Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Heroes 5 - Temple of Ashan > Thread: Possible solution for simultanious turns
Thread: Possible solution for simultanious turns
kerista
kerista

Tavern Dweller
posted August 04, 2006 09:18 PM

Possible solution for simultanious turns

Obviously there is some concern about HMM5 becoming to much like a RTS game with simultainous turns.  No one wants it to turn into a game of who has the fasted connection and who can click faster.  The game is about strategy, not physical or internet speed.  Here is my idea for a compromise that would speed up a multiplayer game a little while not making it a RTS.

Break up the day into two phases.  The first phase would be the build/recruit phase.  Everyone takes this phase of the day at the same time.  The second phase would be the hero phase.  This phase would be taken in regular turn order.

Then no one would have to wait around while someone else was deciding what to build or buy.  The only waiting you would have to do would be for actual hero movement and battles.  Granted, that is the majority of the wait, but it is far from all of it.

There would also be another great problem solved by this.  Lets say it is the first day of the week and all your dwellings just refilled.  Then the person who goes first takes your town and hires all of those creatures before you had a chance to.  If eveyone has their build/recruit phase at the same time and before the hero phase, then that situation would not be possible.  You would have a chance to buy those troops to aid you in defending your town.  You all get paid at the same time, you all get the new weeks creatures at the same time, why shouldn't you be able to buy them at the same time.

Any thoughts, questions or further ideas on this?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
caligno
caligno


Hired Hero
If zombies only had brains
posted August 04, 2006 09:27 PM

It certainly is a viable solution, but it doesn't completely solve the 1st player buying before the next player can problem.

Say for instance Player 1 and player 2 buy units during their buying and building phase, both of them have their units in their town.  However, player 2 can't pick up his units until his turn since the hero can't move yet.  Player 1 would be able to pick up his creatures first then chain them to the attacking hero before the other hero could pick up his.  This is of course assuming that player 2 has his hero away from his town and not stationed there.

This idea would solve the problem if player 2 had his hero stationed in his town at the end of day 7, so it certainly is an improvement and I like the idea on merit alone even without the player 1 issue fix.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
dfortae
dfortae


Known Hero
posted August 04, 2006 09:53 PM

Good ideas guys.  Sure they won't implement it, but still, good ideas.  

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Izzachar
Izzachar


Adventuring Hero
posted August 04, 2006 10:56 PM

And what if you miss 1000g for your capitol and wanna take a chest before building?

I think that during the other players turn you should be able to choose what you want to build and if you can afford it it would be built next turn.

You should also be able to look at your castle, hero etc during other players turn.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
kerista
kerista

Tavern Dweller
posted August 04, 2006 11:29 PM
Edited by kerista at 21:10, 05 Aug 2006.

Quote:
It certainly is a viable solution, but it doesn't completely solve the 1st player buying before the next player can problem.

Say for instance Player 1 and player 2 buy units during their buying and building phase, both of them have their units in their town.  However, player 2 can't pick up his units until his turn since the hero can't move yet.

What I mean is, you can buy those troops to help defend you town and your enemy could not buy them because you already did.  Loosing a town is one thing, but to then have to kill your own creatures to take it back is another.

Anyway, this would just be a game OPTION, the same way ghost mode is an option.  You could even activate this mode and ghost mode at the same time.  That means you would always have something to do and never have that whole "staring at the screen for a hour while someone else takes their turn" thing.  Which seems to be the bane of any multiplayer game.

Quote:
And what if you miss 1000g for your capitol and wanna take a chest before building?

Then plan ahead and take that chest the turn before. So far that is the only noted down side. It would still certainly be an improvement overall.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Kerista
Kerista

Tavern Dweller
posted August 05, 2006 09:12 PM

Still looking for more input or feedback on this.  Remeber, if enough people want something, it will become a part of the game.  The designers respond to our feedback with every patch they make.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Calbrenar
Calbrenar

Tavern Dweller
posted August 05, 2006 11:17 PM

Quote:
Obviously there is some concern about HMM5 becoming to much like a RTS game with simultainous turns. No one wants it to turn into a game of who has the fasted connection and who can click faster. The game is about strategy, not physical or internet speed. Here is my idea for a compromise that would speed up a multiplayer game a little while not making it a RTS.



