Slitherine

The issue has been the not knowing when the multiplayer server will be switched over. This game has a great tradition of leagues and tournaments but we have been without league play (and many tournaments) for the whole year because Pete understandably doesn't want to put a ton of effort into organizing the season only to have it fall through halfway through and have to start from scratch.

You've done a great job Dan, I'm feeling like Slitherine is dropping the ball here. The most recent version is easily the best yet and to me it seems it should just be released so we can at least start revitalizing the community and running leagues and tournaments again. I'm optimistically hoping 2.0 and Wolves from the Sea are out by Christmas.

over at pike and shot, they're running two separate servers for the old and the new (campaigns) versions. I'm doubtful once the new fog version comes out, they'll cut off the old server right away. fog doesn't take up a lot of bandwidth and they have no economic imperative to pull it.

the issue with the league is that it wants to be big and all-encompassing; big in that it typically requires 40 players (not happening now), and all-encompassing in that it has steadily moved into specialized tournaments territory (look at the latest proposals that lift stuff straight out of the lords and other stuff that had already crept in like historical scenarios in asymmetrical setups, troops restrictions (the 50/10 light troops rule comes right out of lords of italy 280)). the tournaments eco-system used to be more varied. it's like walmart against the mom and pop stores.

i've been critical of the upgrade process from the beginning. it's a ridiculously drawn-out process that seems to respect no timeline. is there even a project manager at slitherine? they are totally oblivious to the fact they have decimated a once vibrant community.

cothyso wrote:huh? I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the beta build always worked online (the only period in which it wasn't was during the MP communication protocol update and MP gameflow update, but that was over a year ago, or so).

Why would that be a disappointment? That's great news, so I can just click the multiplayer button now and play DAG games over the PBEM server?

I went on just now and while the button works, there doesn't appear to be a single challenge out there. Has the player base just died off over the years of waiting, or are they still on the old version? I've only recently returned to FOG, so I hope some others know what's happening.

There was no such thing as decimating a community. What happened is the normal process of erosion happening to each game/community over a long period of time. GBCE guys know it well.

The love for ancient tactical wargaming could not and have not left anyone, as it hadn't left me from all these last 20 years or so. As soon as it will be launched, many of them will come back. And as soon as the iOS and Android, and then the Steam, versions will be out, a lot of new people will also join in.

Jonathan4290 wrote:The issue has been the not knowing when the multiplayer server will be switched over. This game has a great tradition of leagues and tournaments but we have been without league play (and many tournaments) for the whole year because Pete understandably doesn't want to put a ton of effort into organizing the season only to have it fall through halfway through and have to start from scratch.

Yes, it does take me many hours each week to run the Digital League properly (answering questions and calculating new league tables etc) and I was told by Iain at Slitherine that the old server would be shut down immediately when the new version was launched. So all matches in progress would be lost which would completely disrupt the league - some players can have 6 or 7 matches on the go at the same time. In these circumstances I had no option but to postpone the competition until the new version comes out. As soon as the new version is officially released I will talk to Slitherine about sponsorship and then begin a recruitment campaign to re-launch the Digital League.

fogman wrote: the issue with the league is that it wants to be big and all-encompassing; big in that it typically requires 40 players (not happening now), and all-encompassing in that it has steadily moved into specialized tournaments territory (look at the latest proposals that lift stuff straight out of the lords and other stuff that had already crept in like historical scenarios in asymmetrical setups, troops restrictions (the 50/10 light troops rule comes right out of lords of italy 280)). the tournaments eco-system used to be more varied. it's like walmart against the mom and pop stores.

What a load of twaddle!

I have no ambition for the league to be "all-encompassing". In fact, I ran a poll (October 2013) to determine how we could might reduce the playing season so that there would be more room for other tournaments (e.g. Jonathan's historical tournaments). The playing season is now of 10 weeks duration and there are three seasons in a calendar year - so that is 30 weeks out of 52 that the Digital League is running. Typically, there would be around 80 (not 40) players participating in any given season, so it is a very popular competition and I conclude from this that I must be getting some things right.

I have not lifted any ideas from your own tournaments either. I don't actually read your competition threads for a start and most of the ideas that have been introduced into the Digital league have been around for many years, in some cases well before you even started playing the game. Prior to starting the Digital League, with Oscar (voskarp) and Mark (Turk1964), I ran smaller medieval-themed competitions that sometimes had selection restrictions and historical rules attached to them. The 50/10 rule originated way back in discussions with Mark, if I recall correctly, and we played some practice games together at first to try various ideas out, and then we ran a poll where our original proposals were substantially modified after contributions from other players. I have always tried to do something a bit different to make things interesting and I have always polled player opinion so that I could largely provide what players wanted from their hobby time.

viewtopic.php?f=95&t=24005

For the last couple of seasons I have run the competition by myself, with some technical and research assistance from Anders (hidde), so the "Walmart" jibe is completely off target, much like the rest of your disparaging comments really.

cothyso wrote:The love for ancient tactical wargaming could not and have not left anyone, as it hadn't left me from all these last 20 years or so. As soon as it will be launched, many of them will come back. And as soon as the iOS and Android, and then the Steam, versions will be out, a lot of new people will also join in.

