Most important improvements

[rico21]

Hello everyone,
I bought this game to play alone, so I want a good AI and good editor scenarios.
Both are good but room for improvement of course and I hope that Peter will improve.
But I also decided to buy the game with the risk that it never changes.
It is a choice, I assume.

[Ratzki]

I think that games survive when they are able to challege the player(s) and constantly provide something new. Does the AI need work?... sure, we addressed some points during playtesting, but to devote huge amounts of time to developing a better AI and not release new ideas/rules/units would just as certain cause this game to stall out. I think that a balanced AI improvement/new materials approach would keep everyone happy and ensure that the game keeps on selling well and being played. I feel the same about multiplayer,... do we need it? It would appeal to more players if it was there, but that alone would not ensure the continued success of this game.
We have a great game here and possibly something that has real staying power. I think that we as users can help out by finding solutions within the game's limits to accomplish what we want. New units; give us the ability to create them or new terrain, maybe something similar that we can do. Maybe a Ai solution might be a combination of scripting and improved AI. Baby steps are the way to go, keep on making small improvements but keep them comming often will keep us all interested for a long time.
Thanks for creating something that as you can see, Peter, we all appreciate and want to succeed!

[rico21]

+1[:)]

[Gerry4321]

ORIGINAL: MikeMarchant_ssl

For what it's worth, my view on this is that multiplayer has to be the way to go if you want the game to survive long term.

An excellent AI is undoubtedly a good thing and something to be aspired to, but I don't think this will keep a sufficient number of players interested in the long term, even with the excellent work that people are putting in to develop new mods and new scenarios.

In my experience, playing computer games since the late 70s, the games which survive for many years are those which provide players with a chance to compete with each other, and that competition isn't going to be practical without some kind of multiplayer system built into the game itself.

If you are really serious about this being a long term project, Peter, and I believe you are, then I fear that the number of people who will be playing this game in 5 years will dwindle down to next to nothing with just an AI to play against. Multiplayer allows competitions to be set up, leagues and tournaments for people to take part in, for players to interact with each other in a more meaningful and competitive way than is possible at the moment. In my view, it is games that do this (like Field of Glory, for example) that can keep people devoted and loyal and playing long term.

Just imagine, Peter, still developing this game, still have a large and devoted following, in ten years time. I don't believe that will be possible with no multiplayer option, even if people are very enthusiastic now, less than a month after release.

Just trying to help.


Best Wishes

Mike

Great post.

[Jafele]

I´m not against MP, however ToTH was designed for SP as far as I know. You guys can find loads of excellent games for MP. Do you know many good ones for SP?

As Peter stated the priority is SP, if someday we could have MP then much better, of course. It will take a long time to develop the AI, that´s true, but this is the price to pay for quality.

[dox44]

for what its worth. I agree.

[Paullus]

Guys, did you check out Idjesters thread on how to play TotH with Multiplayer? http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4042900

[MikeMarchant_ssl]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

I think that games survive when they are able to challege the player(s) and constantly provide something new. Does the AI need work?... sure, we addressed some points during playtesting, but to devote huge amounts of time to developing a better AI and not release new ideas/rules/units would just as certain cause this game to stall out. I think that a balanced AI improvement/new materials approach would keep everyone happy and ensure that the game keeps on selling well and being played. I feel the same about multiplayer,... do we need it? It would appeal to more players if it was there, but that alone would not ensure the continued success of this game.
We have a great game here and possibly something that has real staying power. I think that we as users can help out by finding solutions within the game's limits to accomplish what we want. New units; give us the ability to create them or new terrain, maybe something similar that we can do. Maybe a Ai solution might be a combination of scripting and improved AI. Baby steps are the way to go, keep on making small improvements but keep them comming often will keep us all interested for a long time.
Thanks for creating something that as you can see, Peter, we all appreciate and want to succeed!

I'm not suggesting that the only improvement or new addition to the game should be the ability to play multi-player. Of course we also want as many other additions and new features as well.

