Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

Ok, I searched for the Conquest PBW thread to post there but couldn't find it. So I made this new thread.

What is going to happen with the Conquest PBW when I upgrade to 1.91? Will it still work? Does it need to be manually moved through the transition?

I find it strange that no one has posted about this earlier.

So? Wazzzza?

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

EDIT: I have now installed the 1.91 patch, now to see if this has broken this PBW game. (I sure hope not.)

[ February 27, 2004, 14:17: Message edited by: David E. Gervais ]

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

Yes David, the mod, and your game, will still work under 1.91.

You will of course need to play your turns with the same Version that the PBW server will be using.

What I did was install a new installation of SEIV and then update that to 191.

I have been play testing the STM mod using SE IV Version 191 without a problem. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

So, does this mean you will be updating the PBW Version to 1.91?

If not I'm out of luck. (I'm not going to have multiple Versions/installs of se4 just for the sake of playing a PBW game. the NGC4 is updating, I would suggest that the Conquest PBW game be upgraded too.

If the mod works fine with the new Version then it should be fine for everyone involved. We are just 4 players left in the game after all.)

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

I dont see any need to update the game unless others want it done. I am keeping a 184 Version on my PC.

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

All games should be updated to 1.91 immediately. There are numerous bug fixes in the new Version of SE4 that are IMO indispensible.

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

If everyone can agree on it, then I shall email Geoschmo and ask him to update the game to 191.

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

I vote to upgrade, since I have now installed the patch and will otherwise not be able to play in the Conquest PBW game.

I heard that if I play my turns with v1.91 while the PBW host is generating turns with v1.84 then my ministers will take over.

So, if you want me to keep playing I wholeheartedly vote for upgrading the Conquest PBW server/host

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually you won't be able to play your turns. You will get a message that the data files do not match.

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

You can turn off your ministers.

At the bottom of the Minister window is the option to turn of the Minsiters during simutanius play.

It reads "AI will not make changes to game" or somethimg like that.

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

Why are you taking a vote? Just upgrade the game. There is no reason not to upgrade it.

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

Well, just as I expected, I can't play the current turn due to it having been generated in v1.84.

I guess this means I'm out of this game, oh well, it was fun while it Lasted.

I hope the people remaining in the game don't run into the same problem as me. But in any case, I hope my demise due to incompatible Version numbers doesn't kill the fun for the three remaining players.

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Why would missing one turn put you out of the game? The AI can play this one for you and then you can take back over.

If you think the AI is gonna destroy your empire in one turn, then get someone else to play it for you.

Or for that matter, reinstall 1.84 on your pc and play the turn.

Geoschmo

[ February 28, 2004, 19:28: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">hmmm, get someone to play my turn, good idea thanks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

Ok, I found a good natured, good willed gentelman to process and upload my turn. (thank you very much kind Sir.)

So now I'm gonna have to insist that the host upgrade to v1.91 for the next turn.

nuf said, Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

I will email Geo now.

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

Don't mind me, I'm on a mission..

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

P.S. The game is running smoothly again, thanks Geo.

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

Ok, I just got the news that a player has dropped out of the game. SO what are we going to do?

1) Continue without him?
2) Wait for a Replacement Player?
3) Dissolve the game and find/start new ones to join?

Personally I think that whatever you decide is fine with me. I'm enjoying a ton of SE5 work right now anyway so I probably won't notice the difference. I only play the turns when I get notified by e-mail anyway. (which is usually first thing in the mornings.)

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

P.S. If you decide to abandon the game, perhaps we could share our passwords so that we can take a look at how each player was doing in the game. It's just a thought.

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

Ok, I can understand the game being removed due to too many players having left, but I still have one question,..

Was there a Winner?

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ March 19, 2004, 20:00: Message edited by: David E. Gervais ]

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

Sorry, My fault. I sometimes fail to get my feelings accross in my Posts. It was not my intent to bash PBW, it is an excellent tool to facilitate the playing of PBW games. In fact I would not have tried PBEM if this service did not exist.

When I say what I mean, I'm missunderstood. When I say what I feel, I am often missinterpreted. When I hold my tongue, there is little danger of communications failure. But to remain silent would be too cruel a prison for this often verbose individual. Life is so full of fragile toes.

Don't mind me, I'll go stand in the corner for 20 minutes and contemplate the meaning of communication. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Edit: I removed any and all offensive text from my previous post. I'll do my best to not let it happen again, sorry.

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You didn't have to go do all that. If I misinterpreted you, it's my fault, not yours. I can be rather sensitive sometimes. Sorry.

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

David the Conquest game was my fault. I planned it poorly and set it up incorrectly. For that I do sincerely apologize.

Normally most game have one or two drop outs over the course of many months. SOme have a high rate of turn over and other do not.

Again I am sorry.

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

Atrocities, I've been trying to reach you. Can you get on IM?

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh, don't be sorry, AT. I especially liked the way Conquest started out as a PBW-Athon. That was one wicked fun weekend. And, I'd love to do another PBW-Athon. I made a post about doing a 'Weekend-Warrior' type PBW-Athon where the players in game would agree to try and get as many turns in as humanly possible on weekends, and during the week a turn/day would be fine.

The trick is to find a small group of players willing to set aside some precious weekend-time for a game like this. Perhaps a "Weekend Warrior Game-of-the-month Club" where the players in the game sync up one weekend a month for a 4-6hour session. The rest of the time it would be a regular PBW.

Anyway, I'm not by any means giving up on PBW, it still beats SP by a long shot, and it is fun. (In spite of my strange record in PBW games http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif )

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

P.S. Would it be possible to get the passwords of the other players in the Conquest game so that we have a look at how well things were for everyone in that game? (my password for the Ferengi in the conquest game was "cunning" if anyone wants to look at my meager empire.)

[ March 19, 2004, 22:21: Message edited by: David E. Gervais ]

Re: Conquest PBW (Star Trek Mod v1.35) Question:
 

You are looking at it all wrong David. Do many PBW games suffer from players dropping out? Yes, of course they do. But what's the alternative?

PBW is merely a tool to facilitate PBEM games. It's a common gathering point for people interested in playing, and an machine that takes a lot of the work out of putting it together and making it go. But it's not a panacea. PBW doesn't change the nature of PBEM games, or the human nature of the people playing in them.

PBW games suffer from many of the same things that PBEM games suffer from to a certain degree. Players quit in PBEM just like in PBW. PBW just makes it easier on them so they are a little less likely to quit, and easier to find a replacment if they do.

You had a couple bad experiences. 2 out of your first 3 games had less then satisfying endings. How many of those 3 games do you think you would have even had a chance to try if PBW weren't available?

Do you seriously think that 3 games is enough of a sample to gauge the "average" PBW game? If 2 out of every 3 PBW games were as unsucessful as your experience do you seriously think it would get as much use as it does? And people would care how much when it suffered it's occasional downtime?

Don't get me wrong David. I don't mean to sound harsh. It's just that I don't like the way you critisized the whole KOTH league because of the actions of your opponent. And now you critisize the whole PBW system because of a game owner that perhaps didn't do the best job of running his game. You get out of PBW and KOTH what you put into it.

[ March 19, 2004, 12:31: Message edited by: geoschmo ]