Disappointed: No PBEM improvements

[Fuerte]

</font>

• No PBEM replay in each turn. This is the biggest letdown... it was explained in CMBO forum a year/half ago how this would be easy to implement. It would make the PBEM game much faster.
  </font>
• No replay of previous turns or the complete battle. Laser Squad Nemesis has this.
  </font>
• No command line options for loading a PBEM turn. I have the automatic file name and password entering already working with a beta PBEM Helper, but still.
  </font>

[Ace Pilot]

Maybe these features can make it into the next version. I for one would like to see enhancements to the PBEM system.

Ace

[WWB]

Originally posted by Fuerte:

</font>

• No PBEM replay in each turn. This is the biggest letdown... it was explained in CMBO forum a year/half ago how this would be easy to implement. It would make the PBEM game much faster.
  </font>
• No replay of previous turns or the complete battle. Laser Squad Nemesis has this.
  </font>
• No command line options for loading a PBEM turn. I have the automatic file name and password entering already working with a beta PBEM Helper, but still.
  </font>

1) This would suck IMHO--file sizes would always be large. For those of us on dialup, that would be a pain.

2) The lack of full game replay goes alot deeper than just being a PBEM thing. It probably would not be all that difficult had it been an original design consideration, but attempting to tack it onto the existing code and object model proved to be an impossible task.

3) I agree with you here. Command line load options would be a great tool for many things. Another potential application would be joining IP games--it would allow for the creation of a TCP connection utility. I watch alot of people stumble and fall flat on their face trying to even find their own IP addy, much less enter it.

WWB

[Fuerte]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

1) This would suck IMHO--file sizes would always be large. For those of us on dialup, that would be a pain.

2) The lack of full game replay goes alot deeper than just being a PBEM thing. It probably would not be all that difficult had it been an original design consideration, but attempting to tack it onto the existing code and object model proved to be an impossible task.

1) Does not make the files any bigger! You just get a replay in each turn... works like this:

A plots moves for turn 1

--

B plots moves for turn 1

--

A views the replay for turn 1

A plots moves for turn 2

--

B views the replay for turn 1

B plots moves for turn 2

--

A views the replay for turn 2

A plots moves for turn 3

--

B views the replay for turn 2

B plots moves for turn 3

-- etc.

2) And this would make the files bigger!

[WWB]

Originally posted by Fuerte:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by wwb_99:

1) This would suck IMHO--file sizes would always be large. For those of us on dialup, that would be a pain.

2) The lack of full game replay goes alot deeper than just being a PBEM thing. It probably would not be all that difficult had it been an original design consideration, but attempting to tack it onto the existing code and object model proved to be an impossible task.

1) Does not make the files any bigger! You just get a replay in each turn... works like this:

A plots moves for turn 1

--

B plots moves for turn 1

--

A views the replay for turn 1

A plots moves for turn 2

--

B views the replay for turn 1

B plots moves for turn 2

--

A views the replay for turn 2

A plots moves for turn 3

--

B views the replay for turn 2

B plots moves for turn 3

-- etc.

2) And this would make the files bigger! </font>

[Fuerte]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

Good idea, but that looks like a nasty order of operations nightmare for Charles. I dont think CM would respond well to having one foot in one turn and the other foot in the next turn. I think such issues will require an engine rewrite to happen.

I don't know, it sounds pretty trivial to me.

Btw, full CMBBdemo support is now in PBEM Helper, try it out. Automatic sending of file name and password has only been tested in 1152x800 resolution, though.

[Fangorn]

Originally posted by Fuerte:

I don't know, it sounds pretty trivial to me.

Btw, full CMBBdemo support is now in PBEM Helper, try it out. Automatic sending of file name and password has only been tested in 1152x800 resolution, though.

Charles did stated that this would require an engine rewrite, so yes, we'll have to wait for CMII engine to get quicker pbem games.

[Ben Galanti]

The problem with this (and has been ever since the beta demo came out, which is when this first came up) is what wwb_99 said. CM just isn't designed to be in two different turns at once.

Ben

[Papa Khann]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

...

Another potential application would be joining IP games--it would allow for the creation of a TCP connection utility. I watch alot of people stumble and fall flat on their face trying to even find their own IP addy, much less enter it.

This can be a real problem. CM:BO has never once located the correct IP addy for my rig prior to a TCP/IP game. Haven't tried TCP/IP using the CM:BB demo yet.

However, the following link solves the problem.