It's only my view, but I think the game will appeal to a lot more players if it had a multi-player capability, and that it will keep people engaged for a lot longer.


Best Wishes

Mike

[MikeMarchant_ssl]

ORIGINAL: Jafele

I´m not against MP, however ToTH was designed for SP as far as I know. You guys can find loads of excellent games for MP. Do you know many good ones for SP?

As Peter stated the priority is SP, if someday we could have MP then much better, of course. It will take a long time to develop the AI, that´s true, but this is the price to pay for quality.

I don't want this to be seen as an 'us and them' situation. I am perfectly happy for the game's AI to be improved and I am perfectly happy for people to want to play the game only as a single player game. That's great. It's also important for new players, who might want to play multiplayer, but need to build up their confidence with the game first.

I also don't think it's important what the game was designed for in the first place, because what's more important is where the game is going to go from here. My view, and it is only my view, is that the long term future of this game will not be people playing it single player, it will be people playing it multiplayer. This isn't just a philosophical view, you can test the theory empirically. Look at the games which have survived for a long time and those which haven't. Now look at which games can be played multiplayer and which can't. Notice the enormous overlap between those that can be played multiplayer and those which survive for a long period of time. Draw your own conclusions.

In an ideal world we'd have everything. We'd have a fabulous user interface, an amazing AI, multiplayer capability, and all those new features that we all want, from walls and hedges to multilevel buildings to Nazi Nuns on Wheels (was that the name of the game? Does anyone remember that game?), but the dilemma for Peter is that he only has so much time available, and time spent doing one thing is time not spent doing another. So Peter has to choose (an unenviable task, and not one I would want) where he is going to spend his time. I am only trying to help that decision making in order to give this game the longevity it deserves.


Best Wishes

Mike

[dynaman216]

The thing with improving the AI is that it will never end, adding MP is do it once and it is done.

[waltero]

ORIGINAL: Jafele

I´m not against MP, however ToTH was designed for SP as far as I know. You guys can find loads of excellent games for MP. Do you know many good ones for SP?

As Peter stated the priority is SP, if someday we could have MP then much better, of course. It will take a long time to develop the AI, that´s true, but this is the price to pay for quality.

I don't think you have this games best interest at heart. Developing a superb AI will do nothing for this game. "The same AI players" will continue to play.
Others have explained why Multiplayer is a must in order for this game to survive.
Why does it seem that the AI players are in direct opposition? Throw all logic out the window.
It's OK that Peter wants to go forward with the AI. I am good with that.
I have always wondered why players prefer playing against the AI oppose to live?

Maybe the fact that those whom play with the AI develop bad habits, that do not coincide with live play (incompatible)???

Example; Reload, sore loser, manipulate, reloading, gain victory, cuss/swear, not having to show Honor, reload, beating a computer (no matter how stupid), reload etc.

Any desire to implement multiplayer, I would purchase this game...

[Franciscus]

I am solo-only player and I am glad Peter intends to develop the AI. I have nothing against MP, it is just not my thing, specially due to time constraints but also a lack of interest in the competitive aspect of MP.
But I can understand perfectly that this game has huge potential for MP play, for those interested.

For me a game has to have a competent AI, and there are several games that have it, IMHO.

(PS: Even if I had "bad habits" against the AI, it's no one's concern. The AI never complained, so far...[:D])

[Ratzki]

ORIGINAL: MikeMarchant_ssl

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

I think that games survive when they are able to challege the player(s) and constantly provide something new. Does the AI need work?... sure, we addressed some points during playtesting, but to devote huge amounts of time to developing a better AI and not release new ideas/rules/units would just as certain cause this game to stall out. I think that a balanced AI improvement/new materials approach would keep everyone happy and ensure that the game keeps on selling well and being played. I feel the same about multiplayer,... do we need it? It would appeal to more players if it was there, but that alone would not ensure the continued success of this game.
We have a great game here and possibly something that has real staying power. I think that we as users can help out by finding solutions within the game's limits to accomplish what we want. New units; give us the ability to create them or new terrain, maybe something similar that we can do. Maybe a Ai solution might be a combination of scripting and improved AI. Baby steps are the way to go, keep on making small improvements but keep them comming often will keep us all interested for a long time.
Thanks for creating something that as you can see, Peter, we all appreciate and want to succeed!

