On Movement, HotSeat, and Play-By E-Mail

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  On Movement, HotSeat, and Play-By E-Mail

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   On Movement, HotSeat, and Play-By E-Mail

AUH20 posted 12-06-98 07:11 PM ET
There's been a lot of discussion on the aforementioned topics, and I'm kind of getting tired of it because Firaxis has answered each about five or six times. These are my theories based on what they have said, often explicitly.
1. Movement in Single-player is TURN-BASED, NON-SIMALTANEOUS. It is SIMALTANEOUS in multi-player in order to decrease the amount of time recquired to play epic games such as SMAC.
2.Hotseat is impossible to implement because movement is simaltaneous in MP. You can't have four or five people playing with one keyboard/mouse. Same with PBEM.
And finally, as far as the Hive controversy, I'd just like to say why I think the Hive is a Soviet type faction, a dicatorship.
Firaxis's description's of Hive:
"Athestic police state"
"Culture of Serfdom"
Enough stated.
Octopus posted 12-06-98 07:28 PM ET
AUH20:
The reason people are confused about PBEM and hotseat is that these should be the SIMPLEST form of multiplayer to implement. Yes, Firaxis has said that they will be implementing a multi-player mode where the different factions move simulataneously. However, it should be exceedingly simple to also implement a completely turn-based multi-player mode (they're already doing it for single-player). Therefore, people are confused as to why PBEM and hotseat are not implemented. The explanation that it is too complicated doesn't fly with me, and the explanation that it wouldn't work with simultaneous turns doesn't make sense either, since it could easily be done without simultaneous turns. This seems like a feature that wouldn't be difficult for Firaxis to implement at all, and it could easily make a number of people quite happy (not me personally, but a number of people have been asking for these).
If you want to debate or criticise the Hive, do it in one of the already existing threads, or start a new one that doesn't have a split topic. Personally, I wish you'd move past "culture of serfdom", since we haven't seen anything close to that in any of the recent previews, leading me to believe that Firaxis has completely dropped that idea (I still have never seen it in print, but I suppose I'll take your word for it). Debating the merits of the different factions can easily be quite entertaining. I find it impossible to understand why you don't want to discuss the merits and failings of the Hive in an intelligent debate, but instead just want to make "pronouncements" about it.
Brother Greg posted 12-06-98 09:22 PM ET
Well, the answer is probably that there just aren't enough people that will want to play it that way. Very small target audience = very little additional sales = wasted money. And how many of them wouldn't buy the game just because it wasn't in there?
That is probably the easiest explanation. Don't quote me on it, because it is just my opinion. Basically, even though it wouldn't be MAJOR rewriting, it would still require a reasonable amount of work, which just wouldn't be worth it.
As for PBEM, if there was ever two people that could complete a game of CIV II or SMAC by email, I'd like to meet them. Added to which the file transfers would be pretty big.
And yes, there was a CIV II hack to allow hotseat. I tried playing two civs at once, but it was too easy. =)
Brother Greg.
dushan posted 12-06-98 09:30 PM ET
Well, I'm one of those that constantly moans about the lack of PBEM/hotseat. I agree with Octupus that if the singleplayer is not simultaneous, then PBEM/hotseat should be quite simple to implement.
The only true problem I see is diplomacy, i.e. result of diplomatic negotiations have to be resolved over two turns (player1, turn n: proposes some treaty to player2; player2, turn n: receives the proposal and either accepts or declines; player1, turn n+1: player1 receives the other player's decision)
The rest is pretty simple, the game is in normal single player mode with more than one faction being controlled by a human player.
In hotseat, a screen of type 'Player n, click here to start your turn' is needed after the end of each turn, in PBEM the game is automatically saved and cannot be resumed until a password of the next player is entered.
As I said someplace else, I think the main issue is that hotseat/PBEM won't sell the game. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure if I'd ever use those features. However if I should choose between pseudo real-time multiplayer and PBEM, I think I'd go for PBEM.
Dushan
Octopus posted 12-06-98 10:00 PM ET
Brother Greg: I would have no problem if Firaxis said they weren't putting in a feature because "nobody" wanted it, but the argument AUH20 seems to be reiterating is "it's too hard", which I don't really buy. If I were making a game like SMAC, I probably wouldn't kill myself to get these features in, but I still think it should be pretty easy. Then again, there's a possibility that the code is so fragile that these features can't be added without hurting things, but I'm hoping that's not the case. And, if the reason that the feature isn't in the game is because not enough people want it, then these boards are the perfect place to start clamoring for the feature, showing Firaxis how many people really DO want the feature.
Shining1 posted 12-06-98 10:35 PM ET
Unfortunately, for those who have ever programmed, doing a rewrite of even a small detail can become an unimaginable nightmare - especially when you've optimised the code to do what it's currently supposed to.
