TCP/IP and PBEM bone for CMx2

[aka_tom_w]

It is our plan because there is no other plan available. The part of the plan that you've skipped over, however, is the part where we said "well, PBEM is important but not as important as all these other features. Therefore, we will proceed to build the best game possible even though we understand that there is a risk, but not a certainty, of PBEM being lost in the process."

quote: (Jon asks:)

Now, in an effort to be constructive: could you explain how you expect TCP will work if you can't get Async to work? Isn't the same amount of data pushing required in either case?

Steve replies:

I've already explained this somewhere in one of these God awful PBEM threads. Two major things:

1. TCP/IP uses binary data transfer. PBEM files must be converted to text for email transfer. The latter adds about 33% overhead to the data, and there isn't a thing we can do about it.

2. There are all sorts of tricks we can do to have some data transfered back and forth between the systems while people are in the Orders Phase. These tricks are unavailable for PBEM play because it is inherently impossible to do so.

Having said that, yes... in theory (as with any game) we could produce something that will make TCP/IP impractical as well. We can't do anything about that either, at this stage, but if it does happen we have more options available to us than we have for PBEM.

-Steve

[GJK]

Is there a question in there? Are we going to have another 230+ posts debating how TCP/IP packets can be pushed throughout gameplay and so why can't pbem files be magically pushed in the same way?

Just let them build the game already!

And I'm saying this in a light-hearted manner to you Tom, so don't take offense.

[Malakovski]

I'm all for useful multiplay options in CMx2, but this is just stirring up trouble.

If BFC found that there would be no viable options for multiplayer, I'm sure there would be some design changes to allow it. PBEM may only be 10-20% of their customers, but putting all multiplayers together is surely too significant a faction to dismiss as grogs and whiners, not to mention the fact that, I would guess, BFC enjoys multiplay quite a bit themselves, and sees it as critical.

[Wartgamer]

Just from a test standpoint, you need some human-human play. Well, actually, if there is no human-human play besides head to head, then playtesting that must be done that way.

All other testing would be solo.

[ March 06, 2005, 06:53 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by GJK:

Is there a question in there? Are we going to have another 230+ posts debating how TCP/IP packets can be pushed throughout gameplay and so why can't pbem files be magically pushed in the same way?

Just let them build the game already!

And I'm saying this in a light-hearted manner to you Tom, so don't take offense.

No offfense

It was JUST a post to start a thread for what I thought was a NEW bone, since some folks here may have become so inured by the noise and complaints in the other LONG PBEM threads that they don't read each post anymore or follow the whole thread anymore.

So I just figured the first post of this thread was form of Community Service Announcement (CSA).

Thats all.

-tom w

[ March 06, 2005, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Malakovski]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

It was JUST a post to start a thread for what I thought was a NEW bone, since some folks have may have become so inured by the noise and complaints in the other PBEM threads that they don't read each post anymore or follow the whole thread anymore.

Well that's true, but it's also likely to turn all those who primarily play TCP/IP into a powder keg, and then flick a match into it.

On reflection, I guess maybe that won't be a bad thing. As I posted at length ( ad Nauseam?) in one of the "horrible PBEM threads", I don't think TCP and async play are separate issues, given the determination of many of us to play asynchronously. If one works, the other will work, and if one is truly in danger (not just in danger of having to use a new delivery method, et cetera), then so is the other.

[aka_tom_w]

Well I have not seen any TCP/IP flames yet....

But that is likely because I don't think Steve has come right out and said .... "Well TCP/IP might not work either "

He has not actually said that right? :confused:

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Malakovski,

PBEM may only be 10-20% of their customers

My guess would be around 1-2% who use PBEM as the near sole method of play, another 5% fequently, and another couple of % points on top for infrequently. Of this only perhaps a percent or two would NOT buy CMx2 if it lacked PBEM functionality.

Where do I come up with these numbers? I know how many units we've sold (direct+retail) and how to estimate what this Forum represents in relation to those total sales. This is why % of customer base is the WEAKEST argument in favor of supporting PBEM come Hell or high water. Much better to simply argue that it is a good feature and will be missed if it isn't included. At the very least the latter is a line of argument that I fully agree with.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

You can't beat that!

You won't get the STRAIGHT goods that clearly from ANY other game company, or JUST about ANY other company of ANY kind for that matter!

Remember this:

"This is why % of (PBEM required) customer base is the WEAKEST argument in favor of supporting PBEM come Hell or high water. Much better to simply argue that it is a good feature and will be missed if it isn't included. At the very least the latter is a line of argument that I fully agree with.

How much more straight-up could the guy be!!!?? :eek:

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Malakovski,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />PBEM may only be 10-20% of their customers

My guess would be around 1-2% who use PBEM as the near sole method of play, another 5% fequently, and another couple of % points on top for infrequently. Of this only perhaps a percent or two would NOT buy CMx2 if it lacked PBEM functionality.

Where do I come up with these numbers? I know how many units we've sold (direct+retail) and how to estimate what this Forum represents in relation to those total sales. This is why % of customer base is the WEAKEST argument in favor of supporting PBEM come Hell or high water. Much better to simply argue that it is a good feature and will be missed if it isn't included. At the very least the latter is a line of argument that I fully agree with.

Steve </font>

[Malakovski]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Malakovski,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />PBEM may only be 10-20% of their customers

My guess would be around 1-2% who use PBEM as the near sole method of play, another 5% fequently, and another couple of % points on top for infrequently. ... Much better to simply argue that it is a good feature and will be missed if it isn't included.</font>