RE: PMEM or not?

RE: PMEM or not? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory

Message

Marc von Martial -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/25/2005 6:10:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2gaulle quote: ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck quote: ORIGINAL: donkuchi People need to understand that the customer isn't always right. Sometimes the customer is an idiot. I was at a restaurant today and a customer started complaining that he was allergic to something that was in the food that he ordered. It was right in the description of the item on the menu. He didn't specify this when he ordered it and then had the nerve to complain about it. (I saw the whole transaction) The waitress isn't a psychic and had no way of knowing. My point is, if it has what you want, buy it. If it doesn't don't slam it, just don't buy it. Vote with your dollars (or whatever other currency you have) and be civil about it. You also don't have to beat a dead horse. They said they were looking into it, give them a chance. They can't change everything in one day because one person wants a new feature. BRAVO, An experience I had last week in Rome. An italian customer refused to pay for a meal (at the table next too me) cause he ordered "Spaghetti a la Carbonara" the jerk (an italian, who should know his stuff btw) complained about the fact that the meal had "parmesan cheese" on it [8\|] !!!! He complaint about "parmesan" on "Spaghetti a la Carbonara", that´s almost like complaining about round wheels on a car ! quote: ! Look like you have a great respect for your customer! I have a great respect for my customers. A very great respect. But I´m a customer too. And I know that I´m not allways right.

Marc von Martial -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/25/2005 6:12:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2gaulle quote: Never mentioned you! So why do you think I directed it at you? unfortunatly your post was in reply to me! look like his majesty Marc Schwanebeck have made the same attack (You know I don´t write nasty emails too Porsche simply because of the fact I don´t like the gear on their new car project.) Don´t take a "reply to" too personaly it depends on where the respectice poster hits the "quote" or "reply" button [;)]

Marc von Martial -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/25/2005 6:18:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2gaulle this world is realy crasy , it's a new world were we could only said that all is perfect. sory Matrix, sory Mister Marc Schwanebeck if I was not in the line of the Party. Nobody is asking you to say "everything is perfect", but what we ask to not harp on allways the same matter when it has been stated a dozen of times that we WILL look into PBEM. Okay? I mean honestly, what do you want more? You bitched about the lack of PBEM and the developer comes and says, hey we look into it? Isn´t that a great customer response or what?

Pippin -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/25/2005 6:31:42 AM)
quote: With Chess, the terrain and the unit are limited and are all the time the same. the AI in chess is done on a studing of all the old game, something absolutly impossible with wargame. I do not quite believe so. The terrain in chess is quite often changing. For example, the bishop represents the archer unit. They have quite great a nice range and are great for bearing down open diagonals. On the other hand, knights are quick and can leap through tuff spots. Nice to have in enclosed areas. It does not take a genius long to figure out that you want to keep changing the terrain to prohibit movement on your opponent, or force him into a worse position. Early in game it is advantageous to trade down an opponent’s freemoving units, such as knights. Late in the game you want to trade down his large range bearing units. Two rooks or two bishops working in tandem with each other can be utterly deadly on open diagonal or ranks & files. Thus, what ever pawns and other units one has left it is wise to push them out and clutter or obstruct those opposing units as much as possible without risk to your protected king. We could go on all night here, but I assure you in any chess game, the terrain is definitely changing, every turn. No chessmaster will leave the field static for long, even the most defensive openings (Sicilian Gambit, French Defence, etc) require the terrain of the field to change somewhat. And yes, units do change too. You ever see what happens to pawn when it reaches the other side of the board? :P

Marc von Martial -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/25/2005 6:47:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pippin quote: With Chess, the terrain and the unit are limited and are all the time the same. the AI in chess is done on a studing of all the old game, something absolutly impossible with wargame. I do not quite believe so. The terrain in chess is quite often changing. For example, the bishop represents the archer unit. They have quite great a nice range and are great for bearing down open diagonals. On the other hand, knights are quick and can leap through tuff spots. Nice to have in enclosed areas. It does not take a genius long to figure out that you want to keep changing the terrain to prohibit movement on your opponent, or force him into a worse position. Early in game it is advantageous to trade down an opponent’s freemoving units, such as knights. Late in the game you want to trade down his large range bearing units. Two rooks or two bishops working in tandem with each other can be utterly deadly on open diagonal or ranks & files. Thus, what ever pawns and other units one has left it is wise to push them out and clutter or obstruct those opposing units as much as possible without risk to your protected king. We could go on all night here, but I assure you in any chess game, the terrain is definitely changing, every turn. No chessmaster will leave the field static for long, even the most defensive openings (Sicilian Gambit, French Defence, etc) require the terrain of the field to change somewhat. And yes, units do change too. You ever see what happens to pawn when it reaches the other side of the board? :P That´s why it´s called "Game of the Kings". Easy to learn, extremely hard to master.