IP Address

Papa

[Battlefront.com]

Fuerte,

I don't know, it sounds pretty trivial to me.

Everything to gamers is trivial because they don't have to code the stuff or live with the scheduling consequences

Truth is that we looked into doing PBEM improvements like this very early on in CMBB's development. It simply was too difficult to do with the existing engine. With the engine rewrite we will address the core concerns.

BTW, there was one major PBEM and TCP/IP improvement that you failed to mention. And that is the parameters of a PBEM game are now passed back to the second player. In CMBO you had to manually do this and trust the other player to correctly report the settings. This is a far more fundamental and important feature than the three you listed.

Steve

[Fuerte]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

BTW, there was one major PBEM and TCP/IP improvement that you failed to mention. And that is the parameters of a PBEM game are now passed back to the second player. In CMBO you had to manually do this and trust the other player to correctly report the settings. This is a far more fundamental and important feature than the three you listed.

All right, thanks for the comment, I really missed this one. I guess that there is some button or keyboard shortcut somewhere that shows these settings. Or these are visible only in generated battles, not ready made scenarios.

[Battlefront.com]

You know... I totally forget I do know that bringing up the Briefing during the game will show the scenario statistics. But think this is only for QBs. Man... we changed that so long ago and I haven't played the game multiplayer in a while. Oh well, it is in there somewhere

Steve

[Doug Beman]

Is it really so hard or time-consuming to click "join multiplayer" and then find the correct PBEM file? I'm playing 8 games simultaneously and have never heard myself saying "this sucks. BTS needs to cater to my every whim."

DjB

[Lars]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

Is it really so hard or time-consuming to click "join multiplayer" and then find the correct PBEM file? I'm playing 8 games simultaneously and have never heard myself saying "this sucks. BTS needs to cater to my every whim."

DjB

Is it really so hard to play the game with cardboard counters and check the stock page for dice rolls?

[Fuerte]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

Is it really so hard or time-consuming to click "join multiplayer" and then find the correct PBEM file? I'm playing 8 games simultaneously and have never heard myself saying "this sucks. BTS needs to cater to my every whim."

It is time-consuming... that's why I use PBEM Helper and never have to

1) click "Join Multiplayer"

2) click "Load.."

3) select the correct file

4) enter password

Adding command line options would be... trivial? Some other games do it, why not CMBB?

[Herr Oberst]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

Is it really so hard or time-consuming to click "join multiplayer" and then find the correct PBEM file?

Originally posted by Fuerte:

It is time-consuming...

This issue IS relative. Sorry if you didn't get what you were looking for Fuerte, but I would have to think that from the BFC/BTS point of view, other development items would produce greater reward for greater numbers of customers.

IMO, such a change, compared to all the other things that were/could/should have been added, this change would rate as a convenience, and in most development shops (my own included), conveniences are way, way down the food chain. Not always a happy thing to hear, but such is life.

[WWB]

I agree with you Oberst. 90% of what he said is whiney BS basically a matter of laziness and convenience. The one thing that would be real, real cool to see in a patch would be command line switches to join multiplayer games.

Imagine a Hyperlobby for CM? Is it possible now, no. But if you had a relatively simple set of switches, one could click on a join button in a program which would then fire up CM and join you to the proper IP addy.

WWB

PS: Parameters are only abaliable for QBs. They are auto generated briefings in that setting. In scenarios, the designer can choose to lie to players profusely. Not that I have ever done that mind you.

[ September 10, 2002, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: wwb_99 ]

[Battlefront.com]

Herr Oberst is correct.

There are literally hundreds of "good" ideas that made it onto our master list for possible inclusion but did not make it into the game. Why? Beacuse everything, even "trivial" things (that really are trivial), take time to design, code, and implement. And since time is limited, so too are the numbers of features we can add.

Because we try to pack as many things into our games as possible, what we call "lazy" features are very low on the priority list. Especially ones that fix "problems" that most people don't have any problem with.

Think about it... if this took an hour to implement (just a number I pulled out of thin air) and a further 1/2 hour of bug fixing we would have what in the game? A feature that is completely redundant and not even asked for by more than one? or two people (this is, in fact, the first time I have ever heard a request for a command line load feature!). In this hour and a half any number of totally NEW features could have been implemented instead. Features that were not redundant, adding something *new* to the game experience, and were requested by many people.

Life is all about choices. Coding is not exempt from this rule. We make choices based on what is best for the game. Adding a command line load feature is not necessary even if it is not a bad idea. So I'll take a new feature any day over that. I am positive that the overwhelming majority of players will agree.