There's no reason why there shouldn't be simultaneous turns period just like Civ has.  Anyone who's computer is a big enough of a problem that it can't handle this game needs to upgrade to something made in the last 3 years.  If their connection is bad then they should get cable/DSL.  Nobody who calls themselves a gamer should be using 56k its ridiculous.

That being said with the way vision works in this game you would be able to see someone coming towards you long before they get there and thus have that hero selected and ready to act negating someone being "faster"

If they are going to implement a simultaneous mode, which I guarantee will *NEVER* happen in a patch, then they should implement a true simultaneous mode and not some half cocked split mode.  Its a moot point anyways because in over 20 years gaming I've never seen a company drastically change the design of multiplayer through a patch.  If they do anything at all they will add it to Homm 6 and use that as an excuse to make people buy it.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
SuperDave9x19
SuperDave9x19


Adventuring Hero
posted August 07, 2006 05:41 PM

Quote:
Nobody who calls themselves a gamer should be using 56k its ridiculous.



bull.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
dfortae
dfortae


Known Hero
posted August 07, 2006 05:55 PM

Quote:
If they are going to implement a simultaneous mode, which I guarantee will *NEVER* happen in a patch, then they should implement a true simultaneous mode and not some half cocked split mode.  Its a moot point anyways because in over 20 years gaming I've never seen a company drastically change the design of multiplayer through a patch.  If they do anything at all they will add it to Homm 6 and use that as an excuse to make people buy it.


I absolutely agree.  It's not going to happen in 5.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
kerista
kerista

Tavern Dweller
posted August 07, 2006 09:01 PM

Quote:
There's no reason why there shouldn't be simultaneous turns period just like Civ has.

Have you even played civ?!?  Hello!, it's a completely different game.  In Civ, you set up a Q for things to be built, your not rushed into buying a weeks worth of troops before the army outside your gate makes it's assault.  There are many more differences that make your comparison completely invalid, but I will not go into them here.
Quote:
Anyone who's computer is a big enough of a problem that it can't handle this game needs to upgrade to something made in the last 3 years.  If their connection is bad then they should get cable/DSL.  Nobody who calls themselves a gamer should be using 56k its ridiculous.

So your saying that if you don't have enough income to afford the latest technology then you can't call yourself a gamer?!?  That statement is what is ridiculous.  Statements like that are not going to win you many friends around here.
Quote:
That being said with the way vision works in this game you would be able to see someone coming towards you long before they get there and thus have that hero selected and ready to act negating someone being "faster"

Assuming you have explored where they are comming from already.  Assuming you don't have 3 or 4 other things that require immediate attention at the start of the turn.  There are many things in this game that require "time" to figure out.  It's not only about who is faster.  Let's say I want to teleport around on the map to deliver troops, or maybe I gained a level and need to look over my skills to make sure I pick the right one.  The point is, it's a turn based strategy game, not a real time strategy game.  When I want to play a RTS I'll play Dawn of War or Warcraft III.
Quote:
If they are going to implement a simultaneous mode, which I guarantee will *NEVER* happen in a patch, then they should implement a true simultaneous mode and not some half cocked split mode.  Its a moot point anyways because in over 20 years gaming I've never seen a company drastically change the design of multiplayer through a patch.  If they do anything at all they will add it to Homm 6 and use that as an excuse to make people buy it.

It's nay sayers like you that will make that statement true.  Granted maybe not in a patch, but perhaps in an expansion.  There is no reason not to include it in something that they will get paid for.

In closing, if you have something constructive to post, then please do so, but if all you have is negativity, then please take it elsewhere.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Binabik
Binabik


Responsible
Legendary Hero
posted August 08, 2006 12:08 AM

I've only seen this in one game. It's not simultanious, but it speeds things up.

Except for the first turn, each player takes two turns in a row. For example:

Player 1, turn 1
Player 2, turn 1 & 2
Player 1, turn 2 & 3
player 2, turn 3 & 4
etc.

