A tighter PBEM

[soundoff]

I know much of this has been covered in other posts but if I could have one wish fulfilled it would be for a tighter PBEM system than is currently in operation. If not for AACW then for any future games from AGEod.

Problems in PBEM mode with the current game....in no particular order are:

1. No replay facility for non-host.

2. Encription with password protection barely of any use. Password protection only works on the .ord file, not on the .trn file so after completing a move it is possible for the host to view the entire dispositions of the opponent.

3.The potential to undo a move. This gives the host the ability of processing a turn, disliking the result, undoing the turn, altering the hosts move and then reprocessing.

Currently it all boils down to 'trusting your opponent' which is not really satisfactory as some of the potential problems should be easily addressable.

Regards

[runyan99]

A system similar to Combat Mission PBEM would work well for these WEGO games.

[soundoff]

A system similar to Combat Mission PBEM would work well for these WEGO games.

I had'nt thought of that Runyan but yes it would...excellent idea.

[johnnycai]

Brother, we have been down this road before.
This game is brilliant, fertile (still growing and being augmented by players and devs.) and, if playing PBEM, challenging to a degree I have not seen in any strategy game on many levels but the PBEM non-host having to rely on trust...is a major disappointment.
I read the replay feature was being looked at for the future.

Past history of these issues:
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=5752
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=1769

[Evren]

I know much of this has been covered in other posts but if I could have one wish fulfilled it would be for a tighter PBEM system than is currently in operation. If not for AACW then for any future games from AGEod.

Problems in PBEM mode with the current game....in no particular order are:

1. No replay facility for non-host.

2. Encription with password protection barely of any use. Password protection only works on the .ord file, not on the .trn file so after completing a move it is possible for the host to view the entire dispositions of the opponent.

3.The potential to undo a move. This gives the host the ability of processing a turn, disliking the result, undoing the turn, altering the hosts move and then reprocessing.

Currently it all boils down to 'trusting your opponent' which is not really satisfactory as some of the potential problems should be easily addressable.

Regards

There's one thing i wanna add though. I've hosted many times before, but i never felt the necessity to check the opponent's moves. If the aim was to score as many as possible, i'd be playing a totally different game. If i check my opponent's moves and act according to that, then where's the fun factor? Cheating makes this game so worthless, since it is about strategy and decisions (and some luck).

I support your idea of a tighter PBEM system, but i still have difficulty in understanding the idea behind cheating in such a game.

[Inside686]

I support your idea of a tighter PBEM system, but i still have difficulty in understanding the idea behind cheating in such a game

Me too but some people seem to enjoy more the fact of winning than having fun.

[tagwyn]

IMHO Any game you have to cheat in to win is going to end up on the back shelf or garbage. You are just hurting yourself. Learn to play the game correctly to enjoy it or save your money. apy:

[soundoff]

I support your idea of a tighter PBEM system, but i still have difficulty in understanding the idea behind cheating in such a game.

Me also but as someone else said to some folks winning is all consequently I still contend that taking away the ability to cheat would be no bad thing given that the current PBEM system makes it so so easy to do...if you are that way inclined.

Now me...well my PBEM opponent have been wargaming together for over 25 years and we would know that something was up if one of us was that lucky/brilliant that often. Thats why we have a house rule that neither of us when hosting uses the replay facility. However you dice it up it provides an unfair advantage to one side. And I hate the arguement that 'it evens itself up in the games you are not hosting '

Regards

[pepe4158]

Say not the same concept but kinda ties in, as I understand Pocus and his crew are in the stages of testing a beta network version of PvP.
I am certainly not privy to the details, but if a charge is needed to be paid by participants, I would certainly for 1, be willing to pay for a networked version of this game played simultaneously.

Personally I think its laughable that anyone considers themselves good at any game because they win in a PBEM type of enviornment.---so cheating or winning is irrelevent to me IMO, I play by e-mail only because I enjoy the interaction of other players who like the game too.

PvP gamming is almost kind of a cult like following, and you will find the attitudes of those involved (in this genre of gamming) consider that, if you didnt win your game on a network and neutral host, your win is meaningless.

Its funny sometimes I am out-of-touch with the attitudes of others on the net, and gamming attitudes out there. I usually relie on my nephew for information as he litteraly seems to have 100's of subscribtions to gamming networks and PvP games of all genres. He just rolled his eyes when I mentioned PBEM lol.

[Rafiki]

(...) as I understand Pocus and his crew are in the stages of testing a beta network version of PvP.

You know, pepe, sometimes I wonder if we are reading the same forums

[pepe4158]

lol...hmm quess not eh?
Was referring to this post actually Raf...hope I didnt imply too much?

