Please don't waste development time on TCPIP/LAN addon

[jpinard]

ORIGINAL: Regent9

Now we have people like jpinard crying about NOT adding TCP/IP. I don't understand why someone would be AGAINST adding TCP/IP, if you personally don't want to use it, don't. But, it is certainly very clear that alot of people would prefer TCP/IP, and I for one certainly would too. Personally, I was shocked to see that this option wasn't included in the first place. Christ, my old Axis and Allies game even supports TCP/IP play, and it works great btw. The bottom line is that players should be able to CHOOSE which type of multiplayer game they would like to use.

Regent, maybe you should have read my follow-up post (though it was riddles with typos).

My point is: when it comes down to the game there are toher things that need to be addressed/added BEFORE TCP/IP is worked on. Things that will benefit "everyone" instead of just a few. I'm just trying to ask people to layoff the "I want TCP/IP NOW!" baloney, and the one idiot that claimed the game is worthless without TCP/IP. The game can be played at almost the same speed via PBEM... and please ease up on the developers and this issue. I could go back and edit my first post (and my other) to fix my inconsistent writing and typos, but I feel it's better for people to read "all" the posts as-is and come t an understanding.

[Scott_WAR]

The fact is TCP/IP SHOULD have been included to begin with, thats why it is the MOST asked for improvement so far. PBEM is just one methoda method of playing mulitplayer. Some may find it acceptable, and even the their prefered way to play. But that does not mean it is the CORRECT and therefore should be the only way to play. Thats a matter of opinion.

Some people like to take time on their turns. Fine, they should use PBEM, but many do their turns relatively quickly, and want to take their next turn relatively quickly too. Those people want TCP/IP. If you are happy with PBEM, fine, but please stop arguing against it. You have your prefered way to play, dont be selfish and try to prevent others from getting theirs.[:-]

The majority of the bugs known about are probably already fixed for the first patch, so exactly what else do you think is more important? Please show me where more people are asking for it than are asking for this.


Let me make another IMPORTANT point. I used to play axis on allies online at the MSN gamezone. There are still up to 100 people playing that game online, in the gamezone still. I can go in there and probably stir up a lot of interest about this game, but I am not going to do it, because it will be a waste of time. The very second they find out its PBEM only for multiplayer, they will lose interest. And NO, the majority of them would have no problem waitng 15-20 minutes per players turn. The average game of axis and allies online is between 6 to 8 hours. So please quit trying to tell me this game lasts too long or its turns are too long.

You just dont realize how many people dont buy because of PBEM only. Many wargames I would have bought in the past, I didnt, becasue I knew the AI wouldnt be a challenge, I dont have the patience for PBEM, and that was the only multiplayer option.
Luckily the AI in this game isnt a wimp.

[ratprince]

Mr. War;

Hopefully no offense given, but you really need to work on how you come across in written words.

Maybe some classes in online etiquette and manners would do some good[:-]

Here's a couple pointers:

1) Don't "TELL" people how to act/think
2) Always be polite (no name calling or innuendos)
3) Don't be a know it all (you know, a superiority complex?)

Follow those simple rules and you should do fine.

Great...thanks.

Later

Prof. Mike

[Scott_WAR]

LOL, I know mike, I actually went back and edited it to make it more friendly.

I dont tell people how to think, in fact I am arguing against those that are trying to tell us we should be happy with PBEM.

I dont call anyone any names. I mention the word selfish, but isnt that what having your prefered method to play yet arguing against others having theirs is?

I am not a know it all. I did however say that people would want the TCP/IP option before the game was released. So I guess I did know what I was talking about this time. A rare occurence I assure you [;)]

[jpinard]

I played both the board and computer version of Axis and Allies. I can do my turns for A&A in 1/10 the time it takes me to do a turn in this game. I'm surprised people would wait that long...

[Scott_WAR]

Axis and allies is an old game. If you have played it as much as I have, you probably know what you are going to do on your first few turns by heart, no thought involved, and the rest of the game falls into a pattern. Once you have played this game a while, turns should go much faster. Remember how long it used to take to do a turn of Axis & Allies when you first started playing? Probably not too much longer than you are taking for a turn now in this game.

My real point was the total time. I know most games of axis and allies played between people of fairly equal skill will last 6 to 8 hours. This game shouldnt last that long. So the overall time involved is actually less for this game. People are willing to play an 8 hour long game of axis and allies, via TCP/IP (or gamezone) they will be willing to do the same for this game.

[eMonticello]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

I have to agree with jpinard, you don't need TCP/IP to have a good time.

I'm curious, but who are you to decide what we need to have a good time?