ericbabe -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/25/2005 9:12:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2gaulle do you want we change the way to play according to your design? doesn't it sound more logical to have a design according to the play of your customer??? Don't know if your game is good or not, so far it't look great but unfortunatly your attitude is not close to your customer. As I mentioned in other posts, we are planning to add PBEM support after release. It seems from the feedback I'm getting that people would not mind a version of PBEM that did not support tactical combat. Anyone reading this with strong opinions either way please feel free to post them. I've been trying to outline a design of PBEM that would include both the strategic and tactical levels, as I believe that the union of the two levels is Crown of Glory's most distinguishing feature. It's hard for me to imagine the Napoleonic era without the battles. The difficulty in keeping tactical combat is that a battle at the tactical level takes nearly as many turns back and forth as playing an entire strategic game -- which, as you pointed out earlier, PBEM players rarely finish anyway. I can imagine that a game with ten times as many turns as a standard PBEM game would almost never be finished. There may be ways around this by allowing the player to give sets of orders with contingencies that are enacted over multiple turns, or by turning over a portion of the turns to the AI.

Iñaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/25/2005 11:21:58 AM)
When I saw that battles took so many turns I inmediately understood they were not feasible in multiplayer, I had been planing myself to produce a wargame with both levels, strategic and tactic, and having pondered it I think the tactical level should be either real time or a very short, turn based, wego system, so that Austerlitz could be fought in less than 10 turns. I understand that CoG would be played as multiplayer in the strategic level. So yes, my vote goes for a PBEM with no tactical level. BTW would it be multiplayer PBEM? that would be more important than try to force the tactical level in

wodin -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/25/2005 3:00:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2gaulle quote: Never mentioned you! So why do you think I directed it at you? unfortunatly your post was in reply to me! look like his majesty Marc Schwanebeck have made the same attack (You know I don´t write nasty emails too Porsche simply because of the fact I don´t like the gear on their new car project.) I apologise. I never think about the reply button etc I just go ahead and poat. Again sorry it wasn't directed at you.

Sonny -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/25/2005 3:27:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ericbabe ......................... Anyone reading this with strong opinions either way please feel free to post them. ................................. I think that has already been going on. How about us with weak opinions? Well, here are my opinions: PBEM without tactical combat would suit me fine. A good AI in a single player game (with tactical battles) would be my second choice (very close to first choice). And third would be on-line gaming. Tried a lot of this with EU2. Can't tell you how many times I have played the years 1492 - 1575. But I can tell you I have never played 1492 - 1800. Since CoG is not as long a game perhaps it would be more likely to be finished before problems arose. I realize having so many players in a PBEM game is tough which is why my first and second choices are a toss-up. Now if the AI can be substituted for a few of the countries in PBEM then it may work well (I think this is how it is in WaW).

2gaulle -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/25/2005 6:51:15 PM)
quote: As I mentioned in other posts, we are planning to add PBEM support after release. sorry again but it's not acceptable. you write, buy it and we will add (perhaps!) an important compoment some time later. I begin to undertand the problem. As EIA as been delayed due to the TMR error, for commercial/marketing reason CoG must be release shortly. quote: It seems from the feedback I'm getting that people would not mind a version of PBEM that did not support tactical combat. Anyone reading this with strong opinions either way please feel free to post them. I've been trying to outline a design of PBEM that would include both the strategic and tactical levels, as I believe that the union of the two levels is Crown of Glory's most distinguishing feature. It's hard for me to imagine the Napoleonic era without the battles. Tactical battle is a different point. The only wargame I have played by lan was 1813. the tactical part of the game was interesting but I never played it. I don't think many will be able to play the tactical part as allready the stategic part is 252 turns! now the problem could be different for short scenario. In this case the goal to be to create a battle situation, in this case the Tactical become the most important. with 20 minutes by turn and all the detail showing in the game description there is certainly something interesting for PBEM. On a AI point of view, it's certainly more difficult to create a decent tactical AI than a strategic AI. That mean Tactical battle will certainly be an advantage for human in a single player game.

wodin -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/25/2005 8:46:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2gaulle quote: As I mentioned in other posts, we are planning to add PBEM support after release. sorry again but it's not acceptable. you write, buy it and we will add (perhaps!) an important compoment some time later. I'm sorry but its NOT your game. Your not the lead programme or in anyway involved in the development of this game. So saying its NOT ACCEPTEABLE like an irate boss or even worse teacher is really rather silly. Just don't buy it. When people moan about certian things on TV I think well turn it off or tuen over. Same thing applies to you. DONT BOTHER BUYING THE GAME IF IT DOESN@T MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS. BUY SOMETHING ELSE INSTEAD. Your starting to get on peoples nerves. Are you normally this pompous? Your name says it all.

