ETA release & info update

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

My only real concern about BioEd, is that the program needs to be bulletproof, in ensuring that a game started with one particular executable (database) is not playable on any other executable.

Well,
a) there are about fifty other ways of cheating
b) if an equipment editor were built into a new version of TOAW, then I would expect changes to be part of the .sce file. So there would be no problem unless someone were to hack that file, in which case they could cheat in some other way just as well.

Instead of trying to actually stop cheating, it might be just as effective to simply make it unprofitable. If, for example, attacks with mouse units didn't drain an unreasonable proportion of the defender's supply and readiness, no one would bother to make them.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

My only real concern about BioEd, is that the program needs to be bulletproof, in ensuring that a game started with one particular executable (database) is not playable on any other executable.

Well,
a) there are about fifty other ways of cheating
b) if an equipment editor were built into a new version of TOAW, then I would expect changes to be part of the .sce file. So there would be no problem unless someone were to hack that file, in which case they could cheat in some other way just as well.

Instead of trying to actually stop cheating, it might be just as effective to simply make it unprofitable. If, for example, attacks with mouse units didn't drain an unreasonable proportion of the defender's supply and readiness, no one would bother to make them.

Ever seen the TV show Cheaters? We could start a TOAW version of that. TOAW cheaters exposed on camera.

Ah no...Tony? Tony de Mexico...daaaaaaaamn!

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms


Ever seen the TV show Cheaters? We could start a TOAW version of that. TOAW cheaters exposed on camera.

Ah no...Tony? Tony de Mexico...daaaaaaaamn!

I would watch that show before some of the more foolish current programs. Too bad it would be a PPV channel- I would pay anyway.

On topic, I would not ask for a 100% cheat proof system so long as it was reasonably difficult to cheat. As it turns out, it is far too easy to cheat in the current game design which was the main reason (not the only reason) I gave the game up. . If it is too easy to cheat (as it is now) what’s the point of playing it at all? Oh yea, ladder points.

It would benefit the game greatly if players felt free to play against anyone in the various clubs without having to try to determine if they are a “cheat”. I have had opponents that were quite the a__ h____ but were certainly (as far as I could see) not cheaters. On the other hand I’ve played against seemingly friendly individuals who I strongly suspected of cheating. While it is possible to find/determine who is an honest player, this effort should not be required for a decent game.

Now, if something could be done about guys who quit a scenario as soon as they realize they’re going to lose, that would be great. Perhaps an electrical shock through the keyboard would be appropriate. We may have to wait a few years for this improvement, but Matrix willing, we will have it.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro
Now, if something could be done about guys who quit a scenario as soon as they realize they’re going to lose, that would be great.

As you're no doubt aware, losing is no fun. Capitulation is always a valid option. Why not?

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms


Ever seen the TV show Cheaters? We could start a TOAW version of that. TOAW cheaters exposed on camera.

Ah no...Tony? Tony de Mexico...daaaaaaaamn!

Now, if something could be done about guys who quit a scenario as soon as they realize they’re going to lose, that would be great. Perhaps an electrical shock through the keyboard would be appropriate. We may have to wait a few years for this improvement, but Matrix willing, we will have it.

There you go- that guy is an asshole! Don't play with him. Good opponents are like gold-the guys who are friendly and keep playing even when things aren't going so great for them. It doesn't matter how secure the PBEM mode is; if you're playing against an asshole, he will find some way to ruin the experience. So, don't play against assholes!

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro
Now, if something could be done about guys who quit a scenario as soon as they realize they’re going to lose, that would be great.

As you're no doubt aware, losing is no fun. Capitulation is always a valid option. Why not?

I think he's referring more to the phenomenon whereby your opponent begins to send back turns at a slower and slower pace as his situation worsens. We're all guilty of this, but some people are really bad.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro
Now, if something could be done about guys who quit a scenario as soon as they realize they’re going to lose, that would be great.

As you're no doubt aware, losing is no fun. Capitulation is always a valid option. Why not?