I'm Inspector Callahan ... with the Good Time Police Department. Please note the primitive emoticon at the end of the paragraph in my original message. Based on the messages in the forum, folks choose not to be creative in finding a work-around to the simultaneous-orders issue. Why not run several games where each player is a different country? Why not start the WW2 Oprah Book Club with folks reading a WW2 book each week and discussing it while waiting for their turn?

I would find chatting with my friends over an in game chat window to also be of good use.

Which is fine if WAW was a simultaneous-orders game. Of course, there's nothing wrong with using IRC Chat, a VOIP, or IM application either. As long as you can display the chat application as a separate window or in another monitor, it would probably be far superior to what can be done if it was a feature in the game. I use dual monitors and wouldn't want to give up real estate on the game monitor for a chat feature.

Each week, someone chooses a book that everyone must read prior to the game session. After a few weeks, you'll forget that TCP/IP even existed:)

[8|]

I added my primitive [:)] back in. The only value of simultaneous-orders is that it reduces the amount of time required to play a game (4 players x 10 minutes x 10 turns => 400 minutes PBEM vs 100 minutes Simul-Orders). Everything else can be accomplished via independent IRC Chat, VOIP, or IM applications as long as the game can be managed within it's own window rather than using the entire screen (it's a pain to ALT-TAB between applications).

I believe a marketing survey may be useful to determine why folks want simultaneous-orders (TCP/IP)... is it predominately for the social interaction or time-savings?

[HardRock]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

You do realize that some people play with simple supply, meaning their turns are much shorter, in which case TCP/IP will be ideal.

It would be one thing if adding TCP/IP was going to take away from the game in any way, but it will only improve it by adding a feature that many are asking for. You can still play PBEM.

As far as wasting development time better spent on something else, please tell us what you think is more important than something several people have asked for. The only thing I could think of besides bug fixes, which we will get regardless, is a scenario editor for those of us who dont like messing with game files. But I havent seen as many requests for that as I have TCP/IP.

oops my bad. I just assumed everyone used supply. How silly:) I forgot this game was also targeted for axis-allies players too. You're quite right, with supply and or production off one could play rather quickly. I can see how TCP would be a blast there:)

As the WA (all options on) I spend 30-40 min a turn:)

This has to be the first game ever I can think of where different groups of people can are accomdated..ie: Hardcore wargamers and axis allies types together. Amazing feat to have pulled off:)

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: jpinard

I think those crying about wanting TCP/IP or LAN play haven't actually spent much time with the game. There are many other things more important than adding a feature only 5 people whiny people here "might" use.

I just think its hilarious (in a rather sad sort of way). Tin Soldiers: Alexander got criticised ruthlessly (usually by people who hadn't played it, and "would never buy it without PBEM) for having TCP/IP and not PBEM, while with WaW we have the reverse.

Neither is some sort of senseless omission just to annoy people. Both games offer multiplayer support in the format best suited to the game design. Alex's phase based structure means internet play is the better choice, while internet play of a turn based game seems pointless - if you don't want delay just stay at your PC until the game is complete. If you want to chat, use a messenger or voice comms program!

[riley555a]

Alright, I did my share of "whining" but this has gone far enough, I'm sure Matrix gets it whether you're for or against TCP/IP. Everyone just shut up now, get off the computer and go throw a football or something.

One more thing, How exactly are we "wasting" developers time? It's not like anyone grabs them by the dick and forces them to read every stupid post. If anyone is wasting developers time it's you by making this thread about "whiny" people on the TCP/IP issue. The funny thing is this notion is hypocritical because you're whining about the whiny people. Who again is wasting developers time? A thread on suggestions for the game, being on the possible addition of TCP/IP and people giving reasons why they would like it added is way less wasteful than this thread. I wouldn't have responded so bitterly had it not been for the sheer arrogance and hypocrisy of your post.

[Jombee]

This thread really amazed me.

How can people be so selfish that they would request that a feature that clearly many people would like, NOT be added. If you don't like LAN play, then fine don't use it. But many players including myself would love to have LAN play added to this game. Why can't people just accept the fact that some players (in my opinion many of us), would love to have LAN as an available OPTION.

[Hertston]

I don't think anybody would object to anything as an option.

I would tend to agree with the first poster, though, that there are other priorities and remain to be convinced LAN & TCP/IP is a feature that more than a tiny minority would use. PBEM WaW, however, I can see getting a really big following, or at least as big as such things can get.

The other thing about LAN & internet play is that they are what I guess you could call "non-critical". If you want to play socially in that fashion there's nothing stopping you doing it PBEM. It would take a little extra time, but that's minimal compared with the time each turn takes, anyway. WaW is the product of a very small development team. Resources for improving the game will be limited (they will be thinking of cracking on with ACW game, after all), and the numbers who actually want this feature will need to be considered carefully against the time and money needed to include it.