2gaulle -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/25/2005 8:59:02 PM)
quote: Your starting to get on peoples nerves. are you matrix? quote: Are you normally this pompous? you look like to be a moral teacher! PC Game are the only industry were it's possible to found customer hapy to buy unfinished product.

David Heath -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/25/2005 9:22:25 PM)
Hi Guys Please step back, I think everyone will find this game very enjoyable on a long over due subject. We see a lot of you want the PBEM feature and you already know we listen to our customers. If time allows and the feature is possible we will do our best add it. David

2gaulle -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/25/2005 9:38:28 PM)
quote: If time allows your answerd look like more honest. So it's now clear they will be not PBEM because you have decide to release the game shortly.

donkuchi19 -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/25/2005 10:52:19 PM)
I finally realize a use for the block list!!!!!!!![:D]

Marc von Martial -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/25/2005 11:03:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2gaulle quote: If time allows your answerd look like more honest. So it's now clear they will be not PBEM because you have decide to release the game shortly. If you would read through the threads and answers by the developers and publisher you would notice that it has been stated that PBEM will most probably be added in an upgrade after release. This is my last mention of this. Why bother repeating and repeating.

David Heath -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/25/2005 11:32:01 PM)
Hi 2gaule I am always honest if nothing else. PBEM was never part of the design and we do not try to force our developers to make changes. This is a very friendly place for our developers. In any case Eric Babe and team are going to look at ways to add PBEM into the design. Every game does not work with PBEM or Internet play and each designer must make this choice. This has nothing to do with us releaseing the game early as it does with the fact we never planned on PBEM with this design. So if there is no PBEM in this game and it is a major issue for you then wait for Empires in Arms which has no Internet Play but does have PBEM. Not every game can be made for everyone. David

2gaulle -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/25/2005 11:56:54 PM)
quote: I am always honest if nothing else. PBEM was never part of the design and we do not try to force our developers to make changes. This is a very friendly place for our developers. that perhaps all the problem. In boargame industry most of the time there is a designer a developper and a publisher. Between the initial game design and the final product many change are made by the developper. Most of the time the developper is also part of the publisher. Unfortunatly in PC game, designer and developper are the same person and the publisher appear at the last stand of the project.

Pippin -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/26/2005 1:04:30 AM)
I believe 2gaulle will definitely like EIA. So many pbem turns that he will be lucky to ever finish one game of it in his life-time.

ericbabe -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/26/2005 3:43:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar strategic level. So yes, my vote goes for a PBEM with no tactical level. BTW would it be multiplayer PBEM? that would be more important than try to force the tactical level in I think we're leaning in this direction. If other parts of testing go well enough, we will try to get PBEM at the strategic level in by the release date. Eric

wodin -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/26/2005 4:30:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2gaulle PC Game are the only industry were it's possible to found customer hapy to buy unfinished product. BUT its only unfinished in YOUR eyes NOT the developers. Funny thing is I play all my games PBEM. Thats the way I like to play. BUT I don't go banging on to every game developer who doesn't include it. Please listen to people. The game will have a PBEM in the furture through an upgrade most likely due to popular demand. HOWEVER I believe it was never intended this way. SO the game isn't unfinished at all. The develope ris finishing his game the way he wanted it. Then he had requests to inlcude a PBEM feature. So he took it on board, decided to keep to his original design and then add a PBEM feature to keep his customers HAPPY. Ther are two Napoleonic games being released, one fo which caters for you so buy that one. Another is also in devlopment whcih also might cater for you so you will have a choose of two.

2gaulle -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/26/2005 6:25:16 AM)
quote: BUT its only unfinished in YOUR eyes NOT the developers. after reading the description I had think this game could have many potential. EiA is interesting but unfortunatly I have played this game since 20 years. on the other part CoG have many new concept. That all the reason why I was so interested by this title. Through this tread it have been clear than there is very few possibility to play (and finish) this kind of game by Lan, specialy in multiplayer. That mean without PBEM this game will be only playable again the AI I will be very happy to continue this discution 2 month after the release of CoG if there is no PBEM. At this moment we will see who was wrong. For now I think this enough

wodin -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/26/2005 6:38:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2gaulle I will be very happy to continue this discution 2 month after the release of CoG if there is no PBEM. At this moment we will see who was wrong. For now I think this enough There is no right or wrong just a game design by a game developer.

2gaulle -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/26/2005 4:30:20 PM)
quote: There is no right or wrong just a game design by a game developer. and a game design could be good or wrong!

