Since the game isn't scheduled for release anytime soon, there should be ample time to implement a TCP/IP option !? : )
I'm sure you can come up with some way to tweak the engine to accept it!!
Please : )
Tcp/ip
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
-
David Heath
- Posts: 2529
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 5:00 pm
Why no TCP/IP??
Greetings,
I've been trying to follow the forums on this much anticipated game and am a bit shocked as to why TCP/IP isn't even being considered?
Both Uncommon Valor and this game are brilliant in their concept and in this day and age of broadband communications it should be a simple task to make a peer-to-peer communication work insofar as sending/receiving the game file that's currently emailed.
You certainly wouldn't have to run the game on a server of any kind. It would simply be a matter of having the two gamers setup the game where one is host and the other is joining that particular game. In the age of broadband if you could get the game file down to 2mb via compression and then send that bugger it should be easy... I know you folks that built the game will have a TON of happy fans, me included. Cause while I LOVE the game, it falls short when you consider that to play out one turn via email is nearly as long as it took to fight the actual war...
Please don't take this as a slam on the game. It's not. I, as an appreciative customer feel like a great opportunity is being missed. Since we're looking at another 9month wait on WITP, please consider it? Because I can tell you seeing Gary Grigsby's classic Pacific War come to life like this in Uncommon Valor is a real treat... I'd just like to play it effectively with friends online...
Just some constructive criticism for the staff...
thanks, and regards
I've been trying to follow the forums on this much anticipated game and am a bit shocked as to why TCP/IP isn't even being considered?
Both Uncommon Valor and this game are brilliant in their concept and in this day and age of broadband communications it should be a simple task to make a peer-to-peer communication work insofar as sending/receiving the game file that's currently emailed.
You certainly wouldn't have to run the game on a server of any kind. It would simply be a matter of having the two gamers setup the game where one is host and the other is joining that particular game. In the age of broadband if you could get the game file down to 2mb via compression and then send that bugger it should be easy... I know you folks that built the game will have a TON of happy fans, me included. Cause while I LOVE the game, it falls short when you consider that to play out one turn via email is nearly as long as it took to fight the actual war...
Please don't take this as a slam on the game. It's not. I, as an appreciative customer feel like a great opportunity is being missed. Since we're looking at another 9month wait on WITP, please consider it? Because I can tell you seeing Gary Grigsby's classic Pacific War come to life like this in Uncommon Valor is a real treat... I'd just like to play it effectively with friends online...
Just some constructive criticism for the staff...
thanks, and regards
"Send in the Infantry. Tanks cost money... the dead cost nothing..."
TCP/IP
Hi 2stepper
While TCP/IP would be a 'nice to have' feature it is not a must have for games like WitP and UV. I know there are some speed players out there who would really love to have it but if my PBEM games are any indication 1-4 turns per day appears to be the norm and the time I and my opponents spend on each turn varies from 10-30 minutes, so I don't know how useful TCP/IP would be if you have to wait around for 20 minutes per turn on average. Many of us have multiple PBEM games going at any one moment in time and IMO having multilple UV TCP/IP sessions going simultaneously is simply not possible IMO given that UV was not designed to be a server. Also it is not a slam dunk to simply code this into the game as you imply as it would require extra time to fine tune and debug. Also adding 'trivial' features like this at the end of the developement cycle is one of the hallmark faux pas in software development circles. While it is true that most turn based games include this feature, I am sure it was designed in from the beginning and wasn't slapped on at the end of the development cycle as would be the case here.
What I would rather see is a more elegant PBEM system that would allow me to save each turn and combat replay as separate entities (so that I can go back from time to time and refer to them as necessary). Currently I have to do a more file management than suits my taste.
