If you had to pick the biggest drawback of this game?

[Dancing Bear]

So can we sum up (as I think everyone else is too afraid to post on this thread).

Almost everyone wants a faster PBEM game, however, about half want PBEM security fixed first (We all want the bugs fixed).

The Marshall, whose opionion really counts, wants the PBEM security, then a classic scenario.

The last time a poll was done on this topic by Matrix. PBEM game speed was the top item, closely followed by improvements to the AI and trailling a distant third was the editor. Judging from this thread, I think it is save to say PBEM speed is either first or second on almost everyone's list.

Obivously, we have to consider programming time in our list.

PBEM security is almost done, so lets fix it. A Classic scenario, isn't that what the editor is for, so can't we players do this? So with these two done quickly, that leaves PBEM speed on top of almost everyone's list. Is this not correct?

None of us are asking for a race car, just a PBEM game that can be played in a time frame of one to two years. I think Eske put it best.

[pzgndr]

None of us are asking for a race car, just a PBEM game that can be played in a time frame of one to two years. I think Eske put it best.

Bingo. THAT is a realistic and attainable goal. [&o]

QED

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

You are an important part of my life.
Yours Truly,

pzgndr

Sadly I've come to realize this... maybe you should think about getting a life!? You know, go talk to girls!

Jimmer, yes, I do agree that any built-in system that worked as well as the file sharing/email notification systems we use now (such as Google groups) would be great!!!

I happen to have both my blackberry and my outlook set to make noise when I get an email.... sometimes I just choose to ignore them.

Though, that said, I don't see there being any issue with someone coding some good 3rd party tools for this game.... maybe it would help if Matrix could expose the code, or at least some API for this game .

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

The last time a poll was done on this topic by Matrix. PBEM game speed was the top item, closely followed by improvements to the AI and trailling a distant third was the editor.

And somehow security, AI improvements and the editor managed to get done first.

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Yes, by nature it is a slow game; HOWEVER, do you honestly think the PC version should be slower than the FtF game?

I guess I'm just not accepting that and I never will. My FtF games moved A LOT faster and we only played once a week (if that). The game needs to be faster, bottom line. If you don't want to make it faster than that's ok, but don't expect to attract a lot of new players, as I sincerely feel that it is the biggest drawback of the game (which is why all of my old group, except me, won't buy and play this game, it's just too damn slow).

So, please don't tell me how slow EiA is as if I've never played the game. I have and the FtF (even once a week) is faster than this PC version. I guess sometimes, computers slow things down.

EDIT: Jimmer, you've never finished a game in under a year? I have but let's go with your time frame anyways... ok, a year, that is entirely ACCEPTABLE... one of my PBEM EiANW games has been going on over a year now and we're in mid-1806. How awesome is that!!??

Then you're the exception because this is faster than the boardgame from every aspect that I know and have experienced (From my perspective). Player to player diplomacy counted for much of this. Our diplomacy turns would sometimes take an entire night! You sure we're talking about the same game? LOL!

I'll take note Neverman that you're just D! FAST!

[Dancing Bear]

OK. Is this almost consensus? We're likely disagree all day on how fast things could be, but I think we all agree that the game would be better if it were faster.

Marshall, you might be the only one that does not see it this way, or perhaps, as you have to code this and we don't, are the only one who doesn't see how the benefits of speed gains out weigh the programming effort.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Yes, by nature it is a slow game; HOWEVER, do you honestly think the PC version should be slower than the FtF game?

I guess I'm just not accepting that and I never will. My FtF games moved A LOT faster and we only played once a week (if that). The game needs to be faster, bottom line. If you don't want to make it faster than that's ok, but don't expect to attract a lot of new players, as I sincerely feel that it is the biggest drawback of the game (which is why all of my old group, except me, won't buy and play this game, it's just too damn slow).

So, please don't tell me how slow EiA is as if I've never played the game. I have and the FtF (even once a week) is faster than this PC version. I guess sometimes, computers slow things down.

EDIT: Jimmer, you've never finished a game in under a year? I have but let's go with your time frame anyways... ok, a year, that is entirely ACCEPTABLE... one of my PBEM EiANW games has been going on over a year now and we're in mid-1806. How awesome is that!!??

Then you're the exception because this is faster than the boardgame from every aspect that I know and have experienced (From my perspective). Player to player diplomacy counted for much of this. Our diplomacy turns would sometimes take an entire night! You sure we're talking about the same game? LOL!

I'll take note Neverman that you're just D! FAST!

Actually, I'm not.

As Jimmer already stated, his FtF games sometimes took a year. That is ONE year. I am in a game that is going at the pace of real time (1 for 1), meaning the game will take 15+ years (REAL TIME) to complete....

If your FtF games took this long then I think YOU ARE THE EXCEPTION MARSHALL!!!