Yes, it will not take too long to rebuild the community. I guess within 6 months we will at least be back to where we were before.

The one thing I wouldn't be counting any chickens over is the rebuilding of the 'community'. I used to check these threads eagerly every couple of days, then weeks, now it's months. In the meantime I have been investing in other games, Pike and Shot being one of them. Dan may be a hard working chap but he's got a very blasé attitude to gaming communities. I have worked as a studio manager at a gaming company and the saying on the studio wall was 'perception is everything'. Your customers don't know the truth. Some think they do and believe everything they are told. I think we all know that the industry term is 'fanboys'. They are easy to please. So easy you don't really bother. However, fanboys are like the tip of an iceberg, and fundamentally they don't matter. They alone can spread the good word but they can't keep the ship afloat. That's the rest of us, and we believe what we perceive. My perception is that this is a back burner, one horse dorp (see the 39 Steps for details) project that may or may not pan out, even now. My own suspicion is that when the game is finally re-released, Slitherine will can it the moment the wheel falls off again, especially if the community isn't as readily enthused as Dan believes it will be. I will be more than happy to be proved wrong... it wouldn't be the first time.

I think Dan's efforts have been heroic, and I'm still here.


Best Wishes

Mike

So many negative waves, for something that will be free....

Perhaps the best thing for Slitherine to have done years ago was to release Wolves, explain FOG was complete (but like every other game could theoretically have a 2, then a three etc)

Then it would arrive sooner, later or perhaps not ever. The community wouldnt have to worry about timelines or the grass will be greener, and either play the game or not. If ever released it would be 45 bucks and 20 for each expansion pack too... Perhaps it would be realtime too!

Absolutely. Slitherine have no commercial interest in a re-issue that will generate income only from new buyers, excluding those in the existing community. I remember making the same point when this whole process started.

Hello TGM and geordietaf. Long time.

Yes, I expect they wish they had handled it differently now. I think I am right in saying that the artwork for "Wolves From The Sea" and "Oath of Fealty" was completed a couple of years ago so they could have been released before now. Also, if you look at the way Dan has set up the new version, "Lost Scrolls" is also showing as being in the pipeline too. This last book is really an "odds and sods" collection of armies including some of the earliest Roman line-ups (and their enemies) as well as a number of more obscure medieval armies (e.g. Danish and German). "Oath of Fealty" is going to be released in two parts now so there will be four new expansions to add once the base game is re-released.

cothyso wrote:There was no such thing as decimating a community. What happened is the normal process of erosion happening to each game/community over a long period of time. GBCE guys know it well.

We have very different definitions for the term decimating. As pointed out, people left the community in part because of Slitherine's mishandling of public relations and certain decisions on how to develop FOG. Will they come back? Maybe; I will play a few online games if there are other players when the game is re-released. But like others have pointed out, the majority of people left, there were no updates, and this forum has been on life-support for a long time, and right now the tournaments are not running (again, because of a mishandling of the situation by Slitherine).

It's hardly the biggest problem in the world, and there are other games, but that's a decimation. If the community all comes back and the game is very active, then great job, but don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

stockwellpete wrote: I have no ambition for the league to be "all-encompassing". In fact, I ran a poll (October 2013) to determine how we could might reduce the playing season so that there would be more room for other tournaments (e.g. Jonathan's historical tournaments). The playing season is now of 10 weeks duration and there are three seasons in a calendar year - so that is 30 weeks out of 52 that the Digital League is running. Typically, there would be around 80 (not 40) players participating in any given season, so it is a very popular competition and I conclude from this that I must be getting some things right.

since you're so smug, let me clarify a few things: i did not talk about monopolizing the calendar, but stepping on others' territories; and this is something that others than me have noted. for example:

"Re: A new idea for the FOG Digital League?
Postby Jonathan4290 » Fri Nov 07, 2014 9:39 pm

I think this would be a great idea for a themed event but not really for an entire section. I think what youve done for HMA this year (limiting armies for more historical matchups) is a good mid-way point as far as DL is concerned.

My reasoning is that the historical matchups are already largely covered by the lords tournament and my own themed tournaments which have opted to become more historically based (by limiting armies from book to specific time period) and use mirror matches.

I think if someone really likes this idea though, they should take it up and run a tournament, which I really enjoy doing I must say."

The following is the exact premise and setup of the lords tournament (with each matchup played sequentially instead of simultaneously and questions about whether the player gets to play both sides, either in symmetrical, or the lords' asymmetrical mirror)

"A new idea for the FOG Digital League?
Unread postby stockwellpete » 04 Nov 2014 05:55

I have been in the "lab" for the last few days and I have come up with this idea that could be introduced into future seasons of the FOGDL. Its purpose is to further increase the number of historical match-ups a player will have in a season. I am not proposing to use it for every section in a season, but it could be utilised for one or two sections each season if players generally like the idea.