Gus
While TCP/IP would be a 'nice to have' feature it is not a must have for games like WitP and UV. I know there are some speed players out there who would really love to have it but if my PBEM games are any indication 1-4 turns per day appears to be the norm and the time I and my opponents spend on each turn varies from 10-30 minutes, so I don't know how useful TCP/IP would be if you have to wait around for 20 minutes per turn on average. Many of us have multiple PBEM games going at any one moment in time and IMO having multilple UV TCP/IP sessions going simultaneously is simply not possible IMO given that UV was not designed to be a server. Also it is not a slam dunk to simply code this into the game as you imply as it would require extra time to fine tune and debug. Also adding 'trivial' features like this at the end of the developement cycle is one of the hallmark faux pas in software development circles. While it is true that most turn based games include this feature, I am sure it was designed in from the beginning and wasn't slapped on at the end of the development cycle as would be the case here.
What I would rather see is a more elegant PBEM system that would allow me to save each turn and combat replay as separate entities (so that I can go back from time to time and refer to them as necessary). Currently I have to do a more file management than suits my taste.
Gus
Re: Why no TCP/IP??
Originally posted by 2Stepper
and in this day and age of broadband communications it should be a simple task to make a peer-to-peer communication work insofar as sending/receiving the game file that's currently emailed.
*sigh* there are still a lot of ppl whom are forced to be on dial-up!:mad:
Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Agree in principle, but...
To Gus...
Admittedly it may be a nightmare for the guys to do anything with TCP/IP at this point... Not to mention the fact that I have to concede a certain love for the ability to just sit and play, and not have to fart around with a clunky interface like email to send and receive my game files... On that note I'd have to agree. The interface for the PBEM aspect is weak to non-existent. As to the time it takes to making a turn though, I'm not so sure I agree with you...
I own, though no longer play a sci-fi game called Birth of the Federation that was in all respects turn based and had lots to accomplish each turn. It however worked perfectly well with either 10 min turn limits or it was just understood that your counterparts may take a while... My point in bringing that up is that while a TCP/IP connect may be bordering on ludicrus with the amount of moves you make in the entire theater I think it would have been and still is prudent to do it for UV. As personally I've never taken longer then 10 mins to trounce through a turn...
Who knows, perhaps they're going to spoil us with that UV patch for TCP/IP, and while I'd love to see it for WITP, it would be difficult. Like you, I sincerely hope that they improve the PBEM interface... At any rate though, I Love the potential of the game as I've burned up many an hour against the computer playing UV... WITP should be equally involving...
cheers...
p.s.... As for those that still suffer under the boot of Dialup?
You have my sincerest sympathies... Someone would have to put a gun to my head to go back... 
Admittedly it may be a nightmare for the guys to do anything with TCP/IP at this point... Not to mention the fact that I have to concede a certain love for the ability to just sit and play, and not have to fart around with a clunky interface like email to send and receive my game files... On that note I'd have to agree. The interface for the PBEM aspect is weak to non-existent. As to the time it takes to making a turn though, I'm not so sure I agree with you...
I own, though no longer play a sci-fi game called Birth of the Federation that was in all respects turn based and had lots to accomplish each turn. It however worked perfectly well with either 10 min turn limits or it was just understood that your counterparts may take a while... My point in bringing that up is that while a TCP/IP connect may be bordering on ludicrus with the amount of moves you make in the entire theater I think it would have been and still is prudent to do it for UV. As personally I've never taken longer then 10 mins to trounce through a turn...
Who knows, perhaps they're going to spoil us with that UV patch for TCP/IP, and while I'd love to see it for WITP, it would be difficult. Like you, I sincerely hope that they improve the PBEM interface... At any rate though, I Love the potential of the game as I've burned up many an hour against the computer playing UV... WITP should be equally involving...
cheers...
p.s.... As for those that still suffer under the boot of Dialup?
You have my sincerest sympathies... Someone would have to put a gun to my head to go back... "Send in the Infantry. Tanks cost money... the dead cost nothing..."
I see very little value in having TCP/IP supported in UV/WITP. I, like most, play at least 2 games + at anyone time, usually playing my turn in one while I wait for the other to send back.. I tend to go 25-35 mins per turn and would never wait that long for someone else.
