computer could signal me (sound, visual change, call my cell phone, etc.), then I would know right away. Now, there would be times when I could not respond, but that's no different than now. It's the times where I am waiting, but not actively checking, that really wear things down.



NeverMan -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/8/2009 5:14:05 PM)

I still contend that IP would be great and the game would move along a lot faster.

As far as waiting "30 minutes" or whatever, how is that any different than a FtF game?

Do you have any idea how much faster wars would go by then they do now in PBeSLOW?!



Jimmer -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/8/2009 8:18:51 PM)

Unfortunately, you are wrong. In either FtF or even a hypothetical IP game, you still have to wait for each player to complete their turn. The only difference between either of those and email is the extra time it takes to remember and to then check ones email/group. In FtF and IP, that time would be zero.

However, that's not the only cost. You are forgetting that (in either FtF or IP), there is necessary down time between gaming days. PBEM recovers this time completely (at a cost, though), but neither FtF or IP can do much about them.

People talk about how PBEM wastes so much time, measuring turns in 24-hour increments, etc. However, during most of the hours spent between phases, playing the game is not an option. Sleep, work, mealtimes, etc., all get in the way. There's only a small sliver of time that each player can commit to playing.

My suggestion takes into account these two different clock-measuring methods. What it does is remove some of the time spent between phase entries by notifying the next player in line immediately upon the conclusion of the previous player's phase. Note that it also would work during a battle, where battle files get shipped back and forth.

In PBEM, these battles (windows of time) are about the closest approximation to FtF or IP that PBEM can get. However, there is still a gap? Why? Because it takes a finite amount of time for one to check ones email for an update. Would IP help that? Yes, but ONLY because it would be doing my suggestion inherently. Other than that, IP is exactly the same as PBEM: One must wait for the player to return to the computer. Only F2F can overcome this hurdle. "Hey, John, get out of the bathroom! It's your turn!!")

But, if an alarm-like trigger is sent, then that has a chance of being as fast as FtF.

NOTE: An alarm can only work if there is a mechanism in place by which the repository for the game is checked for updates. This would have to be some kind of background task that runs independent of the game itself, and its only job is checking for updates. Thus, the alarm requires at least partial IP functionality, or else the ability to check email for turn updates (which could get really tricky unless the game were to handle all of that). Because this tool has to run independently of the game, however, it might be possible to code one up without putting actual IP play into the game.



Jimmer -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/8/2009 8:24:16 PM)

By the way, for everybody speaking to the issue of speed, please remember to compare apples to apples. A FtF game seemed fast, but think about it: In a 4 hour session, we might get 3 turns done, on a good night. Seem fast? Perhaps not so fast after all: At any given point in time, how many players are taking their turn (at most)? One! Only one player can be doing anything at any given time. Even in combat, one is pretty much always doing something while the other 6 players wait. So, in four hours, there are 28 man-hours spent, of which only 4 hours are accounted for in actual game play! The other 24 hours are wasted time. While PBEM is slower still, at least it doesn't have 6 people standing around doing nothing ALL the time.

In FtF, the in-between turns time is redeemed by doing diplomacy. But, email or IP can do that just as well (minus the lag while a player checks the computer or waits between checks).

THIS game (PBEM) has the advantage of allow the whole week to be used for gaming, albeit at a cost of a lot of calendar time spent waiting.



Dancing Bear -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/9/2009 12:34:32 AM)

Jimmer, these are excellent points, especially about the use of time between being able to play a turn. In the old board game, all that time while others moved was spent joking around and drinking way too many caffeinated beverages, which went a long way to making the game fun. In the PBEM game, we take our 10 minutes to do our move, and then get on with life. I don't think I could stand a virtual get together on some Sunday afternoon, were all I got to do was make 3 moves, and have none of the extraneous interaction of the board game.

The question is how to reduce the calender time between moves, something which can kill the fun in the game, without scarificing the game mechanics to the point where the purists are up in arms, or implementing Marshall Law to force players to do their turns within 24 hours (who really want to be the bad guy enforcing the 24 hour rule?).

A notication system would be a great help in reducing some frustrating aspects of the game, however, I could only see this working well if the players were alerted via some other form of technology (like a black berry, pager, or a phone call), all of which might be difficult for Matrix. There's likely a service provider out there that does this already, that maybe Matrix could link up with.

I think the Marshall has to bite the bullet on this one, and get on with simultaneous phases. The PBEM game is almost a faillure without it. Skipping does help, but just not enough.

Maybe Marshall, you could explain for us luddites, why this is so difficult?



Marshall Ellis -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/9/2009 1:41:45 PM)

Let me explain why simul execution is so difficult in a IGO-UGO game :-0 ...

