RE: IP play vs Real time

RE: 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 -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/12/2009 9:23:30 PM)
DancingBear, no need to appologize, it is getting the ideas out that I was hoping to hear... But, we are missing one of my other points about a server or 'game room' on the server where players who ARE online at the same time can schedule and set up a game before even starting where you can find players that have the same schedule and assist in the whole finding time to play in different time zones. Also, you could even set up teams where if either of the two players for that country were available play continues... all options I have been wondering about and wondering if they were feasable or how much trouble they would cause for programming. All in the interest of making the game more available and efficient for all. For me, I have a busy schedule and if I do not have a scheduled time to set aside... I am lucky to get to play. But, if it is a scheduled time or event I can plan on it and work around it.. otherwise it just doesn't happen. The IP seems to improve the speed the most when it comes to the realm of battles and in my opinion would make some other issues more interesting such as the whole naval interception and evasion because you could be asked by the game if you want to intercept than have to remember to check the box and hope it knows that you clicked on smaller fleet but would be willing to hit one with maybe 5 more ships than you have but not 6 more... I just thought IP would be more like FTF but with the option of actually finding people who could play on the same schedule.. I know, as I have been trying to find 7 prople to play FTF for the past 15 years and have not had any luck...

Dancing Bear -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/13/2009 3:11:14 AM)
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 Hi Marshall, I guess it is not that easy, and thanks for helping to explain the challenges you are up against. I still don't quite get it (I'm not a programmer, so I'm slower than normal on the uptake with this). Can you not create a "shadow" game that lets players in "view" mode (i.e. the locked out mode), modify a seperate set of code that is not part of the main game database? This shadow code simply stores any changes the players make in a seperate routine until there is a trigger. It would be like skipping, but instead of simply jumping over the turn, the game would automatically scan the shadow code to see if there are any waiting changes and then apply them before opening up the next players turn. I could imagine that for diplomacy for example, all players could open the shadow code upon receivng the file from last player to move in the previous phase (say the land phase). Then the first player to do diplomacy (France) would not be able to open her turn until receiving the shadow code files from all the other players. France would then go, then the game would "skip" all the other players turns but while reading the waiting changes from them in the shadow code. France forwards her diplomacy phase file to everyone (with all the modified/"skipped" files for the other players). The game then moves into the first reinforcement phase file (i.e. normally Spain), with France and everyone else being able to see the diplomacy results in the normal"view" mode. It would be like coding in an extra phase outside the main database sequence, which is more than offset by the equivalent of skipping the diplomacy phase.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/13/2009 1:05:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear 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 Hi Marshall, I guess it is not that easy, and thanks for helping to explain the challenges you are up against. I still don't quite get it (I'm not a programmer, so I'm slower than normal on the uptake with this). Can you not create a "shadow" game that lets players in "view" mode (i.e. the locked out mode), modify a seperate set of code that is not part of the main game database? This shadow code simply stores any changes the players make in a seperate routine until there is a trigger. It would be like skipping, but instead of simply jumping over the turn, the game would automatically scan the shadow code to see if there are any waiting changes and then apply them before opening up the next players turn. I could imagine that for diplomacy for example, all players could open the shadow code upon receivng the file from last player to move in the previous phase (say the land phase). Then the first player to do diplomacy (France) would not be able to open her turn until receiving the shadow code files from all the other players. France would then go, then the game would "skip" all the other players turns but while reading the waiting changes from them in the shadow code. France forwards her diplomacy phase file to everyone (with all the modified/"skipped" files for the other players). The game then moves into the first reinforcement phase file (i.e. normally Spain), with France and everyone else being able to see the diplomacy results in the normal"view" mode. It would be like coding in an extra phase outside the main database sequence, which is more than offset by the equivalent of skipping the diplomacy phase. Dancing Bear: There could be several ways we can skin this cat (Yours may be an option) but it would still be a significant change to the engine core functions and when you do that and mess that up then you mess it all up! It's something that no matter how I do it, I will do it VERY carefully.

Dancing Bear -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/13/2009 1:40:36 PM)
Hi Marshall I must admit that I have learned from this exchange that it is not going to be as easy as I thought and have a better appreciation for your position. Having a subroutine to look up changes to a seperate shadow database, and then pasting them to the main game database on load up of a turn can't be that straightforward, but at least it does not require breaking the game down to its most basci parts are re-starting. Once the entry, storage and cut n' paste code was in place however, the concept could be applied to the dip and eco phases, and even to the reinforcement phase, so combined the affect on game speed would significant. Even just applied the dip phase would see a big leap in game speed. Something to think about.