In the business world we use what's called a "MAPI" interface to send e-mail directly from within an application. I would see something like that far more usefull as then you would never have to leave the game to send a turn off via e-mail. Not sure how doable something like that is for gaming, but like I said its done in the business world all the time. It just passes the info through to any standard mail client like Outlook etc.. Probably wouldn't work for a lot of the email programs people use(yahoo etc) but for those that really wanted it, Outlook integration at the very least should be a breeze..
In the business world we use what's called a "MAPI" interface to send e-mail directly from within an application. I would see something like that far more usefull as then you would never have to leave the game to send a turn off via e-mail. Not sure how doable something like that is for gaming, but like I said its done in the business world all the time. It just passes the info through to any standard mail client like Outlook etc.. Probably wouldn't work for a lot of the email programs people use(yahoo etc) but for those that really wanted it, Outlook integration at the very least should be a breeze..
TCP/IP would be a welcome addition, not for everyday use, but for when you wanted to race past turns with little or nothing happening - or when big battles took place! Then both players could see the combat at the same time and pass comments on it all. Spending an entire evening with the same game would be great! Now it usually takes hours between turns.
"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Have you guys even played UV? You can't race past turns where there is nothing happening. You might have 2 turns in a 30 turn period where very little is happening, but they STILL take 30 minutes plus to do.
You are NUTZ if you think a player is going to sit around waiting on you to finish your turn where nothing happens.
You are NUTZ if you think a player is going to sit around waiting on you to finish your turn where nothing happens.
x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"
Originally posted by Knavey
Have you guys even played UV? You can't race past turns where there is nothing happening. You might have 2 turns in a 30 turn period where very little is happening, but they STILL take 30 minutes plus to do.
You are NUTZ if you think a player is going to sit around waiting on you to finish your turn where nothing happens.
......................................................................................................
If you presume anything, you should speak your mind and add 'this is what I think' as an end to your presumption and then ask others for their opinions...
'NUTZ' is what Gen 'Nuts' McAuliffe answered the Germans when they asked him to surrender Bastogne
I've played a few hundred turns UV pbem, and more than half of them got done in less than 15 mins.
"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
-
Hoplosternum
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2002 8:39 pm
- Location: Romford, England
Hi,
I think it is unfortunate that there will be no TCP/IPX connection as I would have liked to play this over a LAN. It will not be a big loss but I would have thought it may broaden tits appeal, allowing it to be played by LAN and over the internet directly. I like PBEM but the slow pace and long time commitment (games last months) don't make it suitable for everyone. The UV game files are not huge even for a dial up modem.
I would have thought it would have been possible for one computer to act as 'the server' and both players input their turns at the same time and once both have planning stages being 'ended' the combat turn/report generated by the server from both players plans. Rather than the Japanese then the US player planning their turn in series as happens in traditional UV. This would greatly reduce the waiting time. Such a system has been used in many other turn based games in the past but how easy it would be for Matrix to do I don't know. The previously mentioned Birth of the federation is one.
I think it is unfortunate that there will be no TCP/IPX connection as I would have liked to play this over a LAN. It will not be a big loss but I would have thought it may broaden tits appeal, allowing it to be played by LAN and over the internet directly. I like PBEM but the slow pace and long time commitment (games last months) don't make it suitable for everyone. The UV game files are not huge even for a dial up modem.
I would have thought it would have been possible for one computer to act as 'the server' and both players input their turns at the same time and once both have planning stages being 'ended' the combat turn/report generated by the server from both players plans. Rather than the Japanese then the US player planning their turn in series as happens in traditional UV. This would greatly reduce the waiting time. Such a system has been used in many other turn based games in the past but how easy it would be for Matrix to do I don't know. The previously mentioned Birth of the federation is one.
