1:1 Representation in CMx2 (Part II)

[Battlefront.com]

I remember ZORK quite fondly. Even visited their offices and to this day remember the location. 555 Wheeler Street, Cambridge, Mass. Right behind where the old Ground Round was at the Fresh Pond rotary. Going there was kinda like visiting a shrine

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

if you are REALLY keen you can play ZORK here online

and it actually works for free:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~pot/infocom/zork1.html

-tom w

[PseudoSimonds]

BASIC? Zork? Are these from the Age of Records/Cassettes? It's truly a treasure having these first-hand accounts of ancient history.

[Battlefront.com]

I can remember playing my first computer game... it was on a print feed terminal. Ah... millions of dollars and rooms full of computing power to play MadLibs... those were the days

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I can remember playing my first computer game... it was on a print feed terminal. Ah... millions of dollars and rooms full of computing power to play MadLibs... those were the days

Steve

Players that complain about the <u> noun </u> not being <u> adjective </u> enough compared to their expectations based on <u> noun</u> really <u> verb </u> Steve's <u> noun</u> .

-dale

[Mace]

Down here it was raiding the campus computer rooms around 2am so we could get the chance to play trek, or adventure.

Or buying those 'code books and magazines' to program up a game in the Tandy CoCo or C64.

Mace

[Thomm]

Another aspect of 1:1 that has not been discussed so far: PBEM file size.

If the movie contains the states of all individuals at all times then those files will grow in size enormously!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Battlefront.com]

Trek! Oh my god... I used to love that game! Oh if I was only old enough to have stayed up 'til 2am... but when you're beddy time is around 9pm this isn't likely

PBEM is going to be an ineresting challenge to deal with, for sure. I really, really hope it is a challenge we can overcome. But, as you can well understand, if we can't we can't. The game must come first, methods of play second.

Steve

[GreenAsJade]

Um, what's the point of a great game with no way to play it?

Since I only play PBEM, I guess I'm biased: are the other methods of play really popular enough that you'd produce a game without PBEM?

[Battlefront.com]

Keep in mind that the ONLY reason PBEM might not be available is if it the necessary filesize is simply too big (multiple MB for even a simple scenario turn is what I am thinking). Whether we can pull this off or not is unknown to us now and is not a factor in designing the game. We can't hobble the game simply for the sake of a small file size... that's a rather poor self imposed design limitation.

PBEM is certainly something that is used quite frequently, but compared to solo play it doesn't likely come close to matching it. Inernet play is probably 3rd (after Solo and PBEM) with Hotseat coming in a distant 4th.

But the times they are a changing, and so is CMx2 with it. We expect the order to be solo, Interent, PBEM (if we can do it), and hotseat for CMx2. When we introduce CoPlay (co-op multiplaye) lateron we still expect solo to be 1st, though CoPlay will likely be a much closer 2nd than any CMx1 options are to solo play.

Steve

[dalem]

Steve-

I must admit that I find your conclusions a bit shocking. I had no idea that PBEM was as low a priority as you indicate.

[Artie Johnson voice]

Veeeeeerryyy interesting...

[/Artie Johnson voice]

-dale

[GreenAsJade]

I can understand the expectation that broadband might mean people will play TCPIP more, but I'm not sure if it's right.

TCPIP is extremely demanding of people's time - fun, intense, hard to fit in. PBEM is "play when you have time" - much more convenient.

I had always seen PBEM as a "must have" ... like a display. The limitations of having to be on a personal computer with a 2D screen haven't stopped playing on a personal computer 2D screen from being a must have. Otherwise you'd just say "sorry, but you have to have a cray and 3D vis".

Similarly, fitting the game into PBEM feels like a must have to me....

[JonS]

Two bits of bad news there - a poor priority decision on PBEM, and it sounds like CoPlay will not be PBEM-able.

[Guest BigAlMoho]

Flat out:

No PBEM, no game...

[aka_tom_w]

File compression?

like zipit ? or stuffit? for PBEM size problem?

Maybe there could be a form of file compression built into the game to minimize the PBEM file size?

Maybe the PBEM format could change to minimize the number of file transfers?

Even if the PBEM files are large I would guess most folks will find a way to deal with it (FTP or something) if e-mail attachments present a problem.