This way the game data is only sent half as often.

It also eliminates one player always going first. Player 1 (red days)always plays the odd number days first, and player 2 (blue days)plays the even number days first.

I think there's also a way to make this work with more than two players.

____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Calbrenar
Calbrenar

Tavern Dweller
posted August 08, 2006 06:05 AM

Quote:
Quote:
There's no reason why there shouldn't be simultaneous turns period just like Civ has.

Have you even played civ?!?  Hello!, it's a completely different game.  In Civ, you set up a Q for things to be built, your not rushed into buying a weeks worth of troops before the army outside your gate makes it's assault.  There are many more differences that make your comparison completely invalid, but I will not go into them here.



Yes its far easier to say there are many things then to actually come up with any that actually apply aren't there?  This is a *strategy* game.  That means planning is the biggest part.  If they are coming to your base you will know it before the end of the week.  If that days worth of troops is so important as to make the difference between you winning or losing then you already failed at one part of the game didn't you.   Obviously your strategy was flawed in order to leave you in that situation or you're trying to recover from a previous failure.  Either way its your fault and no reason not to have a simultaneous mode that will actually make the multplayer version of this game playable.  I mean seriously who here who actually has a job has the time to play a full game of this?  My friend and I play it it takes us a week to play a game.  Its friggin ridiculous.  

Quote:
Anyone who's computer is a big enough of a problem that it can't handle this game needs to upgrade to something made in the last 3 years.  If their connection is bad then they should get cable/DSL.  Nobody who calls themselves a gamer should be using 56k its ridiculous.

So your saying that if you don't have enough income to afford the latest technology then you can't call yourself a gamer?!?  That statement is what is ridiculous.  Statements like that are not going to win you many friends around here.



A computer built within the last 3 years is the latest technology?  Are you kidding me?  I built a top of the line machine in January for under $1500.  I could have built something capable of ripping htis game to shred and being decent graphic wise at games that are far more complex and power hungry (of which there are many) for 1/2 to 2/3 of that.  Do you know anything about the computer hardware market or the requirements of this game?  Do you have any idea how old your computer would have to be to make processing power a factor in having simultaneous turns for a game like this?  Within the last three years was an extremely conservative estimate.  Its probably more like having bought the equivelent of a new machine in the last 6 years if not closer to 10 and yes if your computer is that old then no you have no reason to complain.  There's a reason why the game has requirements on the box.  Learn to read.

Quote:
That being said with the way vision works in this game you would be able to see someone coming towards you long before they get there and thus have that hero selected and ready to act negating someone being "faster"

Assuming you have explored where they are comming from already.  Assuming you don't have 3 or 4 other things that require immediate attention at the start of the turn.  There are many things in this game that require "time" to figure out.  It's not only about who is faster.  Let's say I want to teleport around on the map to deliver troops, or maybe I gained a level and need to look over my skills to make sure I pick the right one.  The point is, it's a turn based strategy game, not a real time strategy game.  When I want to play a RTS I'll play Dawn of War or Warcraft III.


Yes because its so hard to explore in this game.  There's no fog of war.  You can sit there and run up to a high level creature and see a decent distance beyond them.  Here's an idea buy a few extra heroes and SCOUT.  Use the SCOUTING skill.  *gasp*  I know you hate RTS gamse apparently but if you knew how to play a real war game you'd know the importance of scouting.  The fact that this game is turn based doesn't remove that.  Information is the most key aspect in any type of war game RTS or otherwise.  If you have unexplored territory close enough to your starting base where someone can approach you without having at least 2-4 turns notice then you suck plain and simple and need to learn how to play.

Quote:
If they are going to implement a simultaneous mode, which I guarantee will *NEVER* happen in a patch, then they should implement a true simultaneous mode and not some half cocked split mode.  Its a moot point anyways because in over 20 years gaming I've never seen a company drastically change the design of multiplayer through a patch.  If they do anything at all they will add it to Homm 6 and use that as an excuse to make people buy it.