Steve

[ September 10, 2002, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

In scenarios, the designer can choose to lie to players profusely. Not that I have ever done that mind you.

No? I will begin formal proceedings to have your scenerio design license revolked!

[GWDWD]

Well, then, sign me up as another whiney BS-er whose main interest is laziness and convenience.

Would it have been nice to have a PBEM system where you view a turn and plot moves with every file? Yup.

Is it a big deal? Nope.

Am I in a position to judge whether this was more important than other potential inclusions, or whether it would have been easy for BTS to implement? Of course not.

But I agree that it would have been nice.

Guy

[Fuerte]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

I agree with you Oberst. 90% of what he said is whiney BS basically a matter of laziness and convenience. The one thing that would be real, real cool to see in a patch would be command line switches to join multiplayer games.

"Whiney BS?" Do you mean what I said? The only thing that is "a matter of laziness and convenience" is the command line option! PBEM Helper already has fully automatic sending of file name and password, so the command line option is not needed anymore, but it would have been great, because it would have been much easier to implement into PBEM Helper. And I have only tested it with 1152x864 resolution.

The two other things (90%?) are much more important:

1) Faster PBEM play (replay with every turn)

2) Replay of previous turns or whole game

I have an idea how 2) could be implemented without making PBEM files any bigger:

a) Generate a GUID (Globally Unique Identifier, I'm sure that something similar exists in Mac as well) for each new game

Save this GUID with every turn file (its only 128 bits)

c) Create a subfolder MOVIES\GUID for each game

d) Save the movie from each turn into this sulfolder

e) Add controls into CMBB to view previous turns

f) When the game is over, allow viewing the game from other player's perspective, and also so that all units are visible all the time

g) Add a screen into CMBB where you can browse all these old movies, view them, delete unnecessary ones

Still I think that 1) is most important. Then you would always first view the replay, and then make moves for the next turn, in each turn! No more turns where you only either view the replay or plot moves. But we have to wait for CM II for that.

[Fuerte]

Originally posted by Fuerte:

Save this GUID with every turn file (its only 128 bits)

One more comment: This system could be used with single player and network games as well.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

There are literally hundreds of "good" ideas that made it onto our master list for possible inclusion but did not make it into the game. Why? Beacuse everything, even "trivial" things (that really are trivial), take time to design, code, and implement. And since time is limited, so too are the numbers of features we can add.

Well, I understand your rational (and believe me, I do understand design decisions) but perhaps in the next CM or a patch all the "trivial" items could be added. Trivial can add up to pretty substantial sometimes.

[Battlefront.com]

Guy,

But I agree that it would have been nice.

Just to be clear, I agree. I also agree with several hundred other "it would be nice" ideas that I seen on this Forum, many of which did in fact get serious considearation for inclusion. And dozens were only officially ruled out in the last phases of development. There is just so much time, and in CMBB's case we spent about a year more than we had planned. There simply wasn't any more time.

Fuerte,

File size isn't the main issue. Coding is. The coding to do this required the entire core game egine to be rewritten. Charles spent enough time checking into this to know that for sure. He did look for "short cuts" (otherwise known as HACKS in programming terms ) and couldn't find any way to do this. That ended the issue right there, because we are not going to rewrite the core game engine to do this THEN rewrite the entire game engine again right after.

Yes, this is having movie playback for a whole battle and improved PBEM swapping are highly desirable features. But they were not practical for CMBB. End of discussion.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Lars,

Trivial can add up to pretty substantial sometimes.

Yup. Substantial development and testing effort We did not rule out a feature request just because it was "trivial". A well polished game requires "trivial" stuff to be added, tweaked, and massaged into the right form. There are tons of things like that in CMBB. But at some point a line needs to be drawn. We could litterally work on CMBB forEVER and not be done with it. The list of "trivial" change requests that we have on hand would probably take months of solid work to implement.

What you all have to understand is that time does not begin and end with a particular project. CMBB was in part delayed because of the "trivial" and nontrivial stuff we added to CMBO. The combined features we added (someone counted, it was about 100 IIRC) did in fact delay CMBB's release by at least 2-3 months. This is not including TCP/IP, which delayed CMBB probably another 2-3 months on its own.

So for every "trivial" thing we add to CMBB in patches, that is one more delay for the new engine's final product. There is no way around that.

Again, a line has to be drawn. Some "trivial" things will likely get added in the first couple of patches, but redundant features are still very low on the list.

Steve