PBEM and FTF not that different after all??

[NeverMan]

So, I was hoping to post this and see what everyone else thinks.

I am currently in 4 games, only 1 of which is running at the moment.

One of the big arguments for PBEM is that you don't lose players as often. On this, I disagree.

1 of my games is stalled due to bug. 1 of my games is new (1st month) and is running. My 2 other games have just lost 2 players each and are both in threat of being restarted (although I think hopefully we will continue on in both).

My point is that this is no different than my expereinces with FTF. I have had the good luck of finishing several EiA games; however, that is a small percentage of all the games I have been involved with. Most often, even in FTF games players leave for some reason or another. I think that with PBEM one reason people leave is due to the lack of play. It is very easy to become disinterested in a game after playing for 6 months (real time) and having only done 3 months (play time).

Far too often I have gotten into a game deep and then ended up delcaring a winner too early and restarting due to player lose.

So, my question is: What are your experiences with this and do you think IP play would help at all?

[bresh]

I do think, you can avoid loosing players, the game is running over a long period.
But in time we wont see players dropping out, cause they are fed up with bugs (Hopefully). 

Then we can cut it down to personal stuff, private life, time etc, and maybe less dropouts.

Regards
Bresh

[Jimmer]

This game as it is has a lot lower actual playing time required, mainly because it is PBEM. If it were face-to-face or Internet, the time spent would be dramatically increased (probably by a factor of around 10). Internet would have the advantage over F2F that you could walk away for short times, but you would still be locked into playing for time spans of 1 or more hours at a time. The PBEM game requires only a couple of minutes per phase.
 
Where PBEM breaks down is the CALENDAR time spent. It smokes the other two with minutes spent working on it, but it takes a much longer period of time to get things done.
 
So, if you want to target people quitting and try to get them to not quit, I don't think it makes any difference. In fact, I would guess the order of "most quitters per player" ratio would be F2F, then Internet, and finally PBEM (which is one very good reason why the people who were asked what to focus on almost unanimously said "PBEM").
 
However, ANY of the three would suffer large player loss simply due to bugs. Bugs are unrelated to the mode of playing, except that IP bugs would be a lot more common than PBEM bugs, and both would be orders of magnitude higher than F2F (since there are essentially zero bugs in F2F -- no computer).
 
So, IMO, the priority should be to keep focusing on PBEM, BUT get rid of the bugs. Keep releases coming OFTEN (we're on our third since release, and it's been 9 bug-filled months -- that's rediculous). We should be seeing significant bug-fix patches at least monthly if we expect to keep player interest up. I can tolerate bugs, but not when they stop the game for a month or more at a time.
 
However, they may be a hybrid solution that might make this work out: Add in an "alarm clock" of some sort. It wouldn't be set to go off at any certain time, but rather to "ring a bell" when ever one's turn has come due. It would have to be VERY concise. Picture a widget that knew to go to (for example) Google groups under "CleverDevils2" and scan for changes on the web page with files in it. When it finds them, download them to the right location and start ringing a bell (or, playing the 1812 overture, in this case).
 
It would have to have a set of controls that would allow the user to turn it off and on, set it up on a schedule, etc.
 
I've seen such things done professionally, but I'm not sure I could write one myself. However, it could easily be completely independent of the game itself (unlike the GAP, which produces an end-product that is used by the game). I'm betting my daughter could have written this when she was in college (no, sorry,  I can't ask -- she just got married).
 
Marshall? How feasible is this?

[NeverMan]

Jimmer,

I disagree with two of your points:

1. Player interest in PBEM games: I myself have often thought about quitting ALL my PBEM games based solely on the slow factor. The game is so slow that it's almost not worth playing, IMO. I convinced myself to keep playing based on this same fact: that the game is so slow it takes up almost none of my time and therefore I'm not losing much to these games, other than interest. I think there are quite a few people who are not being heard who would greatly value IP play. ALSO, you said the people "polled" in the beginning....these are the same people who lead us to where we are now: a very unbalanced Empires in Harms, so I'm not sure their opinion is valid to me anymore.

2. I believe that the widget would be very difficult to program, even for a master Java/Webber. How would you read the file names to know who's turn it is? What if the files names are not all in the same format (as you often only post your files as GreatBritian.zip yourself, while sometimes other use different convention, particularly if they are posting a combined Land/Land Combat or Naval/Naval Combat or Dip/Reinf, etc). On top of all the techincial problems with this idea, there is the simple question: is it worth it? The answer: no. It's not worth it. It's so much easier the way it is now to send an email to the group letting the group know who's turn it is. If the person ignores the email who's to say he/she won't ignore this widget as well?

[RayKinStL]

I think the ideal solution would be a seemless integration of the two.  So a way for the players to load all save files (or a master save file from the host) to do some hours on IP-play, and then to switch to PBEM until the next time everyone can agree to be on at the same time.  This way the game is always moving somewhat.  Conceptually, I don't think this would be too hard, especially if you off-load the chat server onto a third party app the group would agree on (like AIM or Yahoo).

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL

I think the ideal solution would be a seemless integration of the two.  So a way for the players to load all save files (or a master save file from the host) to do some hours on IP-play, and then to switch to PBEM until the next time everyone can agree to be on at the same time.  This way the game is always moving somewhat.  Conceptually, I don't think this would be too hard, especially if you off-load the chat server onto a third party app the group would agree on (like AIM or Yahoo).

