SE5, Tell Aaron what's on your Wish List

[PvK]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The entire point of TCP/IP is to have the people together at once, all playing at the same time. Thinking of it in terms of PBEM/PBW is a mistake.

Gee, thanks Fryon. Rel helpful. With that insight, I think I'll try to run an SE4 game via TCP/IP. It will be really neat around turn 80, when some people take 1-2 hours to do their turns. We can send Messages to each other about how we wish Aaron would engineer a build-in chat engine, since it will be so much more fun than using, say, chat software, to chat. I'm sure there will be no problem keeping all the players connected.

PvK

[PvK]

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
Why not add a TCP/IP mode like Dom2 has - instead of requiring everyone to be together, one player sets up a server and the others connect to him to submit their turns - in other words, a private, built-in PBW? ...

The reason that comes to mind is that, if there is a PBW, there isn't much need for this (unless PBW crashes). PBW is more convenient in most cases, because the a player-server requires that player to almost constantly run a computer with the server process.

The more ways to play, the merrier, except for the time needed to develop and test all those ways.

PvK

[Fyron]

Originally posted by PvK:
Gee, thanks Fryon. Rel helpful. With that insight, I think I'll try to run an SE4 game via TCP/IP. It will be really neat around turn 80, when some people take 1-2 hours to do their turns. We can send Messages to each other about how we wish Aaron would engineer a build-in chat engine, since it will be so much more fun than using, say, chat software, to chat. I'm sure there will be no problem keeping all the players connected.

PvK

Yes, and? The people that TCP/IP is designed for are more than willing to wait that hour or two (this is of course assuming that when it takes one player 2 hours to play it takes others like 10 minutes to play...). Other things can be done while waiting. Just because it does not suit your play style does not mean it is not good for others, or that you need to make sarcastic remarks about it.

[PvK]

The sarcasm was about your response, not so much about TCP/IP mode itself.

PvK

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by PvK:
Do people actually use the TCP/IP mode? It doesn't work through my NAT firewall, PBW works just as well and is far easier to set up and more reliable, and after the first few turns, it's much less convenient to try to get people to play together at the same time and the same pace.

PvK

Man my ISP is booking today, Increadable speeds. I think TCI/IP play is very important and must be fixed.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by PvK:
The sarcasm was about your response, not so much about TCP/IP mode itself.

Either way it was still uncalled for. I was just trying to help you out.

[Captain Kwok]

I've only had a few successful games on PBW and that was usually with Fyron in a 2 player game with some AIs.

There's too many hiccups that can cause the whole tcp/ip not function correctly and that makes it not very useful.

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PvK:
The sarcasm was about your response, not so much about TCP/IP mode itself.

Either way it was still uncalled for. I was just trying to help you out.

---

Everyone has a bad day, I wouldn't worry about it Fyron.

[PvK]

Sorry Fryon, if you were really just trying to help. Seemed to me like you were dismissively telling me my question was irrelevant, but I don't see that it is.

I don't see much that TCP/IP offers that PBW + IRC/email doesn't offer, without any development cost.

TCP/IP forces people to only play when connected, but that's a limitation which could be matched by players' will or gamemaster enforcement, if the goal is to force people to all play at the same time.

The performance gain is minimal - I've played PBW two-player games and the first few turns go by with hardly any delay.

Is it just that people don't want to have to alt+tab to IRC, email, and/or PBW? Or the illusion that TCP/IP offers something that PBW doesn't? It seems cooler? The slightly improved convenience makes all the difference?

Am I missing something?

PvK

[AMF]

One thing that I think would be cool to implement in SEIV or SEV would be the ability to create unique facilities for which the player provides the description and which have no game effect. This would be entirely for role-playing and personal edification purposes.

For example, in one of my games I play a race known as the Exiles of Kor. They worship Kor. It would be cool if I could start a giant monolithic construction on one of my worlds, call it "The Great Temple of Kor" give it a cost (say 50Kt Min) and just build it.

It would have ZERO game effect, other than to take up a facility slot, but it would have potentially LOTS of role-playing effect. My bitter enemies could try to sabotage it, I could be forced to keep fleets there to defend it, etc...

Another player recently wanted to role play and international casino empire, well, they could do this in part by building a "casino complex" which, again, has no game effect, but has lots of role playing effect. It could be the destination of regular trading vessels, etc...

if I ever survive the Klackons in my other game, I can tell ou I'd devote a lot of resources to building a giant memorial to the billions they killed on Earth...

There are plenty of options. This sort of "role playing project" works to great effect in other games I am familiar with (see http://www.throneworld.com/lords/index.jsp).

Now, those of you out there who are scoffing that "but why would anyone spend resources without any benefit? It's stupid!" may scoff away. But I can tell you that this free-form ability to role play can lend itself to a more satisfying role playing environment on many occasions.

Thanks,

Alarik