speeding up play

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth



Nope I disagree completely. I probably have more experience of PBEM play than the majority on this board being currently in five games most of which are pretty fast moving.

All the games have an agreed turnaround time and if you don't play your turn you get skipped. But this is rare, if people know they are going to be away or unavailable then they will arrange in advance for someone else to play their turn (much easier since the 1.04 advent of different save game names.)

In all the games player absence has *not* been an issue for game speed.

You MUST absolutely be the exception because I have been playing PBEM for years (~2000) and absence is the major cause of delay / end game (in my case at least).

I will remember to use your use-case for any PBEM speeding up tests

You've been playing PBEM for 2000 years ? [X(] I apologise for even daring to question you ! [;)]

LOL! Convert that to dog years then you're close. LOL!

Curious: Your group:
Do you know each other?
Same time zones?
Multiple games together?

I want to know the formula...

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Curious: Your group:
Do you know each other?
Same time zones?
Multiple games together?

I want to know the formula...

No, only two players in the games I'm playing were known to me before play.

Time zones - all over the place. My fastest game has players in the US (3) , UK (2), Italy and Australia. Location is far less important than willingness to be online. If you have someone who checks once a day they'll slow things up. At the other extreme you have guys like me who will potentially be online 12+ hours a day. We have gone through a complete phase in less than a day several times.

Multiple games - well some people pop up a few times. I guess there's probably about 20 poeple in my five games (one game has only three players), but I don't think anyone appears more than twice (except me of course !)

My experience of most games is that they often have a slow/rocky start. Within the first year of play there may be a high player turnover, but after that point the game stabilises as willing players are found. Things speed up as people get into the swing / habit of playing promptly.

Actually EiANW lends itself to player absence reasonably well. Nations will often be at peace and able to be played by another player fairly easily or turns can be skipped wihtout too many problems.

[Dancing Bear]

Marshall, I think you have to be careful about using your own experience as a basis for how the game is played out in a wider market. You are obivously in the gaming business, and are claerly on line all the time, and by association, I imagine most, if not all, the people you play with are in the same boat. A lot of us, however, don't have jobs that allow us to receive game related email during business hours. We are stuck logging in from 7 to 9 in the evening. You may have to try a week of playing with 7 persons who can only log in from 7 to 9 each evening over a time zone or two, to see how the game is played by most of Matrix's EIA clientele.

[borner]

Again Dancing bear, well said. I have been in several games now, most of which have folded, but it is very rare that everyone can be online at the same time....... as I posted earlier, when you are across the date line, let alone time zones, exactly how does one expect to set that up. Plus, for most of us, this is a hobby we work in around life issues such as work, family, friends, ect.

[NeverMan]

I agree with Dancing Bear and borner, I think your experiences Marshall are NOT the norm and that you are way off base on this one.

[mr.godo]

In my experience, each player can process one phase per day. Maybe they can go faster, but not on average. In my three games, each phase took one week, unless there were battles then it was longer.
Even with simultaneous phases, they would only be reduced to a day. Is that much of a savings?

[borner]

Do you have a better suggestion? Or are you happy with how things are? I just think that the cost is minor to save some time.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: mr.godo

In my experience, each player can process one phase per day. Maybe they can go faster, but not on average. In my three games, each phase took one week, unless there were battles then it was longer.
Even with simultaneous phases, they would only be reduced to a day. Is that much of a savings?

A 7x phase speedup isn't much of a savings to you? So I guess time is not important to you.. personally, it's the only thing I don't have enough of and I could really use those extra 6 days.

[Thresh]

The game is only going to go as fast as the players participating in it, no matter how many phases you make simultaneous...

Todd

[Dancing Bear]

Todd, while this is true, it is only part of the story. The faster the game is, the more enjoyable it will be, and the more players will participate.

It is the slow game that causes participation to drop, which ends games, not the other way round. The lack of participation is only a symptom or side effect of slow game speed, but not the cause. As the speeds up, so participation will increase, and fewer games will end.

If they are on the ball, the testers have probably already noticed the game enjoyment has improved with the implementation of "skipping".

ORIGINAL: Thresh

The game is only going to go as fast as the players participating in it, no matter how many phases you make simultaneous...

Todd

[Thresh]

Why is the game slow?