NeverMan -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/13/2009 5:52:19 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). This is just a HUGE problem itself: Marshall using his own experiences to judge, since they are so obviously NOT the norm. I'm sure it makes sense to him and why wouldn't it, if that is what he experienced. We tried to get a "normal" game going and guess what?? It bogged down quickly waiting for people's turns, unfortunately, he seems to have a short memory when it comes to things like that. Marshall, you+testers (with no life) != normal scenario.

obsidiandrag -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/13/2009 9:31:20 PM)
I am not sure of the differentiation but I am one of the testers (with a life) , although maybe not an 'official tester' that DancingBear was talking about. I have not tried the PBEM yet as my life schedule would not fit into the 24 hour turn around some are looking for. I play vs AI continually and have been working with Marshall on that respect of the game and trying to improve it for those who have a rigorous life schedule. It just really seems to me that if you have to wait for each person to complete each phase (7x7) you are taking a really long time in turnaround. (even if they ARE all waiting for the e-mails and file transfers). IP to me would be quicker because a server would just popup like the vs AI and say its your naval where you would click on done and it would move on... no extra skipping incase you did not want it and it would play like a FTF at a little faster pace(as all the other stuff is automated for you that you would normally have to keep track on with pencil and paper)... Yes, in times of War France would take alot longer and would have to decipher when to do battles when the opponents are present but if you could log in and out and the server keep the place wouldn't that make it a bit better? I don't know, maybe I am just one of the 'Pureists' I keep hearing about but it just seems like more COULD get done in an evening of say 3 hours than a month of the 7x7 24-hour turn arounds.

Dancing Bear -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/14/2009 2:16:46 AM)
Hi OB, I'm sure IP would help speed up play, but try to fit the PBEM game into your life sometime and see how much fun it is waiting days between turns. By purists, I meant those players who want a strict adherance to the original EIA rules. From what I see, the Marshall is making progress, and I'm optimistic we get there (although there will be many more days of incessant hounding by us players). I'm hoping the big decline in the number of bugs means that improvements will come more rapidly now (hopefully soon enough to save some of the games I am in from collapse).

mr.godo -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/14/2009 4:06:17 AM)
quote: 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. That would be email. No amount of notification will help if it's outside of your time frame. I go to bed at 10pm and if you message me that my turn is up at 22:03, it will have to wait until the next day. And as Marshall has pointed out, it's all about the active player. Even if IP were introduced to "speed" battles along, you still have 1) five guys waiting around to see what happens and 2) you don't know what happened unless those involved tell what happened. quote: We do NOT want you to have more than one player playing at a time. That's exactly what I want. I want to be able to do something, chat with opponents, make changes on the fly and then submit my turn while everyone else is doing their thing (diplomacy, dow's, economics, builds: mutually exclusive processes). I would want to see my opponent's moves as they happen, not have him submit them and then I review them. This is not to say that while I'm moving my opponents are making dows or builds, but that they're watching my moves and when it comes time for builds, we all build; the same basic phases as per the original ftf game. However, this is nothing more than an elaborate chess match with seven people. Try playing a 35 minute chess game online: that's your single phase. The only thing IP play or real time play will get you in the game's current manifestation is the desire to do something else. Read a book. Surf a wiki. Play minesweeper. Dull, dull, dull. As for opening up the market to new and fascinating people, that is hardly likely. IP people want their gratification instant. Crack this puppy open and rethink all the phases that can be done simultaneously.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/14/2009 1:29:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan 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). This is just a HUGE problem itself: Marshall using his own experiences to judge, since they are so obviously NOT the norm. I'm sure it makes sense to him and why wouldn't it, if that is what he experienced. We tried to get a "normal" game going and guess what?? It bogged down quickly waiting for people's turns, unfortunately, he seems to have a short memory when it comes to things like that. Marshall, you+testers (with no life) != normal scenario. LOL! I'm not horribly out of the norm but "Juuuuuuust a bit outside" LOL! You forgot me! I have no life either!

jclauder -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/15/2009 9:44:00 AM)
This discussion has come up several times before and others keep missing one essential point. With an IP game, you can have either 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 players playing. Everyone keeps focussing on 6+ players and missing what I think would be the more common use for IP, 2-4 players. In my case it would very likey be 2-4 players with the AI running all the other major powers. My brother and I have many times played 2 player IP games with a DVD running in the background for the player that is waiting and the game progresses very quickly compared to PBEM. Another advantage is that players that are not the phasing player can be looking at their computer and studying the map and they could be deciding on possible next moves, planning futire DOW, and unit builds while others are doing their turn. Another thing we have sometimes done is having a second short game (not the game we are playing on IP) going in the background for the non phasing players to keep them entertained while waiting the minutes for their next turn. I would project our group could get easily get 6 months of an EIA game done in one day on IP. Try to match that with PBEM. It has long been my wish to see EIA implemented with IP so our group could finally play it. They won't touch a PBEM game as it costs so much time and loses the camaraderie of being together for the game. My vote is for IP and sooner rather than later. I also believe Matrix will add some sales from a niche it has yet to tap by adding IP functionality missing from the game. It would certainly trigger some sales from our group. I am a former programmer and IT project manager and know IP functionality could be added to this game. A quick and dirty method would be to take the PBEM file that is exported and send it via the network to the next players computer and then tie into the existing procedure for importing the PBEM file and load it in. Sure its crude, but it would work and with little additional code. My two cents....

