I've already post a subject on multiplayer : "playable multiplayer" to discuss solutions to improve turn base mechanism in multiplayer games because a lot of players (at least me) have some unpleasant experiences in this field...
One solution is to allow all players to play simultaneously but keeping a turn base mechanism : it is the only sure solution to prevent too long waiting time
I personally think it's illogical
Real time mechanism is made for playing simultaneously
Turn base mechanism is made for playing one by none
If the only way to have a playable multiplayer is to allow simultaneous play then why choose a turn base mechanism and try to adapt it to do simultaneous playing causing a lot of issues while real time mechanism already did that in a so much better way?
(in broad game we don't have the choice unfortunately)
At this time I'm thinking that :
Stardock have to develop GC3 as a turn base strategy game but shouldn't waste time on multiplayer which will be played only by a few players ready to spend 20h on the same game/match with at least 50% of waiting time or an unsatisfactory simultaneous turn mechanism and develop a great solo game because, whatever the efforts, the multiplayer will be unsatisfactory (for most (at least me))
or Stardock have to develop GC3 as a real time strategy game and could develop a great multiplayer too (may be massively multiplayer)
So I'm really asking the question: is turn base compatible with multiplayer video game???
What do you think?
Because the game will still be turn based, and work turn based in all its mechanisms. The only difference is that all human players take their turn at the same time. Seems like you have no idea how TBS MP works, to say it a bit harsh. I suggest you play some Civ4/Civ5 multiplayer, to see how good it works, what it's all about and also how popular it is.
RTS MP is totally different. You can't make this game TBS in SP, and another version RTS for MP. That would be like making two totally different games instead of one.
You seem to be grossly underestimating how many people play games like Civ in MP, particularly considering that what you want here appears to be something entirely unrelated to what the game actually is.
RT is not needed for MP. The FAQ has already addressed this.
The game will be turn based.
Some sort of asynchronous play will be included for multiplayer.
Stardock has it figured out, so the answer to your question is "yes". The answer to your post title, however, is "no".
Yes I never try modern civ MP, I discover that simultaneous system recently and read some articles about that (http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread.php?92881-The-Civ-5-Multiplayer-Paradox http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=450433 ...)
maybe... all the people I know don't play civ MP (that maybe the reason why I don't...) we are probably not representative
when you search "civ 5 multiplayer" on google the first line of the first link says : "Civilization 5 can be fun to play multiplayer. However, there are some 'quirks' that can make things frustrating or difficult" (http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Civilization_5_Multiplayer_Tips)
when you search "civ 5 multiplayer simultaneous turn" > most of the links are explanation of how does it works (the first link explain that it's bad)
That demonstrate that is not intuitive
I still think it's very strange to make simultaneous turn (conceptually speaking) because turns are specially design not to be simultaneous. So when you make simultaneous turns it's not intuitive and they are issues
Ok the game is historically turn base so all GC3 will be TBS including MP, I understand that...
But you don't find that simultaneous turn reinvent the real time?
is there any advantage of simultaneous turn over real time for MP except that GC is historically a TBS?
From now GC is just solo but in some times it will be also multiplayer with probably simultaneous turn, which is a kind of real time no?
is someone know how it will work ?
Simultaneous turns are problematic if you're playing competitively, because you get into click races when there's a thing that two people are both one turn away from. Most of the time they work fine though, and in coop they're great because they really speed things up.
Endless Space uses simultaneous turns to great effect (shame it doesn't have allied victory though).
There's issues doing sequential turns as well: namely that if you go beyond two players, everybody spends most of their time waiting.
No, because they're still turns. If I spend 15 seconds moving ships on my turn and you spend five minutes doing planetary management on yours, then I just have to wait for my next turn. The turn doesn't progress until everyone's done, so people still get whatever time they need to think, plan, or get distracted by children. The faster player doesn't typically have an advantage over the slower one just by virtue of speed, which in a realtime game they absolutely do.
If the single player game is turn based, then the multiplayer game has to be turn based as well otherwise you have to write what is essentially a different game. So yes, the big advantage of simultaneous turns is that it lets MP sitll be turn based, but workable with more than two players.
GalCiv is TBS and its staying that way, Brad has stated very firmly over the years he has no intention of changing that.
