playable yet? Part II

[Dancing Bear]

Todd, interesting stats. Sounds famillar.

[Thresh]

That was a pretty special gaming group, I was lucky to be a part of...

Pbem games are always going to move slower than the participants want them to.

Todd

[pzgndr]

It does not matter what standard you want to set, or whether the game is ten or a hundred times faster than vassal. What matters is what the consumer thinks is reasonable. Period.

Dancing Bear, if you the consumer randomly decide that being able to play and complete an entire EiA grand campaign game with 7 players should be doable within say 1 month, and EiANW fails to somehow meet this arbitrary standard, then you suggest there is something wrong with the game? Get real.

Thresh has provided useful data points for rational discussion. Thank you! 10-14 months for completion of a 7-player game. OK. Question now is whether EiANW, as is, provides comparable capability right now to also complete a 7-player game in 10-14 month. Trax's data point for a 4-player game completed in about 12 months, including the early problems in the game and without phase skipping, appears a little slower than average. With most PBEM bugs fixed now and with phase skipping implemented, current results should be comparable. As simultaneous diplomacy and economic phases are implemented, EiANW may prove to be faster than Thresh's more realistic benchmark.

So. Assuming 10-14 months for PBEM is a realistic and reasonable standard to strive for, EiANW should be able to meet or beat this standard. It appears close. As more players post AARs of completed games like Trax did, forum readers will be able to assess for themselves how well this game supports multiplayer PBEM. Forum readers will also be able to judge for themselves which standards are realistic and reasonable, and which are not.

[borner]

PZ, I am lost, Neverman comments about the game you quoted not being realistic. Also about the problems of finishing a game. You avoid his comment about the game only having 4 players, then challenge him to show stats on a finished game when his whole point was about the problems in finishing one? I truely wish I was as happy with this product as you are, and someday hope to be there.
 

[pzgndr]

borner, you guys are making no sense and are simply embarrassing yourselves. What problems of finishing a game? Trax and his group finished a game. Other groups are getting through their games. Why is your group having problems? Huh?

As for Neverman, I did not avoid his comment but took it head on and acknowledged that a 4-player game may not meet his standard for a 7-player game. I asked him to provide an example. He avoided that, as did Dancing Bear, but Thresh provided a good response. 10-14 months for PBEM. Can players not do that with EiANW right now? Is it really the game itself and the PBEM file transfers being a problem, or are playgroup issues a more significant problem? Marshall can speed things up a little bit more with simultaneous phases, and I'm all for that, but the game can only go so fast and will not fix playgroup problems.

And wherever do you keep getting the impression that I am as "happy" as you think I am with the current state of this game? I am optimistic about the future and will continue supporting the ongoing efforts to get there. But stop implying that I think everything is perfectly OK as-is right now and we don't need bug fixes, PBEM speed improvements, classic EiA scenarios, etc. You keep making this spurious assertion, and again making no sense. But hey! At least you've moved beyond the lame "playable yet?" argument into a new "finishable yet?" argument. Congratulations.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

It seems as though that was a 4 player group so you can't stop using that as an example now, thanks.

Say again? I must say your erratic and incoherent postings provide endless entertainment. I should stop using Trax as an actual completed game example, or I can't stop using that example?? WTF. Too funny. LOL. [:D]

OK. YOU provide an actual completed game example using VASSAL PBEM as a benchmark for your typical playgroup. I assume youse guys have used VASSAL or some other PBEM software and have actually played EiA and know what you are talking about, or maybe not. So, provide an example as a reference and we can debate from there. How long should a grand campaign game take to finish?

Then, explain why EiANW cannot meet or beat your game speed "standard." Notwithstanding PBEM bugs, and not getting into how the game plays relative to classic EiA, just figuring on file transfer rates, just how much slower is EiANW really and why? Since you guys avoid answering this thought problem, perhaps it is because you do not have a convincing argument to present? I would suggest playgroup issues are significant, and if your playgroup is dysfunctional then it's not the game's problem. Obviously Trax and his playgroup managed to complete an entire playable game, for a game that is allegedly "not playable yet." [:'(]

Again, your standard of playable for some reason is completion, mine is something else altogether.

