Faster PBEM required

[Fuerte]

The current system is bad as we all know:

1) plot #1

2) plot #1

3) view #1

4) view #1 + plot #2

5) plot #2

6) view #2

7) view #2 + plot #3

...

Battlefront explained that it is impossible to have replay+plot both in the same turn at the same time. It is impossible for the current game engine to be in two different turns or something. But in 4) the current engine displays the previous turn and then you make moves for the next turn, so this explanation sounds poor.

The suggested new method is:

1) plot #1

2) plot #1

3) view #1, plot #2

4) view #1, plot #2

5) view #2, plot #3

...

I want this in 1.02 patch! So that we get one turn per e-mail...

Also Battlefront should release the game engine as a free download, so that third party people can develop CMBB servers. The engine would get two standard e-mail files as parameters (passwords as extra parameters), and it would output the standard e-mail files for the next turn. This way we would get two turns per day, like with Laser Squad Nemesis.

[Redwolf]

Nice try.

But while we are dreaming:

You can also have a "trusted" mode where you exchange 2 turns with each mail, like TacOps does. You have to trust you opponent that he doesn't re-plot his first move after seeing the results of the second one. But for the TacOps community that is a non-issue.

It would be nice to have the trusted and nontrusted modes as a choice in wargames. Just dreaming. [EDITED, I am nice ]

[ February 04, 2003, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Lumbergh]

Those are both fantastic ideas.

I hope to see them at some point

[Max BrauHaus]

It seems to me that the "movie" file that is sent between players is always the same size, so I assume it has enough information in it to display both player's movies depending on which player it is. For us slow-poke modem users, I'd like to see (if it is truly possible) one user just have to send back a password to the other user to allow them to view the movie, withouth sending the whole file.

Work like this:

player 1: plot #1

player 2: plot #1, movie file created, sends to player #1

player 1: Enter personal password, view movie #1, receive one-time turn password, sends one-time turn password to player 2.

player 2: Enter personal password and one-time turn password, views movie #2, plots #2

player 1: plot #2, movie file created, send to player #2

etc.

This may only be a small improvement to the current slow process, but could possibly be used in combination with another suggestion?

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Oh. Choices in CM? Haha!

Geez, give it a rest, rw. Perhaps you would rather go play a nice game of GI Combat?

Steve

[Priest]

I do not mind the PBEM system at all, I think it compliments the faster pace TCP/IP games and produces a more chess like product. Then again if they did change it I doubt I would mind as long as it worked. So put me on the proverbial fence I guess.

Also, what is next RedWolf, you will want the best WWII tactical wargame and extreme realism, oh wait you already have that. Me thinks you may be a bit nitpicking.

[UberFunBunny]

Fuerte:

The suggested new method is:

1) plot #1

2) plot #1

3) view #1, plot #2

4) view #1, plot #2

5) view #2, plot #3

...

This is a very good idea.

I'm wondering if it would double the file sizes. I would be in favor even if it made the files bigger.

[Guest Mike]

No it wouldn't double file size - a plot file is usually 10-30 kb, while a movie file is often hundreds of kb (although I have sen some small ones down around 50 or 60).

The actual amount of information beign sent would remain the same I think - it's just organised differently to be sent in fewer messages.

[UberFunBunny]

No it wouldn't double file size - a plot file is usually 10-30 kb, while a movie file is often hundreds of kb (although I have sen some small ones down around 50 or 60).

The actual amount of information beign sent would remain the same I think - it's just organised differently to be sent in fewer messages.

Then there is NO excuse not to implement this! It would cut PBEM emails by 33%. Those of us that can only play "one email per day" would wrap up games a LOT quicker....

[Guest PondScum]

This suggestion has been brought up before, and if I recall correctly Battlefront has acknowledged that it could be made to work. I very much doubt that it'll be a quick patch though. Maybe in the engine rewrite...

[Fuerte]

Originally posted by PondScum:

This suggestion has been brought up before, and if I recall correctly Battlefront has acknowledged that it could be made to work. I very much doubt that it'll be a quick patch though. Maybe in the engine rewrite...

