Multiplayer?

[IG-88]

In the new Sid's Dino Diaries when Sid is comparing pros and cons of RTS and TBS he put "multiplayer?" for TBS and "multiplayer!"
for RTS.

I never play multiplayer games so can someone please explain to me why multiplayer doesn't work for TBS games (presumably this is what Sid meant)?

[Daniel Frappier]

More and more new TBS game are SIMULTANEOUS TURN BASE, a very good idea because it reduce playing time greatly and can make for a fast pace multi-player TBS. Of course the game must lend itself to that, i can't imagine Civ II or CTP to be nearly as good if they were simultaneous TBS.

I played some multi-player CTP and in my opinion Activision made 2 mistakes that prevent the game from beeing much better.

1) There is no carry-over-time options like in chess. This option could speed up games by up to 50% because it allows you to give less time per move. Players have to keep a fast pace and doing so can put a little bit of time in the bank at every move, then when they need to launch that full scale invasion they can use all those minutes they saved.

2) The interface is slow at least on most CPU, in Civ II units movement and combats was very fast, boxes and menus were re-draw much faster to.

[Biddles]

With an RTS game such as Starcraft, they can be designed primarily as multiplayer games, and indeed starcraft is only usually played in multiplayer games nowadays. This is because there is no waiting time for the other player (which is still present even in simultaneous TBS games, even if it isn't as much) so the fast pace is kept up. With a TBS game, the waiting time breaks the game up into periods, slowing down the pace.


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[connorkimbro]

multi player for turn based games has been pretty sketchy for the most part. . the conventions on how things work aren't set in stone yet, multi tbs games take a much longer time, etc, etc. . multi player real time games work much better. . when the ai processes information sort of complicates things in multi player tbs games as well. .

thats a rough answer, but there it is. .

i for one have tried multi tbs games before, and don't like them too well. . but with real time games i play almost exclusively multi player. .

[Glak.]

no TBS game has ever successfully made the jump to multiplayer, mostly because they are held back by the civ style game play. It might be possible for a TBS to go multiplayer but no one knows since it has never been done.

Multiplayer games must be short but they must also be able to pack in the fun. Depending on the game multiplayer games tend to last 15-120 minutes, with 30 being about optimal. Civ cannot be played in 30 minutes especially with a large number of players.

When you add in real thinking opponents the game takes longer. A game with four players takes at least four times as long as a game with one player unless the turns are simultaneous. Thus I think that games with alternating turns will never ever be able to transcend their single player roots. Additionally when the players involved are intelligent the game time also increases or decreases depending on the type of game. Team games tend to shorted, free for all games always lengthen. Some people I know think games of RISK only last an hour or so. The truth is I have almost never been in one that has ended in under six hours due to all of the negotiations and balance of power stuff.

So how long is your typical game of civ? Multiply that by about 10, maybe more. That is how long the game is going to take with real people involved and the game is going to be more intense. Can you play that in one sitting? No? Then the game can't be played. Even if you are somehow willing to play an unreasonable amount of time how many other people are? Not many want to play dozens of hours when they could get at least as much or more fun playing a game of SC, Myth, or some other RTS and be done before dinner. So since there won't be as many it will be harder to simply get a game going and that adds hours to the game. Not fun at all.

If Sid wants to make a modern game (by that I mean a multiplayer game) he is either going to have to go RTS or he will have to come up with some revolutionary gameplay that will allow a TBS to be played in under an hour. Maybe the TBS can be done but I doubt it. Perhaps in five years the first real TBS will be designed, I don't think it can be done earlier. Not that I'm trying to bring TBS down either. Right now I am attempting to design and then program a multiplayer only TBS myself but I'm not sure if the final result will be sucessful.

[Biddles]

I have played a multiplayer game of SMAC with one other player. We were playing for about six hours and I would say we are in the early mid-game stage.

As you can see it takes quite a while.