Large size PBEM files should only impact folks with dial-up service, and then the impact would only be a lengthy time delay to upload or transfer. Any one with broadband and a half decent e-mail service should routinely swap multi-megabyte attachments with relative ease.

Really large PBEM file sizes will make dial-up file transfer slower for sure but the big factor might be attachment file size limitations (hard limits) on services like hotmail or other free e-mail services, but then again that problem can be solved by paying for a more "premium" service even for dial-up players if they are prepared to wait for the file transfer over the phone.

My point is please don't remove the PBEM option JUST because the file size is considered too large, you KNOW clever computer users will find ways to swap large PBEM files if they want to play bad enough, and you know how bad we want to play CMx2!

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Keep in mind that the ONLY reason PBEM might not be available is if it the necessary filesize is simply too big (multiple MB for even a simple scenario turn is what I am thinking). Whether we can pull this off or not is unknown to us now and is not a factor in designing the game. We can't hobble the game simply for the sake of a small file size... that's a rather poor self imposed design limitation.

PBEM is certainly something that is used quite frequently, but compared to solo play it doesn't likely come close to matching it. Inernet play is probably 3rd (after Solo and PBEM) with Hotseat coming in a distant 4th.

But the times they are a changing, and so is CMx2 with it. We expect the order to be solo, Interent, PBEM (if we can do it), and hotseat for CMx2. When we introduce CoPlay (co-op multiplaye) lateron we still expect solo to be 1st, though CoPlay will likely be a much closer 2nd than any CMx1 options are to solo play.

Steve

[jeffsmith]

I play CM almost Exclusively PBEM

Losing that feature would be a Great Loss

its Exclusion would also Probably be the Death Knell

for the Wildley Popular CM Tournaments

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Emmm, maybe I'm really simple but with broadband/contineous connection one could use the internet and the game to 'fake' a pbem, right? Use the TCP programming to in effect achieve a PBEM like game.But with the increasing Internet speeds and Gmail I don't see why very large turns should become a problem unless they exceed 10mb. And those dial uppers be damned, knuckle dragging troglogdites that they are.

Still, I'm a bit surprised by the seemingly casual attitude to what is currently the primary mode of multiplay. But I'm not worried. It's BFC.

[Redwolf]

Whatever you do, Steve, please do not drop PBEM if it works but just has too big files.

People will deal with the file size some way, and if it is mailing CDs around, or DVDs, or USB harddrives or personal laser beam comm channels.

I am a bit afraid that you might have a shortcut reaction and drop it although it works if you think the file sizes are unworkable (analogous to not offering a 800x600 softmode for CMBB and CMAK which would be plenty good with today's machines and would allow MacOS X and Linux people to at least answer PBEM moves.

[aka_tom_w]

Hi Steve

I think you will be surprised at how HUGE PBEM play is.

It should rank a close second after Solo play vs the AI (which is like eating Chinese food, it sort of tastes good at first but ALWAYS leaves you hungery for more, and a better human oppoonent)

Perhaps you could use the forum and the poll feature to take a poll of the critical importance of PBEM.

Ask most folks here and they will tell you it JUST has to be there in CMx2...

just ask us

Maybe its time for a PBEM Rate the Importance Poll....

(or not )

Thanks

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Keep in mind that the ONLY reason PBEM might not be available is if it the necessary filesize is simply too big (multiple MB for even a simple scenario turn is what I am thinking). Whether we can pull this off or not is unknown to us now and is not a factor in designing the game. We can't hobble the game simply for the sake of a small file size... that's a rather poor self imposed design limitation.

PBEM is certainly something that is used quite frequently, but compared to solo play it doesn't likely come close to matching it. Inernet play is probably 3rd (after Solo and PBEM) with Hotseat coming in a distant 4th.

But the times they are a changing, and so is CMx2 with it. We expect the order to be solo, Interent, PBEM (if we can do it), and hotseat for CMx2. When we introduce CoPlay (co-op multiplaye) lateron we still expect solo to be 1st, though CoPlay will likely be a much closer 2nd than any CMx1 options are to solo play.

Steve

[ February 10, 2005, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[David I]

BFC,

90% of my playtime in CMAK & CMBB is done by PBEM! Everybody's reaction to your statement, up to this one, has been of shock and dismay.

Do not lose the PBEM feature of CM. It is crucial!