During the game ONE player is active at a time during a given phase i.e. Prussia cannot DOW, act on minors, etc while France is playing! This is inherit to IGO-UGO! I'm not sure if this will make sense but I am not preventing others from playing BUT only allowing one to play and while this sounds similar it's not in the code. The game (Today) only accepts input from one player (the current phasing player) while ALL others move to view mode. Non-phasing players cannot input ANY game changes.

Call it a bad design or whatever you want but it is what it is. All that being said, it does not mean that we could not look at ways of changing and I am BUT it's just not that easy. I'm not saying no, I am just saying ouch!



Jimmer -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/9/2009 3:43:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Let me explain why simul execution is so difficult in a IGO-UGO game :-0 ...

During the game ONE player is active at a time during a given phase i.e. Prussia cannot DOW, act on minors, etc while France is playing! This is inherit to IGO-UGO! I'm not sure if this will make sense but I am not preventing others from playing BUT only allowing one to play and while this sounds similar it's not in the code. The game (Today) only accepts input from one player (the current phasing player) while ALL others move to view mode. Non-phasing players cannot input ANY game changes.

Call it a bad design or whatever you want but it is what it is. All that being said, it does not mean that we could not look at ways of changing and I am BUT it's just not that easy. I'm not saying no, I am just saying ouch!


I think you are misunderstanding what we're asking for. We do NOT want you to have more than one player playing at a time. That isn't needed (although, it should be kept as an open request for the distant future).

All that is needed is for each player to be able to create a PBM file based on the previous PHASE'S action, rather than the previous PLAYER'S actions. Here's how it would work:

At the beginning of diplomacy, the end of the previous phase (either land, land combat, or economics) is "locked". Each player then grabs that layout, and performs their diplomacy changes against it.

Finally, when all seven players have turned in a PBM file for displomacy, the player's phase which immediately follows (Spain's reinforcement phase in the case of diplomacy) collects all seven PBM files and executes them in the original order (just as if they had been done synchronously).

The only differences are:

1) The game is "locked" at the end of the previous player-phase (locked means no changes to the main game can be made)
2) The computer does not require PBM file(s) from the previous 0-6 player-phases
3) Each player asynchronously produces a PBM file, based completely upon the situation from #1.
4) The first player in the next phase becomes "the compiler" of the PBM files. The computer would require that player to have all seven of the previous phase's PBM files
5) Computer internally (but, during the next phasing player's phase) executes the changes made by the PBM files. These are done in the same order as would have happened without these changes, but they are actually executed before the game board is given to Spain.

I think that's all that is needed. However, there will most likely be some complications. So, this should be play-tested fully. It also should be an option that can be changed by the host regardless of whether "allow option changes" is turned on or not. The host will have to have the ability to revert to the old rules at any time a bug is found in the simultaneous rules.



Jimmer -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/9/2009 3:56:51 PM)

Notes on the previous post:

A)  Spain goes both last in diplo and first in reinforcement. But, Spain will still have to create a PBM file, I suspect.
B)  The "work" done in step 4 above could be done by each of the seven players before their turn, as it would be now, instead of just the first one. They could be implemented exactly as now, except they would have to have all seven before moving to reinforcement.
C)  Any conflict generated would have to flag the host somehow, so the feature could be turned off and the files synched back up to prior to diplomacy (the last known good configuration). Conflicts cannot be allowed to occur without a process resolving them. But, this process won't be available at the beginning, except for what we humans can guess at in advance. There will likely be far more possible conflicts than we can envision, even collectively.



Jimmer -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/9/2009 3:59:00 PM)

NOTE: This is a thread on IP play, so the simultaneous phasing question is not fully part of it. However, it is good to remember that with full IP play, it would still save time to use simultaneous phasing. But, many players would probably not WANT to play with simultaneous phasing.



NeverMan -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/9/2009 11:28:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Unfortunately, you are wrong. In either FtF or even a hypothetical IP game, you still have to wait for each player to complete their turn. The only difference between either of those and email is the extra time it takes to remember and to then check ones email/group. In FtF and IP, that time would be zero.


This is just wrong. In a FtF game the time is "set aside" so each player can be continously present, thus making battles go by in just a few minutes, where as in PBEM battles can last DAYS and in war time where there are several battles going on at once this can really slow the game down.



Dancing Bear -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/10/2009 3:01:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Unfortunately, you are wrong. In either FtF or even a hypothetical IP game, you still have to wait for each player to complete their turn. The only difference between either of those and email is the extra time it takes to remember and to then check ones email/group. In FtF and IP, that time would be zero.