Jimmer -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/15/2009 7:00:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mr.godo quote: We do NOT want you to have more than one player playing at a time. That's exactly what I want. I want to be able to do something, chat with opponents, make changes on the fly and then submit my turn while everyone else is doing their thing (diplomacy, dow's, economics, builds: mutually exclusive processes). Actually, I didn't mean "not doing anything". I meant we weren't requiring that several people are actively interacting with the full game at the same time. They would be interacting only with their copy (until they hit the button to end the phase).

mr.godo -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/16/2009 5:23:07 AM)
quote: original: jclauder I am a former programmer and IT project manager and know IP functionality could be added to this game. A quick and dirty method would be to take the PBEM file that is exported and send it via the network to the next players computer and then tie into the existing procedure for importing the PBEM file and load it in. Sure its crude, but it would work and with little additional code. What next player? All the players. The game is designed such that all players receive all files all the time. I need the previous six player files in order to perform my turn. It's an ugly system. Maybe I'm missing something. I appreciate that there will be a time saving via IP, but in comparison to PBEM done with a number of people online, that time savings isn't really appreciable because of the time spent waiting for all the other players to finish their turn. How long does it take to bundle up a file, email it and then receive it? If that is what is stopping your crew from engaging in this game, then they aren't going to be too happy with all the waiting that is inherent in the design of the game. If a turn takes me five minutes, for argument's sake, that leaves me with 30 minutes of nothing because everyone else is going to take five minutes give or take. No matter how fast you make the file transfer portion, there is still a whole lot of nothing in the game. Another facet is that you can't very well make plans if your opponent does something unexpected. Any discussions need to be made on the current situation, not what you thought at the end of your turn. This game is not suited to IP play, which is why it wasn't implemented, which was a correct decision.

obsidiandrag -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/16/2009 1:36:41 PM)
Actualy the FTF would be exactly like an IP game.. the other players are there to watch, diplomacise, and even take note of troop strengths if they are thinking of taking on one of the sides in a future conflict. Study tactics and how that player will handle situations or battles to plan accordingly in the future. The way it is now, you might as well be playing vs AI as its quicker and you don't see anything from anyone else anyway... I would rather be able to sit for a few hours and play several turns than one 5 minute turn and then wait another day or so for the next phase. The only thing really left for the AI is to learn to work together with other MP's and then sharpen its teeth.

NeverMan -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/16/2009 6:52:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obsidiandragon Actualy the FTF would be exactly like an IP game.. the other players are there to watch, diplomacise, and even take note of troop strengths if they are thinking of taking on one of the sides in a future conflict. Study tactics and how that player will handle situations or battles to plan accordingly in the future. The way it is now, you might as well be playing vs AI as its quicker and you don't see anything from anyone else anyway... I would rather be able to sit for a few hours and play several turns than one 5 minute turn and then wait another day or so for the next phase. The only thing really left for the AI is to learn to work together with other MP's and then sharpen its teeth. Yes. Mr. Godo, maybe jclauder has played the Board Game. If he has then he is quite famaliar with the design of the game in the sense that there is some time spent waiting for others to do their turns. I would disagree that the file management system is trivial. For me, it is not. I spend MORE TIME DOWNLOADING THE FILES, unzipping them, starting the game up THEN I DO ACTUALLY PLAYING THE GAME. This is not an overstatement, this is just the TRUTH. On top of that, once I'm done with my turn I have to exit the game, zip my file, send my file (email or upload the file to 3rd party file management site). More time is spent managing files then playing the game. That is a major problem, IMO.

pzgndr -> RE: IP play vs Real time (1/17/2009 1:08:45 AM)
quote: This game is not suited to IP play, which is why it wasn't implemented, which was a correct decision. Huh? It wasn't implemented - yet. It's on the ToDo list. Which is to say the game is as suited for IP play as it is for pbem play. It's just a file exchange issue basically, and should be implemented eventually. This isn't an either/or issue, the game can and should have both. Why would it be a correct decision to never implement?? In the Strategic Command series, players can play via TCP/IP or pbem and switch back and forth depending on their availability. No problem. quote: Everyone keeps focussing on 6+ players and missing what I think would be the more common use for IP, 2-4 players. I agree this may become popular for many players, and moreso for shorter scenarios once they are available and the AI becomes more challenging. [8D]