[bresh]

Honestly, i dont think gamespeed is the biggest drawback.(Just play more games at the same time), I been in games where we submitted over at 24h period 8-9 player-phases. Meaning you could submit your move twice the same day ! (Ok its not the normal speed, but with commited players you this happens now and then).

Generally if i see the game is moving on, in a stable pace im fine.
This included battles, players give a 24hourish update to the group, its reasonably.
I do agree somewhat, if the players stay silent(dont inform the group), the waiting players will get anoying by the delay.

Hopefully we soon see a simultanious diplomacy+eco phases to.

From my view currently the biggest drawbacks is the "secutity-issue", and the "1-corps-defend-issue", i also have a minor problem with the fleet-battles-withdraws.

Game still have a couple minor bugs, but these get useally caught and reported, hopefully fixed within a not to big timeframe, but the game has moved very far.



Regards
Bresh

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Yes, by nature it is a slow game; HOWEVER, do you honestly think the PC version should be slower than the FtF game?

I guess I'm just not accepting that and I never will. My FtF games moved A LOT faster and we only played once a week (if that). The game needs to be faster, bottom line. If you don't want to make it faster than that's ok, but don't expect to attract a lot of new players, as I sincerely feel that it is the biggest drawback of the game (which is why all of my old group, except me, won't buy and play this game, it's just too damn slow).

So, please don't tell me how slow EiA is as if I've never played the game. I have and the FtF (even once a week) is faster than this PC version. I guess sometimes, computers slow things down.

EDIT: Jimmer, you've never finished a game in under a year? I have but let's go with your time frame anyways... ok, a year, that is entirely ACCEPTABLE... one of my PBEM EiANW games has been going on over a year now and we're in mid-1806. How awesome is that!!??

Then you're the exception because this is faster than the boardgame from every aspect that I know and have experienced (From my perspective). Player to player diplomacy counted for much of this. Our diplomacy turns would sometimes take an entire night! You sure we're talking about the same game? LOL!

I'll take note Neverman that you're just D! FAST!

Actually, I'm not.

As Jimmer already stated, his FtF games sometimes took a year. That is ONE year. I am in a game that is going at the pace of real time (1 for 1), meaning the game will take 15+ years (REAL TIME) to complete....

If your FtF games took this long then I think YOU ARE THE EXCEPTION MARSHALL!!!

In the words of my six year old during the diplomacy phase, "I know you are so what am I?" LOL!

I will say that we were casual gamers and didn't care much about pace so we never had a time goal.

Maybe JUST maybe it's a little tough to generalize because we all game so differently ...OR maybe I am the exception?!?!?!???!?

If I see a good clear cut way to improve things, I will.

[obsidiandrag]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

The last time a poll was done on this topic by Matrix. PBEM game speed was the top item, closely followed by improvements to the AI and trailling a distant third was the editor.


And somehow security, AI improvements and the editor managed to get done first.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry.. can't agree with this one..

As we have seen skipping phases came online before all of these and in my opinion should be one of the greatest advantages to speed up the game if all players are using it as eficiently as it can be.. (and I am not a fan of the changed build times but agree it would be another speed booster)

I think what alot of people are pointing out is that you are complaining about the same things for the same reasons and not acknowledging the improvements or modifications to that which you are complaining about .. The game has changed and come along way - the speed has been greatly enhanced - and in my opinion the only way to make battles BETTER and FASTER is through IP but then you have to have different player availability options and a whole nother realm of programming for it. Personally I have been thinking of trying to host a game on my pc with pc anywhere or vpn connections for the other players to checkin and take thier turn to see if it speeds things up... The loss is the security as everyone can see what you have going -- concessions for the speed but keeping the game dynamics and structure???

The main point I have is work with it to make it better instead of always looking at the bottom of the glass

To answer you question though that is the main thing I miss about the game from the ftf is the player interaction that you still do not have and wont without IP play where you can chat to eachother while someone else is moving etc.. That is what I would like to see...


no hard feelings..[:)]

OD

[obsidiandrag]

sorry, most of that last was for Neverman..

[NeverMan]

THese are not complaints, they are a way to realize what people on the forum believe is the best way to improve the game.

More often than not Matrix has their own ideas that don't align with what the players actually want.

[easterner]

PnzGr wrote an awful long missive on NM. Summary: PnzGr said he's a liberal.

As to the question it has a problem EiA is two games , multi-player and solitaire. Each has seperate issues.

Speed is a zero issue in solitaire mode. My one attempt at PBEM (2-player) was such a disaster I don't see it being repeated after exchanging 3 files the 4th wouldn't go, so PBEM clunkiness would be my vote but I have too little experience with it to so commit and never got to the time issue at all.

However in solitaire the issue is AI, it is too weak, it attacks when it should hold back, retreats from must wins, refuses to build troops in general and minors ever and fights to the last man instead of surrendering while ahead.