This is just wrong. In a FtF game the time is "set aside" so each player can be continously present, thus making battles go by in just a few minutes, where as in PBEM battles can last DAYS and in war time where there are several battles going on at once this can really slow the game down.



Neverman, I have not played FtF, but didn't Jimmer say that in an FtF game, the time for battles would be zero? How does this differ from the few minutes that you describe? I'm not sure I can see the difference between your point and Jimmer's. The extra time descibed by Jimmer to check email is the days you decribe as required for PBEM battles.







Dancing Bear -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/10/2009 3:27:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

NOTE: This is a thread on IP play, so the simultaneous phasing question is not fully part of it. However, it is good to remember that with full IP play, it would still save time to use simultaneous phasing. But, many players would probably not WANT to play with simultaneous phasing.


Since, this is my fault for partilly hyjacking the thread, I should aplogise to Obsidian Dragon. The approaches are intertwined since both sim play and IP seek to speed up play, but each has their own advantages and disadvantages. IP would save time if you could get all 7 players together at once (or even two players for battles), while as Jimmer points out, sim play (either as a PBEM or IP) wins in cases where you can't get everyone together at the same time.




Jimmer -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/10/2009 7:45:48 PM)

IP play would also be better, DB, if there were some kind of private negotiation tool. It would have to be by voice to really save time (even with chat-speak, typing takes far longer than talking). I'm thinking of an ability to speak (via microphone, sound card, and headphones) to another player, while both are idle in game terms. For instance, when 2 powers are taking part in a battle, there could be another conversation or two going on.

Now, the same thing could be done with some kind of chat mechanism that allows voice (Office Communicator, for instance). However, one shouldn't have to purchase a third-party product to do this.

IP play (because all players would be directly connected at the same time) would allow for such a thing to work, and I think, very well. But, neither PBEM nor sim allows for this except via 3rd-party.

Has anybody used an IM product or chat product to enhance the game experience? Whether in EiA or not, if someone has experience with this, it might help this part of this discussion.



Jimmer -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/10/2009 7:48:42 PM)

I'm not sure you need to apologize, DB. The concepts being discussed here are tightly intertwined. Accurate time accounting must be in place for all modes, else the discussion becomes lopsided in favor of one of the four (ftf, simul, PBEM, and IP).



DCWhitworth -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/10/2009 9:48:11 PM)

I don't see how IP play will speed things up much. If everyone was online at the same time you could just use the PBEM system to play turns and the game would move along not much slower than if you had true IP play. For communication you could use Skype or some such and chat rooms.

I'm not saying that this is as good as a game specifically written for IP play but on the other hand why spend what would be a pretty big effort to produce something that wouldn't give a huge return on what can already be achieved ?

One question I would ask - I have seem a few adverts for people trying to start games working on that basis, i.e everyone gathers online at a set time to play with the PBEM system.  I can only presume that this doesn't really seem to have taken off because I haven't heard much about these games. If this is the case, is this because there are game/program issues that have made this too diffcult to work or is there actually not much demand for simultaneous online play ?



Mardonius -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/11/2009 1:47:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

I don't see how IP play will speed things up much. If everyone was online at the same time you could just use the PBEM system to play turns and the game would move along not much slower than if you had true IP play. For communication you could use Skype or some such and chat rooms.

I'm not saying that this is as good as a game specifically written for IP play but on the other hand why spend what would be a pretty big effort to produce something that wouldn't give a huge return on what can already be achieved ?

One question I would ask - I have seem a few adverts for people trying to start games working on that basis, i.e everyone gathers online at a set time to play with the PBEM system.  I can only presume that this doesn't really seem to have taken off because I haven't heard much about these games. If this is the case, is this because there are game/program issues that have made this too diffcult to work or is there actually not much demand for simultaneous online play ?


Right on David.



NeverMan -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/11/2009 11:44:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Unfortunately, you are wrong. In either FtF or even a hypothetical IP game, you still have to wait for each player to complete their turn. The only difference between either of those and email is the extra time it takes to remember and to then check ones email/group. In FtF and IP, that time would be zero.


This is just wrong. In a FtF game the time is "set aside" so each player can be continously present, thus making battles go by in just a few minutes, where as in PBEM battles can last DAYS and in war time where there are several battles going on at once this can really slow the game down.



Neverman, I have not played FtF, but didn't Jimmer say that in an FtF game, the time for battles would be zero? How does this differ from the few minutes that you describe? I'm not sure I can see the difference between your point and Jimmer's. The extra time descibed by Jimmer to check email is the days you decribe as required for PBEM battles.







I apologize for not quoting Jimmer's entire post, it was quite lengthy.