[Reiryc]

Neither is some sort of senseless omission just to annoy people. Both games offer multiplayer support in the format best suited to the game design.

A subjective opinion, not a given fact. If you think it best suited for pbem, then have at it. Others may think that tcp/ip-lan is best suited to the game design.

Alex's phase based structure means internet play is the better choice, while internet play of a turn based game seems pointless - if you don't want delay just stay at your PC until the game is complete.

Pointless? Hardly. It allows for the players to sit around, in game without alt/tabbing around to other programs to chat and watch the moves of other players. Plenty of people do this in the axis and allies title, a turn based title btw... I still see upwards of a 100+ players playing that game over a tcp/ip connection years after its release. This game is quite similar and I find that my turns, with advanced supply on, take roughly the same amount of time as do turn in axis and allies.

What gets me is the absolute selfishness of those who think their concerns are of such importance that their requests should take precedence over others to the point that they would actually ask for a requested feature to not be included. [8|] It's actually quite pathetic imo. I see plenty of requests or 'fixes' requested in the forum that I think are a waste of time and resources, but I wouldn't start a thread asking the developers to not waste time on them.

People made a request for a feature that they would like and use. If the developers want to add it in, they will. But to actually have players lobby against other player's requested feature that they would enjoy so that their concerns can be addressed first or to exclude the requested feature altogether because it is subjectively deemed to not be the 'best' way to play with the game design just smacks of childishness and selfishness.

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
What gets me is the absolute selfishness of those who think their concerns are of such importance that their requests should take precedence over others to the point that they would actually ask for a requested feature to not be included. [8|] It's actually quite pathetic imo. I see plenty of requests or 'fixes' requested in the forum that I think are a waste of time and resources, but I wouldn't start a thread asking the developers to not waste time on them.
People made a request for a feature that they would like and use. If the developers want to add it in, they will. But to actually have players lobby against other player's requested feature that they would enjoy so that their concerns can be addressed first or to exclude the requested feature altogether because it is subjectively deemed to not be the 'best' way to play with the game design just smacks of childishness and selfishness.

Bravo, this has to be one of the most intelligent responses i've read here sadly. Matrix has a job to do as WAW has just been released and there are known issues already being worked on for the few having problems. This whole discussion is a complete waste of time at this particular stage, one would think that after whining about the availability of WAW that once they got it they would have better things to do with their time[8|]. Stop pontificating and start playing![:'(]

[Scott_WAR]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
What gets me is the absolute selfishness of those who think their concerns are of such importance that their requests should take precedence over others to the point that they would actually ask for a requested feature to not be included. [8|] It's actually quite pathetic imo. I see plenty of requests or 'fixes' requested in the forum that I think are a waste of time and resources, but I wouldn't start a thread asking the developers to not waste time on them.
People made a request for a feature that they would like and use. If the developers want to add it in, they will. But to actually have players lobby against other player's requested feature that they would enjoy so that their concerns can be addressed first or to exclude the requested feature altogether because it is subjectively deemed to not be the 'best' way to play with the game design just smacks of childishness and selfishness.

Well said.

[riley555a]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

Neither is some sort of senseless omission just to annoy people. Both games offer multiplayer support in the format best suited to the game design.

A subjective opinion, not a given fact. If you think it best suited for pbem, then have at it. Others may think that tcp/ip-lan is best suited to the game design.

Alex's phase based structure means internet play is the better choice, while internet play of a turn based game seems pointless - if you don't want delay just stay at your PC until the game is complete.

Pointless? Hardly. It allows for the players to sit around, in game without alt/tabbing around to other programs to chat and watch the moves of other players. Plenty of people do this in the axis and allies title, a turn based title btw... I still see upwards of a 100+ players playing that game over a tcp/ip connection years after its release. This game is quite similar and I find that my turns, with advanced supply on, take roughly the same amount of time as do turn in axis and allies.

What gets me is the absolute selfishness of those who think their concerns are of such importance that their requests should take precedence over others to the point that they would actually ask for a requested feature to not be included. [8|] It's actually quite pathetic imo. I see plenty of requests or 'fixes' requested in the forum that I think are a waste of time and resources, but I wouldn't start a thread asking the developers to not waste time on them.

People made a request for a feature that they would like and use. If the developers want to add it in, they will. But to actually have players lobby against other player's requested feature that they would enjoy so that their concerns can be addressed first or to exclude the requested feature altogether because it is subjectively deemed to not be the 'best' way to play with the game design just smacks of childishness and selfishness.

I completely agree.

[ravinhood]

Ahhh yet another episode of "Pro-Lifers" vs "Pro-Choicers" lol.