With the exception of Navy changes (I neither like nor dislike) I consider the EiH an upgrade and have NO interest in EiA Classic. That is an opinion, NM calls EiH stuff crap, that is an opinion too.

[bresh]

OD.

When refering to a poll, please add a link.
As far as i remember the poll was a narrow(eg. only few things to vote on), so 50% might choose A over B, but maybe 51% would rather have seen C....

Im guessing this is the one you meant :
tm.asp?m=1848517&mpage=1&key=poll?

Pbm streamlining was highest, i dont think i voted, since i thought it to narrow.(could be wrong).

Anyway pbm.streamlining has improved, players can choose to skip a phase (especially Pr/Au often auto skip all naval-phases), so you cant just say the other things had a higher priotity.


Editor. 18% (10)
AI improvment. 37% (20)
PBEM streamlining. 40% (22)
Tutorial. 3% (2)



Regards
Bresh

ORIGINAL: obsidiandragon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

The last time a poll was done on this topic by Matrix. PBEM game speed was the top item, closely followed by improvements to the AI and trailling a distant third was the editor.


And somehow security, AI improvements and the editor managed to get done first.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry.. can't agree with this one..

As we have seen skipping phases came online before all of these and in my opinion should be one of the greatest advantages to speed up the game if all players are using it as eficiently as it can be.. (and I am not a fan of the changed build times but agree it would be another speed booster)

I think what alot of people are pointing out is that you are complaining about the same things for the same reasons and not acknowledging the improvements or modifications to that which you are complaining about .. The game has changed and come along way - the speed has been greatly enhanced - and in my opinion the only way to make battles BETTER and FASTER is through IP but then you have to have different player availability options and a whole nother realm of programming for it. Personally I have been thinking of trying to host a game on my pc with pc anywhere or vpn connections for the other players to checkin and take thier turn to see if it speeds things up... The loss is the security as everyone can see what you have going -- concessions for the speed but keeping the game dynamics and structure???

The main point I have is work with it to make it better instead of always looking at the bottom of the glass

To answer you question though that is the main thing I miss about the game from the ftf is the player interaction that you still do not have and wont without IP play where you can chat to eachother while someone else is moving etc.. That is what I would like to see...


no hard feelings..[:)]

OD

[pzgndr]

PnzGr wrote an awful long missive on NM. Summary: PnzGr said he's a liberal.

Correction here. I posted a missive; I did not write it myself. There's a complaint letter generator for that sort of stuff. [:D] If a random word generator hits too close to home, oh well...

The game has changed and come along way

To re-emphasize what OD said, the soon-to-be official v1.06 patch resolves a lot of the lingering pbem issues and playgroups should move forward with it.

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

THese are not complaints, they are a way to realize what people on the forum believe is the best way to improve the game.

More often than not Matrix has their own ideas that don't align with what the players actually want.

Oh! I misread then! Maybe you should have titled the thread differently then :-/ ??? but I'm cool with that.

Improvements?

Secure PBEM?. Working on it! Should see in 1.07
Streamlined PBEM? About the only thing I could feasible do would be simul diplomacy and Eco and this would be tough BUT not impossible. Again, skipping was added earlier and that was NOT easy :-0! This will be after 1.07
AI? You bet. Already MUCH better BUT still could use some more!
Classic Scenario? We're talking about it and I want to do it BUT we do not have a firm go ahead yet.

And for what I think is the biggest improvements ... quicker smaller patches! My commitment for 1.07!

[obsidiandrag]

sorry, I was actually quoting Dancing Bears post from earlier in this thread and seperated mine with the dashes.. (haven't figured out how to box in the quote from someone elses post - haven't really tried.. - same with pictures..)

My point was that speed was addressed as soon or sooner than the others and may still be worked on, as the AI needs work still too..

and that security, AI improvements and the editor did not manage to get done first as all three of those also are not compleled and will receive more work I am sure before it is all said and done.

again sorry for the confusion..

OD

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: obsidiandragon
(haven't figured out how to box in the quote from someone elses post - haven't really tried.. - same with pictures..)

What I do is bring up two reply-to dialog windows, each quoting one of the two posts. From the first one, I copy and paste everything into Notepad (or other text editor). Then, I go to the second one and paste in the parts of the quote that I want to keep (including the square bracketed stuff).

[Thresh]

I swear Neverman, the way you talk sometimes I wonder if you couldn't have coded a better game with all the time you spend complaining about it...

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Thresh

I swear Neverman, the way you talk sometimes I wonder if you couldn't have coded a better game with all the time you spend complaining about it...

To be honest, it's a high possibility!!

Someone else mentioned that there really should be two separate problems, single player and PBEM. I absolutely agree and I also agree that AI is the problem for single player.