Because the turns aren't simultaneous?  Possibly.  But even with simultaneous turns (which I have played PbEM), if the players are not actively invovled, the game is going to slow down and die.  Very few PbEM games ever go to completetion because players drop out after losing big early on, or someone leaves with their country in the crapper.   I've been playing EiA PbEM since the mid 90's, and I've finished five games (1805 to 1815) in that time.  I've had other gamesfinish early because the VP winner was to farahead to overcome, but thatsa different thread

Two games were with a dedicated player group, with dedicated turnaround times and a non player GM who was an expert catherder.

Two of the games took a lot longer, several players had real life issues get int the way.

The fifth game was actually the first one started, and it took the longest to complete, almost five years.  I played Spain.  And I was the only original player left in the game  when it was over.  We went through Four Frances, Five Prussia's, two Austrias,four Turkeys and Nine (!) Englands.  And I guarentee you,in that game simulatanous turns would not have helped, as on many occassions players just lost interest and left.

The simple fact of the matter is the the biggest bottleneck of the game is the players involved.  Without a dedicated group of players who are activley involved no matter what their in game status is, no amount of speeding up game play is going to have an appreciable amount of ipact.

I haven't seen skipping speeding up my playtest games, but then I am usually in the editor after every turn trying to spot anybugs...Maybe if I was in another PbEM game I'd notice, but the last PbEM game I was in died a slow death because players couldn't adhere to the timetable, andseveral players got frustrated and left....

Todd

[Dancing Bear]

Todd
I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you are saying that the game can never be playable beause players drop out, (usually when they are losing), and there is nothing that can be done within the game itself? (it is a game with winners and losers after all). Or are you defending the game, by blaming the players?

I think for losing players, the game can be very tough. Imagine you are not doing well (and perhaps this has never happened to you), and you want to get back up on your feet. But because the game turn around is so slow, it takes a months of real life time to dig yourself out of a hole. That's a depressingly long time to be logging on daily just to see each time that you are still losing, where's the fun in that? After a while, human nature will make any reasonable person want to drop out in this situation.

Skipping should go a long way to reducing game demands on players who are simply licking their wounds (they are usually only interested in economic turns). Faster game mechanics are also needed so that recovery would be faster in real time (not game time), and within some tolerable period.

A faster game is also simply more interesting for everyone, not just those at war, and again less likely to cause players to drop out.

I like the game, but want to see it be made better so it is more open to players who need fleixibility, rather than just a few peolpe who's life styles somehow enable them to log on several times a day in fear of missing a 24 hour deadling.

By the way, it is funny you should mention more players drop out as England. In my limited experience it is the same. What is the deal with England? Does everyone play it so poorly or is it a tough nation to win with?

[bOrIuM]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

I think for losing players, the game can be very tough. Imagine you are not doing well (and perhaps this has never happened to you), and you want to get back up on your feet. But because the game turn around is so slow, it takes a months of real life time to dig yourself out of a hole. That's a depressingly long time to be logging on daily just to see each time that you are still losing, where's the fun in that? After a while, human nature will make any reasonable person want to drop out in this situation.

By the way, it is funny you should mention more players drop out as England. In my limited experience it is the same. What is the deal with England? Does everyone play it so poorly or is it a tough nation to win with?

I can say that people generally dont understand the game. The winner can become the looser. If France loose too quick, it makes another nation much more powerfull. Austria could after winning against France, with the help of Prussia, attack Russia or the Turks. That's a very nice part of this game. Even if you loose against your fisrt ennemy doesnt mean you loose the game itself. Prussia could help France against Russia or Austria to get back his Silesy. France could ally with Russia and Spain to attack GB.

The possibilities of this game are immense ! Thats the beauty, you must not do as the history did.

Its easy to win with GB, as long as Russia, Spain and France dont gang on you at the same time. Naval is giving a lot of PP and you can easily do some economic manipulations. What is hard with GB is that without your Navy your almost nothing and redo a great Navy is LONG even with the EiANW rules with Heavy ships taking 18 months and much more costly. So when you loose in the middle of the game, you become a sort of looser for the rest of the game and loose your real status of a dominant power.

[Thresh]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

Todd
I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you are saying that the game can never be playable beause players drop out, (usually when they are losing), and there is nothing that can be done within the game itself? (it is a game with winners and losers after all). Or are you defending the game, by blaming the players?

