Tcp/ip

[2Stepper]

PRECISELY Veldar...
I actually wasn't Kudo'ing BOTF at any point (despite enjoying it) so much as I was using it's multiplaying setup as a model to work by. The simultaneous order phases being the premise... Not so much about the game itself.

This is what I find would be a nice option in UV, and/or WITP... I often wish I WERE a programmer so I could fully grasp the depth of programming code and what goes into it... all I'm really saying is that having this option for TCP/IP either at the outset or at the end of the line as a final patch would be a wonderful way for those of us with time to put into a game to appreciate. The PBEM works well for those of us with AMPLE (weeks to months), to spend on a single game... Whereas some of us die-hard gamers like to tear through games in a week or two tops... (No comments about having no life please! :p LOL!) Because while I understand fully about what you're saying with the problems in todays games... if Matrix WERE to undertake this in time or eventually I'm certain they'd take the time to do it right... They certainly have a WONDERFUL game engine... (cept for my FLASH "ship-kill" graphic (earlier post)), I couldn't be happier with the game overall... I just think it would be a nice way to either finish what they have (Uncommon Valor), or spoil us with it in WITP... I mean come on programmers, is adding the code for a TCP option that hard? Especially when we're only talking about trading off the game file once both players are done with their move.... Just a thought...

respectfully...

[Veldor]

Originally posted by 2Stepper
[BI mean come on programmers, is adding the code for a TCP option that hard? Especially when we're only talking about trading off the game file once both players are done with their move.... Just a thought...

respectfully... [/B]

It's not that its particularly hard... But it's a skill set they probably just don't have. Your essentially "network-enabling" a game that is otherwise ignorant of the internet, networking, and so on. That's a specialized task. It's not as if they simply temporarily divert a few programmers to that task, they'd probably have to bring someone new onboard, or a high-priced consultant such as myself to do it for them.

The cost would probably not be worth it from the standpoint of a single game. This only because PBEM is still viable for these types of games. However, if the "code" would be similiar enough between games they could essentially TCP/IP enable their entire product line with 95% the same code... This assumes some other continuity amongst their products that probably isn't there..so in the end the simple answer is still...

It's just not worth the cost, given the marginal benefits...

So while I wouldn't mind it myself, at this point, I can't really blame them, their time and money is probably best spent elsewhere at this point "in the game" no pun intended...

[Hoplosternum]

Well as Birth of the Federation just won't go away in this thread I will just add my own experience. I bought the game with high hopes but soon lost interest. But as I now play a lot over a LAN I am always looking for turn based strategy games. We dug up BotF and now play it a lot. Sure it has faults but the simultanous turns really speed the game up compared to a Civ type game.

It is not a serious omission for me but I doubt my friends would buy this game (or UV) without this feature. Matrix may lose at least two further sales over this So there is a small market for LAN enabled games even in this type of hard bitten wargame market. We have all spent the time trying to play the Boardgame of Pacific War (last summer) so the interest is there.

[ajhiggins]

A simultaneous turn set up is a must IF a TCP/IP feature is to make it into either WitP or UV.

I know several players who will gladly buy the game to play in a LAN environment but won't play it any other way. I for one will buy it regardless but to say MORE options will detract from the marketability of this(or any) game seems, IMHO, to be a silly assessment.

Its true, more features do inspire more bugs but where do you cut it off? Single player or PBEM Tic-Tac-Toe...I bet thats got almost NO bugs and its a real fun game too.

If the features are there and they are implemented right, the bugs can be squashed eventually.

You guys know the cliché's:

"Nothing ventured, nothing gained..."
&
"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."

There has to be a way that wouldn't bog this game down with bugs and keep it on schedule...I'd HOPE there would be anyway.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

In regards to BotF, imagine the sales had the game not been a piece of garbage? It might have a 'life' in TCP/IP but this in no way makes up for the lost market due to the cruddiness of the game. Game developers MUST decide what their game is dedicated toward. When they put too many options in games, especially with all of the pressure to release ASAP, quality is usually cut.

So, the number that will buy the game due to TCP/IP being added will be totally dwarfed by those who love the genre, or will play it because it is a solid game over it having X or Y feature. These people will play this game for the next 10 years (like what we did with the old PacWar game). BotF will only last until the next TCP/IP empire building game arives (which I believe it did today, in MOO3 going gold).

The amount of sales that will be gained by adding this feature are miniscule, and do not appear to be the target audience of Matrix Games (i.e., wargamers over TCP/IP players which are not necessarily mutually exclusive). It is comparable to adding an option for you to go down and control individual battalions for those who like CC, or individual soldiers for those who like Medal of Honour. Realistically, Matrix games could clean up trying to pander to all types of gametypes, however, in the end people will be frustrated due to the limitations that complex games add (since they have everything, but are supurb in nothing).

This argument has been around since WitP's conception. People saying that they will sell more copies of "X" option is added to the game. This is true, they probably would sell more copies, initially, but the sales will suffer in the long run due to reviews showing the true nature of the game (like what happened to BotF, which was removed from the popular selling shelves pretty soon after the problems were brought into light and dropped into the discount bin). Imagine the sales of BotF had they skipped TCP/IP and focussed on the problems and crashes in the game? It would have been a worthy successor to MOO2.

When I think of all of the epic games out there, PacWar, Wing Commander, etc., etc.,... They were all relatively limited and had a limited scope. Their devleopers did not side track themselves into areas that they were not familiar with, nor were interested in and ended up with a solid product, that has been in use for a decade (something virtually unheard of in computer software). I see Matrix games not necessarily out to get rich, but to make products that fit a certain genre that they themselves love. If they were out for just $$$ they would be producing the easy to make and high selling first person shooters.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

I have been to many LAN parties over the years, have played games online with high speed, and I KNOW that these games that are played are generally average, and last only until the latest version comes out. These games, "Age of ****" series, space fighting sims, Mech sims, etc., etc., etc., work on a system of pushing out game after game to keep the community interested. War in the Pacific will probably be the pre-eminant Pacific War game for the next decade. It does not need to gain an uninterested market (i.e., those that buy for features, not topic) purely for making a few extra sales.