NeverMan -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/11/2009 11:53:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

I don't see how IP play will speed things up much. If everyone was online at the same time you could just use the PBEM system to play turns and the game would move along not much slower than if you had true IP play. For communication you could use Skype or some such and chat rooms.

I'm not saying that this is as good as a game specifically written for IP play but on the other hand why spend what would be a pretty big effort to produce something that wouldn't give a huge return on what can already be achieved ?

One question I would ask - I have seem a few adverts for people trying to start games working on that basis, i.e everyone gathers online at a set time to play with the PBEM system.  I can only presume that this doesn't really seem to have taken off because I haven't heard much about these games. If this is the case, is this because there are game/program issues that have made this too diffcult to work or is there actually not much demand for simultaneous online play ?


1. I don't think the effort is really all that large. Security is not really being addressed as it stands now so why bother to put it into IP play? If you forget about security then the simple transferring of files from one machine to another via IP/UDP is pretty damn simple. They are the same files that one would transfer via EMAIL only that all the file handling would be done for you.

2. IP is not just a matter of saving time, it's also a matter of making the game available to another market/group of people. Who are these people you ask? The people who don't have time to constantly check email everyday and be available in that capacity but do have the time once a week to set aside a few hours to play. So, you see, the argument for IP play can't just be about "does it save time via PBEM (which of course it does)" but must also be about other things, like the aforementioned group of players.

3. Yes, this could be accomplished via PBEM if everyone just sits down at their computer, though all the file management would bog the game down quite a bit, I can imagine how annoying it would get, I find it annoying for my 1-2 turns per week as it stands now. I am also interested to know if anyone has even tried this and how it worked out.



Dancing Bear -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/11/2009 11:57:48 AM)

[/quote]

I apologize for not quoting Jimmer's entire post, it was quite lengthy.

[/quote]

Ok, that makes more sense. I think I just misunderstood.



Dancing Bear -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/11/2009 3:53:56 PM)

There is one group that routinely plays a pseudo IP set up via PBEM, and that is the Marshall and official testers, who are on line all the time from 9 to 5. (A point of contention with me at least, as I think this makes the Marshall underestimate the value of speed improvements).

Based on their comments, the pseudo IP game breaks down when someone goes on vacation or changes jobs (i.e. they have to start playing in the evenings like the rest of us). An IP game would have the same problem of how to coordinate 7 players being on line at the same time. The Marshall has likely experienced this problem, and may explain why the only game speed improvement we have seen is one that partially automates some players turns (i.e. skipping) to somewhat overcome the problem of absent players. So based on their past comments and actions, the advantages of IP are going to be nullified by difficulty of getting 7 players together, as even the testers struggle with this and it is rarely done by us the gaming public. And ,if we had IP, we would be griping about how hard it is to get 7 players together at a time, and be clamouring for some sort of player automation feature (which will annoy the purists).

We then default back to a game played in evenings, which is so close to PBEM that there may be little advantage in implementing IP, and you will still need sim play (as per Jimmer’s excellent suggestion).



DCWhitworth -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/11/2009 4:15:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

There is one group that routinely plays a pseudo IP set up via PBEM, and that is the Marshall and official testers, who are on line all the time from 9 to 5. (A point of contention with me at least, as I think this makes the Marshall underestimate the value of speed improvements).

Based on their comments, the pseudo IP game breaks down when someone goes on vacation or changes jobs (i.e. they have to start playing in the evenings like the rest of us). An IP game would have the same problem of how to coordinate 7 players being on line at the same time. The Marshall has likely experienced this problem, and may explain why the only game speed improvement we have seen is one that partially automates some players turns (i.e. skipping) to somewhat overcome the problem of absent players. So based on their past comments and actions, the advantages of IP are going to be nullified by difficulty of getting 7 players together, as even the testers struggle with this and it is rarely done by us the gaming public. And ,if we had IP, we would be griping about how hard it is to get 7 players together at a time, and be clamouring for some sort of player automation feature (which will annoy the purists).

We then default back to a game played in evenings, which is so close to PBEM that there may be little advantage in implementing IP, and you will still need sim play (as per Jimmer’s excellent suggestion).



That explains a lot about some of Marshall's comments about opinions on speeding up game play. In effect he's not playing a typical PBEM game but is basing his opinion on the rare type of game he's playing in. Most of my games have people scattered across the world playing in them, they do move pretty briskly but we don't get everyone on line at the same time.



borner -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/11/2009 4:49:45 PM)

Dancing Bear and David raise some good points. An IP game will be a great solution for the 10% of players that can all meet at the same day/time. For the rest of us that have work, family and other time demands, it is not all that practical. plus, even if everyone can meet "On sunday from 11-5, what about the other days of the week? Does the game stop? If not, then you still have the old issues on getting play going faster.