While I agree that hotseat play is a desirable addition (one of the main reasons I bought Warlords III, in fact), doing it in SMAC would cause many problems, for example the diplomacy menus would require a whole rewrite to allow either 'double input' diplomacy, or turn by turn messaging. Neither is a very attractive option.
I tend to disagree that hotseat is too infrequently used to be included, and certainly I would hope that the nice guys at Firaxis wouldn't dismiss it just on this basis.
Brother Greg posted 12-06-98 10:37 PM ET
Well, Firxis themselves stated that it was too hard to implement. Sure they could do it, but it wasn't worth the effort. So, AUH20 was right...
Hey, if you can talk them into it, go for it. I don't object to it, I just don't think you've got too much hope. =(
Just as a note, in PBEM, if the game lasts for 1000 turns like CIV II did (approx), then even at one turn per day each, it'd take three years to finish a game. I couldn't keep up the interest for that long, let alone if you only played a turn every couple of days...
Hotseat is a different story, but most of my CIV II games last for longer than 12 hours. Double that for another player, and I think you'd find problems getting too many people to play that with you.
Added to the low costs of internet access, about the only real reason I can see is the real-time vs turn based argument, and I really think we should give it a go before we start complaining...
Still, as I said, you want to try and talk them into it, go for it. People tried that over 6 months ago, and didn't get anywhere. Still, can't hurt to try, right?
Brother Greg.
Tapiolan poika posted 12-07-98 12:00 PM ET
Another hotseat, PBEM thread? Why not?
I, too, would like to see it implemented (as I've entered in every thread on the subject I've seen so far...), even though my hopes aren't that high to see it happen...
If the cost side of playing over the Internet is of interest, I'd like to add, that being online isn't exactly free in Sweden...
dushan posted 12-07-98 12:49 PM ET
Same here in UK, being online for a long time results in a huge phone bill :-(
Brother Greg: Note that once you implement hotseat, PBEM doesn't really need any additional work (just save the game after your turn). The only addition might be a password protection against cheating - which would be trivial.
So I think if they'd decide to implement hotseat, not implementing any support for PBEM would be a shame.
As to the length of the game, I guess you're right, but it might be cut down by doing a quick start (as in Civ II), having faster production/research to minimise the number of turns. Btw I think that online multiplayer will have the same problem (on a different scale) so they must have come up with some solutions.
Dushan
Corwin posted 12-07-98 03:10 PM ET
For people complaining about the online costs, you might want to look at www.netzero.com. I think they have not yet expanded on markets beyond US borders or across the sea, but there might be other companies that are starting in those areas.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: On Movement, HotSeat, and Play-By E-Mail
AUH20	posted 12-06-98 07:11 PM ET There's been a lot of discussion on the aforementioned topics, and I'm kind of getting tired of it because Firaxis has answered each about five or six times. These are my theories based on what they have said, often explicitly. 1. Movement in Single-player is TURN-BASED, NON-SIMALTANEOUS. It is SIMALTANEOUS in multi-player in order to decrease the amount of time recquired to play epic games such as SMAC. 2.Hotseat is impossible to implement because movement is simaltaneous in MP. You can't have four or five people playing with one keyboard/mouse. Same with PBEM. And finally, as far as the Hive controversy, I'd just like to say why I think the Hive is a Soviet type faction, a dicatorship. Firaxis's description's of Hive: "Athestic police state" "Culture of Serfdom" Enough stated.
Octopus	posted 12-06-98 07:28 PM ET AUH20: The reason people are confused about PBEM and hotseat is that these should be the SIMPLEST form of multiplayer to implement. Yes, Firaxis has said that they will be implementing a multi-player mode where the different factions move simulataneously. However, it should be exceedingly simple to also implement a completely turn-based multi-player mode (they're already doing it for single-player). Therefore, people are confused as to why PBEM and hotseat are not implemented. The explanation that it is too complicated doesn't fly with me, and the explanation that it wouldn't work with simultaneous turns doesn't make sense either, since it could easily be done without simultaneous turns. This seems like a feature that wouldn't be difficult for Firaxis to implement at all, and it could easily make a number of people quite happy (not me personally, but a number of people have been asking for these). If you want to debate or criticise the Hive, do it in one of the already existing threads, or start a new one that doesn't have a split topic. Personally, I wish you'd move past "culture of serfdom", since we haven't seen anything close to that in any of the recent previews, leading me to believe that Firaxis has completely dropped that idea (I still have never seen it in print, but I suppose I'll take your word for it). Debating the merits of the different factions can easily be quite entertaining. I find it impossible to understand why you don't want to discuss the merits and failings of the Hive in an intelligent debate, but instead just want to make "pronouncements" about it.