Yes, somebody had this idea already in CMBO times. I think that it is brilliant. I was very disappointed that CMBB didn't do it. I don't think that it will be in a patch, 1.02 or later, but I think that it could be done even in CMBB if Battlefront wants and there was enough requests for it. There will be 2+ years until the next "engine rewrite" version appears.

[CMplayer]

This is actually typical of the whole CM product. They don't quite go all the way and choose the best solutions to any problem. I'm becoming a bit disillusioned with them actually.

[Dschugaschwili]

Yes, there were threads on this topic, but the one I was looking for is nowhere to be found. And I know what I'm looking for because I started it back in the CMBO days.

I effectively proposed the same two e-mails per turn system as Fuerte and explained why this can be implemented securely and without increasing the amount of data that has to be sent.

I remember that Steve said that while this system could indeed work, it would require changing the PBEM file format (no surprise here) and changing a working system for CMBB was not particularly high on the priority list (not really a big surprise either).

Since then high bandwidth internet connections have become even more common, so I doubt that we will see any more improvements in the PBEM part of CM.

Dschugaschwili

[Priest]

That was kinda a blanket statement CMplayer care to expand upon it, I would be interested in hearing what you basis is for this. Just like to hear your POV.

[Hersir]

Originally posted by Dschugaschwili:

Since then high bandwidth internet connections have become even more common, so I doubt that we will see any more improvements in the PBEM part of CM.

Dschugaschwili

I don't know if bandwith has anything to do with it. My two regular opponents are on the Us East coast while I live in Sweden. All three of us have high bandwidth connections. It's not very convenient to schedule games so TCP/IP are rare while we have around two games going with each of us for a total of 4-5 PBEM games a day. It would speed up the games with a system either based on viewing once and then orders or a trust system.

C'mon for the sake of the international brotherhood over timezones humour us.

[Fuerte]

Originally posted by Hersir:

I don't know if bandwith has anything to do with it. My two regular opponents are on the Us East coast while I live in Sweden. All three of us have high bandwidth connections. It's not very convenient to schedule games so TCP/IP are rare while we have around two games going with each of us for a total of 4-5 PBEM games a day. It would speed up the games with a system either based on viewing once and then orders or a trust system.

C'mon for the sake of the international brotherhood over timezones humour us.

Exactly.

[Dschugaschwili]

Don't get me wrong, I'm strongly in favor of keeping and improving the PBEM system. That's why I suggested a two e-mails per turn system when I realized it could be done without sacrificing security.

The only possible security risk associated with the new system would be that all turns are calculated on the same machine. On the other hand, if somebody can hack the calculation or do something else to alter the outcome of the calculation, being able to do so every second turn (read: under the current system) should be more than enough to secure a win...

Dschugaschwili

[Carl Puppchen]

I would like to say that I am a major CMBB / CMBO fan and play all of my games by PBEM due to the timing of when my opponent and I are able to play (he does his turns at 4:30am before work, and I do mine at night when I get home from work). We usually keep 4-5 games going in PBEM at any given time. I don't share ANY of the thoughts from the poster earlier on this thread who is disillusioned with this game or the company.

But I would strongly favor any kind of a "trusted" PBEM option, such as they apparently use in TacOps. I think that this would be a great feature because it would enable us to finish our PBEM games in a shorter time period, which would let us play more games!

It doesn't have to involve re-write of the engine or to be secure - I am confident that my opponent isn't going to re-run a scenario to get better results. If you don't know your opponent that well, use the "old" way for scenarios.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE put some kind of trusted PBEM option in the next patch 1.02!!!

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Priest:

That was kinda a blanket statement CMplayer care to expand upon it, I would be interested in hearing what you basis is for this. Just like to hear your POV.

I'll email a representative list of gripes to you. It's probably not constructive to say more about it now. In any case, it probably mostly has to do with budget/time constraints. I'm still looking for a millionaire willing to invest in the game...

[Redwolf]

To get some heat out of the thread, I would also like to expand what I meant with my earlier complaint about "lack of choices" in CM.

