SE4 TCP/IP use poll

PvK · #1 January 11th, 2004, 04:15 AM

I'm curious how much the TCP/IP feature in SE4 Gold has been used.

Captain Kwok · #2 January 11th, 2004, 04:37 AM

I've used TCP/IP a few times with few or no problems on my end, but many others have had complications with it at the same time. I'd like to see the interface and execution improved to make it much more worthwhile.

Atrocities · #3 January 11th, 2004, 04:47 AM

I will have detailed post about TCI/IP play in a while, but I feel it is an important part of the game and with improvements will become widely used.

TerranC · #4 January 11th, 2004, 04:58 AM

I guess I'm the only one that doesn't care about TCP/IP.

IMHO, I think it's just gravy on a big fat steak; the game can still be good without it, and it would be better with it, but it doesn't have to have it.

PvK · #5 January 11th, 2004, 05:28 AM

You were the only one in the first four votes, but I tend to agree with you, TerranC. I'm rather intrigued that someone has already claimed to have completed multiple TCP/IP games - I didn't think it'd be very likely, unless in a LAN setting.

PvK

Fyron · #6 January 11th, 2004, 05:36 AM

One possible venue in which TCP/IP is useful... very highly likely that there are a lot more than just that one person that have completed games via TCP/IP (even excluding those people that s/he player the game(s) with).

Another way in which it shines is if there are 2 human players. In that case, it is definitely faster than PBW, by far. It is only when you start getting more players that PBW is faster.

Also, I have been able to get TCP/IP to work through various firewalls without a hitch (both on my end and the other players ends). Is this a corporate firewall for an office building of some sort that you can not get it to work through PvK? I assume you tried port forwarding and DMZ server already.

[ January 11, 2004, 03:40: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Atrocities · #7 January 11th, 2004, 06:01 AM

It would be ideal for competative or Lan play.

DavidG · #8 January 11th, 2004, 06:18 AM

in the Last question surely this part:

"TCP/IP is impractical because the turns take so long to play" is a failure of SE4 as opposed to a failure of TCP/IP as the question implys and thus if you think this maybe you should pick the Last option that is SE4 needs much more work making TCP/IP work

Atrocities · #9 January 11th, 2004, 06:21 AM

I think it important to mention that many games like SEIV have had TCI/IP play and they all worked about as well as SEIV.

Rebellion and BOTF. BOTF was a buggy POS when TCI/IP play was used and people used the CHAT feature.

Rebellion worked ok but took a long time to process turns.

PvK · #10 January 11th, 2004, 06:29 AM

I've got firewalls both at home and at work, but I only tried on the home firewall. I tried to open a port on the home firewall and it didn't seem to work, but I only tried for a while. It's good to hear that you've been able to get it to work through a firewall.

I've played several two-player games via PBW. When the turns were short and we were both at hand, we burned through turns with hardly any delay, and it didn't seem at all inconvenient to me. I suppose it is a little more cumbersome than TCP/IP would be, particularly for novice Users, but it's hard to feel like TCP/IP would add a lot. And I know you folks are by no means novice Users, so that's why it's a bit hard for me to understand.

That, and the time needed to complete even a single turn later on in the game, even on a small map against one opponent. In two-player PBW, even if you're not both on at the same time, you usually get to do two turns in a row, which can be up to two hours late in the game.

PvK