The release of MOO3 was delayed for a month+ due to problems with TCP/IP. These aspects DO affect the quality/duration of development of games. Had Quicksilver had less power over their producers they would have been forced to release the game before its completion (like what happens with many games in the past few years).

Unfortunately, what you state is not a case of "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars", but rather ends up being "If you try and please everyone, you end up pleasing no one."

[ajhiggins]

Hey Jeremy Pritchard:

I respect your thoughts on this but I think you're gravitating to much toward the fact that, in your opinion, BotF was a bug filled piece of crap and therefore anything ANYONE programs trying to do the same thing MUST, by this logic, be a piece of crap.

Whether BotF was in fact a piece of dookie is really up to those who played it. I personally wasted MANY hours with it and played it on my LAN with up to 4 of my friends on several occasions. It was great! Granted, the memory leak sucked rocks but you just had to save regularly and reboot every 20-30 minutes.

Now, BotF's shortcoming in this area (that is the networking problems), is more a reflection of its developers and production crews inabilities rather than the viability of the technology in question.

I mean, its been HOW LONG since BotF came out? I would hope that the industry has taken a few steps forward and gotten a bit more in touch with the advantages and limitations of the TCP/IP protocol.

I am however done with this topic. Its clear what I think means little. I will be buying this game regardless of this feature.

In short, we can just say you feel one way and I feel another. That's the great thing about America, we can at least agree to disagree.

Have a great day!

[Jeremy Pritchard]

True, but I am not American

PS. If you guys are still into BotF, check out the following websites. PLEASE continue to post (if you are already members), as I would love to see interest to rise up again so maybe someone with the skills could fix some of the problems within the game.

http://stcd.proboards9.com/

http://members.aon.at/zelli/main.htm

[shamelessplug] (check out in the downloads for Multi-pack 1.9, and Texture Mod 1.10 which I was involved in making) [/shamelessplug]

And do a search (my link is now dead) for TrekRealMod.

I loved the game, spent probably twice as much time on it then you (playing and modding), and believe that it was SO close to virtual perfection, but the limitations in the game were just too overwhelming. They did try to do too much (TCP/IP, 3d space battles) while they would have been better off using the top down MOO2 space combat and have only e-mail gameplay and more time focussing on gameplay problems. The game had some amazing features though. The way that the galaxy worked (square based vs. sector based of MOO-MOO2), the minor empires, clever addition of the Borg, etc., results in the game still being on my hard drive (albeit only for modding purposes as I do not have the heart to delete everything I did for it!). However, I cannot recommend that anyone should buy the game, as I feel that Hasbro does not deserve their money for wrecking this potentially great game.

[ajhiggins]

I can't drop it...and I was just takin a wrister at your goal, eh with that "America" comment.

Thanks for this links. I will check them out. And just so ya know, I have pulled out the BotF AGAIN...**** you! j/k Gonna waste MORE valuable time.

I agree, BotF was really close and if it weren't for Hasblow, the devs said they could have gotten it out 200% better with only a few more months. Also, didn't Hasblow drop the project completely after a couple of months, cutting the team's last BIG patch fix? I remember seeing something about that.

And again, I agree, the 3d Battles were WAY too much and not necessary for the scope of that game...of course, I am a huge fan of "text" based games, so, fancy graphics means squat to me.

Well, back at ya...really, have a good weekend and I am Praying for the Sens.

[Hoplosternum]

Jeremy,

I understand what you are saying about it being a disipation of effort to try and make the game TCP/IP enabled. You know more about this area than I.

However please don't lump those of us who are asking for this in with the RTS brigade Most games that are not designed for multiplayer follow a you go then I go approach. This includes most computer wargames from the Battleground series to Clash of Steel. As you develop a more involved game (with longer turns) these become less and less viable as face to face (LAN) or live Internet games even if they had such a functionality put in. But UV / WitP appears to have been designed so that both people can do the time consuming orders at the same time. So a LAN type game would be a playable option.

I think there is a market, not with the RTS / casual gamer, but with the committed wargamer for this. I really miss playing my old boardgames with my friends but space considerations and the long set up times etc. etc. mean we rarely try them now. Instead it's LAN games. I am sure there are plenty of others in my situation. Most wargames just don't lend themselves to a LAN type of play. They are you go - I go formats and thats just too much waiting around for a long game (even though we put up with it when we played the boardgames ). I think it is this traditional format that has stopped most wargames ever being considered for TCP/IP or making that functionality redundant if it was attempted not the lack of demand.

Still I will drop this now. I too do not want this to hold up the development of the game. But perhaps for WitP 2 they will consider adding this. I don't think this is just a throw away chrome option but something that opens the game up for new customers. PBEM with people you don't know is not an option that suites everyone. Some wargamers want to play against their friends and not have that taking a year or so via a turn or two an evening PBEM.

[mogami]

Hi, While reading this thread I had a really scary thought.
For games where there is only one player per side TCP/IP
would really not be much fun for most of the game.
(Trust me on this, the turns will take a while)
But then the crazy idea. Where the program could accept input from several computers in areas where there was no conflict.
(Multiplayer games)
I'm not sure what the best division of labor would be but it would speed up the time between turns if there were several people doing the input.
(Would you sync all computers on one side to update as you went and then sync with the opposing side once you ended turn?)