I'm not suggesting that the only improvement or new addition to the game should be the ability to play multi-player. Of course we also want as many other additions and new features as well.

It's only my view, but I think the game will appeal to a lot more players if it had a multi-player capability, and that it will keep people engaged for a lot longer.


Best Wishes

Mike

I am not suggesting that multiplayer should be excluded either. I agree with you, the game would have more appeal if it was to have some multiplayer built in. I just do not think that this ASL type system works well with multiplayer. The best multiplayer would have players exchjanging files after their turns were completed. This would allow both players to be able to complete their turns when they have time in their lives a battle would not take too long to complete. All the phases that we are dealing with in TotH would need large numbers of file transfers just to complete one turn or both players would have to be online at the same time. Idjester has come up with what looks to be a great solution to the multiplayer concern. Is this the best solution, probably not but it works every bit as well as two players sitting at the same table moving chits around and bantering.

I am no better in character, I want it all as well, and I want it now. Peter knows what he has created and were the shortcomings are. We were pretty vocal in testing and I do not think that there are too many ideas that we did not try to address during our time with the game. The developer is a talented and ambitious guy and he is able to accomplish quite alot considering the size of his team. Paullus is working just as hard. Do we need time spent with implimenting multiplayer when we have Idjester's work around? Too me, the answer is yes, but this is not at the top of the pile of things that can be done to improve the game. We have to be careful to not confuse wants with needs. I want the game to have several improvements but I know that these may not be what the game needs at this time. I will have to learn to be patient.

[iPhoneAppz]

The best multiplayer would be real time. It's much easier to implement that then it is a competent AI. I really would love to see time spent building multiplayer.

[MikeMarchant_ssl]

ORIGINAL: waltero

ORIGINAL: Jafele

I´m not against MP, however ToTH was designed for SP as far as I know. You guys can find loads of excellent games for MP. Do you know many good ones for SP?

As Peter stated the priority is SP, if someday we could have MP then much better, of course. It will take a long time to develop the AI, that´s true, but this is the price to pay for quality.

I don't think you have this games best interest at heart. Developing a superb AI will do nothing for this game. "The same AI players" will continue to play.
Others have explained why Multiplayer is a must in order for this game to survive.
Why does it seem that the AI players are in direct opposition? Throw all logic out the window.
It's OK that Peter wants to go forward with the AI. I am good with that.
I have always wondered why players prefer playing against the AI oppose to live?

Maybe the fact that those whom play with the AI develop bad habits, that do not coincide with live play (incompatible)???

Example; Reload, sore loser, manipulate, reloading, gain victory, cuss/swear, not having to show Honor, reload, beating a computer (no matter how stupid), reload etc.

Any desire to implement multiplayer, I would purchase this game...

You don't need to wonder why some people prefer SP, Waltero, it is simply the case; just like some people prefer strawberry ice-cream to chocolate ice-cream. I don't think we need to impugn their motives.

Let the game flourish with both.


Best Wishes

Mike

[Jafele]

ORIGINAL: waltero

I don't think you have this games best interest at heart. Developing a superb AI will do nothing for this game. "The same AI players" will continue to play.
Others have explained why Multiplayer is a must in order for this game to survive.
Why does it seem that the AI players are in direct opposition? Throw all logic out the window.
It's OK that Peter wants to go forward with the AI. I am good with that.
I have always wondered why players prefer playing against the AI oppose to live?

Maybe the fact that those whom play with the AI develop bad habits, that do not coincide with live play (incompatible)???

Example; Reload, sore loser, manipulate, reloading, gain victory, cuss/swear, not having to show Honor, reload, beating a computer (no matter how stupid), reload etc.

Any desire to implement multiplayer, I would purchase this game...