I guess you do make a great point. TCP/IP doesn't really make any sense to me based on the current way UV plays out... but I see no real reason why it couldn't change to allow for both players to enter orders simultaneously... thereby giving much more credibility to a TCP/IP online solution. You would only be waiting the difference in time between your orders and your opponents, which for the most part, with many players would be much more acceptable..
I think I like the idea.. But I'm doubting we will see such a thing in the initial WITP release.. or in any UV update soon to come...
I think I like the idea.. But I'm doubting we will see such a thing in the initial WITP release.. or in any UV update soon to come...
Took a lil bit for the exact notion I was after to sift out in the forum but this is essentially it. Both players would enter orders at the same time... Any wait time would be to the one player who needs to take longer to complete his/her turn, followed by the transfer of the "game file" for lack of a good word. Then the results would play out essentially at the same time. Since the results of the turn are the same in a PBEM game using that process, it would in essence be the same then.
I guess we'd have to ask a designer why this was never considered, but in theory it seems to work. I do have to admit one thing though since proposing this notion. The only game between WITP and UV that this would likely work well for is Uncommon Valor since it's more regional in scope. I suspect the length of turns would be considerably longer in WITP, but even then I couldn't see longer then 15-20 mins to make my moves... so again, you can understand why the lack of TCP/IP support baffles me...
With luck perhaps it'll be adapted... perhaps not. In the least I hope there is a fine interface for PBEM... Because while I'll likely burn up considerable time in single player mode on WITP, my friends and I that enjoy UV now dont bother with PBEM as the time to result is far to slow...
regards
I guess we'd have to ask a designer why this was never considered, but in theory it seems to work. I do have to admit one thing though since proposing this notion. The only game between WITP and UV that this would likely work well for is Uncommon Valor since it's more regional in scope. I suspect the length of turns would be considerably longer in WITP, but even then I couldn't see longer then 15-20 mins to make my moves... so again, you can understand why the lack of TCP/IP support baffles me...
With luck perhaps it'll be adapted... perhaps not. In the least I hope there is a fine interface for PBEM... Because while I'll likely burn up considerable time in single player mode on WITP, my friends and I that enjoy UV now dont bother with PBEM as the time to result is far to slow...
regards
"Send in the Infantry. Tanks cost money... the dead cost nothing..."
Am I wrong in thinking that there will be scenarios for WITP that don't involve the entire scope of battle from Hawaii to Austrailia to China to Alaska?
If you think of something like a Midway scenario or a invasion of the Phillipines scenario (pick US or Jap invasion), then this idea of TCP/IP seems to fit better.
Particularly when this simultaneous order phase idea is added in.
If you think of something like a Midway scenario or a invasion of the Phillipines scenario (pick US or Jap invasion), then this idea of TCP/IP seems to fit better.
Particularly when this simultaneous order phase idea is added in.
Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. ~George Washington
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
And Birth of the Federation was such a success... :rolleyes:
The addition of TCP/IP will just throw another wrench into a game, delaying it, making it more buggy, etc....
The problem with games today is that they incorporate too many features. These features result in complex code. This complex code now has a MUCH greater chance on being buggy. Present day games tend to be much more buggy primarily because they are so large. They are so large because every feature beneath the sun is added (when it usually is not necessary).
I would have LOVED if BotF would have scapped its TCP/IP feature and have done the following...
#1. Eliminated that **** memory leak.
#2. More time spent on ship types (gets really boring with the few given in the game).
#3. More time playtesting the basic game (i.e., balancing problems) instead of spending it on a feature that was rarely used.
BotF had a lot of potential, but is a horrible example for what WitP should follow since it was a terrible game that wasted too many valuable resources on unecessary features. It is the prime examle that TCP/IP should NOT be included in this game. (this all said by an owner of a copy of BotF, as well as someone heavily involved in editing and modding of this game, so I know what I am talking about).
PBEM is the best possible mode in multiplaying WitP. I am sure that the Matrix group is spending a lot of their effort on making PBEM games as informative and effective as a single player turn. I remember all of the effort that they put toward the PBEM feature of PW, which may have its own flaws, but is infinitely better then PW without a PBEM feature (i.e., no VCR playback, no passwords for files, etc...).