Capitulation is one thing, just disappearing (as has happened to me several times) or to start whining about getting “burned out” and just stop playing is quite another. It is comical to see a fellow who just quit because he is “burned out” asking for another game within a week. No end game turn, a finale total view (despite requests), any thanks for the memory, or a “drop dead”.
That portion of my post was in jest as it was not truly a significant problem. It happened to me perhaps ½ dozen times during years of play. The size of the scenario is a factor in how aggravating this can be. Generally it was not that big of a deal. It did say much about the individuals in question though. I never considered dragging there name through the mud as the fact that they must look at themselves in the mirror once in a while is good enough for me.
Whenever I quit a game early, I would give my opponent an “end game” turn and offer him the option of reporting the game victory as he saw fit, including claiming an “overwhelming victory” for himself, even if the opposite was the case at the time.
Different strokes for different folks.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms


I think he's referring more to the phenomenon whereby your opponent begins to send back turns at a slower and slower pace as his situation worsens. We're all guilty of this, but some people are really bad.

Yeah. One would merely want a ladder system whereby a failure to send in a turn after an agreed amount of time results in automatic defeat. This would also allow for Speed-TOAW.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

That portion of my post was in jest as it was not truly a significant problem. It happened to me perhaps ½ dozen times during years of play. The size of the scenario is a factor in how aggravating this can be.

Yeah. I remember hearing about a designer who would always decide it was time for a redesign as soon as things began to go against him.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

That portion of my post was in jest as it was not truly a significant problem. It happened to me perhaps ½ dozen times during years of play. The size of the scenario is a factor in how aggravating this can be.

Yeah. I remember hearing about a designer who would always decide it was time for a redesign as soon as things began to go against him.

/ROFL I LOVE that idea, thanks!

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
One would merely want a ladder system whereby a failure to send in a turn after an agreed amount of time results in automatic defeat.

Massive Assault uses that system.

Actually Massive Assault has a really kewl multiplayer set-up for their turn strategy based game. It's kinda like a PBEM, but since you send your turn to the server.. no cheating. You can challenge people or simply invite challenges. The challenges stipulate the map, the side, and the number of days you have to respond to a move.

Now if TOAW had a multiplayer set-up like that...

Ray (alias Lava)

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lava

Massive Assault uses that system.

Actually Massive Assault has a really kewl multiplayer set-up for their turn strategy based game. It's kinda like a PBEM, but since you send your turn to the server.. no cheating. You can challenge people or simply invite challenges. The challenges stipulate the map, the side, and the number of days you have to respond to a move.

Played that game. Wasn't too impressed. Laser Squad Nemesis uses the same system. I'm sure other games do too.

Now if TOAW had a multiplayer set-up like that...

Well, this approach only works well with We-Go games, which TOAW is not and will never be. Further, it only works well with relatively simple games, otherwise the internet traffic will be quite substantial; in LSN and MAN, you tend to have no more than twenty peices on the map at any one time.

Finally, the above two games are basically subscription games as I understand it. A one-off price game can't justify the cost of running the server to the company.

Not that it's not an intelligent system. Just wanted to be clear that it's not applicable to TOAW.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Well, this approach only works well with We-Go games

Massive Assault is not a wego game, it is a turn-based game.

Edit.

Oh doh, that's what you said. But I don't understand why you think it can't work well for any turn based game, the save file for a TOAW move can't be very large.

Ray (alias Lava)

[CommC]

In regards to not confusing the player, instead of using the bio editor to make customized executables, I think if we make those kinds of changes we should just give the game a whole different name with each unique executable. For example, after modifying the database and system for American Civil War scenarios.. just rename the game TOAW-ACW or something like that and cast that database and executable in stone, so to speak. This would allow folks to create additional ACW scenarios with same database and game engine. This new game could be sold as a separate expansion pack, etc.

Any time the bio editor is used, you are basically creating a whole different game which I think should be distinguished with a unique name... example TOAW-ACW, TOAW-nuclear, etc.