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[Jon Miller]

I think that SMAC was a great multiplayer game (single player civs atmosphere still makes it better)

it was awesome to get on a lan and play against 3 or 4 other players

yes it did take a few hours (probable 8 for a full game but we never got there) but since the first half of civilization games are funner thann the second half I did not feel cheated

smac multiplayer makes it one of the best games ever in my consideration

it was simultaneous play which allowed everybody to basicall be always playing

I would assume though that for most people the net connection is not good enough for a could gme

cmge made you wait to long between peoples turns in my oppinion

Jon Miller

[Glak.]

"There is one TBS game and it as been hugely popular for a long time: Chess"

Great point, yep chess works.

"I guess you could say it was designed to be multiplayer from the start"

very key. Chess was designed for player vs player, not player vs AI. Like all multiplayer games it is about interaction. You never deal with unruly pawns, you deal with your oppponent's stuff. (I am not saying that morale and stuff like the is necessairly bad, it just has to have a reason for being included). The board could have had much more space between players but that wouldn't have made the game better, just longer. The bigger is better, drag the game out, 70% filler 30% content philosophy that is standard in single player games (and games like EQ which are basically single player games with a chat room attached) is horrible for multiplayer gaming.


"A game can be played postal, in 5 hours or 5 minutes depending on you're mood. For me Chess is proof that a TBS can be a good multiplayer game and it teaches a few lessons in game design that I haven't seen used in a long time like having simple rules and good time management (see my earlier post)."

Yes indeed. There is just too much filler in modern TBS games and that won't work if you are trying to make a hardcore multiplayer game. I think they should really look at simple games like chess and see where they can improve. Simple games tend to have more depth and real replay value. Sure games with lots of options and blah blah blah seem to have replay value because after you have been playing a while you still haven't seen all the game has to offer but the sad truth is that the rest of the game tends to be more of the same. Other games (don't want to mention any specific games, don't want to get into a game vs game conflict with anyone) have real depth and even after playing the same game perhaps a thousand times you still learn something new from time to time.

Maybe, just maybe, this dino game will deliver what I'm looking for.

[Glak.]

"I think that SMAC was a great multiplayer game (single player civs atmosphere still makes it better)"

!!! ok how many other multiplayer games have you played. If you have nothing to compare it to then well of course. But if you have played on battle.net, bungie.net or yech, even the zone.... if you are into non strategy types of games quake3 is pretty cool (and this is from a person who hates q1 + q2) and some people like the empty monotony of everquest.

"it was awesome to get on a lan and play against 3 or 4 other players"

if you had popped in a copy of any other game you would have had more fun. Plus how many times have you done this? I can only get in a few lan parties a year due to school and such.

"yes it did take a few hours (probable 8 for a full game but we never got there)"

actually it would have taken much longer, assuming that you did not have preset teams. Free for all games last an amazingly long time. Consider Starcraft. The average 1v1 ladder game is 20 minutes, the average ffa is more than an hour, often two. In SC resources run out so when supplies get low the game is going to end. In SMAC resources never run out, plus the maps are massive. If both players can make new units at similar rates the defender tends to win. Since it is a free for all, an all out battle between two players will kill them both. People tend to hang back and do nothing. Chances are the game will end through an alternate victory method. Is that fun? perhaps but "oh yeah, well we played forever and ever until he won through transcendance, the random map probably gave him better land" doesn't sound like fun to me. Does this mean we have to get rid of unlimited resources? Well, no but it has to be taken into accound for sure. Something must force the players to fight and if they fight hard enough someone ought to win.

Well honestly I'm not sure exactly how a game of SMAC would end since I doubt that anyone has ever played one to completion. I have tried hotseat many times. We never got anywhere. We even tried PBEM (1-2 turns a day) with hotseat sessions once a month. We only got to the first skirmishes. No real wars, certainly nothing that could kill a player.


"but since the first half of civilization games are funner thann the second half I did not feel cheated"

ahh see, right there that shows extremely poor game design. Games should be fun throught and no part should be all that much more fun than any other (some people will like certain parts better but it will vary from person to person).