The addition of TCP/IP will just throw another wrench into a game, delaying it, making it more buggy, etc....
The problem with games today is that they incorporate too many features. These features result in complex code. This complex code now has a MUCH greater chance on being buggy. Present day games tend to be much more buggy primarily because they are so large. They are so large because every feature beneath the sun is added (when it usually is not necessary).
I would have LOVED if BotF would have scapped its TCP/IP feature and have done the following...
#1. Eliminated that **** memory leak.
#2. More time spent on ship types (gets really boring with the few given in the game).
#3. More time playtesting the basic game (i.e., balancing problems) instead of spending it on a feature that was rarely used.
BotF had a lot of potential, but is a horrible example for what WitP should follow since it was a terrible game that wasted too many valuable resources on unecessary features. It is the prime examle that TCP/IP should NOT be included in this game. (this all said by an owner of a copy of BotF, as well as someone heavily involved in editing and modding of this game, so I know what I am talking about).
PBEM is the best possible mode in multiplaying WitP. I am sure that the Matrix group is spending a lot of their effort on making PBEM games as informative and effective as a single player turn. I remember all of the effort that they put toward the PBEM feature of PW, which may have its own flaws, but is infinitely better then PW without a PBEM feature (i.e., no VCR playback, no passwords for files, etc...).
"Code" as you call it these days is suppose to be modular and highly re-usable. Coding for TCP/IP would be re-usable amongst all their games if done right... And if it was only usefull in a few, then they could sub-license out the "engine" for that feature from another party... Either way its money, but money that will eventually have to get spent for some game somewhere they are making.. therefore can be added to any game.Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
The addition of TCP/IP will just throw another wrench into a game, delaying it, making it more buggy, etc....
The problem with games today is that they incorporate too many features. These features result in complex code. This complex code now has a MUCH greater chance on being buggy. Present day games tend to be much more buggy primarily because they are so large. They are so large because every feature beneath the sun is added (when it usually is not necessary).
The problem isn't complex code, it isnt inexperienced or unskilled programmers, its a lack of adequate troubleshooting ability. Your average programmer is just no **** good at it, nor is there ever an adequate error reporting engine or solid modular design and architecture.. Too many changes from non-technical people cause your "code" to be sloppy and otherwise just plain bad. And then your not good enough by yourself to find the true problems with it. Then the rush for added features causes more to be built on a less than perfectly stable platform, and so on..
Its not in the complexity, its in the management... A good software company can pull it off, regardless of their size.. They just have to value the right pieces of the development process.. Most do not..
I consult on topics like this if you were wondering....
Marc,
I totally agree. While the selfish part of me would still like the idea of TCP/IP in WITP, I still suspect it's far too large to support it what with the amount of information you have to manage as the overall commander. Personally I for one wouldn't have a problem with the wait regardless, but because it would be a while I could understand why it wouldn't be adapted. However with scenario based battles like UV and another others they make based on this engine, I just can't see NOT having it...
Course I'm biased also... Still, I suspect if they went the extra mile and at least incorporated the OPTION of TCP/IP in addition to PBEM, I think most folks would be willing to run with it... Even if I had to wait another year to get it in an "overall" patch of the game.
UV has been out for about 9 months now and personally I'd love to see a TCP/IP patch for it at the end of the line when the developers move on to other things... Course I'm also a purist of action and such and would still like to see a graphic depiction of a catastrophic kill of a ship from an air or ship based attack. They didn't happen often, but they did happen. Where you'd see a ship just get enveloped by an explosion then nothing... but I digress...
At any rate, I'll always hold out the hope for a simultaneous style order phase and TCP/IP connection PC to PC in the future of UV and/or WITP... It's where the game SHOULD be...
respectfully...
