Multiplayer Game Description Window

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:49 pm

The hope for this is that eventually, certain phrases will become so common they become abbreviated.

For example, I currently have 2 paired challenges of Urban Warfare, but they are each aimed at a very different type of player.

One has been tagged: "Newbie Friendly"
The other has been tagged: "Double Blind, Experienced Player."
In the future if this catches on, we may simply have games marked as 'NF' or 'DB, EP'

This is a very helpful tool for communicating with your fellow gamers, I hope to see you all making excellent use of it.

El_Condoro · Post by **El_Condoro** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:44 pm

I can see the use of these acronyms but the risk is alienating new players. I know I hate it when people speak/write in acronyms that I don't know the meaning of! As long as there is an easily accessible explanation of what they mean it will make life easier IMO.

DD976 · Post by **DD976** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:12 am

El_Condoro wrote:I can see the use of these acronyms but the risk is alienating new players. I know I hate it when people speak/write in acronyms that I don't know the meaning of! As long as there is an easily accessible explanation of what they mean it will make life easier IMO.

I tend to agree, as long as the use of acronyms doesn't get to crazy things should be fine. The players tend to use them more then the game or devs unless they know they are speaking to a expereinced player. I notice this in other games that once you see or hear a acronym you have to just ask if you don't know.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:20 am

Perhaps I wasn't being clear. The description area is somewhere you can type anything you want.

If enough people play the game regularly, the players themselves may come up with shorthand. There are is a 32 character limit, so "Newbie Friendly!" Fits just fine, but "Experienced Player, Double Blind, No Air, No Tiger II" doesn't. If the system gets used enough, that will simply become EP DB NA NKT because the players and community itself is familiar with those game modes.

DD976 · Post by **DD976** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:11 am

Kerensky wrote:Perhaps I wasn't being clear. The description area is somewhere you can type anything you want.

If enough people play the game regularly, the players themselves may come up with shorthand. There are is a 32 character limit, so "Newbie Friendly!" Fits just fine, but "Experienced Player, Double Blind, No Air, No Tiger II" doesn't. If the system gets used enough, that will simply become EP DB NA NKT because the players and community itself is familiar with those game modes.

Agreed. Thanks

tnourie · Post by **tnourie** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:35 am

I've never used this term "Paired Game" before and it sounds interesting! What is it?

grabbysnatch · Post by **grabbysnatch** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:41 pm

I wasnt sure what a paired game is either. Can someone also explain why whenever I go to play a multiplayer game, they are all locked for private gaming. Does this not defeat the object of beta testing when you cant get on to test the game? I have started a few of my own which I have running, but struggle to find new ones

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 2:29 pm

Locked games are private challenges where players are trying to play a specific opponent. The reason there are rarely challenges visible is that they get accepted so quickly! People prefer to accept than issue challenges. There is more demand than supply. Its just human nature.

To help you can just issue a few challenges and I'm sure they will quickly be snapped up!

Razz1 · Post by **Razz1** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 4:12 pm

I hate paired games. you might as well play with FOG off.

Paired games = 1 game each player for each side.

Problem is you move as Axis, then boot up the game as Allies and you can see everything.

As the game progress opponents buying and movement will be different but you can easily tell what you are up against.

I prefer to play a game complete as one side and then the the other.

You can easily predict where your opponent will move and what they have as all you have to do is boot up the other game as the opposite side.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:54 pm

Paired game actually works wonderfully for my 'high mystery' scenario design. I'm playing a dual game of Hylan Valley with Terhune that looks completely different in both games. One of them somehow turned into North vs South game.

In the normal single play scenarios though, yea it's a problem. But that's why we have special MP scenarios!

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 1:03 am

Paired games are great for competitions to ensure 100% fair play. I think you'll be surprised how much things can vary based on tactics and post mission purchases.

If you don't like them - don't use them

El_Condoro · Post by **El_Condoro** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 1:54 am

If MP campaigns are ever envisaged for PzC the difference between aux and core should be hidden from the opponent - otherwise they always target the core units. This may never be in PzC but it can be done in PG2 and this issue is what kills it for me - the unrealistic targeting of core units. Just an idea.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 2:32 am

iainmcneil wrote:Paired games are great for competitions to ensure 100% fair play. I think you'll be surprised how much things can vary based on tactics and post mission purchases.

If you don't like them - don't use them

Bolded the key part. Exactly why many of our MP scenarios are designed to give both players small starting cores, but lots of extra core space and lots of starting prestige.

Hylan Valley has 29/30 core slots, 5700/5700 initial prestige, but the starting statistics only look like:
[AXIS]
Total units: 16 (cost=4967)
Core units: 16 (cost=4967)
Aux units: 0 (cost=0)

[ALLIES]
Total units: 16 (cost=4190)
Core units: 16 (cost=4190)
Aux units: 0 (cost=0)

Initially, I wasn't a fan of the idea of Paired Games, but I became a believer.
Although for the record after the new price balancing, Hylan Valley seems to favor the Germans, so additional balancing may be required there (more British prestige).

El_Condoro wrote:If MP campaigns are ever envisaged for PzC the difference between aux and core should be hidden from the opponent - otherwise they always target the core units. This may never be in PzC but it can be done in PG2 and this issue is what kills it for me - the unrealistic targeting of core units. Just an idea.

I disagree. The first thing I'd go for are the AUX units. Killing off the AUX are the key to winning the battle, although killing off CORES may be the key to winning the war.
Why? Because AUX units are irreplaceable. If you have 20 core units and 8 aux units, and you lose 8 core units, you can buy them back. If you lose 8 aux units, you are left with 20 units on the board, the other 8 slots (8 units generating 1 move, 1 attack, and ZOC every turn) are lost.

El_Condoro · Post by **El_Condoro** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 2:35 am

I disagree. The first thing I'd go for are the AUX units. Killing off the AUX are the key to winning the battle, although killing off CORES may be the key to winning the war.

Fair enough but that just emphasises my point from the other side of the view - in any case aux/core should be identical to the opponent.

Razz1 · Post by **Razz1** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 3:53 am

WOW!

I did not know that you can not replace aux units in MP

Multiplayer Game Description Window

Multiplayer Game Description Window

Forgive me, but what is a "paired game"?