IP play vs Real time

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

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]

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]

[/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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

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]

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.

[obsidiandrag]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

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]

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....