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=8934

[Rafiki]

I'm not privy to AGEOD's development plans, nor will I discuss details of what goes on or not in betaland, but I have a hard time seeing how you might get such an understanding

EDIT: (based on your edit) My words above stand, but I now see how you might get such an understanding. Gray_Lensman's words are his own, and I'll leave it to him to clarify in whatever way he deems suitable

[pepe4158]

Lol....I dont have any understanding...I tried to make it clear.

It wasnt a hard quess though, thats where you would want to go with these good products though Raf, and a hope as a consumer you would.

It wasnt genius on my part to see that would be your next logical step lol

[Rafiki]

I have hopes myself that AGEOD will provide an online server/system for PBEM'ish games at some point

[johnnycai]

I have hopes myself that AGEOD will provide an online server/system for PBEM'ish games at some point

That would be sweet!
Players email there orders to a server.
Server emails the trn files to each player after turn resolution.

Neither side has replay, unless and until AGEOD can address this.
No more worries of host getting any advantages.

Motion is seconded, can we vote on this now?

[Rafiki]

Players email there orders to a server.
Server emails the trn files to each player after turn resolution.:

- Player opens "Server screen" from the main game screen
- Player gets list of games he is participating in, some of which have been processed since his last visit, some have not.
- Game downloads new trn-files for the games which have been resolved.
- Player can join new games announced at the server, or start new games himself.
- New games are either open or invitational (in case the player starting it wants to play against specific opponent(s)).
- When player is done placing orders for a given game, player can click a button to upload the ord-files to the server.
- Whenever the server sees that all ord-files for a given game have been uploaded, it processes the turn and makes the new .trn-files available to the players.
- For multiple-players-for-single-faction games (Grand Campaign! ), the server needs to support download of ord-files and to wait for acknowledgement from all players before processing, with further support for "forcing" a turn's resolution, in case a player is AWOL.

That's my vision of it, at least

[pepe4158]

Yeah yours sounds the most common scenario I see currently used on servers now Raf; especially the abiliy to start a new game or join a game someone else wished to start.
Hmmm thats right too...for your Napolean game you could have multi-opponets too joining one game right?.....well that would definitly make up my mind on that game as I am fence sitting now on it.

[Banks6060]

I would be VERY surprised to see someone that would cheat at this game. It absolutely ruins the experience...and I don't care if you're getting your butt wooped....(eh ehm...skibear you can chime in anytime here...). It's so much more fun to grit it out and try to make somethin' out of it.

I think you're a fricken wuss if you cheat. Especially at such a great game like this.

However....I do dig the idea of a dual replay feature....I've stopped watching the replay on games that I host simply because I don't want to have an advantage over my opponent. I'd say the only real value of the replay is that during battles....the host can tell you how close the fight actually was.

my 2 cents there....

[pepe4158]

Thks Banks for weighing in.

As I really think its the player interest that will motivate Pocus and Raf on this issue,as I can not speak for all, but as I said I would be even willing to pay extra for such a service and would love to see it.

My point is PvP is almost its own cult like genre in itself, and if PvP players ever want to take themselves seriously here, the need of a neutral host as a networked server seems a must. I imagine that many PvP players here are pretty hard-core...dunno just a quess.

Now everyone always trys to take me on in what I think are givens lol....but comon isnt this a given, the need at some point for a networked game?

[W.Barksdale]

Personally, I don't know how anyone could get any kind of satisfaction by winning only through deceit. However, a neutral turn processing mechanism would be a wonderful addition to ageod's PVP games if there ever was one.

[Pocus]

trn should be encrypted as ord if you play with password. if not we have a bug.

There is a new feature helping PBEMers in BOA2. Give us some time and I'm sure it will be added back to AACW.

As for the online server, it is a huge work. We did some work on it, but I fear it will not be past alpha shape until we have a paid freelance doing the job, as it is too much for a volunteer.

ARES, although not an online server, was the first step into automating things, with the next step being integration into the game (of ARES), before continuing on a match-making online server.

[Turbo823]

I know much of this has been covered in other posts but if I could have one wish fulfilled it would be for a tighter PBEM system than is currently in operation. If not for AACW then for any future games from AGEod.

Problems in PBEM mode with the current game....in no particular order are:

1. No replay facility for non-host.

2. Encription with password protection barely of any use. Password protection only works on the .ord file, not on the .trn file so after completing a move it is possible for the host to view the entire dispositions of the opponent.

3.The potential to undo a move. This gives the host the ability of processing a turn, disliking the result, undoing the turn, altering the hosts move and then reprocessing.

Currently it all boils down to 'trusting your opponent' which is not really satisfactory as some of the potential problems should be easily addressable.

Regards

You can waste a lot of time and resources trying to prevent cheating and no matter what the remedy is, there will be a loophole -- somewhere that some exploits.

It becomes fairly obvious quickly who cheats and who does not during play. THis is a tight community of people on here, and the word will travel quickly about those players to avoid and not play with. Safeguards against cheaters do not produce players with integrity.