It's nay sayers like you that will make that statement true.  Granted maybe not in a patch, but perhaps in an expansion.  There is no reason not to include it in something that they will get paid for.

In closing, if you have something constructive to post, then please do so, but if all you have is negativity, then please take it elsewhere.


Giving the worthlessness of your reply I find it interesting to have you complain about how constructive my post is or isn't.  At least I'm proposing that they do an actual effective simultaneous mode.  You're proposal assuming they make a major change to the multiplayer code, which they won't, would be the equivelent of putting a band aid on a gunshot wound.  Allowing true simultaneous turns will not make this game approach anything even remotely like an RTS which you have obviously never played if you can even begin to make the comparison.  A game like BFME2 where I can slaughter an army that took you an hour to build in 5 different ways in less then a minute has absolutely nothing in common with a game that takes days to play a multiplayer version simultaneous mode or no.  You're one valid comment in that entire load of crap was somone teleporting to your base then attacking before the end of the turn.  Instead of whining you could have stated the obvious such as before the battle starts for the town the resident player can buy troops at the starting screen. *gasp*  So hard to figure out
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Calbrenar
Calbrenar

Tavern Dweller
posted August 08, 2006 06:09 AM

Quote:
Quote:
Nobody who calls themselves a gamer should be using 56k its ridiculous.



bull.


And yes anyone who calls themselves a gamer should have an internet connection that is capble of playing games.  You may get away with it in cheesey gamse that don't do any real calculations or talking to one another but in any game with any type of serious work going on a 56k will rarely be even minimally sufficient.

But I guess there's always those few who like to be the ones jumping around and unable to be hit because the server isn't in as good communication with it so all your shots etc depending on the game end up missing because you have to estimate where they are.  I guess that is a viable alternative to actually posessing the skill to legitamately fight someone.  But hey if it saves ya having to ask your parents for extra money in order to get a real internet connection or you just can tear yourself away from teen chat on AOL and come out and join the real internet, that's your perogative.  Just don't complain when your connection isn't capable of running any decent games.  Do you honestly expect a medium where actual WEB PAGES take time to show up to be able to handle a complicated game?  Do some reading on network coding and see the amount of effort that is involved to compensate for late packets.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
kerista
kerista

Tavern Dweller
posted August 08, 2006 04:28 PM
Edited by kerista at 16:30, 08 Aug 2006.

Duly noted.  Aside from Calbrenar being close minded, self centered, insulting, and off topic, he does not like the idea.

But seriously Calbrenar, I know the differences between HMM5 and an RTS.  I have played almost every RTS game out there.  In fact I'm very good at them.  I know how to scout, I know how to organise troops and all that.  But, all of that is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.  I shouldn't have to be defending myslef from personal attack on this forum.  The purpose of this thread (which apparently completely escaped you) is to find a way to speed up the game (which even you have stated takes a week to finish) without taking anything away from it.  There is no reason to take a thread with constructive intentions and turn it into your own personal mud fight.

I have an exceptional computer and internet connection.  But not everyone out there does.  You act like someone who has a computer that barely meets the system requirements is not even a person.  I point out some possible down sides to something and you say I'm a poor tactician.  You can't deny the fact that if everyone took their turns at the same time, that there would be cases where whoever could click the fastest would have an advantage.  That is not a desired situation and not why "most" people play this game.  It would not have the same feel if you were overly rushed most turns.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Demortae
Demortae


Adventuring Hero
posted August 08, 2006 07:34 PM

I haven't considered myself a gamer in a long time, but even if I did, I live out of range of cable and dsl.  In fact, it would cost me thousands of dollars to establish a connection to even compare to that which I could get for 50 bucks a month two miles down the road, and cost much more to maintain.

Also, gamers tend to be young, and have no monetary source of their own, so "1/2 to 2/3 of that" might be well outta their range.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Calbrenar
Calbrenar

Tavern Dweller
posted August 09, 2006 03:25 AM
Edited by Calbrenar at 03:27, 09 Aug 2006.