Every game always has this, one group wanting something that is not in the game and the other group wanting more of what the game already offers.

Clearly by past polls and one could take a more modern poll, you will still find that "solo" play and PBEM play the most popular with turn based wargames than a multiplayer online or lan feature. I've seen these polls for years even though the multiplayer crowd screams like "Pro-Lifers" for what they want.

It all comes down to resources and what is best for the "whole" instead of the "few". So by popular demand, more solo play improvements and PBEM improvements would far outweigh the additions of a multiplayer/lan feature. I as a "Pro-Choicer" have no problem with a multiplayer feature, "AFTER" the solo and PBEM game are at peak performance and the AI is the best it can be. [of course I want what I want "first", lol, I don't find many that don't have this attitude]

[Hertston]

Hehe.... same old Reiryc. You might fool some of them .... [;)]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

A subjective opinion, not a given fact. If you think it best suited for pbem, then have at it. Others may think that tcp/ip-lan is best suited to the game design.

Opinion? True, although I really can't believe you seriously think that, given a one or the other choice, any more than a tiny minority would favour LAN & TCP/IP over PBEM. My opinion is based on experience, having been around these boards a while. The overwhelming majority would favour PBEM for this game.

Pointless? Hardly. It allows for the players to sit around, in game without alt/tabbing around to other programs to chat and watch the moves of other players.

Run it in a window. [8|] It tends to crash if you alt/tab, anyway.

What gets me is the absolute selfishness of those who think their concerns are of such importance that their requests should take precedence over others to the point that they would actually ask for a requested feature to not be included.

It might be "selfish" if anyone had said that - nobody has. Although jpinard put it a little more strongly than I would have done, all he was arguing was that other things of wider interest should take precedence; its a very small dev team after all. I don't see why anyone would thank that any more selfish than virtually demanding (that rather than "requesting" in the thread that I suspect sparked this one off) a feature that would be time-consuming to integrate, is only for a small minority, and can be done in other ways, anyway. If anything, quite the opposite.

[Scott_WAR]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

It might be "selfish" if anyone had said that - nobody has. Although jpinard put it a little more strongly than I would have done, all he was arguing was that other things of wider interest should take precedence; its a very small dev team after all. I don't see why anyone would thank that any more selfish than virtually demanding (that rather than "requesting" in the thread that I suspect sparked this one off) a feature that would be time-consuming to integrate, is only for a small minority, and can be done in other ways, anyway. If anything, quite the opposite.

I guess you didnt read the title of the thread you posted in. Its called "Please don't waste development time on TCPIP/LAN addon". That seems pretty clear to me.


Its an irrelevant point anyway, as it has already been stated by Matrix that they are going to look into adding it. So please, let it go.

[Reiryc]

Opinion? True, although I really can't believe you seriously think that, given a one or the other choice, any more than a tiny minority would favour LAN & TCP/IP over PBEM.

With this game you'll probably find a pretty even split.

You will find many of the axis and allies type players who have played tcp/ip for years that would play this the same way. I also don't think you'll find as many grogs playing this one due to the supposed 'axis and allies' look. [8|]

My opinion is based on experience, having been around these boards a while. The overwhelming majority would favour PBEM for this game.

I also base my opinion upon experience of being around these boards and around the axis and allies community for a while. I am of the opinion that it wouldn't be an overwhelming majority by an stretch of those who will actually play the game online in some fashion for pbem.

Run it in a window. It tends to crash if you alt/tab, anyway

I haven't had a crash yet....but that isn't the point. The issue is that some aren't quite as computer savvy and would rather have the in game chat feature that comes along with tcp/ip rather than having to find a chat program, installing it and learning to use it. I don't see why you should care what people prefer.

Hehe.... same old Reiryc. You might fool some of them ....

hehe... same old Hertston. You might think your beliefs are superior to some of us but clearly not all of us...[;)]

It might be "selfish" if anyone had said that - nobody has.

Yes they have. [8|]

Just look at the title of this thread.

Although jpinard put it a little more strongly than I would have done, all he was arguing was that other things of wider interest should take precedence

Yes, his opinion of what is more important and should take precedence.

I don't see why anyone would thank that any more selfish than virtually demanding (that rather than "requesting" in the thread that I suspect sparked this one off) a feature that would be time-consuming to integrate, is only for a small minority, and can be done in other ways, anyway. If anything, quite the opposite.

[8|]

Yes it selfish to ask for a feature from the game producers that would improve the gaming experience for some people but it's quite fine for some gamers to arrogantly tell other gamers what the subjective 'best' way for the game design to be played online. Also it's fine to actively discourage the developers from filling that request because they believe their concerns should take precedence.