Gaming has not been the only distraction this week. With all of the remote gaming, I finally began to address my capability of hosting such an event. Having a game room underground in a basement has wreaked havoc on wi-fi as the router struggles to send a good signal to the far reaches of an essentially concrete bunker. Not being an early adopter of new technology, I may be coming in just as the world returns to normal and remote gaming falls by the wayside. Hopefully not.
First, over the last few weeks, I upgraded the modem, router, and added a number of Mesh Wi-Fi extender pods. Those upgrades seem to have reduced many of the issues with signal in the basement. Time will tell if these have mitigated the issues completely.
Second, I purchased two webcams and figured out how to run both of them from a single laptop from fixed positions. That technology seems to be working although some of this is still trial and error.
Finally, I have been testing Zoom and a few other remote meeting software packages for hosting remote games. In my testing, Zoom seems to win out and many players are already comfortable with the interface.
Uniting all of these activities and testing on my own, I finally was ready to take the next step. That is, to see if this setup is workable in a group setting. I enlisted Richard's help to test and he agreed to a testing session.
For the testing session with Richard, I placed each camera to the left rear of each of the ECW battle lines. The figures are 28mm.
 |
| View above Royalist left |
 |
| View above Parliament left |
After the testing session with Richard concluded, I repositioned the two cameras such that they looked down the battle lines rather than from behind the left of each line.
 |
| View from near side of table |
 |
| View from far side of table |
I also included an iPhone as a roving camera for close ups. See the thumbnail screen in this post's lead photo.
One of the challenges faced in many of the remote games in which I have participated is that, often times, only a portion of the playing area can be seen. In many games, only four or six feet of the playing area can be seen with the camera placed directly behind one player's side of the table. For larger tables and games more than 4-6 feet, the host must constantly readjust and repoint the webcam to see all parts of the action. I wanted to keep the camera views fixed so that I would not have to readjust the cameras during the game. Having two fixed camera views solves this, I think.
What are your thoughts on this set up? Would this configuration be acceptable for playing remotely especially if a roving cam is available to zoom in for a close up look at your troops? Which camera configuration do you prefer: the angled view or straight down the battle line view? I think I have a slight preference for the angled view since it provides a sense of "ownership" to that side of the table. Of course, my preference may change.
Firstly Jon, good luck hosting! Looking forward to seeing how this goes.
ReplyDeleteWhilst I like the angled look as a spectator I feel the end to end view would offer the players an easier way to plan out moves and lines of sight?
Have you thought about an overhead camera? Might offer a different overall look.
Thanks, Dai, I may need some good luck! I don't have a stand tall enough to accomodate an overhead camera but I should look into it.
DeleteThe left rear view would be my preference, especially as it offers surprisingly little visual distortion in terms of depth …. However, since players can access either camera, it might feel a little odd (and perhaps even wrong!) for one player to get a perspective of the battle that should really only be enjoyed by the other player i.e. perhaps a player should not get a ‘behind the lines’ view of the enemy.
ReplyDeleteThe roving camera sounds like a great idea. The terrain tiles help with a gridding effect that should help things run smoothy.
I know remote gaming has been a fantastic way for gamers to still game during lockdown (and have global contacts that would never normally be made), the question will be, once face-to-face gaming becomes a reality again, will remote gaming get squeezed out or at least relegated?
Yeah, I like the left rear perspective too. Perhaps it is the angle that seems pleasing to my eye?
DeleteRemote gaming may get squeezed out when the world opens up. We may soon discover if remote gaming was a situation of "any port in a storm" or one of a lasting social network expansion. I am rooting for the latter...
I think the angled camera is better but either should work
ReplyDeleteThat is my thought too. Thanks for weighing in, David! One day(!), my thoughts on your Huzzah Towton game will pull up to the top of my queue.
DeleteYou late adopters are showing the rest of us up.
ReplyDeleteI stand upon the shoulders of giants.
DeleteThe views on all look very clear. The only slight difficulty is that in some cases the spots in the white dice are harder to see. Excellent.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your feedback! The dice on the back of each stand are primarily for the umpire's benefit (me!). Players can track these stats on a roster if needed or simply ask me to move the roving camera or shout out their unit's combat value.
DeleteI think I prefer the camera on the corners as well, perhaps because as gamers we are more used to sitting one one side or another rather than in the middle of the action.
ReplyDeleteCamera at the corners seems to be the consensus at this point. Now, do you suppose that me mentioning my preference beforehand biased these results?
DeleteWhile we are accustomed to sitting behind our troops in F2F situations, in remote games, I have been situated in all manner of positions to my own command. One gets used to this but sitting behind one's troops is preferred.
You have been busy. I think my preference is always going to be a rear view or as close to that as can be achieved . On a 6x8 game I think my preference would be both cameras from the same side over the left and right corners. As close to being ‘in the room’ as possible ?
ReplyDeleteBusy, for sure. Two of those games were with you!
DeleteIf the game was a one-on-one game, I agree with you that both cameras on the same side of the table is the way to go. This perspective would provide the closest "You are there" view of the battlefield.
When active players will be participating on both sides of the table in a multiplayer battle, what would you suggest for camera placement?
That is trickier, I have tried to keep things simple on the remote front so the tech doesn’t get to complex. You may well have a greater appetite for such things than me. I think I would still go with corners, but the only way is to try it and see I guess ?
DeleteBoth will work fine. Tim typically uses 2 cameras, one from each side, but he can move them around a bit easily, and the I p[hone for close up shots is helpful. My wi-fi etc is fine, but it is clear that if I were to host games I need a new laptiop! :-)
ReplyDeleteTim had a good setup for the Towton game. Your laptop let you down during that same game but seemed to work fine during our one-on-one game.