jclauder -> RE: IP play vs Real time (3/1/2009 7:54:20 AM)
quote: What next player? All the players. The game is designed such that all players receive all files all the time. I need the previous six player files in order to perform my turn. It's an ugly system. Maybe I'm missing something. I appreciate that there will be a time saving via IP, but in comparison to PBEM done with a number of people online, that time savings isn't really appreciable because of the time spent waiting for all the other players to finish their turn. How long does it take to bundle up a file, email it and then receive it? If that is what is stopping your crew from engaging in this game, then they aren't going to be too happy with all the waiting that is inherent in the design of the game. If a turn takes me five minutes, for argument's sake, that leaves me with 30 minutes of nothing because everyone else is going to take five minutes give or take. No matter how fast you make the file transfer portion, there is still a whole lot of nothing in the game. Another facet is that you can't very well make plans if your opponent does something unexpected. Any discussions need to be made on the current situation, not what you thought at the end of your turn. This game is not suited to IP play, which is why it wasn't implemented, which was a correct decision. Mr. godo, the system would be modified to pass all the files to the players computer who's turn it is. The player would not have to zip any files or transfer them to the other computers as that is the function of the LAN and software additions to the existing game. You would simplly have to click the end turn and everything would automatically be transferred to the next computer and loaded automatically.

larrywrose -> RE: IP play vs Real time (3/11/2009 2:49:48 AM)
Has anybody brought up the idea of IP play just for battles? I personally think that would be a major improvement. Larry W. Rose

NeverMan -> RE: IP play vs Real time (3/11/2009 4:43:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: larrywrose Has anybody brought up the idea of IP play just for battles? I personally think that would be a major improvement. Larry W. Rose I am a huge proponent of IP play. But I think for the opponents of it, the original argument still stands for this: Why not just use email, it's almost just as fast if both are on at the same time? That seems to be their party's line.

larrywrose -> RE: IP play vs Real time (3/11/2009 6:27:14 PM)
Well you could bring up the fact that IP play just for the battles resolves the security issues. If you are both synced up and then you select done after chits are picked and your opponet keeps losing connection, you might want to find a replacement player. [8D] Also I think IP battles would bring more excitement to the game. The email thing is functional, but I find it tedious. I have to recieve an email, download a file, move the file to the battles directory, load the game, click on the battle, take my losses, commit the guard or not, close the game, open up my email, attach a file, wait till my opponet puts his daughter to bed before he responds. I find once the chits are known that the rest of the wait is not really all that fun. And if you have been out smarted on the chit choice it becomes a lets get this over with situation. If you could do just the battle via IP the fight is over in less than 5 minutes. Now you can post the results and go on. Honestly I don't see a real need for IP for the rest of the game. Most games are with people in different time zones and can't get together at the same time. I would like to see more of a file upload/download system like they use in Out of the Park Baseball for example. That would be an excellent change. 30 Players in a baseball league all have a designated FTP point for all files. The program goes there and puts your turn there when you are done and goes there and pulls down your turns. If we could designate an FTP site and then hit import all turns and the game knows to go to the FTP site zip and upzip, that would make things a lot simpler. The whole idea of computers is to give the drudge work to the program. Larry W. Rose

easterner -> RE: IP play vs Real time (3/11/2009 8:12:13 PM)
Larry W. Rose quote: Honestly I don't see a real need for IP for the rest of the game. I do, so do others. So please try not to slam the door in our face. I despise PBEM you don't see me running a campaign to stamp it out. I don't see the need for Computer EiA to match original exactly, but I'm not opposed to it being done, several things lost to pbem-playability I miss. I like most of the new changes, I do want more changes, I do want more options. I've played CIV IV with IP, it worked fine as did BIRTH of the FEDERATION.

NeverMan -> RE: IP play vs Real time (3/11/2009 8:33:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: larrywrose Honestly I don't see a real need for IP for the rest of the game. Most games are with people in different time zones and can't get together at the same time. Larry W. Rose Bingo!! This is what they say too.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: IP play vs Real time (3/12/2009 4:02:20 PM)
Actually guys, if we add IP to battles then we would just add for the whole game.

obsidiandrag -> RE: IP play vs Real time (3/13/2009 1:54:09 PM)
I think IP would fix a whole world of issues with forgetting to check those darn boxes for situations that you didn't think would or could happen... like being prussia and loosing your alliance with england because turkey declared war on them to recover from a lapse of war with egypt and england called you as an ally but you never thought of turkey declaring on england so you never checked to accept the call (not that you wanted to go to war with turkey but its better than loosing your paycheck for the french war by losing your ally to a technicality). So I can't help but wish for an eventual IP system where 3 or 4 people with AI filling the bill could sit at the computer one evening a week and knock out 6 months of game time (or more if at peace), and the realtime issues can be addressed real time and not by trying to remember to check all those crazy options boxes for situations that may never happen ( or not check for the ones that will ).

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.65625