We can have a bit of a discussion first and then later I will run a poll to gauge the reaction to the idea.

So - we have 10 players in a division and each player has nine matches. Instead of choosing a specific army each player will play nine separate historical match-ups. The matches themselves can be organised in any order but the schedule must be strictly adhered to in all other respects. Here is an example of how High Middle Ages might work with the new idea . . .

Round 1 Medieval Castilians v Medieval Crown of Aragon
Player A v Player B
C v D
E v I
F v G
H v J

Round 2 Anglo-Irish (early) v Medieval Irish (early)
A v C
B v D
E v J
F v H
G v I

Round 3 WotR Lancastrians v WotR Yorkists
A v D
B v C
E v H
F v I
G v J

Round 4
HYW English Continental (early) v Medieval French
A v E
B v F
C v G
D v J
H v I

Round 5
Scots In Britain (early) v Later Scots Isles Highlanders
A v F
B v E
C v H
D v G
I v J

Round 6
Medieval Danish v Later Medieval Swedish
A v G
B v H
C v I
D vE
F v J

Round 7
Venetian Condotta (no Swiss) v Florentine Condotta (no Swiss)
A v H
B v G
C v J
D v I
E v F

Round 8
HYW English in Britain (later) v Scots in Britain (later)
A v I
B v J
C v E
D v F
G v H

Round 9
Ordonnance Burgundian v Swiss, Burgundian War (limited pikemen, must take Lorraine allies)
A v J
B v I
C v F
D v H
E v G"

and i don't even have to talk about the asymmetrical mirror historical scenarios that are a carbon copy of lords of history.

Examples of restrictions

LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
Postby fogman » 29 Mar 2013 16:42

(...)
Romans: 4 leaders (including one Inspired), 40 BG max, no allies
number of hastatii > number of principes
only italian allies can be used (no ligurian, illyrian, cretan, spanish, trallian, theorophoi, gallic, numidian, elephant)

Pyrrhic: 4 leaders (including one Inspired) 40 BG max, no allies
Tarantine + Hoplites > or = 0.5 x Phalanx

Gallic: 4 leaders (including one Inspired) 45 BG max, Hills Tribes allies must be taken.
HF warriors > or = 2 x Gaesati

Carthage: 4 leaders (including one Inspired) 45 BG max, no allies
LH + LF = 10 max
no campanian, bruttian, ligurian troops

Syracuse: 4 leaders (including one Inspired) 45 BG max, no allies
LH + LF = 10 max"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Re: The Talking Point
Postby stockwellpete » 15 Dec 2013 04:11
(...)
So we have come up with the idea of the “50/10” rule. This stipulates that the maximum size for any army is 50 “units” and the maximum number of skirmishers allowed (LF and LH combined) will be 10 “units”. "

Re: The Talking Point: army composition
Postby stockwellpete » 02 Jan 2014 02:50
(...)
Another idea we have in the locker for a subsequent season is that all armies must have 3 or 4 leader units - that would make for some interesting tactical choices too and we may poll the idea in future.

and since you claim ignorance about what's going on in the lords tournaments,

Re: Poll about Classical Antiquity
Postby stockwellpete » 05 Aug 2014 04:54
(...)
Hello Mike. I think it is quite clear from the voting in the polls that a majority of players would like to see more historical match-ups (including theming of sections) offered by the FOG Digital League. Competitions run by other players, such as Jonathan4290 and fogman, which provide a much narrower historical focus, are well-supported too.

Good to see that you are using your spare time usefully.

The fact remains that whatever you have done in your tournaments has had absolutely no impact at all on what has been introduced into the FOGDL. I do not read your competition threads and what little I know about your Lords tournaments has come from comments made to me by other players who may have entered them. Similarly, the changes that I have made to the FOGDL have developed from many, many conversations that I have had with other players in the past.


Edit: my first themed tournament was run in 2011!

viewtopic.php?f=95&t=24005

Personally, I think it is great that people are organizing tournaments, and creating a forum for play. I do like the idea of historical matchups, and does seem to be a trend followed by the leading organizers.

Yes, Slitherine, I really wish you would move forward and release the updated version of the game. I have been, and will be continuing to, wait for it.

Mead

stockwellpete wrote:Good to see that you are using your spare time usefully.

The fact remains that whatever you have done in your tournaments has had absolutely no impact at all on what has been introduced into the FOGDL. I do not read your competition threads and what little I know about your Lords tournaments has come from comments made to me by other players who may have entered them. Similarly, the changes that I have made to the FOGDL have developed from many, many conversations that I have had with other players in the past.


Edit: my first themed tournament was run in 2011!

viewtopic.php?f=95&t=24005

whatever. i have excellent memory and an eye for details; those things don't take me long. it's part of the job when dealing with people who deflect and deny but can't refute. i just gather evidence and make it known. you're just another 'client', an easy one.

fyi, actually for people's information, the issue is not themed, lysimachos ran a ton of these, but the use of locked match-ups (players don't play with one same army the whole tournament), of which your link provides zero evidence.