DeleteActually it was my I pad which refused to access my email account, which I needed for the zoom link. The camera on my laptop doesn't work, so I bought a separate one, which we used for our game, but for some reason each time I want to use it, I have to specifically turn it on, and it can take me 10 or 15 minutes to relearn how to do it, and I didn't want to deal with it then and there! Thus I wound up using my iphone, which ran out of juice about 3/4 of the way through the game!
ReplyDeleteTechnology should not be so complicated.
Deleteand yet it is! :-)
DeleteI see it all the time in my job, where the electronic health records make our job easier in some ways, and much harder in others!
I prefer the angled view, as you get a better feel for 'your side' of the table. I think it would make sense to only be able to view your side and not the others. In many games when we've finished and walked to the other side, it's amazing at how different the situation looks.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Steve. You are adding weight to the dominant response. As for not seeing the table from your opponent's perspective, the other view has the benefit of showing your own right flank that is way off yonder in your own view.
DeleteI think either side should work, I'm with Norm that you should maybe restrict the view of the other side if that is possible.
ReplyDeleteCheers Iain
Seeing your opponent's unit status is OK with me. There are some games in which having that info can be critical but not in this one. If players do not want this knowledge in a game, moving to a roster system is quite easy. See my response to Steve about the usefulness of having the other view.
DeleteLayout and camera coverage look solid. What rules are you using? One recommendation I've seen that makes sense is using grid- or hex- based rules, anything that regularizes / abstracts movement, as that's much easier to track remotely.
ReplyDeleteThe rules are of my own doing but inspired by Howard Whitehouse's "Ironsides." I agree that gridded games make the job much easier in a remote setting. I will see how free-form goes before switching to gridded play for this game.
DeleteI'll jump in with the crowd and state my preference for the corner view. It might be psychological attachment to being on one side or the other but even observing a game in person, I'd rather look from one baseline than from the end. Not sure if its because its what one is used to, because of the feeling of attachment or just that at least you get a closer look at some of the figures and somethibg closer to a General’s Eye view.
ReplyDeleteThis is going to cut into those painting totals though! Might also force more of those lazy sods in the cupboards to fall out of barracks and march to wargame a little more often!
Another vote for the angled approach. Thank you, Ross!
DeleteRemote gaming even without the added work of hosting has cut into painting production mightily. If I begin hosting remote games on a regular basis, there are many collections that could move from storage to table. That would be good since a number of these collections have not been on the gaming table in years.
I think the multiple view options by themselves put your system a notch above what the average remote game offers (just an observation). I notice the very bold delineations on the table (dividing it into 6 areas)--are you going to use some short of area control or hybrid of area and individual movement?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Ed. The delineations are simply the edges of my two foot tiles. They have no significance in a game besides allowing a player to estimate distance and provide somewhat of an eye sore to some.
DeleteHi Jon, I prefer the corner view but I take Norms point about player being able to see their opponents view....although at our games, when I am taking pics for my blog, I wonder around all sides if the table, so do others have a prohibition on the opponent walking over to their side of the table?? I kind of hope the remote gaming does continue after FtF becomes the norm again...it's quite nice that people have established direct gaming relationships with other players on different continents etc...it would be a shame to lose that don't you think?
ReplyDeleteHi Keith. Unless there is a rule to keep unit stats secret, I allow players to see the status of other units since this may be the only feedback a player receives on unit condition.
DeleteAs for remote gaming, it would be a great loss to have this capability drift away once life returns to normal. We may have to work harder to keep these games and relationships in place when F2F gaming resumes.
For what its worth the angled view gets my vote but then any of your views far exceeds my limited capacity (iPad only) and tech abilities :-)
ReplyDeleteThank you! The test will be if I can actually conduct a game in this manner.
DeleteThat’s quite an investment into remote gaming. But isn’t the pandemic over? Aren’t we all going back to face to face gaming? Aren’t we all vaxed, waxed, and relaxed with newly painted armies whose glory cannot be seen over the internet?
ReplyDeleteLol. Who knows. Actually I’m pretty sure that remote gaming will stick around awhile as it seems to have become somewhat mainstream.
I have no vote on the angles having never played in a remote game. I’m sure it’s the thing that comes with practice and experience. Good luck! 😀😀
Stew, you may be right. Remote gaming may fall by the wayside. I like to think that this common, enforced experience has opened up another, lasting way to game with friends from all over the world.
DeleteAs for expense, two webcams, two stands, a cord or two were about $100. Not much of an expense considering the great value I have derived from remote gaming. Really, I gamed more in the last six months than ever.
Perhaps you might find remote gaming fun?
I'm a luddite so from my perspective it looks like you have achieved your goal brilliantly and hope some day I could do that. I think both angles work so you could switch up during a game for example.
ReplyDeleteChristopher
Thank you for the vote of support, Christopher!
DeleteThat sounds great. I'm a fan of almost all of your projects. 17th century always is looking nicely.
ReplyDeleteThank you! Almost all of my projects? Which ones don’t you like?
DeleteI just don't have an interest in more modern conflicts.
DeleteThat is a healthy number of games you participated in, Jonathan! Good looking ECW battle lines and terrain with impressive new audio/visual acquisitions. Enjoy the fine weather we're experiencing too. We plan on a short bike ride with our dog on Friday (about a mile or so down to Fort Steilacoom Park for their food truck and farmers market) - oh, and our bikes are pedal and electric powered Lol! :)
ReplyDeleteThis past week saw so many games. I cannot manage that quantity very often. Weather has turned very warm presenting perfect cycling. Enjoy your cycling and food truck stop. I ought to include a good truck stop on my rides. Great idea!
DeleteAny of those views looks usable to me Jonthan, very catchy even from the more distant perspective! :)
ReplyDeleteGood! We will soon see how it works in practice…
Delete