DavidI

[Watson & Crick]

I'll jump on the keep PBEM bandwagon. I play all my games this way now. Probably 1/2 my games are against people in different time zones. Playing TCIP is pretty much impossible because of this. You can say find opponents who have a similar schedule as mine to TCIP against; but I hate to say it, I enjoy playing against the Wafflers.

The CM series are great Steve because you can play against an opponent at your leisure. How many other games are like this? Don't forget what makes your game special and unique. That is the main reason why I still play CMAK/CMBB and why I will continue to play them in the future. No other game, has held my interest for such a time (and still going).

[Battlefront.com]

GET A GRIP!!

I have NO IDEA if PBEM will be practical or not. So let's turn down the "Chicken Little" hysteria I see starting because there is no indication the sky is falling. Yes, it MIGHT be that PBEM becomes impractical. Or it might be that it just becomes impractical for people with slow connections. Or it might be that everything will work out fine. At this point I have NO idea what the case will be because the game isn't coded yet.

SO CHILL OUT

The only thing I am saying is that we are in no way, shape, or form going to purposefully hobble CMx2 for the SOLE purpose of supporting PBEM play. That is what I am hearing here and it has got to be one of the stupidest, reactionary, backwards thinking I have seen in a very long time.

Yes, I understand that PBEM is important. Obviously we don't want to lose PBEM, but you're insane if you think that this ONE feature is the most important thing in the world. Most people don't play any multiplayer at all, so you're just waaaaaaaaaaaay off your rockers if you think we're going to sacrifice our future simply to support a single, optional for most feature.

So, since the ONLY thing that would kill off PBEM is some horrible file size the likes of which most people would find impossible to email (bandwidth is only part of the issue), but yet we don't know if that is the case, it is absolutely pointless to have this discussion at this point. I'll say no more about it and would recommend that you do the same since it is an absolute and utter waste of everybody's time to discuss this any more at this point in time.

Steve

[Sergei]

I think generally... newbies (and Emrys) play with the AI, more experienced players are bored with it and play by e-mail or TCP/IP.

Removing multiplayer options (how is Internet play going to work if you don't have bandwidth to transfer gigabytes of data?) would drastically shorten the game's life span... Once again, Steve, in my cabin you'll stop worrying about such modern trifles and concentrate on pure essence.

Remember the foremost design mantra: if it wouldn't work with cardboard counters and dice, it's unnecessary in computerized form as well.

[Battlefront.com]

In case I didn't make myself very clear about prioritization... PBEM support can not be a priority because the only thing that influences whether it is practical or not is the game system's feature set. Our prioirty must be to make the best GAME possible, not to make a practical PBEM file size.

The people on this Forum represent a small, but significant, slice of our total customer base. It is important to listen to you guys. But only when you make sense. We have far, far more to lose by purposefully game system far beneath or capabilities than we do if we are FORCED to drop PBEM in order to have the best game. You might not agree, but it isn't your butts on the line and therefore your opinion in that regard is irrelevant to us. So no, we have zero plans to start gutting the game design to make sure we can support PBEM, even though we have no idea if it is even necessary in the first place.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Remember the foremost design mantra: if it wouldn't work with cardboard counters and dice, it's unnecessary in computerized form as well.

Yuck... that is the most irrelevant philosophy I can think of. CMx1 could never, ever be played with cardboard counters and dice, and that is exactly what made it so great. SL/ASL guys finally, for the most part, came to understand that. It is surprising to see that this dusty old and irrelevant quote is still kicking around. I forgot about it about 10 years ago when I realized how creatively limiting it was.

One thing to keep in mind is that CMx1 games were never intended to be played for year after year. It's far more than any other game I can think of has offered players, so it is actually a surprise to us how long lived the games are.

Now, one of the main reasons you've been playing these games for so long is because... well... it's taken us too long to produce more games. This is one of the major things CMx2's new code is supposed to fix. 6-10 months between titles, not 1-2 years. So we actually expect the life of CMx2 games to be shorter simply because you will have something to move onto sooner than you have in the past. It doesn't mean we are purposefully trying to make games that won't hold your interest for longer, just that it isn't as important to make sure that we do. Heck, we didn't do this for CMx1 either, yet it happened anyway.

You guys worry too much... really...

Steve