Here's a point to ponder: why is the first part more fun? I think I know the answer: they game is simply too long to test. They worked long and hard on the beginning of the game but they didn't have time to test the rest of the game, at least not much. How long are games tested anyway? Not much. They test the game as they make it and then before they ship it they test the final versions a little. Plus how many people test the game? Not many. Even large beta tests tend to max out at around 2000 people, but I think firaxis only uses a few dozen, perhaps a hundred. Let's say they do about a month of intense playing with 100 people. Sounds like a lot? It isn't. The Brood War beta lasted six weeks and had almost 2000 people, hundreds of which were top players. BW is far from perfect even though it had all that testing (but it is very good, I still play it though it is a year old, and SC is 2 years old). SMAC is a much more complex game and had much less testing. I'm certain that almost none of it was multiplayer testing. That is why the second half seems unrefined and lacking in fun. They only cared about the part that people would see in the demo. Sure they want to make they game good but they can only do so much. Since they can only do so much wouldn't it be smarter if maybe they were realistic in what try to do?

"smac multiplayer makes it one of the best games ever in my consideration"

I don't know you so I apologize if I am wrong. I suspect that you don't play multiplayer games that much. Until recently I played online games several hours a day. I download demos occasionally but I mostly play a few games and I play them a lot. Every game is fun the first few times you play it (even the settlers3 demo) but after a while (from playing your regular games) you get a sense for flaws in demo and soon you are laughing. Sure the game might still be fun for a few more days but you put it aside because you know that it is time to go back to your favorite games who will never let you down.

"it was simultaneous play which allowed everybody to basicall be always playing"

SMAC is not designed for simultaneous play. It ruins the tactical system. So if the game is going to have simultaneous play is should have a phase where everyone issues his orders and then another when they are resolved. I do think that simultaneous play is almost essential for the future of TBS unless the games are smaller in scale.

"I would assume though that for most people the net connection is not good enough for a could gme"

Perhaps but that is because SMAC is poorly programed. Again the designers didn't even take it into consideration, except as something for the back of the box. Ok here is something, how non turn based multiplayer games can exist and run perfectly with normal modem connections (exception: fps games)? It is because they are programmed with the assumption that people intend to play the game online. I can real time games with people all over the world and most of the time I don't notice anything wrong at all, the game stays perfectly syched.

Of course we can't blame the sinister Brian Reynolds. There is very little compettion in his genre. There was like one other popular civ game? Once the first multiplayer TBS game gets published there will be a revolution, just like there was in every other genre. First dozens of clones will spring up, most of which will fail. Some of them will be as good or better. The next crop of games will be more refined and a victor will emerge as king of the genre. The next cycle will bring market segmentation as the survivors each found their own subgenre. Well I hope it happens soon for the TBS.

[Daniel Frappier]

"no TBS game has ever successfully made the jump to multiplayer...."


There is one TBS game and it as been hugely popular for a long time: Chess

I guess you could say it was designed to be multiplayer from the start even if it is only 2 players that can play, altough there is a 4 players (2 teams of 2) version that is a load of fun to.

A game can be played postal, in 5 hours or 5 minutes depending on you're mood. For me Chess is proof that a TBS can be a good multiplayer game and it teaches a few lessons in game design that I haven't seen used in a long time like having simple rules and good time management (see my earlier post).

[Jon Miller]

Wow

I have played a lot of multiplayer games: halflife, worms 2, red alert, quake(?), wheel of time, aoe 2, gettysberg to name a few. I still stand by my opinion.

Well since my school is interconnected by lan I sort of do it most evenings if I want to play what others are playing. I play free for all and I stand by my time estimate(I don't play huge world in multiplayer). Last aoe2 game I player took over 3 hours (8 players large).

I have killed many players in smac and decimated others. You have to be good. I give the others handicaps by playing in transcend but most I play are not as good as me. It totally depends on my game style and theres. I have killed all the human players before.

I didn't say the latter part was boring or unfun, just the first part is better. Surely you have heard about the micromanagement in civ type games. Later on it is taking me hours to complete giving the cities orders.

I never play the online games as much as some, fps's just don't interest me that much (usually what is played). Half life interested me by far the most of all of them I have played (my v-card is a little slow for wheel of time, I couldn't play anyother for more than 4 hours) and I have gotten bored of it, after playing it for 20 hours a week for a few months.

simul play does not really ruin it, strategy is all about using your stength against there weakness, usually a turn would mke no difference and as such simul mode makes no difference, as a plus it makes you prioritize.