Multi-Player has been sorted out - and that's cool, its certainly overdue, all for it, even though I don't do On-Line multi-player.
.... but GalCiv turning into RTS? Hell will freeze over first
Followed by a mass player exodus of hissed off Players that will sink GalCiv as a game in the Stardock stable.
I prefer PvP over PvE...
Yes but if there is no time limit there could be a lot of waiting time and if there is a timer you don't have all the time you need and if you have a lot of planets/ fleets you won't be able to do all what you want. So yes the influence of speed is decreased but not totally. In Sin of a solar empire, with a very well though interface / game system you managed all your empire in real time very quickly winning was no a question of speed, So there is way to resolve that in real time too: with a great game design.
If the time is too limited for your empire size you should be more hurry than in a real time game
It could be the day after tomorrow then...
Then use sequential turns.
It's a turn based game. There will be waiting. The only question is how much, and simultaneous turns reduce it significantly.
sequential turns are too long and you can't play with/against a lot of players
Welcome to the world of TBS multiplayer. You either live with sequential turns, or you wait. Pick one.
Tomorrow never comes ..... fortunately.
Brad has stated very firmly it will not be RTS, ever. I cannot see how that's not clear, or even start to believe its an unambiguous statement.
Let alone the fact that he has put countless hundreds of hours of personal time building the best TBS AI in the Industry - like he really is going to dump that and re-write for a RTS game ..... its just not happening.
Stardock have approached the whole issue sensibly. As a Company they have their feet firmly in TBS and RTS Stables. When you make a game from ground up, it matters little at Company level which you go for (just don't change stables halfway). Stardock have in the last few years made strides in the RTS world, tine now to get on with an acknowledged success story GalCiv TBS, quite apart from Brad's personal effort invested in the Game as Majority Shareholder.
Its been a dead topic for years, Stardock will not move on this, GalCiv staying TBS - end of story.
The only way that will change is if you want to buy him out for $50million or so. However I honestly don't think even that temptation will change his mind. He may not be in the top ten personal fortune brigade, but he's well enough set for life to carry on doing what he loves doing - and at present that's keep GalCiv as TBS, and no amount of yelling from avid RTS fans will change that, they tried and failed since the early rushes of GalCiv2.
Rock solid Sales figures from the GalCiv TBC Stable mean he will keep going down that road. There are no Shareholder pressures for maximising revenue (one of Stardock great strengths), all that's in the Frame is his personal Driver.
The only time he will change is when it starts making a loss .... and for the moment, that's not happening anytime soon.
Okay I admit I did not read all the previous replies to this topic...
With that being said turn based multiplayer does work, here's why...
- put a time limit on each players turn, so one player can't spend all day holding up the game.
- allow you to make non-turn specific changes prior to your turn, while your waiting that will take effect your next turn, example change tax rate, select buildings being built, ships being built, ect...
- disable ship design in multiplayer mode or you can only do when you're not on the clock.
All of the above options would have helped Galactic Civilizations II have multiplayer and keep the game moving, now Galactic Civilizations III who knows the complete depth of the game or what their strategies are for keeping multiplayer on task but it can work, don't know how much I'll use it but I love the option, if they do it well it can be great. If its slow (meaning each turn takes forever, not the length of game) then multiplayer won't be used and I'll be .
Stardock knows, but they're keeping it under wraps for now. I'm really looking forward to what they have in mind on several of these fronts. Comparing the real thing to all of our speculation will be fairly humbling, I'd bet.
I really feel like the only practical way to handle turnbased games is use a turn processor. Look at games like Conquest of the New World, Deadlock, and Dominion. Everyone plays their turn simultaneously and orders are stored (but not executed). Once everyone hits 'end turn', an order of operations occurs (resource collection, unit build, combat, movement, etc). Next turn. We get a report on what happened and lament at how horribly our empire is going and do it all over again.
But the game has to be designed with multiplayer in mind to do it this way, as it this sytem is not so easily tacked on. Games like Endless Space and Civ 5 use simultaneous moves, which effectively gives combat advantage to the host of the game, or clients that are fast clickers. At that point, the game becomes less about stragety and more about clicking speed. And I think we all hate that.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