Actually believe it or not the gamer group is fairly close to the same demographic as professional wrestling.  Something like 18-35 year old males.  Most of whom have jobs and are quite capable of paying for things themselves.  The reason people think the majority of gamers are younger is due to the fact that they are (for console games anyway) a dominant segment of the market and additionally due to their youth and inexperience tend to be a very visible part of any online community.  Its kind of hard to miss teenagers.

Regarding the OP I don't feel that you addressed any concerns of where a true simultaneous mode would give any advantage other then the one that I already suggested a solution for.  Granted if two people are exactly equidistant from a treasure chest then if someone is able to click a split second faster they might reach it first.  This is of course assuming that the designers do a half way decent system that won't accept commands from a faster computer that may have finished loading first.  This is doubtful since whoever is the server will obviously have a faster response time regardless of the speed of their machine.

A simultaneous mode adds another strategic element that I haven't seen anyone bring up.  What order do you do things in?  Do you grab a chest first or do you attack a mob?  What happens if I'm fighting a random party of critters?  If you attack do you fight the winners?  Do you sit and wait till its over and they can possibly move again?  If you're tied up in a fight what happens if he attacks your home town does it wait and resolve after?  Also more on the strategic side versus the mechanics side what if while you're fighting he's running around with 4 heroes grabbing all your mines and such.  

90% of the strategic issues will be resolved with scouting and the majority of the time the simultaneous modes will help alleviate what they are intended to.  Namely the first 3-5 weeks of the game where none of the players playing even see each other and do nothing but fight mobs to level up, grab resources, and build up their towns.  A far better suggestion then your origional one IMO would be to restrict simultaneous turns to the times when player to player interaction is not possible due to range which is easily calculated by the game.  This way all 2-8 players can merrily be on their way doing all the tedious crap that must be done before the real game starts all at the same time with vastly reduced wait times as most battles will proceed simultaneously yet the game slows down when the players begin to interact with each other preventing all the whining about the game becoming a, and I use the term very loosely, "RTS game".  Obviously some work would need to be done in order to determine the optimal times to shift from simultaneous to turn based and questions addressed such as turn order once the shift occurs etc but I didn't make the game, if I had designed it these problems wouldn't be here in the first place so I'm not going to spend more time then I have giving fixes for something that again, they will never do in a patch.  But I figured I'd reply to you in a less confrontational manner since I was a bit aggressive last night just because I get like that sometimes.  I'm not apologizing for it thats just how I am.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
kerista
kerista

Tavern Dweller
posted August 10, 2006 02:44 PM

Quote:
A simultaneous mode adds another strategic element that I haven't seen anyone bring up.  What order do you do things in?  Do you grab a chest first or do you attack a mob?  What happens if I'm fighting a random party of critters?  If you attack do you fight the winners?  Do you sit and wait till its over and they can possibly move again?  If you're tied up in a fight what happens if he attacks your home town does it wait and resolve after?  Also more on the strategic side versus the mechanics side what if while you're fighting he's running around with 4 heroes grabbing all your mines and such.

I would assume that when someone is in a combat, that the game would "pause" for all those not involved, until it is resolved.  Like in the situation you sugested, if you plan on taking on the winner, you have to wait around to see who that will be anyway.  It also would seem hardly fair for everyone to have free reign on your land while you were stuck in combat and unable to even know what is going on outside of it.  That is mainly why I don't think making the game "truely" simultaneous would speed it up that much more, since you would have to wait for every combat anyway.
Quote:
A far better suggestion then your origional one IMO would be to restrict simultaneous turns to the times when player to player interaction is not possible due to range which is easily calculated by the game.  This way all 2-8 players can merrily be on their way doing all the tedious crap that must be done before the real game starts all at the same time with vastly reduced wait times as most battles will proceed simultaneously yet the game slows down when the players begin to interact with each other preventing all the whining about the game becoming a, and I use the term very loosely, "RTS game".

I realy like this idea.  What if instead of setting a timer on it, the game ended simultaneous mode the turn after 2 or more players could see and had access to each other.

Thanks for your contribution to the thread.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread »
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0538 seconds