I did think smac was more unballance towards attak then civ and such more a millitary game.

I would personally like civ3 to have more interaction with your subjects and the world(plagues, more barbarrians, ect.)

When I am not on my lan here at school my connection sucks. Half life was unplayable (and so I erased it), I would die before the enemy was put on the screen and my shots would come of seconds after I pushed the fire button. Half life is an fps encase you don't know. I have never tried alpha over the net, I am just assuming.

Jon Miller

[NoviceCEO]

Excellent posts by Glak.

I totally aggree with them. TBS games aren't fun played multiplayer simply because no one has made it fun multiplayer before. (except for chess... and maybe a few others... but not in the genre we're talking about).

I'm used to say the word Blizzard in this forums, because I belive they really do know how to make a great game. I have StarCraft(played War 1 and 2) , Age1 and 2, SMAC... I enjoyed playing all of them (even though SMAC and Age 1 are way too buggy). I sually played all these games single player, except for Starcraft, but I played War2 and Age online a few times.

I play Starcraft mostly online because it runs exceptionally well online. It's no problem to find an opponnent close here in Brazil, the performance is great and I always have lots of fun.

I didn't played the Warcraft series online very much because we weren't so much 'connected' those days.

I don't play Age of Empires many times online because it usually takes several hours (and in that time your connection can drop and your dinner can get ready), but also because it was funnier to play it single player than Starcraft was. When I was playing Starcraft offline, I was just trying that new strategy against the AI before I could do it against my real opponents.

And for last, I don't play (and never tryed) SMAC online because the game takes too long and it's nearly impossible to find an online opponent.

I wish that helps you to understand what makes a mplayer game interesting, from my opnion.

novice

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, first there are plenty of TBS games that can work well in multiplayer. I think you could call them Board Games. For example, in the Stories and Diplomacy forum, Diplomacy is an extreamly popular turn based game. Hell, it really couldn't work any other way.

However, I want to play Civ3 and Dinos like I played Civ2, Single Player against a good AI... I don't care for multiplayer and never really liked it.

[Glak.]

sorry this is kind of long

Jon:

"I have played a lot of multiplayer games: halflife, worms 2, red alert, quake(?), wheel of time, aoe 2, gettysberg to name a few. I still stand by my opinion."

Ok I was wrong.

"Well since my school is interconnected by lan I sort of do it most evenings if I want to play what others are playing."

Yeah my school has a lan but most of the people at my school are kind of... dumb, so there are never any local games.

"Last aoe2 game I player took over 3 hours (8 players large)."

yep AoK is a long game and with 8 players you will get a long game.

"I have killed many players in smac and decimated others. You have to be good."

Ahh see your skill is causing the game to go too quickly and distort the results. If you were worse of if your opponents were better then the game would take much longer. Games take significantly longer when the players are of similar skill levels.

" I give the others handicaps by playing in transcend"

when you are in transcend everyone is, it is a game setting, not a player setting.

"I have killed all the human players before."

if the other players were as good as you are then you would not have been able to do anything remotely like this. Some of them would have teamed up against you, while the neutral players would have grabbed up spare territories near you.

"I didn't say the latter part was boring or unfun, just the first part is better. Surely you have heard about the micromanagement in civ type games. Later on it is taking me hours to complete giving the cities orders."

which makes the game take forever, thus making it impossible to finish in multiplayer.

"I never play the online games as much as some, fps's just don't interest me that much (usually what is played)."

You can play RTSs such as SC, AoK, Myth, and many others online with no difficulty. Plus for people who like blandness there are games like EQ.

"simul play does not really ruin it, strategy is all about using your stength against there weakness, usually a turn would mke no difference and as such simul mode makes no difference, as a plus it makes you prioritize."

I have played a few games of civnet simul and it did mess up the battles. Say you have a chariot or chariot army near your opponent's base but not close enough to attack. Move all of your other units first, leave it for last. Move it into position as the last thing you do that turn. Then the next turn move them first, chances are your opponent will not be able to react in time. Basically it is like giving up one turn to get two turns in a row.