Not at all. What I will say is that the definition of "playable"i s subjective.
What I am saying, and have said, and will always say is this:

The game moves as fast as the slowest player playing the game.

It does not matter how many phases are made simultaneous, combined, or what have you. If I am Britain, I am not at war, my Navy is fine and I am building my army, sure, I could load my turn and be done with one,maybe two clicks and an email.
Then I have to wait for the next guy, which could be 24 hours, or could be a week.
How does speeding up in game play help that?

I think for losing players, the game can be very tough. Imagine you are not doing well (and perhaps this has never happened to you), and you want to get back up on your feet. But because the game turn around is so slow, it takes a months of real life time to dig yourself out of a hole. That's a depressingly long time to be logging on daily just to see each time that you are still losing, where's the fun in that?

And seeing that your still losing faster is better how?

By the way, it is funny you should mention more players drop out as England. In my limited experience it is the same. What is the deal with England? Does everyone play it so poorly or is it a tough nation to win with?

England is hard to recover from an early loss, especially if Austria and Prussia cannot get their act together and France gets on a cycle. I've been beaten early on by the France-Spanish coalition, and the only thing that helped was France got into a war of attrition and ended losing conditionally to Austria and Prussia. Austria and Prussia didn't need as much money as they would have had they would have had they lost, so I was able to build my navy up to something respectable. But that took some time and patience, and after a hard loss that's not something many players have.

Todd

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

By the way, it is funny you should mention more players drop out as England. In my limited experience it is the same. What is the deal with England? Does everyone play it so poorly or is it a tough nation to win with?

I haven't had GB drop out of a game I'm in, nor France. I've seen all the other nations drop out though. In fact in the two longest running games I'm in each only has three original players and in both games it is France, GB and Turkey.

I guess GB can be a little boring to play as it requires patience, planning and careful diplomacy, also it isn't capable of getting into a fight early on.

[mr.godo]

I would like an explanation of how a sequential turn is faster than a simultaneous turn. Marshall and Thresh have both indicated that it doesn't matter what is done, the game will not be sped up for people who aren't playing it. (they're on vacation or disenchanted or disengaged).

Simultaneous play will not cancel vacations or stop computer malfunctions, but there is no way anyone, not even Marshall, could make this game slower using a simultaneous format.

I would propose even to have reinforcements simultaneous and adopt a turn economic phase to allow for the appearance of any unit in any month, rather than the predictable stages currently employed. As part of your reinforcement phase, you also decide what units to build. Cut up the econ phase and mix it in with reinf. Is that EiA? No, but it's better! Why wasn't it done originally? To simplify the board game! We have computers! Let's use them!

And to give the horse another kick, simultaneously resolved battles with automatic loss management... but that's another story.

[NeverMan]

Todd,

You talk about games dying. Don't you think the speed of the game currently has a lot to do with the increasing lack of interest of players? If the game was faster, by design, it might keep people's interest a little more.

[Thresh]

Neverman.

No.

I'll say that again.

NO.

The game is going to move at the speed of the slowest player, no matter how many phases in a turn are simultaneous or combined.

There are a myriad of reasons why players aren't interested in this game.  IMO Game speed is at the bottom of that list.

Todd

[Dancing Bear]

Todd,
I'll agree to disagree with you that increased speed would not make the game more interesting and fun, and that interest and fun are not related to player participation.

However, you are on to something in that we need to look at why players are dropping out. Perhaps some analysis can be done why players stick it out. What makes them do it?

I am wondering if players that stay in the game are more likely than not to be involved in multiple games. If this is so, is there something that can be done to encourage players to participate in multiple games. You know play with three games at the same time and get a tactical rating bonus or an extra corps or somthing. Or maybe a scoreboard rating system that you cna be part of if you play multiple games. Or is this way outside the box?

Who are the players who stick it out, and what makes them do it?

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Neverman.

No.

I'll say that again.

NO.

The game is going to move at the speed of the slowest player, no matter how many phases in a turn are simultaneous or combined.

There are a myriad of reasons why players aren't interested in this game.  IMO Game speed is at the bottom of that list.

Todd

Well then, we disagree. Game speed and EiH rules are the EXACT reasons I am not interested in starting anymore games and it has little to do with the dedicated players of the games.

It might move at the slowest player but if you put a 24 hour turnaround in a game then you will see just that, so if it's simul then it's going to speed up the game.