The whole CM concept is pretty much narrowed down, mostly by design. Whereever possible the game enforces one way of doing things and doesn't let players fool around. Examples would be very constraint victory conditions, unit prices not overloadable, no way to mess with the knockout points (an OOB export would do), no OOB im/export, no map im/export, not able to play forces of one side in the other force, no ground conditions choice in Quickbattles. Obviously no newly loadable unit database entries and/or 3D models.

No SOPs for units, not even real basic ones like "retreat when shot at" or "when vehicle in way, wait until it gets away (instead of repotting path)", which would be quite simple to do and would get rid of a lot of TacAI complaints.

It also goes to technical things like only one PBEM mode, no choice of TCP port for TCP/IP play. I won't even start on real fancy stuff like an interface to an external computer player. That would be a first for a wargame, but every stupid quake clone has it.

Some of this is technical, but much of it is design philosophy. Sometimes I feel like BFC shouldn't tank down their opinions down the player's throat as much as they do. I also think that BFC should give it a good shot to implement the PBEM improvement for two emails per turn, even if that delays the next engine somewhat. I think PBEM is central fun thing for CM players, and it seems to have gotten more important with CMBB (my impression from observing people looking for games). And it is a "no-bitch" feature - unlike fixes to the TacAI which could cause new trouble elsewhere the shortend email sequence wouldn't cause compaints from anyone except maybe ISP who charge per email.

[Tuomio]

If you've done any programming projects yourself, you know that its much more time consuming to write engine that can have its internals modded later. 3d models, purchasing prices and damage models are this games "core" and like 99% of other games on the market, these cant be modified easily by 3rd party.

Changing code from non-modable to modable takes usually full engine rewrite, where only pure algorithms are "copy pasted". Im very certain, that since this games developers have started more from the "hobby" base, this engine is quite big can of worms to start sorting out.

Btw theres only one or two games that i can think of, which have had any benefit from being completely modable. Trutfully speaking, community pushes mostly utter crap when they have to really start digging up charts, armour stats etc. Just look at the flight sims, only good that inviduals can do are nice 3d models and thats it.

BFC could maybe let community to make skins and 3d models for them in next engine, it would save their precious time. Its more than likely, that currently everything in this game is "hard coded" in it except skins. But ive seen this same whining happen every single time. No matter how perfect the game is and how unique, somebody always thinks that HE couldve done it much better, so this one is really a piece of crap. Its the Fanboy syndrome, before release you praise it to heavens and after release you bash it, since this and that isnt in the game (no matter that no-one never promised such features to be in).

This PBEM issue, no matter how simple it might logically thinking be, can be hard to sort out when you have the actual code in front of you.

[Becket]

Note: one thing we lose with this sytem: getting the movie file back quickly. If the first player to see the movie has to plot his orders too, then there will be a substantial delay in many cases before you get the movie file from your opponent.

It's a cost benefit analysis -- just wanted to chime in that there would be something lost.

[Fuerte]

Originally posted by Becket:

Note: one thing we lose with this sytem: getting the movie file back quickly. If the first player to see the movie has to plot his orders too, then there will be a substantial delay in many cases before you get the movie file from your opponent.

It's a cost benefit analysis -- just wanted to chime in that there would be something lost.

But if you can do only one turn in a day, then it does not matter if your opponents spends 10 or 30 minutes with the turn. There is TCP/IP for real-time gaming.

With the PBEM server system, you could do two turns in a day:

You: View and plot, send to server.

Server: Has received turns from both players, generates the turn and sends it back immediately.

You: View and plot, send to server.

Server: Has received only your turn, wait for the other player.

Next day you can again do two turns.

[Bartokomus]

Originally posted by Tuomio:

If you've done any programming projects yourself, you know that its much more time consuming to write engine that can have its internals modded later. 3d models, purchasing prices and damage models are this games "core" and like 99% of other games on the market, these cant be modified easily by 3rd party.

Changing code from non-modable to modable takes usually full engine rewrite, where only pure algorithms are "copy pasted". Im very certain, that since this games developers have started more from the "hobby" base, this engine is quite big can of worms to start sorting out.

Btw theres only one or two games that i can think of, which have had any benefit from being completely modable. Trutfully speaking, community pushes mostly utter crap when they have to really start digging up charts, armour stats etc. Just look at the flight sims, only good that inviduals can do are nice 3d models and thats it.

