Co-op Needed!

[Steiner14]

You can of course test if some people are willing to play a one hour scenario according to your process. How well does it work in practise.

Why one hour? Tiny three to five minutes testscens. should be enough.

But a reader doesn't know how much has changed. He needs to read it all to find out.

Since there is no ongoing participation anyway, i don't see much sense to wait. Anyone who is jumping in later, will grab the latest draft anyway and not older ones like you, to find differences without reading them anyway.

[SlowMotion]

Why one hour? Tiny three to five minutes testscens. should be enough.

Because it is one thing to do things according to this process for 3 turns and a totally different thing to use it for 20 times longer. Most CMx2 scenarios I've played lasted one hour or more. Of course you can see some things from a short test as well, but the most important question is: are real players willing to use it to play real CM scenarios?

[WriterJWA]

Yeah .... not to troll this thread, because I think it's informative and shows the level of dedication people have to the game ... but the existing "band-aided" Co-Play system just screams for the need to have an in-game one. Reading through 11 pages of text, learning a file naming format and CoPlay rules, and downloading and learning third-party software is all a bit much just to have two friends and I play on the same team.

The 20th century called.... it want's its dice, to-hit tables, and PBEM back!

(I keeed.... )

[SlowMotion]

I agree that most people wouldn't use a community made CoPlay system, but I'm sure it would show all sorts of things about what works and what doesn't. Maybe it would be easier for BFC to consider whether they want to make the real thing one day.

[Steiner14]

WriterJWA,

if there are no rules that have proven to be reliable and working, how could anybody program a robust tool?

This is nothing that you begin to program like a PBEM-helper. This is a complex problem that needs to be fully analyzed and understood, BEFORE any programming attempt can be made.

And understanding COOP-MP means PLAYING COOP-MP and learning from experience.

[Steiner14]

Contains the explanations for normal players now:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/96409796/CM%20COOP06.docx

If there are no corrections or objections, i plan to add a table of contents tomorrow and begin with a first acceptance test in the next days.

[poesel]

Mann, Steiner, in der Kürze liegt die Würze! (translation: TL;DR)

Who is gonna read a 15 page document about an 'easy' coop system? You put advice in how to put email addresses in the adressbook! If my opponents are so dumb as to need this advice I hardly want to play with them.

Obviously I'm all for coop but this is a bit over the top.

There's also a technical problem with your token solution: it is very hard to make that foolproof. Its actually a very common problem for IT if two tasks have to share one resource.

Consider this (dropbox scenario but the same for email): player A finds the turn and no lockfile. He creates the lockfile and starts doing the turn in CM. Now DB syncs the file to the server. At the same time player B finds the turn and also no lockfile (sync is running). So he does the same as A. So now both are moving at the same time. B finishes first and now sees that theres a lockfile from A. What to do now?

It gets even worse if someone goes offline during the process.

To make this foolproof you would need to send a request for a lockfile to all participants of your side and you need an ack from all of them to be able to proceed. This would defy the advantage of the asynchronous turn handling. If they can answer they could do the turn as well.

One solution could be if players on one side are in different time zones and you know the times when they are available. If C knows that B sleeps and A's turn is ready B could move out of order. But this is also complicated.

To make asynchronous moving possible you need a central server process which does the handling. This exists for a long time and is called a revision control system (RCS). Technically possible but you need to install software and know how to use it. IMHO this wouldn't fly here unless you only want to play with software developers.

IMO in-order coop with 0-3 players per side and short scenarios (unless you have a very dedicated group) is the only feasible way to pull this off.

[Steiner14]

Poesel,

you claim my system was to complicated but you have no idea how it could be made easier?

I don't understand the logic behind it.

Do you really believe someone is willing to program such a complex piece of software, if there are no dedicated players really wanting it and there are absolutely no experiences to learn from?

If playing COOP-CM is not worth for a normal player to read one page and for commanders not worth to read ONCE how it can be set up, then forget it very fast, that this could ever become reality.

I see this as a test. Are even enough people interested in COOP-MP? Claiming CM needs it but then really wanting to play are two pair of shoes. If you and others say, that this suggested system is too much of a hassle, but you would be playing a software-supported system, then this sounds to me like people demanding a software for meta campaigning and claiming they would play it, but in reality nobody ever manually organized a meta campaign and has proven that there were people taking big efforts to play it.

We may not forget that CM will never be a primitive RTS-shooter where people can participate as long as they want and afterwards leave and this has no influence on the game.

CM is a complex game and there are not that many players out there who at least are playing against humans (10%?). Even less play PBEM.

Now if among this crowd who demands COOP, not enough people are, that can get a really very simple system up and running, then i'm quite sure much bigger efforts like programming a software are not worth it.

Additionally i want to mention, the tremendous work people do, to make meta-campaigning possible. And i wouldn't rule it out, if the way easier COOP-MP would be a good substitute. for meta-campaigning. I always liked to participate in MCs, but i can't say, if i still would want to play it, if COOP-MP is fun.

[Steiner14]

There's also a technical problem with your token solution: it is very hard to make that foolproof.

A good point!

As far as i have recognized Dropbox is syncronizing immediately. So we are talking about a few seconds the status of the token is not valid for all players.

In the case of e-mail the latency may be a few minutes.

Compared to the turn rate, which equals to the access numbers to a file this is very few and in the case of Dropbox almost zero.