Brother Greg	posted 12-06-98 09:22 PM ET Well, the answer is probably that there just aren't enough people that will want to play it that way. Very small target audience = very little additional sales = wasted money. And how many of them wouldn't buy the game just because it wasn't in there? That is probably the easiest explanation. Don't quote me on it, because it is just my opinion. Basically, even though it wouldn't be MAJOR rewriting, it would still require a reasonable amount of work, which just wouldn't be worth it. As for PBEM, if there was ever two people that could complete a game of CIV II or SMAC by email, I'd like to meet them. Added to which the file transfers would be pretty big. And yes, there was a CIV II hack to allow hotseat. I tried playing two civs at once, but it was too easy. =) Brother Greg.
dushan	posted 12-06-98 09:30 PM ET Well, I'm one of those that constantly moans about the lack of PBEM/hotseat. I agree with Octupus that if the singleplayer is not simultaneous, then PBEM/hotseat should be quite simple to implement. The only true problem I see is diplomacy, i.e. result of diplomatic negotiations have to be resolved over two turns (player1, turn n: proposes some treaty to player2; player2, turn n: receives the proposal and either accepts or declines; player1, turn n+1: player1 receives the other player's decision) The rest is pretty simple, the game is in normal single player mode with more than one faction being controlled by a human player. In hotseat, a screen of type 'Player n, click here to start your turn' is needed after the end of each turn, in PBEM the game is automatically saved and cannot be resumed until a password of the next player is entered. As I said someplace else, I think the main issue is that hotseat/PBEM won't sell the game. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure if I'd ever use those features. However if I should choose between pseudo real-time multiplayer and PBEM, I think I'd go for PBEM. Dushan
Octopus	posted 12-06-98 10:00 PM ET Brother Greg: I would have no problem if Firaxis said they weren't putting in a feature because "nobody" wanted it, but the argument AUH20 seems to be reiterating is "it's too hard", which I don't really buy. If I were making a game like SMAC, I probably wouldn't kill myself to get these features in, but I still think it should be pretty easy. Then again, there's a possibility that the code is so fragile that these features can't be added without hurting things, but I'm hoping that's not the case. And, if the reason that the feature isn't in the game is because not enough people want it, then these boards are the perfect place to start clamoring for the feature, showing Firaxis how many people really DO want the feature.
Shining1	posted 12-06-98 10:35 PM ET Unfortunately, for those who have ever programmed, doing a rewrite of even a small detail can become an unimaginable nightmare - especially when you've optimised the code to do what it's currently supposed to. While I agree that hotseat play is a desirable addition (one of the main reasons I bought Warlords III, in fact), doing it in SMAC would cause many problems, for example the diplomacy menus would require a whole rewrite to allow either 'double input' diplomacy, or turn by turn messaging. Neither is a very attractive option. I tend to disagree that hotseat is too infrequently used to be included, and certainly I would hope that the nice guys at Firaxis wouldn't dismiss it just on this basis.
Brother Greg	posted 12-06-98 10:37 PM ET Well, Firxis themselves stated that it was too hard to implement. Sure they could do it, but it wasn't worth the effort. So, AUH20 was right... Hey, if you can talk them into it, go for it. I don't object to it, I just don't think you've got too much hope. =( Just as a note, in PBEM, if the game lasts for 1000 turns like CIV II did (approx), then even at one turn per day each, it'd take three years to finish a game. I couldn't keep up the interest for that long, let alone if you only played a turn every couple of days... Hotseat is a different story, but most of my CIV II games last for longer than 12 hours. Double that for another player, and I think you'd find problems getting too many people to play that with you. Added to the low costs of internet access, about the only real reason I can see is the real-time vs turn based argument, and I really think we should give it a go before we start complaining... Still, as I said, you want to try and talk them into it, go for it. People tried that over 6 months ago, and didn't get anywhere. Still, can't hurt to try, right? Brother Greg.
Tapiolan poika	posted 12-07-98 12:00 PM ET Another hotseat, PBEM thread? Why not? I, too, would like to see it implemented (as I've entered in every thread on the subject I've seen so far...), even though my hopes aren't that high to see it happen... If the cost side of playing over the Internet is of interest, I'd like to add, that being online isn't exactly free in Sweden...
dushan	posted 12-07-98 12:49 PM ET Same here in UK, being online for a long time results in a huge phone bill :-( Brother Greg: Note that once you implement hotseat, PBEM doesn't really need any additional work (just save the game after your turn). The only addition might be a password protection against cheating - which would be trivial. So I think if they'd decide to implement hotseat, not implementing any support for PBEM would be a shame. As to the length of the game, I guess you're right, but it might be cut down by doing a quick start (as in Civ II), having faster production/research to minimise the number of turns. Btw I think that online multiplayer will have the same problem (on a different scale) so they must have come up with some solutions. Dushan
Corwin	posted 12-07-98 03:10 PM ET For people complaining about the online costs, you might want to look at www.netzero.com. I think they have not yet expanded on markets beyond US borders or across the sea, but there might be other companies that are starting in those areas.