BFC could maybe let community to make skins and 3d models for them in next engine, it would save their precious time. Its more than likely, that currently everything in this game is "hard coded" in it except skins. But ive seen this same whining happen every single time. No matter how perfect the game is and how unique, somebody always thinks that HE couldve done it much better, so this one is really a piece of crap. Its the Fanboy syndrome, before release you praise it to heavens and after release you bash it, since this and that isnt in the game (no matter that no-one never promised such features to be in).

This PBEM issue, no matter how simple it might logically thinking be, can be hard to sort out when you have the actual code in front of you.

well said; i work everyday with programmers and can testify to that. the only question i have is how modular is the code; would we really be looking for an engine rewrite for a non-core function? this isn't ai, or any kind of physics modelling, it's a question of programming semantics. while i think the email system could probably be improved, i would much rather see their development cycle focus on the new engine. i don't mind the cmbb warts that much

[Battlefront.com]

Every once in a while a thread comes along that is so packed with ungreatful whining, insults, and rampent ungreatful sentiments that I feel I must come in and post. Obviously this is just such a thread

First, before I go one on one with some comments... remember what CM and Battlefront has done for wargaming. It is normal for gamers, especially wargamers, to completely lose sight of the big picture because they have their knickers in a twist about something realtively minor. It is also VERY normal for gamers to have absolutely not even a hint of a clue what they are talking about when discussing anything having to do with the realities of making games. In other words, most customers are horribly uninformed and uneducated. Fortunately, most realize this and are humble when discussing issues like this with those who have years of practical experience. Unfortuntely, not everybody realizes they are completely out of their depth when voicing complaints and demands. Worse, some haven't a clue how to come off as anything but an ungreatful whiner when discussing things they would like to see done with the games they play.

Quick check... how many hours of CMBO and CMBB have the people in this thread played? How many hours of their lives have they invested in this Forum discussing said games? You REALLY think we belive for one second that someone can say "hundreds" or "thousands" and yet really think the game (or us) are seriously flawed? Give me a break. Either we have made one of the best games ever or the extreme complainers are complete losers and have nothing better to do with their lives than waste them on a seriously flawed game made by a bunch of incompetants. So take your pick... overly whiney or a loser or a whiney loser, but one of these definitions definitely applies to some in this thread.

Now, having said that ...

Fuerte,

...the current engine displays the previous turn and then you make moves for the next turn, so this explanation sounds poor.

Nope, not poor at all. Your understanding of how the game functions is poor. The game engine has absolutely no way of handling this. Amateures with know knowledge of the code can denny this as much as they want, but their opinion has absolutely zero value.

We looked into fixing this issue for CMBO and found it to be too much work to undo, then looked at it again for CMBB and estimated once again that the 2-3 months of code rewriting was simply not worth the effort. Therefore, after an honest attempt to fix this problem (and we have always admitted it is a problem) we decided it was in everybody's best interest to spend the time on other more important issues. Either that or we are purposefully ignoring a significant problem that has an easy solution simply I can have the joy of answering yet another winey post about this issue. Use a couple of those graycells and strain to figure out which is the most likely case.

Also Battlefront should release the game engine as a free download, so that third party people can develop CMBB servers.

Hehe... yeah, right. That's what every developer should do just to make sure they go out of business. Great idea.

CMPlayer,

This is actually typical of the whole CM product. They don't quite go all the way and choose the best solutions to any problem. I'm becoming a bit disillusioned with them actually.

I tried to find a way to answer this without violating the BBS rules, but could not come up with one. Well, except to also suggest you go play GI Combat instead since CM is such a flawed product. I am sure there are other games out there better than CM as well.

UberFunBunny,

Then there is NO excuse not to implement this! It would cut PBEM emails by 33%.

Correct, there is no excuse at all. Just a trade off between 2-3 months rewriting the code simply to cut down on PBEM file swapping vs. 2-3 months spent on dozens of features that everybody will benefit from. Tradeoffs are what happens in the Real World.

And I don't understand what all the fuss is about. I played against an Aussie a while back and we did more than a dozen turns in one day. And this is with extreme time differences. It isn't an issue of files but an issue of the player's willingness to devote time to the game.