I thought you were using the Trax example as a typical example of the TIME that it takes to complete a game, not that one can be completed. If the the latter is the case then ok, you are right, this game CAN be completed, no argument there; HOWEVER, if the former is true then it's not a fair comparison to compare the time it takes 4 PBEM players to complete the game as opposed to 7 PBEM players. Maybe you do work for the gov't, that would explain A LOT.

Now, the above is even making the assumption that we are going by YOUR standard of "playable" (ie. that a game can be played and completed). Like I said, I make no argument that this game can indeed be started and finished, I have done it 7 times myself in solo games.

Now, if we are going by a much more generally accepted definition of "playable" then simply stating a game is playable because it can be completed does not fit this definition. I believe that the standard more generally accepted definition is that the enjoyment of playing the game outweighs the disadvantages of that game, which personally, I don't find to be true.

Now, more so you could hold the term "playable" to an even higher standard (in which the enjoyment of playing the game GREATLY outweighs the game's disadvantages), which some here might do, in which case, IMO, this game is far from that.

RECAP:

Playable:
Your definition => playable = being able to be completed
Standard definition => enjoyment > disads
Ideal definition => enjoyment >> disads

Sorry, was that too "incoherent" for you?

EDIT: According to your definition of playable, I could do a FtF in 3 months real time spending 8 hour Saturdays and 4 hours 1 weekday/week.

[Thresh]

EDIT: According to your definition of playable, I could do a FtF in 3 months real time spending 8 hour Saturdays and 4 hours 1 weekday/week.

That's odd.  Here I thought some of you were pining for TCP/IP implementation so you could do just that....

[pzgndr]

To recap, the issue at hand was about PBEM speed improvements.

EiANW v1.05 with the PBEM bug fixes so far and the new phase skipping feature is clearly better now than the initial release, and arguably comparable with how fast you can play and complete a PBEM game using VASSAL. "Playability" and game quality is another matter entirely. Marshall should eventually implement a change for simultaneous phases which will help speed things up some more. Then what? A PBEM game will only go so fast, and having to sit around waiting for your turn will not change.

You guys make it sound as if speed improvements are a critical necessity, as if the game is unplayable (as far as PBEM capability goes) in its current state, and it just isn't fast enough. But you won't clarify exactly how fast is "fast enough" for EiANW's PBEM capability to be. I mean, if you want to complain about a specific feature not being good enough but cannot define what "good enough" is, then what's the point?

[pzgndr]

That's odd. Here I thought some of you were pining for TCP/IP implementation so you could do just that....

This is Tuesday. TCP/IP usually comes up on Thursdays... [:D]

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Thresh

EDIT: According to your definition of playable, I could do a FtF in 3 months real time spending 8 hour Saturdays and 4 hours 1 weekday/week.

That's odd.  Here I thought some of you were pining for TCP/IP implementation so you could do just that....

I would love TCP/IP although it's never going to happen at this rate. Why is that odd? Did I say I didn't want TCP/IP implemented?

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

That's odd. Here I thought some of you were pining for TCP/IP implementation so you could do just that....

This is Tuesday. TCP/IP usually comes up on Thursdays... [:D]

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you do work for the gov't and that you didn't read my post since it was probably too long and "wordy" for you.

[Thresh]

Not at all.

I do wonder why you think his definition of playable is not  correct though.


Todd

[pzgndr]

I'm going to go ahead and assume ... that you didn't read my post since it was probably too long and "wordy" for you.

This is yet another incorrect assumption on your part. See post #328 above. Not that it matters. [8|]

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Not at all.

I do wonder why you think his definition of playable is not  correct though.


Todd

I don't agree with it. I don't think most do, that's why. I already stated, if you had bothered to read my posts, that if we are going under his definition of playable then I agree with him the game is playable.

I can code a playable game in under 5 minutes given his definition. Would you like to play that game?

[Dancing Bear]

I'm with neverman on this one.

Playable=fun>>pain

The purpose of speeding up the game is to increase the fun, by a) reducing the time commitment (good for players), and b) opening the game up to a wider audience (good for Matrix).