Ray, I had mentioned this in another thread awhile back. A hybrid is the ideal situation. Going from IP back to PBEM back to IP back to PBEM, etc.... would be the best choice and I think a bit of a new one on most War Games.

[RayKinStL]

Definitely.  Plus enhancements would be satisfying 2 of the 3 camps, and would allow Marshall to throw in some AI enhancements each Beta to keep everyone happy.  Because any PBEM enhancements help the IP players and vice versa.  The can can always be "moving".  I don't think IP play would be that hard.  The hardest part would be the communication interface, and I honeslty think you could just offload that onto third party apps of the players/hosts choice.

[bOrIuM]

I dont agree that internet play will improve the speed of a game and prevent drop of player since EiA is a turn based game. Will you stay in front of your computer for 1 hour waiting for your turn to come ? I dont agree with that, and according to real games, it is hard to get, every week, 7 players playing at the same time.

For this, I agree whit neverman, to possibility to go PBEM and IP play, for the same game.

[RayKinStL]

borium...IP is internet play.  What are you talking about?  And yes, I would totally sit in front of computer, with the TV on in the background and play.  I've sat in front of my computer before playing 5 hours of AI gameplay.  Internet/IP play would be a million tims better than PBEM.  The only reason people don't do FTF now is because of the distance between everyone.  If IP is done right, many people will find games that have similar times for all players and they will utilize this...just like if they lived in the same city.

[Marshall Ellis]

We do lose players constantly BUT there always seems to be a pool of players for replacements (FNGs LOL!) if you will that will come in IF their proposed MP is not in shattered condition. I've seen Au and Pr drop out more often when they become shattered after the first big war with Fr. Finding someone who would take this position can be difficult.
 
What if we were to allow a VP signing bonus given to the new player? I've thought of this before and it might add a little extra incentive to a new player to take and rebuild a shattered MP??? Thoughts?
 
 

[borner]

I agree a minority of players would meet at the same time every week to play, but I think the majority of people are going to stick with PBEM. I am in games with people from Germany to Australia. getting everyone together would understandable be difficult. However, with the right group, games can make progress.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

We do lose players constantly BUT there always seems to be a pool of players for replacements (FNGs LOL!) if you will that will come in IF their proposed MP is not in shattered condition. I've seen Au and Pr drop out more often when they become shattered after the first big war with Fr. Finding someone who would take this position can be difficult.

What if we were to allow a VP signing bonus given to the new player? I've thought of this before and it might add a little extra incentive to a new player to take and rebuild a shattered MP??? Thoughts?

That's what Guy asked for a long time ago: Some kind of editor that allows game changes to be made after the game has started. I think he called it a "host editor". IMO, it's an absolute requirement to salvage games where a nation has been taken to the cleaners and then the player quit.

[borner]

Yes, a host editor is a must at some point...... along with some sort of notification that goes to all players if something is changed, to ensure honesty. if you had the editor, many bugs become much less of an issue.
 

[yammahoper]

Would love IP play.  Twice, maybe three times a year, I could get together a group for three straight days of hammering away at are yearly LANS.
 
yamma

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

We do lose players constantly BUT there always seems to be a pool of players for replacements (FNGs LOL!) if you will that will come in IF their proposed MP is not in shattered condition. I've seen Au and Pr drop out more often when they become shattered after the first big war with Fr. Finding someone who would take this position can be difficult.

What if we were to allow a VP signing bonus given to the new player? I've thought of this before and it might add a little extra incentive to a new player to take and rebuild a shattered MP??? Thoughts?

That's what Guy asked for a long time ago: Some kind of editor that allows game changes to be made after the game has started. I think he called it a "host editor". IMO, it's an absolute requirement to salvage games where a nation has been taken to the cleaners and then the player quit.

You're right but this is the best answer for those folks that think this is too much power for the host. We did add the ability to add pp and money in 1.03 and that should go a long way to helping BUT do we need to give the ability to add vps as well OR is money and PP enough?

[NeverMan]

If I was in a game where a replacement player got "extra" stuff, the game would be looking for another replacement player.

[bresh]

Can the host editor only add pps/$, not subtract ?

I thought lets say you really want to use the 2 capitals for Russia, host could if Russia lost st. Petersburg, remove the extra cash(in eco-phase), maybe if Russia then goes bankrupt, reduce pp standing as if.

Regards
Bresh

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
You're right but this is the best answer for those folks that think this is too much power for the host. We did add the ability to add pp and money in 1.03 and that should go a long way to helping BUT do we need to give the ability to add vps as well OR is money and PP enough?

I think as much as can be done should be done. Money and PP is a good start, but other things that have needed correction (due to bugs) included:

VP
Money lost due to invalid econ. manipulation
Money GAINED due to invalid econ. manipulation
Troops gained or lost due to bugs
Control of minor neutral (this one could be tough to program)

All of the above are from real incidents in real games where a bug caused said loss (or gain, occasionally).

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
You're right but this is the best answer for those folks that think this is too much power for the host.

Too much power? That's impossible, as long as the changes are properly logged. Any host that tried to cheat using this would quickly find himself lacking players.

[eske]

How about making it possible to host a game without being a player?

/eske