Carl,

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE put some kind of trusted PBEM option in the next patch 1.02!!!

1.02 is complete. And as we have stated numberous times before, so too is the CMBB game. If we release another patch it will be only to correct serious bugs. No new features at all. What you guys fail to understand is that EVERYTHING requires our time to code and test. It isn't like Charles can hit a magic button and make a brand new feature. Any programmers here can tell you that a huge and complicated system like CM is not easy to modify like this, even if conceptually it appears it can be. Sometimes the most conceptually simple ideas (like the file swap change) are hardest things to implement.

Redwolf,

Some of this is technical, but much of it is design philosophy.

And all of it a matter of time. How many YEARS did it take to produce CMBO? 3. How many YEARS did it take to make a "simple" switch to the Eastern Front? 2. And you can seriously sit there and imply that we should have and could have done more? Kindly step off your soapbox and reaquaint yourself with reality. We have given you more features, realism, and solid game play than any other wargame company in history. But for some reason this isn't good enough for you? You have no right to complain until you can point to someone that has done better than we have, even with millions of dollars instead of the two man job that made CMBO.

Sometimes I feel like BFC shouldn't tank down their opinions down the player's throat as much as they do.

You are entitled to your opinion, and we are entitled to our own. The limitations that were purposefully built into the game (i.e. not being able to screw around with data) are sound and well supported as being positive for the game and the CM community. As for not having things like SOPs... again, this was a resource allocation issue. We wanted to have these in the game but there is only so much we can do with each release. SOPs will be in the next game, as well as much more flexible scenario options.

Remember folks... Henry Ford basically gave us the automobile. He did not give us cars capable of doing a hundred miles an hour with climate controled environment and cup holders with music playing in CD changers in the trunk. CM can not be everything to everybody all at once. It is impossible. Plus, even if we had all 12,000 Forum Members subit their wishlists, and we coded EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, I can assure you that people would still come up with new lists once they played the game (provided it didn't suck, of course, which is the most likely result of listening so closely to customers).

I also think that BFC should give it a good shot to implement the PBEM improvement for two emails per turn, even if that delays the next engine somewhat.

Give us a couple hundred thousand bucks and as much time as is required to deal with people whining about how long the next game is taking to complete and we will consider it.

I think PBEM is central fun thing for CM players, and it seems to have gotten more important with CMBB (my impression from observing people looking for games). And it is a "no-bitch" feature - unlike fixes to the TacAI which could cause new trouble elsewhere the shortend email sequence wouldn't cause compaints from anyone except maybe ISP who charge per email.

Yet at the same time you compain about us not having dozens of other major things in the game? Can't you see what a no win position you put us in? Complain that we don't have this or that, then demand that we spend our time tweaking something that basically works instead of spending the time making the features that are completely missing. You want the whole cake and the freedom to eat every last crumb of it. In fact, you want the whole bakery. Sorry, life doesn't work that way. We have given you way more than a normal portion of cake with far more flavor and richness than any other wargame company. Why isn't that good enough for you?

Tuomio,

BFC could maybe let community to make skins and 3d models for them in next engine, it would save their precious time. Its more than likely, that currently everything in this game is "hard coded" in it except skins. But ive seen this same whining happen every single time. No matter how perfect the game is and how unique, somebody always thinks that HE couldve done it much better, so this one is really a piece of crap. Its the Fanboy syndrome, before release you praise it to heavens and after release you bash it, since this and that isnt in the game (no matter that no-one never promised such features to be in).

You are wise well beyond your Junior Member status You are of course completely correct.

This PBEM issue, no matter how simple it might logically thinking be, can be hard to sort out when you have the actual code in front of you.

Which apparently is something we can never get through some people's skulls. They think that programming is like molding clay... you can shape it simply by pushing your fingers into it and kneeding it for a bit. What they don't understand it is more like sculpting marble. Once you are at a certain point you can only do so much before chucking the whole thing becomes the only viable option. And this is exactly why we are rewriting the CM engine from the ground up. We have so many new things we want to put in that reworking the old code is just not possible.

Steve