[macgregor]

I've never used the BioEd and a lot of what I've requested for the upcoming release is this ability to 'model' multi-hit naval units based on individual ship design. While certain things such as submarine units and ASW weapons would not be doable with the current BioEd, I could begin adding naval weapons to the database. I wonder if the BioEd would allow me to create variable speed 'platforms' or 'hulls' for which to build these multi-hit units. Oh well, I'm probably better off waiting for the new version anyway.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: CommC

In regards to not confusing the player, instead of using the bio editor to make customized executables, I think if we make those kinds of changes we should just give the game a whole different name with each unique executable. For example, after modifying the database and system for American Civil War scenarios.. just rename the game TOAW-ACW or something like that and cast that database and executable in stone, so to speak.

I don't see how this differs from what's already possible with the BioEd.

This would allow folks to create additional ACW scenarios with same database and game engine. This new game could be sold as a separate expansion pack, etc.

The majority of modified .exes are created for use with just one or two scenarios and involve relatively few modifications.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: macgregor
I wonder if the BioEd would allow me to create variable speed 'platforms' or 'hulls' for which to build these multi-hit units.

There's no way to vary of the speed of individual naval units in TOAW. Get a naval simulation.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lava
Oh doh, that's what you said. But I don't understand why you think it can't work well for any turn based game, the save file for a TOAW move can't be very large.

Your idea is to prevent cheating, right? Well, the difference between We-Go and I-Go-You-Go is that in the latter results are calculated a bit at a time, in response to each player action. Therefore the player can return to an earlier save armed with information gathered in a first run through, or repeat the turn if it goes badly. Cheat, in other words.

If you wanted to do this with the server model, players would have to be hooked up to the internet constantly when playing TOAW, feeding every action to the server and receiving the results back. Very cumbersome.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Therefore the player can return to an earlier save armed with information gathered in a first run through, or repeat the turn if it goes badly. Cheat, in other words.

Well, people sometimes forget to do things, and want to repeat their move. However, saying that, the best I've seen is a system where after the first go through the save, combat results start degrading against the player.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
If you wanted to do this with the server model, players would have to be hooked up to the internet constantly when playing TOAW, feeding every action to the server and receiving the results back. Very cumbersome.

Probably, but in the Massive Assault Network, you go online, receive your move, do your counter move and then send it to the server. Any "perceived" problem can be brought to the attention of the Admins by the game and move number. Here BTW, I'm talking about ladder games. Nothing to prevent people from playing friendly PBEM games.

But granted the cost of setting up the system, server hosting and monitoring is probably prohibitive. Still I thought the system was kinda kewl for a couple reasons. First, you could limit who challenged you based on a ranking system, so a top level guy couldn't be blowing away a newbie. And second, if you met up with your opponent at the same time on line, you could chat, and that was alwyas interesting.

Personally, I found the Massive Assault Network gaming system the best I've experienced, and at least for me, PBEM to be quite cumbersome.

Ray (alias Lava)

[Chuck2]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: CommC

In regards to not confusing the player, instead of using the bio editor to make customized executables, I think if we make those kinds of changes we should just give the game a whole different name with each unique executable. For example, after modifying the database and system for American Civil War scenarios.. just rename the game TOAW-ACW or something like that and cast that database and executable in stone, so to speak.

I don't see how this differs from what's already possible with the BioEd.

Well, I think he is looking for a kind of standardization of all these modified exes. It would make it easier for the casual player to know what they are getting into. We saw something like this initially with the 19th century database and later the modern JMS database.

However, as you probably recall, I had some problems with the 19th century database and the ACW 1861-1865 scenario. There are just some features one wants to modify with the bio-editor that others don't. Take automatic invisible possesion through changing the core graphic file. Some want it, others don't.

This would allow folks to create additional ACW scenarios with same database and game engine. This new game could be sold as a separate expansion pack, etc.

The majority of modified .exes are created for use with just one or two scenarios and involve relatively few modifications.

It's unfortunate, but a lot of players aren't interested in this concept.