But the speed should not scarifice the core EIA aspects of the game as stated elsewhere, so there are limits to how fast it can go. However, sim dip/eco fits this criteria.

A 7 player game in less than a year that reasonable people with outside lives living in multiple timezones can play would be a great target. Pzgrndr, make sure you understand the part about having an outside life, i.e. not a year of spending every free moment logged on waiting for a turn.

[borner]

Pz seems to think the game is fine. That's one vote.

[Thresh]

To bad the process isn't as democratic as we want it to be, eh Borner?

Todd

[Thresh]

Then by your definition my copy of Empire Total War isn't playable.

And that's a game given a lot more support and bigger development budget from a much bigger company.

Are we demanding perfection out of the box (or straight from the download as it were these days) where any sort of patch should be unnecessary because the game as released is perfect?

Do we have faith in the process that's bringing the game to a standard we all like (and very probably expected)?

And if we don't have any faith in that process, why participate any further? As you once said, you aren't being paid for it, so whats the point and purpose? Catharsis of some sort?

Todd

[pzgndr]

Your definition => playable = being able to be completed

Pz seems to think the game is fine. That's one vote.

It is entertaining to a point to discover what I seem to be saying and thinking, despite not actually saying or thinking these things. If you knuckleheads could provide some actual quotes and proper context about things, then perhaps others might take you more seriously. As it is, these rantings are pretty much meaningless. I leave it for the peanut gallery to determine who has credibility and who does not. In the meantime, I'll sit back with my bag of popcorn and see what I might say or think next.

To review the bidding for whoever else follows this silly thread, there are spurious assertions offered here and some of these deserve a rational rebuttal.
1) Matrix has no remedial action plan to fix bugs and provide improvements/enhancements. Well, yes they do and Erik Rutins and Marshall have repeatedly announced their commitment to fix the bugs and provide improvements and enhancements. The critics refuse to acknowledge these announcements.
2) PBEM is incrediably slow and players have to sit around waiting for their turn. Duh, this has been the case for decades, and is still the case for benchmark PBEM games using VASSAL or other software. Well, EiANW provides comparable capability with its recent bug fixes and phase skipping. Simultaneous dip/eco phases will provide additional speed improvements, plus with EiANW's standing orders and other automated features it should prove to be faster than traditional PBEM using VASSAL. How fast is fast enough? The critics will not say so we don't know what they really want.
3) We have no way of knowing what the future development plans are. Hmm, does any game developer or software developer provide detailed plans about future patches?? We have the Mantis bug tracker that lists all issues under consideration for resolution, for those willing and able to check it. If something should be added, then add it. Issues are being worked off, too slowly for most all of us but still being worked off, and there appears to be a reasonable balance between bug fixes, PBEM improvements, AI improvements, and other enhancements. Eventually, if/when all issues on Mantis are resolved, would even that be enough to satisfy the critics? Who knows.

Enough for now. The v1.06 patch should be out shortly and hopefully we can move beyond this thread and all of the meaningless arguments it contains.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I just have to repost this from Trax's AAR above:

Our four player group has compleated EiANW with a French victory in December of 1812.
Finish order with percentage; France 101, Spain 89, G.B. 88, Turkey 83, Russia 60, Austria 51, Prussia 38.
Ai Spain and Turkey did nothing to deserve their fininshing positions!

In our game France won two unconditional peace treaties from both Austria and Prussia. GB won a
conditional peace from the Turks. Russia was invaded twice by France but was never defeated.
Our game had human players for France, GB, Austria and Russia. After about 1806 we found it preferable to let
the Austrian player also control Prussia.
We started our game about the first of February 2008 and finished mid January 2009. There was
about 5 game months of do-overs with the early problems in the game. Progress has been steady for quite
a while now. This adds up to about 1700 turns in 350 days an average of 5 player turns
per day. We did have several weeks of no play so the average of 5 turns is misleading. On a good
evening we often could get through two phases of a game month.
Our group is going to shuffle countries and start again.

Playable yet? ROTFLMAO [:D]

So, what about Trax's game makes you say it is playable?