"I would personally like civ3 to have more interaction with your subjects and the world(plagues, more barbarrians, ect.)"

ok that might make it more fun as a single player game but it would not make the game a better multiplayer game. Random stuff like that just gets in the way. I was playing a game of Myth II and my archers were trying to shoot down a dwarf. A bird flew by and took an arrow, saving the dwarf. Yeah it was funny and I laughed but in a multiplayer game stuff like that doesn't belong, at least not too much.

"When I am not on my lan here at school my connection sucks. Half life was unplayable (and so I erased it), I would die before the enemy was put on the screen and my shots would come of seconds after I pushed the fire button. Half life is an fps encase you don't know."

normal ping for modems tends to be 300-400, in fps games that is a lot of time. If say you have a ping of 500 every command is delayed half a second. Chances are by the time the shot is registered your target is long gone. This is how all fps games are and nothing can be done. However other games don't have this problem. Most RTSs don't do it this way, the game delays commands so that everyone under the limit plays with the the same performance so having a good connection isn't an advantage. Plus you don't need as good reaction time in a strategy game anyway.

"I have never tried alpha over the net, I am just assuming."

no one has, ever. Log on right now, you'll be the only one I bet.

NoviceCEO

"I play Starcraft mostly online because it runs exceptionally well online. It's no problem to find an opponnent close here in Brazil, the performance is great and I always have lots of fun."

yep if SC can run fine any TBS game should be able to run fine. By definition TBS games have better performance.

"I don't play Age of Empires many times online because it usually takes several hours (and in that time your connection can drop and your dinner can get ready), but also because it was funnier to play it single player than Starcraft was. When I was playing Starcraft offline, I was just trying that new strategy against the AI before I could do it against my real opponents."

My sentiments exactly.


Imran Siddiqui

"Well, first there are plenty of TBS games that can work well in multiplayer. I think you could call them Board Games. For example, in the Stories and Diplomacy forum, Diplomacy is an extreamly popular turn based game. Hell, it really couldn't work any other way."

Not many new games are being made in this area. Plus most board games tend to be ffa games. A lot of people are looking for games that can be played 2v2 or 1v1. Also people are looking for something more intricate, different than board games. A lot of refinement has gone on in some game genres and people are looking for it in TBS gaming. A lot of strategy gamers see the original civ as the best in the series, and civ2 as a tragedy. Sure you don't hear that here but that is because they don't come here. So yeah, I could get into online board games but I want something better.

"However, I want to play Civ3 and Dinos like I played Civ2, Single Player against a good AI... I don't care for multiplayer and never really liked it."

Some people like single player games, thus some companies make single player games. Makes perfect sense. What I don't approve of is companies making a single player game and then saying you can also play it multiplayer. That is just plain misleading. When I bought SMAC I thought that I was getting a game that could be played with other players. Quite clearly I was wrong. Perhaps a few people have managed to finish a few games under exceptional circumstances but overall there is no multiplayer. I was mislead.

As for civ3 I expect you will get a game that will please you. The next evolution in the civ2 game. However the dino game can be anything, heck it might be a multiplayer TBS but wouldn't you be disappointed if it was basically civ3 but with different pictures? I think that would be a tragedy. Having Brian and Sid design similar games would be the wrong thing to do, it would just waste resources on two games that would compete directly with each other. Brian should make civ3 to please the civ2 people, Sid should make something different, it just makes sense.

[Rusty Nail]

I think a good solution for the RTS/TBS debate would be a real time game with time-outs. The total time available for time-outs would be a game parameter,as in chess. So for unlimited time you have pure TBS. For 0 time you have pure RTS. You would have to have a rule that any unit continues what it is doing until told otherwise or is unable to continue. If you use up your time too early, you have to play the rest on the fly like any RTS game. An idle unit cycler is mandatory here. By the way, the speed of the RTS can also be a parameter, as in AOK. I think this could work. Although I haven't played Gettysburg, I understand Sid has worked with this concept already to some extent. This model could work well for both single and multiplayer and could be a real breakthrough in gaming.