Oh, and Jeremy? I LOVED BoTF... IN SPITE OF the bugs in the game... Yep, it had a few developmental problems.. several in fact, but I love empire building games... it wasn't so much the content of BOTF I was using as an example as it was the simultaneous orders for one turn... While I don't pretend to know how intense the code for it would be, in theory at least it would work well as that one aspect of BOTF worked brilliantly! IMHO of course...
cheers...
I totally agree. While the selfish part of me would still like the idea of TCP/IP in WITP, I still suspect it's far too large to support it what with the amount of information you have to manage as the overall commander. Personally I for one wouldn't have a problem with the wait regardless, but because it would be a while I could understand why it wouldn't be adapted. However with scenario based battles like UV and another others they make based on this engine, I just can't see NOT having it...
Course I'm biased also... Still, I suspect if they went the extra mile and at least incorporated the OPTION of TCP/IP in addition to PBEM, I think most folks would be willing to run with it... Even if I had to wait another year to get it in an "overall" patch of the game.
UV has been out for about 9 months now and personally I'd love to see a TCP/IP patch for it at the end of the line when the developers move on to other things... Course I'm also a purist of action and such and would still like to see a graphic depiction of a catastrophic kill of a ship from an air or ship based attack. They didn't happen often, but they did happen. Where you'd see a ship just get enveloped by an explosion then nothing... but I digress...
At any rate, I'll always hold out the hope for a simultaneous style order phase and TCP/IP connection PC to PC in the future of UV and/or WITP... It's where the game SHOULD be...
respectfully...
Oh, and Jeremy? I LOVED BoTF... IN SPITE OF the bugs in the game... Yep, it had a few developmental problems.. several in fact, but I love empire building games... it wasn't so much the content of BOTF I was using as an example as it was the simultaneous orders for one turn... While I don't pretend to know how intense the code for it would be, in theory at least it would work well as that one aspect of BOTF worked brilliantly! IMHO of course...
cheers...
"Send in the Infantry. Tanks cost money... the dead cost nothing..."
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
I think that BotF had very high potential, but too much was attempted on this project, and almost nothing was perfected. It broke many barriers and is a model for future Empire Building games. However, the inherent problems have driven off 90% of its community. I occasionally start editing again, only to be befuddled by the impossible to break problems in the game.
My argument that even the extra addition (i.e., just to have the option) will detriment the game as a whole. Its inclusion would take time away that could be spent perfecting the general code of the game, playtesting, bug searching/fixing, which is realistically much more important then additional features. I really wonder how great Birth of the Federation would have been had they spent the time dedicated to TCP/IP with fixing the crashes and memory leaks.
My argument that even the extra addition (i.e., just to have the option) will detriment the game as a whole. Its inclusion would take time away that could be spent perfecting the general code of the game, playtesting, bug searching/fixing, which is realistically much more important then additional features. I really wonder how great Birth of the Federation would have been had they spent the time dedicated to TCP/IP with fixing the crashes and memory leaks.
Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
I really wonder how great Birth of the Federation would have been had they spent the time dedicated to TCP/IP with fixing the crashes and memory leaks.
See my post above...But one really has nothing to do with the other. If they were smart, at least the core of the TCP/IP engine was "borrowed" from some other project..and probably done mostly by a group with specific knowledge in that area... The crashes and memory leaks are due to the other issues I mentioned...
Sometimes a bad game is simply a bad game... Think about it this way... If you build a skyscraper and you do a totally shotty job on the foundation and first couple floors (not that I know anything about skyscraper design) but I'm guessing it wouldn't much matter how "Perfectly" you did everything else your whole skyscraper is eventually gonna come crashing down... Hard to re-engineer the whole thing once its fully erected without tearing the whole thing apart.. Some games suffer similar fates, bad design and architecture from day one, abandoned standards, and so on.. Means its nearly impossible to fix later on..
You just hope companies that make mistakes like that "learn" from them... but in many cases I see the same software companies putting out the same level of unstable and crappy games one after another...