Sonny -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/26/2005 6:17:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David Heath Hi 2gaule I am always honest if nothing else. PBEM was never part of the design and we do not try to force our developers to make changes. This is a very friendly place for our developers. In any case Eric Babe and team are going to look at ways to add PBEM into the design. Every game does not work with PBEM or Internet play and each designer must make this choice. This has nothing to do with us releaseing the game early as it does with the fact we never planned on PBEM with this design. So if there is no PBEM in this game and it is a major issue for you then wait for Empires in Arms which has no Internet Play but does have PBEM. Not every game can be made for everyone. David [8D][8D][8D]

grumbler -> RE: PMEM or not? (3/28/2005 10:35:37 PM)
I am actually pretty indifferent to PBEM, in part because my PBEM card is already pretty full, and the addition of EiA will overfill it. I have started playing the beta version of CoG, and think it is sufficiently interesting as a single-player game that I will probably not play it PBEM even if the feature is added. I would actually prefer, if there is to be a significant upgrade of the system in the future, that the game incorporate the more viable minors as player-nations, a la HoI or R:TW. That way, when I have figured out the optimal strategies for the major powers I can still get a challenge in the game by playing a minor power (and not conquering the world, necessarily, but say, re-establishing the Kingdom of Poland using a combination of military, diplomatic, and economic maneuvers). Just because a lot of games have one specific feature and a lot of gamers like that feature does not mean that there is not a market, and a good market, for a game that foregoes that feature. Most players like diffrent games to play under different circumstances. This is just the kind of game it is fun playing while waiting for your opponents to email those WitP turns back!

Darksky -> RE: PMEM or not? (4/3/2005 12:36:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ericbabe I believe that the union of the two levels is Crown of Glory's most distinguishing feature. It's hard for me to imagine the Napoleonic era without the battles. That's the point [;)] A pbem mode cannot include the tact fight...hey we live about 90 years, we have not time to end a game then [:D] So, do we really need another pbem Risk-mode game ? I think not. The best choice is a lan/internet real time multyplay ( Paraadox game style ) with choice to stop and SAVE ( i.e. freeze ) the situation and then restart in the next game session. For example, this will be the multyplayer mode in Supreme Ruler 2010. Imperial Glory demo survived on my Hard disk only 1 and half hour, then it was erased totally ( my windows trashcan told me that that kind of rubbish is to "rubbishis" for it...). My hope is now totally for Crown of Glory, have a good work guys.

ericbabe -> RE: PMEM or not? (4/3/2005 8:10:00 PM)
quote: A pbem mode cannot include the tact fight...hey we live about 90 years, we have not time to end a game then [:D] So, do we really need another pbem Risk-mode game ? I think not. The best choice is a lan/internet real time multyplay ( Paraadox Thanks for the encouragement Darksky. I finished writing basic PBEM code yesterday and the initial PBEM test games I'm running in-house seem to be working alright. PBEM is just strategic level -- battles are resolved in QC by the AI. I think there may be enough with the treaty and trade and development areas of play to keep the strategic game interesting in a PBEM game. Typically when we play a LAN game with more than two humans we have a sort of gentleman's agreement that each player can only choose to fight one detailed battle per evening -- for a long evening's m-play game with three players this usually works out to about half the time spent at the strategic level, half the time at the tactical level. Eric

Erik Rutins -> RE: PMEM or not? (4/3/2005 9:37:35 PM)
Browsing through forums, as I end up doing daily, I just had to note this bit of irony. Apologies for the brief semi-hijack of the thread. In this forum, we have a few customers, particularly one very enthusiastic one, posting vigorously to get PBEM added to a TCP/IP play game. In the GGWaW forum, we have a few customers posting vigorously to get TCP/IP added to a PBEM game. In each case, the game is ideally designed to support the multi-player mode that already exists, rather than the one being requested. Perhaps I'm the only one that finds this a bit surreal or ironic. My $.02 - be careful what you wish for. [;)] Ok, back to your regular chat and thanks to Eric for his quick response and keeping us all up to date. [8D] Regards, - Erik

2gaulle -> RE: PMEM or not? (4/4/2005 2:40:49 AM)
quote: In this forum, we have a few customers, particularly one very enthusiastic one, posting vigorously to get PBEM added to a TCP/IP play game. In the GGWaW forum, we have a few customers posting vigorously to get TCP/IP added to a PBEM game. In each case, the game is ideally designed to support the multi-player mode that already exists, rather than the one being requested. Perhaps I'm the only one that finds this a bit surreal or ironic. I apreciate a lot of this kind of reflexion. Ironic also to see how it was difficult to implement PBEM feature. ask myself if all this psychodrama was necessary? By the way it will be interresting to see how many people will play with lan and how many with PBEM. For me that the only good question.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.484375