Jimmer -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/12/2009 2:00:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

Dancing Bear and David raise some good points. An IP game will be a great solution for the 10% of players that can all meet at the same day/time. For the rest of us that have work, family and other time demands, it is not all that practical. plus, even if everyone can meet "On sunday from 11-5, what about the other days of the week? Does the game stop? If not, then you still have the old issues on getting play going faster.

Actually, I still think there is great value in IP, even though the perceived time savings are largely illusory: A hybrid game.

We used to play like this face-to-face. We played every other Saturday for 12 hours. Then, we would take about a month's worth of phases during the two weeks in-between play days. Guys would take home a copy of the map, but three of the guys lived in the house with the game board. Plus, we were playing GB and Prussia with one player, so we only had 3 in the house and 3 on the road. We all lived close to each other, so we would stop by a couple of times during the two weeks.

In essence, what we were doing was PBEM during the two weeks, and F2F (or, IP with EIANW) on every other Saturday. That was a good, fast-moving game.



Dancing Bear -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/12/2009 2:43:59 AM)

It would be difficult to argue against both IP and sim play. If IP is really as easy as Neverman describes, and the Marshall can see the logic in Jimmer's plan for having sim play for the straight forward phases using small sub routines that do not affect the main game database until the end of the phase, then yes, lets do both.

However, as we have done before, we are quite willing to set priorities for the Marshall, but it is up to the Marshall. I think many of us have thought that the current focus on the AI does not serve the interest of the PBEM (and IP) community. I am dying for PBEM speed improvements. I think this actually won the poll Matrix put to us months ago. The AI has been improved somewhat, the bugs are mostly dealt with, and we have learned to live with the lack of security. Is it time yet to speed up the game? How hard is Jimmer's suggestion to implement?



Marshall Ellis -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/12/2009 2:07:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Let me explain why simul execution is so difficult in a IGO-UGO game :-0 ...

During the game ONE player is active at a time during a given phase i.e. Prussia cannot DOW, act on minors, etc while France is playing! This is inherit to IGO-UGO! I'm not sure if this will make sense but I am not preventing others from playing BUT only allowing one to play and while this sounds similar it's not in the code. The game (Today) only accepts input from one player (the current phasing player) while ALL others move to view mode. Non-phasing players cannot input ANY game changes.

Call it a bad design or whatever you want but it is what it is. All that being said, it does not mean that we could not look at ways of changing and I am BUT it's just not that easy. I'm not saying no, I am just saying ouch!


I think you are misunderstanding what we're asking for. We do NOT want you to have more than one player playing at a time. That isn't needed (although, it should be kept as an open request for the distant future).

All that is needed is for each player to be able to create a PBM file based on the previous PHASE'S action, rather than the previous PLAYER'S actions. Here's how it would work:

At the beginning of diplomacy, the end of the previous phase (either land, land combat, or economics) is "locked". Each player then grabs that layout, and performs their diplomacy changes against it.

Finally, when all seven players have turned in a PBM file for displomacy, the player's phase which immediately follows (Spain's reinforcement phase in the case of diplomacy) collects all seven PBM files and executes them in the original order (just as if they had been done synchronously).

The only differences are:

1) The game is "locked" at the end of the previous player-phase (locked means no changes to the main game can be made)
2) The computer does not require PBM file(s) from the previous 0-6 player-phases
3) Each player asynchronously produces a PBM file, based completely upon the situation from #1.
4) The first player in the next phase becomes "the compiler" of the PBM files. The computer would require that player to have all seven of the previous phase's PBM files
5) Computer internally (but, during the next phasing player's phase) executes the changes made by the PBM files. These are done in the same order as would have happened without these changes, but they are actually executed before the game board is given to Spain.

I think that's all that is needed. However, there will most likely be some complications. So, this should be play-tested fully. It also should be an option that can be changed by the host regardless of whether "allow option changes" is turned on or not. The host will have to have the ability to revert to the old rules at any time a bug is found in the simultaneous rules.


No, I think we are on the same page (design-wise) because each save game file contains the information of who's turn it is and everybody else is locked so technically I must enable more than one player. This is where the problem is! Does this make sense?

Thank you



Jimmer -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/12/2009 6:37:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
No, I think we are on the same page (design-wise) because each save game file contains the information of who's turn it is and everybody else is locked so technically I must enable more than one player. This is where the problem is! Does this make sense?

Thank you


Yes! That makes sense now.

In my programming days, I would call it a "design flaw". That way, it's somebody else's fault. :)



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.1875