Stop the speech! How do you know I have no interest in this game? Are you a magician? LOL. I play sometimes by email other games and also enjoy playing alone at home. If you are addicted to email games it´s up to you, but let others have different opinions. I will repeat it again: I see this game mechanics perfect for SP games, I´m not against MP.

[MikeMarchant_ssl]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

ORIGINAL: MikeMarchant_ssl

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

I think that games survive when they are able to challege the player(s) and constantly provide something new. Does the AI need work?... sure, we addressed some points during playtesting, but to devote huge amounts of time to developing a better AI and not release new ideas/rules/units would just as certain cause this game to stall out. I think that a balanced AI improvement/new materials approach would keep everyone happy and ensure that the game keeps on selling well and being played. I feel the same about multiplayer,... do we need it? It would appeal to more players if it was there, but that alone would not ensure the continued success of this game.
We have a great game here and possibly something that has real staying power. I think that we as users can help out by finding solutions within the game's limits to accomplish what we want. New units; give us the ability to create them or new terrain, maybe something similar that we can do. Maybe a Ai solution might be a combination of scripting and improved AI. Baby steps are the way to go, keep on making small improvements but keep them comming often will keep us all interested for a long time.
Thanks for creating something that as you can see, Peter, we all appreciate and want to succeed!

I'm not suggesting that the only improvement or new addition to the game should be the ability to play multi-player. Of course we also want as many other additions and new features as well.

It's only my view, but I think the game will appeal to a lot more players if it had a multi-player capability, and that it will keep people engaged for a lot longer.


Best Wishes

Mike

I am not suggesting that multiplayer should be excluded either. I agree with you, the game would have more appeal if it was to have some multiplayer built in. I just do not think that this ASL type system works well with multiplayer. The best multiplayer would have players exchjanging files after their turns were completed. This would allow both players to be able to complete their turns when they have time in their lives a battle would not take too long to complete. All the phases that we are dealing with in TotH would need large numbers of file transfers just to complete one turn or both players would have to be online at the same time. Idjester has come up with what looks to be a great solution to the multiplayer concern. Is this the best solution, probably not but it works every bit as well as two players sitting at the same table moving chits around and bantering.

I am no better in character, I want it all as well, and I want it now. Peter knows what he has created and were the shortcomings are. We were pretty vocal in testing and I do not think that there are too many ideas that we did not try to address during our time with the game. The developer is a talented and ambitious guy and he is able to accomplish quite alot considering the size of his team. Paullus is working just as hard. Do we need time spent with implimenting multiplayer when we have Idjester's work around? Too me, the answer is yes, but this is not at the top of the pile of things that can be done to improve the game. We have to be careful to not confuse wants with needs. I want the game to have several improvements but I know that these may not be what the game needs at this time. I will have to learn to be patient.

There is no progress where people focus on the problems and difficulties of a venture with no sincere desire to solve those problems. How many times have I been in meetings where someone has come up with a good idea only to have everybody happily explaining why it can't be done, only to find a competitor implementing that very same idea some way down the line? The only way to make progress with difficult problems is to set creative and intelligent minds to work on them; minds which are genuinely exploring all manner of ways in which the problem could be solved. There's no guarantee there will be a solution at the end of that process, but there is a guarantee that no progress will be made if we don't make the attempt.

I haven't yet had time to explore idjester's solution, so I can't say too much about that. I think though that it lacks a central hub, a multiplayer forum where players, new and old, can come to find games to play against others. If that's the case, then its a solution for the hardcore players, but not for many who might come to the game later, or those who are more casual players, and so again, it tends to appeal to a much smaller segment of the market. I must try to find time to check it out, though.


Best Wishes

Mike

[Jafele]

---

[jhpanther]

Agree

[Gerry4321]

ORIGINAL: Paullus

Guys, did you check out Idjesters thread on how to play TotH with Multiplayer? http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4042900

I am not a security guru but I believe systems like Teamviewer open ports on your computer. Any security person here that could explain if this is a concern or not.

My worry is obviously not playing a fellow wargamer, and I recognize many of the names from many forums over the years, but ending up playing against a hacker.