PBW, First Impressions.. (Multiplayer discussion)

[DavidG]

Originally posted by TerranC:
5) It would also be very nice if 'encounters' were handled in real-time.

Get the PBW Real Time client. It's in your SE4 Gold CD. [/QB]

??? Is he not talking about SE4 tactical combat here?

[Cipher7071]

Don't feel like the Lone Ranger David Gervais. I just got into my first PBW game too. There aren't a lot of Version 1.49 games to choose from, so I took over an empire. If you want a challenging experience, try that. I think maybe some players who abandon games do it because things have gone slightly wrong...

Hmmmm...let me see if I can get out of this mess.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by David E. Gervais:
1) The game should not close at the end of each turn. (this way the player could overview his/her empire while waiting for the next PBW turn to be available.)
Typical PBW games don't move at the speed of your first game there. When the next turn is coming in a day instead of ten minutes you aren't going to want to sit there waiting.


3) The player sould be notified in the game when the next turn is ready and have a 'Get next PBW turn' button/indicator.PBW Real Time Client does help with this, and auto launches your turn for you when it's ready. Although again, this is a only a factor because you are playing an extremely fast game. Typically in PBW game you aren't sitting around waiting for the next turn.

5) It would also be very nice if 'encounters' were handled in real-time.Not sure what you are suggesting here, but it sounds like you maybe are asking for tactical combat? In theory, I have no objection to tactical combat. However, I have not heard of a suggestion that sounds at all workable for more then a two player game. Tactical combat can take many minutes to resolve between two individuals, and in the mean time everybody not in combat is sitting around doing nothing.

As the other guy said, PBW wasn't designed to function as TCP/IP but to streamline teh file handling for PBEM. With RTC though it comes close to TCP/IP functionality.

[ January 18, 2004, 17:47: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Master Belisarius]

David: although I understand your concerns and mostly agree, really I think ONE thing MUST BE fixed yes or yes: WHY is not allowed to save the turn in simultaneous games??? Don't understand why Aaron doesn't fixed it yet... In games when you spent 30-60 minutes to do your moves, you could lose everything if your computer hang up or something like that...

[David E. Gervais]

Thanks for the comments, (so far) to clarify one thing,..

5) It would also be very nice if 'encounters' were handled in real-time.

by this I mean when you 'encounter' other races and get to do the 'treaty thing'. It would be nice if a 'dialogue' opened up between the parties. (not just I propose this,.. accept, refuse?) My thoughts behind this are to make 'first encounters' (especially in PBW or any multiplayer) more dynamic.

My main feeling after playing PBW-Athon was that there was much interest and fun potential in having faster paced multiplayer games. Think of it like this, sure you can play a game of chess over the net with 1 or 2 turns a day over an extended period, but It hardly compares to a real-time game of 30-45 mins. (the game [chess] is still turn based, but there is a lot to be said for the 'pace' of a live game.)

As to the saving/loading. uploading/downloading, opening/closing, etc. I left the game feeling like the 'Mechanics' of PBW got in the way of the gameplay of PBW. IMHO The 'Mechanics' of multiplayer needs to be transparent and imbedded in the game. I shouldn't have to go to a website, log in a chat room, run MS Messenger and check my e-mail every 5 mins to enjoy the game.

Bottom line Playing PBW felt more like 'work' than 'play', and spreading the 'work' over days instead of hours does not IMHO reduce or eliminate the 'mechanical' tasks that are involved. There is definately room for improvement. I am hoping that togeather we can discuss alternate possibilities.

Nuf said, Cheers!

P.S. The PBW game is a bLast, and I had/am having fun, but it left an aftertaste. Know what I mean?

[ January 18, 2004, 18:23: Message edited by: David E. Gervais ]

[geoschmo]

David, I don't diasgree there is room for improvment. However I sumbit the only reason you feel that the PBW mechanics got in the way of the game is that you have never tried to participate in a PBEM game of Se4 without it. You will find it's much superior to the alternative.

Also, if you try the RTC program I think you will find it eliminates a lot things you still take issue with. You can use it for your exsisting game that is still going on. It doesn't have a chat feature, but it totally automates the file handling and launches the executable.

Geoschmo

[David E. Gervais]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
David, I don't diasgree there is room for improvment. However I sumbit the only reason you feel that the PBW mechanics got in the way of the game is that you have never tried to participate in a PBEM game of Se4 without it. You will find it's much superior to the alternative.

Geoschmo

True, I did jump into the 'deep-end' by joining the PBW-Athon for my first venture into SE:Multiplayer.

I totally understand the idea and funcionality of PBEM. It's a more leisurely pace where speed has little or no value. I'm not saying anything bad about PBEM. I'm just saying that personally I think there is much potential in having a faster paced game option available. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the TPC/IP option is more or less for 'networks' and not so much across the internet.

I'm having trouble putting my finger on what exactly is missing to have that kind of option. (faster gameplay in multiplayer) But after yesterday's game, I can tell you there is definately interest and potential if that kind of gameplay was added to SE:4/5.

I think this a worthy and worthwhile topic to discuss. (not how I feel about the PBW experience) But discuss the highs and lows of multiplayer and what can be done to enhance and improve that experience.

...follow the bouncing ball,.. Cheers!