CMX2 Multi-play

[tar]

I suppose one could always ask Major Holderidge's advice on the subject. His TacOps game has massive multiplayer features in it.

The general impression I have from the massive multi-player games are that there is a limited audience appeal because of the need to commit a fair chunk of time to the game. Dropping out during play tends to be a bit disruptive, especially because...

...you often need to have some fairly strict time limits on the orders phase to make this work. It isn't any fun for 10 people to sit twiddling their thumbs for 10 minutes waiting for the last guy to finish up his finely crafted and meticulously choreographed orders. So, having everyone on-line and active reduces the potential audience and makes it important not to have many dropouts, either as personal decisions or as the result of technical glitches.

I'm not sure how well a PBEM system would work unless there were a dedicated host system that managed the interactions.

[Blutzeit]

It isn't any fun for 10 people to sit twiddling their thumbs for 10 minutes waiting for the last guy to finish up his finely crafted and meticulously choreographed orders.

That's exactly why multi player should be combined with real real-time. IMHO one without the other is only a half measure. You need a good matching service so that you can quickly join a game with other players of similar skill level and preference, and then play for about 30-60 minutes (real time *and* game time). Dropping players can be dealt with by transferring control to the remaining ones.

I know, i know, it gives an entierly different focus on the game. You have no time to do those extensive LOS checks, or make the perfectly executed manouvres, or even give attention to other parts of the battlefield than your own.

From the player perspective, I don't see any major changes to the game (either cmx1 or cmx2). The user interface would be exactly the same, simultaniously support both the We-Go system and real-real-time. But I am a programmer, and I know there are some really really hairy network and simulation problems to solve in order to do it.

[Blutzeit]

It isn't any fun for 10 people to sit twiddling their thumbs for 10 minutes waiting for the last guy to finish up his finely crafted and meticulously choreographed orders.

That's exactly why multi player should be combined with real real-time. IMHO one without the other is only a half measure. You need a good matching service so that you can quickly join a game with other players of similar skill level and preference, and then play for about 30-60 minutes (real time *and* game time). Dropping players can be dealt with by transferring control to the remaining ones.

I know, i know, it gives an entierly different focus on the game. You have no time to do those extensive LOS checks, or make the perfectly executed manouvres, or even give attention to other parts of the battlefield than your own.

From the player perspective, I don't see any major changes to the game (either cmx1 or cmx2). The user interface would be exactly the same, simultaniously support both the We-Go system and real-real-time. But I am a programmer, and I know there are some really really hairy network and simulation problems to solve in order to do it.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Blutzeit:

That's exactly why multi player should be combined with real real-time.

I think its pretty safe to say that it wont happen.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Blutzeit:

That's exactly why multi player should be combined with real real-time.

I think its pretty safe to say that it wont happen.

[Tarkus]

Zemke,

Did you present CM to your son? What was his reaction? Did he play? I ask because I did show CMAK to a 17 year old kid, and there was mixed interests. I think he saw the potential but was having a problem with the game pace. Too slow.

Originally posted by Zemke:

And to agrue that "twitch gamers would never play anyway", seems the type of attitude that will certainly doom our hobby in the long run. You can have realism and good graphics, you can have PBEM and multi-multi-play all in the same game!

Speaking for myself, I will never oppose any measure that could make more players enter the genre and enjoy the game, except one: simplification of the game to target a young audience specifically. Simple games are what the whole industry is made of. To me CM stands has a rare exception to this, keeping the fine balance between plain computer game fun and simulation realism. I like CM for the fact that it takes time and quite a bit of dedication to learn and succeed. Not because the game itself is complex, on the contrary I think it is fairly simple to understand and use, but because the reality it depict, and I suppose you know that way better than I'll ever do, is quite complex as well.

I know you are not advocating simplification and power up crates to try to catch young people, and we could spend some time on the semantic implication of a term such as "a simple game". However, I still think Soddball's right. There are some quite impressive exceptions to this, here on this board, but young wargamer aren't the majority. I guess you're a wargamer, at any age, or you are not. I remember playing mac old "Stategic Conquest" 15 years ago (IIRC by Peter Merill ?). A shame nobody ever took the concept further. This game was a killer for me. But I digress.

Oh, and for for those who wouldn't want the hassel of dealing with other players on their side, then don't, play alone. But in the real Army and in real life, subordinate commanders have to work together, cross-talk, coordinate, to ensure the mission is executed. Multi-Multi play would open that OPTION up.

Right. As an option, It could be big fun. My own problem with this is that I doubt to have time for this, has others have pointed out. I play every day, in the morning, PBEM, and quickly in the evening, another PBEM shot. That is almost all I can afford schedule wise. But it could be really really interesting.

As for the development time, I would gladly pay the extra money, and wait the extra time for CMX2 with multi-multi play capability. If it cost me $100 for the game, and it was what I wanted, I would buy it, period. Wargaming is what I love to do, so money is not the issue, (IF THE GAME IS GOOD).

I respectfully point out that this comes has a counter argument to making the game more open to young audience though. Making the game more expensive put it at a distance to those who have less money yet want everything: kids and students.

I hope it does not cost that much myself. Remember, most will have to upgrade to play the game. This does not come cheap.

