"Persistant Turn-Based Server"

[Kloreep]

Any idea what this really means?

Depending on this mode's features, this could be the future of Multiplayer Democracy Games...

[Capt Dizle]

Sounds like taking a PBEM module and setting it up on a server so that players just set up a game and then the server takes care of the mechanics of turn distribution. Advantages would be that you wouldn't have to wonder who has the turn because the server would know. Also, you could set it up so that if a player failed to play a turn in XX hours or days, the computer would do it for them.

Something like that I think. But, heck, with all the PBEM bugs in games Firaxis has made I am sure this is over their heads. Does anyone believe they will have functional MP by X-mas?

[Urban Ranger]

As opposed to "transient turn-based server?"

[Puupertti Ruma]

The idea of Persistant TBS is ages old, one very good and working example is one about 10 years old BBS game which name alludes me. One more recent (and a remake of the old one) is Stars! 2.0 (I don't remember the names exactly but who cares). So if Firaxis said they have a working multiplayer system now, why wouldn't they have it working by christmas? It's not like they didn't have something to copy from

I myself wondered why they didn't have "Persistant TBS" in PTW, for what I know about PBEM styles, "transient turn-based server" works with 2 players and is a complete and utter drudge with more players. "Persistant Turn-Based Server" is the Way to do it.

You can illustrate it with a function:

Transient turn-based server:
(N*t)*X, in which N = #players, X = #turns, t= the time to end a normal turn.

So with 6 players, and average time spent on ending a turn of 5 min (speed game in later parts?), It would take 30 minutes to make a single turn, and for a quick game of about 30 turn it would take 15 hours!! And this does not even include the (inevitable) possibility of someone lacking behind in his turn making.

In Persistant TB-server, the turns are made simultaneously so the time to play a normal turn is always the same regardles of how many players there are.

[joncnunn]

A Peristant TB-Server is probably easier to code than the daisy wheel model of Civ III and SMAC.

The server model has been around at least since the first version of VGA Planets [also initally designed to run on a BBS and easily adapted to the WWW] about ten years ago.

Such a Turn Server could be used to run either in series or nearly simulatious.

[In series: All turns set out at the same time, but when in runs, first player 1's moves, then player 2's moves, then player 3's, etc.]

[Simulatiously, after all move orders are in, everybody's units start moving at the approative speed for the unit and terriagn]

In either case, when units are different races try to move into each other, there would be combat if they are at war, and if not at war one of the units either has to go around or wait if it's set to not auto-start a war.

This second mode would be highly prefered, because under the first model, player 1 has an edge with his movement orders always executing and the last human player is somewhat at a disadvantage always having to wait.

In Both cases, multiplayer games can go the same speed regardless of number of human players, if failure to send a turn in is interpreated as no new orders [continue existing multi-turn orders], which is the normal case. It would also be a simple matter in this model for a human civ who fails to send X turns in a row to be turned over to the AI. And also for a civ to start out being played by an AI, but have a human start playing them in the middle of the game.

[TechWins]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle
Sounds like taking a PBEM module and setting it up on a server so that players just set up a game and then the server takes care of the mechanics of turn distribution. Advantages would be that you wouldn't have to wonder who has the turn because the server would know. Also, you could set it up so that if a player failed to play a turn in XX hours or days, the computer would do it for them.

Something like that I think. But, heck, with all the PBEM bugs in games Firaxis has made I am sure this is over their heads. Does anyone believe they will have functional MP by X-mas?

I'd imagine Firaxis has been working on Civ3 since at least 2002, so a functional MP 3+ years after project initiation isn't all that far fetched, especially when you consider one year ago they were playing employee games against each other. Seems to me everything is going to be perfectly fine with Civ4; it may not be the Civ16 some people expect but I'm certain it won't be Civ3-part2 or anything of the like.

[Max Sinister]

There are some things I learned about databases (and a persistent TB server for Civ4 wouldn't be too different from a DB).

In Multi-User-DB systems, there can many mistakes happen:
1. Lost updates
Imagine this: Germany is at war with France and Russia. They both want to conquer Berlin. In a certain term, France attacks first. They succeed. However, while the French player can see he's captured Berlin and this information is saved on the serve, the Russian player doesn't know that yet. So he attacks Berlin again (which is still German for him), and wins too. Now what?

2. Dirty Read & Write
England and America make a treaty which involves among other things that England will pay America 500 gold. Then a network glitch happens, thus the treaty doesn't become real - but the server already increased America's money for 500. A bit later, the taxes come in, and the wrong number is increased. Now what?

I don't say it's impossible to solve (if it was, we wouldn't have Multi-User-DBs ), but it'd be difficult.

[joncnunn]

#2 Is solved by simple transaction logic, that is included for free in databases.

With a database:
current state of autocommit status saved
autocommit status set to false
update ____ set goldamt = goldamt - 500 where civ =England
update ____ set goldamt = goldamt + 500 where civ = America
commit
autocommit status reverted to previous state

#1 Is a subset of the units colliding issue that is easy. It would be resolved exactly the same way as if there was a German military unit next to France and Russia and both given orders to attack the German one.

If France got to attack first, then the German movement order which is now illegal gets canceled. (Or if Civ IV allows allies to enter eachothers cities like SMAC, then the German units are now also found in now French Berlin.)

[Dauphin]

Presumably this discussion only relates to 'session' games? That is, am I being too hopeful to think that you can log into a central server to play your turns for the day, avoiding various problems that PBEM only games can generate (e.g. replaying turns or file manipulation).

[DrSpike]

These kind of servers have a good pedigree in Civ - I think they have lots of potential. FreeCiv (essentially a tweaked Civ2) had a similar setup. PM CapTVK if you are interested.