But nevertheless it's a good point and it can't be ruled out, that two players start plotting their moves, because both believe the token was free.

Since we are discussing what is necessary for a robust system this must be solved.

Gladly there are two ways that every player immediately will recognize, there was a problem with the token:

a)

The first player who uploads the file first releases the token.

So when the second player uploads his file he recognizes, that the token already has been released, the plotting was not blocked (Dropbox: the token has already disappeared and is in the subfolder; e-mail-only: While sending his file the player sees a token-message in his inbox, that the plotting is already unblocked, although he still holds the token).

But the error also becomes visible in the filenames, because instead of files that only contain a different number of letters in the appendix, there would suddenly be two files which contain the same amount of letters:

i.e.

CMFI_ScenarioXY_0014_A.bts was the file two players grabbed at the same time and where the token conflict occured.

Each player sends his updated file back:

Player C: CMFI_ScenarioXY_0014_AC.bts

Player B: CMFI_ScenarioXY_0014_AB.bts

Since every player adds his letter, and only one player is allowed, it is not possible that two files with the same amont of letters in the appendix may appear.

It must be

...014_A.bts -> ...014_AC.bts -> ...014_ABC.bts or

...014_A.bts -> ...014_AB.bts -> ...014_ABC.bts

I will update the guide with a check after uploading the file (sending the file), if the token was still grabbed, or if the token already was released at that point in time. If in the moment of upload the token already was released, although the player thought he has it, he knows that another player already had plotted his moves.

In the worst case, the player grabs the token again, downloads the newest file (in the case of e-mail-only he will receive it automatically anyway) and plots his moves again.

[poesel]

Poesel,

you claim my system was to complicated but you have no idea how it could be made easier?

Yes.

I have explained why an out-of-order coop system is technically very difficult. I have not found anything in your reply that would solve that problem.

Do you really believe someone is willing to program such a complex piece of software, if there are no dedicated players really wanting it and absolutely no experiences to learn from?

Yes.

Because this software exists. Only it was made mainly for software developers and IMHO not everyone has the necessary skills to operate that kind of software.

Additionally i want to mention, the tremendous work people do, to make meta-campaigning possible. And i wouldn't rule it out, if the way easier COOP-MP would be a good substitute. for meta-campaigning. I always liked to participate in MCs, but i can't say, if i still would want to play it, if COOP-MP is fun.

I don't think coop is a substitute for meta-campaigning. How could it be? One is about one battle the other about a series of battles. Coop could be incorporated into meta-campaigns and help solve some special situations. But I doubt it would change the workload of whoever organises the campaign.

Just to make me clear: I'm all for coop and I think it would enrich the game in a different way than 'just' adding new toys (I'm exaggerating). But I think coop as presented here will only work in some circumstances. To make it really fly we would need support from in-game or a helper program.

EDIT: fun fact: the possibility of concurrent edits that you set to nearly zero just happened when you wrote your second post while I was writing this. **** like this will happen more often than you like and imagine the fun everyone has who has to re-do his moves. And to explain everything...

[Steiner14]

Yes.

I have explained why an out-of-order coop system is technically very difficult. I have not found anything in your reply that would solve that problem.

Not solve the problem but solve the token conflict.

I don't think coop is a substitute for meta-campaigning. How could it be?

Because of the psychological aspect of collaboration that is served by both. I don't know for sure, but i can imagine that one can substitute the other. Like playing AI can substitue playing against human players, although the difference is huge.

[Steiner14]

Changes:

Solutions for a possible token-conflict added.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/96409796/CM%20COOP07.docx

[Steiner14]

The final version of the Co-Op-Multiplayer-Guide is available:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/96409796/CM%20COOP-Multiplayer-Guide.pdf

[SlowMotion]

JUst a comment about Dropbox synchronising with a few second delay:

normally this is so, but NOT if Dropbox isn't running. If you manually start Dropbox (instead of automatically when your PC starts), file synchronisation may happen after a delay of several days.

[Jack Ration]

Steiner,

Interested in the WEGO Co-op concept.

Be interested to see what you came up with.

[LukeFF]

Steiner,

Interested in the WEGO Co-op concept.

Be interested to see what you came up with.

Umm...he's left the building.

[Los]

We've had recent extensive coop discussions in the CMBN thread however, I was thinking of one low overhead way to do a "command simulator" with the right crowd:

One player simply GMs the game and has access to both sides. He has player who are willing to "roleplay" say company or platoon commanders. He updates them with well produced situation maps and screenshots regularly and has them give verbal orders (BTW this is what a real platoon leader or company commander would be doing). He then, to the best of his ability, carry's out their orders based on their clarity. If the guy doesn't respond back within a time limit, he implements those orders based on previously stated intent.

What it isnt is CM coop play. What it is is a fun online kriegspiel campaign where making decisions based on limited intelligence and inability to micromanage the exact right move out of every soldier a level of immersion not usually available.

Our gaming group does this kind of thing at least once or twice a year and they have been the best gaming experiences. We have not doe this with CM however.

It can be fun for the GM as well since you get a smarter level of command and control than the AI would give you, and you get to see human decisions making under limited intel in action which is cool.

The GM could also create a base template with the defense and cut certain portions for platoon leaders to attack then use results to update the whole (Sort of like what they do in those excellent Panzer campaign/CM games.)

Anyway, just sayin'...

Los

p.s. in case you missed it there is no more Steiner14..banned, so don't expect a response.