Cheers

[Tarkus]

Zemke,

Did you present CM to your son? What was his reaction? Did he play? I ask because I did show CMAK to a 17 year old kid, and there was mixed interests. I think he saw the potential but was having a problem with the game pace. Too slow.

Originally posted by Zemke:

And to agrue that "twitch gamers would never play anyway", seems the type of attitude that will certainly doom our hobby in the long run. You can have realism and good graphics, you can have PBEM and multi-multi-play all in the same game!

Speaking for myself, I will never oppose any measure that could make more players enter the genre and enjoy the game, except one: simplification of the game to target a young audience specifically. Simple games are what the whole industry is made of. To me CM stands has a rare exception to this, keeping the fine balance between plain computer game fun and simulation realism. I like CM for the fact that it takes time and quite a bit of dedication to learn and succeed. Not because the game itself is complex, on the contrary I think it is fairly simple to understand and use, but because the reality it depict, and I suppose you know that way better than I'll ever do, is quite complex as well.

I know you are not advocating simplification and power up crates to try to catch young people, and we could spend some time on the semantic implication of a term such as "a simple game". However, I still think Soddball's right. There are some quite impressive exceptions to this, here on this board, but young wargamer aren't the majority. I guess you're a wargamer, at any age, or you are not. I remember playing mac old "Stategic Conquest" 15 years ago (IIRC by Peter Merill ?). A shame nobody ever took the concept further. This game was a killer for me. But I digress.

Oh, and for for those who wouldn't want the hassel of dealing with other players on their side, then don't, play alone. But in the real Army and in real life, subordinate commanders have to work together, cross-talk, coordinate, to ensure the mission is executed. Multi-Multi play would open that OPTION up.

Right. As an option, It could be big fun. My own problem with this is that I doubt to have time for this, has others have pointed out. I play every day, in the morning, PBEM, and quickly in the evening, another PBEM shot. That is almost all I can afford schedule wise. But it could be really really interesting.

As for the development time, I would gladly pay the extra money, and wait the extra time for CMX2 with multi-multi play capability. If it cost me $100 for the game, and it was what I wanted, I would buy it, period. Wargaming is what I love to do, so money is not the issue, (IF THE GAME IS GOOD).

I respectfully point out that this comes has a counter argument to making the game more open to young audience though. Making the game more expensive put it at a distance to those who have less money yet want everything: kids and students.

I hope it does not cost that much myself. Remember, most will have to upgrade to play the game. This does not come cheap.

Cheers

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

Speaking for myself, I will never oppose any measure that could make more players enter the genre and enjoy the game, except one: simplification of the game to target a young audience specifically.

Some people confuse simplification and "dumbing down" the game.

You can have a very complex came and make it *simple* to play via a good user interface. Thats the best games. A good example of a game that are complex with hopeless UI is War in the Pacific. That guarantees that the game will only ever appeal to a few hardcore grogs that are willing to invest the time and fight the frustration in order to play the game. It doesnt even have right click functions for God's sake!

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

Speaking for myself, I will never oppose any measure that could make more players enter the genre and enjoy the game, except one: simplification of the game to target a young audience specifically.

Some people confuse simplification and "dumbing down" the game.

You can have a very complex came and make it *simple* to play via a good user interface. Thats the best games. A good example of a game that are complex with hopeless UI is War in the Pacific. That guarantees that the game will only ever appeal to a few hardcore grogs that are willing to invest the time and fight the frustration in order to play the game. It doesnt even have right click functions for God's sake!

[SaTyR]

Originally posted by GJK:

Today's kids grow up on HL2 and other FPS games. I just don't see them opting for a turn-based strategy wargame over HL-2 (for example) unless they have a deep interest in the subject matter or are bided to play by someone else. Yes, there are always exceptions.

Schrullenhaft mentions above.

2003 Game of the year Poll, Pelit magazine, Finland: winner Silent Storm (2004 winner HL2, SS:Sentinels 12., polls taken at the end of a year). Turn based games live and flourish. Please don't beat the horse while it's still standing.

PS. Just to make things clear: HL2 had close to 5 times the votes of the runner up, Rome: Total War on the 2004 GOTY Poll. Pre-game jitters, I'd say, play the game and see, no need for excess glory, HL2 pales in comparison to the effect of HL when released.

[ February 03, 2005, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: SaTyR ]

[SaTyR]

Originally posted by GJK:

Today's kids grow up on HL2 and other FPS games. I just don't see them opting for a turn-based strategy wargame over HL-2 (for example) unless they have a deep interest in the subject matter or are bided to play by someone else. Yes, there are always exceptions.

Schrullenhaft mentions above.

2003 Game of the year Poll, Pelit magazine, Finland: winner Silent Storm (2004 winner HL2, SS:Sentinels 12., polls taken at the end of a year). Turn based games live and flourish. Please don't beat the horse while it's still standing.

PS. Just to make things clear: HL2 had close to 5 times the votes of the runner up, Rome: Total War on the 2004 GOTY Poll. Pre-game jitters, I'd say, play the game and see, no need for excess glory, HL2 pales in comparison to the effect of HL when released.

[ February 03, 2005, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: SaTyR ]