Endless Space allowed players to rejoin if they dropped or drop in mid game and take over an AI-controlled empire. I don't think the game "saved" the slot for you though.



According to the devs they are going for a similar MP feature set as Endless Space, and addition "de-sync" fixes that plagued the first game. -> /#/endless-legend/forum/6-game-design/thread/3159-multiplayer-features

glutamate wrote:
I agree with the OP, #3 is retarded and the worst one.



Why the hell would anyone want "click first, go first" in a TBS? I see it as lazy development rather than intentional design, I don't believe any designer would seriously argue that it's better.

You might notice that #3 also has the most votes from players. The pace of the game is very important if you actually want to be able to finish any MP games. Yes it's a bit more hectic. I'm old school and more comfortable with pure sequential, but I've adapted. Having to step up the pace of my play is worth it to be able to play MP instead of only solo bashing an AI which always seems to be a disappointing opponent.



This one is not only a matter of mechanics or of personal comfort level. It is the practical reality of being able to play against humans in something as long as a 4x game.

Glutamate didn't actually specify whether he preferred option 1 or 2, with 2, if l am not mistaken being only slightly slower than 3, because in 3 the players feel forced to do those critical moves ASAP. (though 2 has its own limitations)

Actually I just thought of a situation : has it ever happen to you in type 3 games to have a stalled down situation because the first player that will make a move will probably lose, so no one wants to make a move?

BlueTemplar wrote:
Glutamate didn't actually specify whether he preferred option 1 or 2, with 2, if l am not mistaken being only slightly slower than 3, because in 3 the players feel forced to do those critical moves ASAP. (though 2 has its own limitations)

Actually I just thought of a situation : has it ever happen to you in type 3 games to have a stalled down situation because the first player that will make a move will probably lose, so no one wants to make a move?

Not quite that bad. You're describing a situation that in chess would be called zugzwang.



Something similar I have seen with my son in AOW3 is we both want the other guy to finish his turn first, so we stall a little waiting for his turn is ended light to go on. This is not such a big thing, though, since a player there can click the end turn button a second time to clear his ready status and resume giving orders.

I would definitely prefer option 2. It has the benefits of 1, but will not take so long. Even if you play synchrone this kind of games can take ages, but if I have finished my round I want a chance to tab out of the game and do something else until my friends or steam notifies me about the next turn (like some games do it already). In option 3 this is not really possible. I hate if I lost a fight in endless space because I didn't give orders because I was in the diplomatie screen. I hate if I am forced out of a ship designer because a fight is starting and I hate if I make decisions based on the current situation and then in the middle of the turn the whole setting changes. "you wanted to evacuate your hero? or increase the troops on this location because you are afraid of a fight? Sad day, I attacked you faster!". If you divide the turn in two phases, a normal and a fighting turn it would be better. Also you can look at things (like designing ships in ES, in EL there it would be possible to implement things, too) during the fighting turn, or lay back if you will not be involved in fights. It would be nice to move your units during the normal turn but "lock" them if you call a fight, but with the option to add troops to a fight before it happens, or call a retreat instant to (with taking some damage) try to fall back and use this troops for something different before the fighting turn starts. Also it would be possible to add a "semi turn" after a fighting turn, where you could move your troops after the fights again, with an additional fighting turn, until no fights will happen and so no fighting turns will happen.



TBH I could live with all three options, I just think 1 is a "bit" too slow, 3 has too many disadvantages and 2 would be hard to do the best possible way (I like my suggestion but I know that I have missed many special scenarios with this idea so it is far from ideal.).



I just hope my bit of feedback can help with a good decision and might have a tiny bit of impact.

The problem with number 2 is that it holds even more nasty surprises than 3 does. You'd have units you had not even seen, suddenly be past your lines leaving you no chance to react. In fact it would even be difficult for two armies in the field who wanted to fight each other to be able to agree on a spot to engage in battle. How do the folks who like 2 envision being able to start a battle if you dont know what space your target will have moved to?



Two is fine for tactial games like naval wargames where the units all have a long range. Here where you have to get adjacent to someone to attack, I think #2 is completely unworkable. Yes I know the OP envisions 2 stages, one for movement and one for combats. Unfortunately that wouldn't solve the problem of units having real trouble ending up near each other.

#2 games usually deal with that by introducing pursue / intercept orders.

(Note that, as I already said, EL already uses a "type 2" system in the combat itself)



The "not even seen" problem is inherent to TBS games. #3 doesn't really solve it as you're unlikely to be fast enough to be able to intercept an army in the short time it's moving.

That latter point can still be a slight issue in type 3, but not nearly as often as it would be in type 2.



For example, if the enemy moves first, I may see him and then be able to react. This is not some split second click fest, nor an RTS. Simultaneous movement in a TBS is not that frantic of a pace. Alternately if I am moving first, especially if I expect enemy contact at some point, I am likely to be moving one or two hexes at a time and can still use my remaining moves to react. Also, even if I move first and spend all my points before spotting someone, my other armies can still react.



It is this very concept that makes scouting important in type 3 games. Scouting is relatively broken in type 2, because your armies do not get to react to what your scouts or pickets may have seen.



Now, no one is saying (well not many are) that the battles should change from type 2 to 3. That would be a clickfest and totally ruin the game. In the battles, however, all units are visible at all times.

I would also like to add:

• drop-in rejoin slot retention is great feature to have (especially for fixing bugs)
• join in ai slot is also great feature to have
  
  

I believe ES had the 2nd, not sure about the first one with out load/save.

glutamate wrote:
Why the hell would anyone want "click first, go first" in a TBS? I see it as lazy development rather than intentional design, I don't believe any designer would seriously argue that it's better.

Why? So you don't need to sit around waiting while other players to take their turns. This isn't "lazy development", simultaneous turns have been used in a lot of different games and are generally appreciated by anyone that plays them.



There may be a few situations where an opponent moves somewhere faster than you, but these are outweighed by making the game playable. Do your important actions first, then mess around with your build queues.

I like the idea of players giving orders to units/assets, and the letting the AI implement those orders si-like for all players. Giving the users conditional order sets, and tactical formations, and possible chouices of strategy each army is to attmept to implement during the AI controlled phase makes for a more interesting game, and reduces the effectiveness of the early rush strategy that I, personally, find distasteful.

Endless Space multiplayer experience was a failure for me.



I am 30 and I often cannot spend more than 30-60 minutes per day playing a game. And when I play, I really dislike having a timer prompting me to finish my turn.



The disappointment was high when I bought Endless Space because I previously played another turn base multiplayer game that was just perfect for me (Uniwar on smartphone for those who know). In this game, you play your turn, can quit the game and get notified when it's your turn to play. Games can last days or weeks and you can play 10 games at the same time if you wish to. I really wish that Amplitude Studios would implement this type of multiplayer.



When I bought Endless Space I was convinced that it couldn’t be otherwise… But with their system, I never finished a multiplayer game and quit after a few.



I believe that many other players must have experience the same thing than me.



This is really something the dev team should be worried about.

There's no way around that with a 4X game, they take a long time to play. Your concern is valid and you really need a dedicated group to finish a 4X in multiplayer. This isn't unique to Endless Space, Civilization V and Age of Empires 3 have the same problem.



Asynchronous games (like Uniwar, Hero Academy, Words with Friends), work when the strategy isn't too deep. Most 4Xs have too much going on and too many players for async to work. It's hard to strategize when you need to wait a day or two between turns. For example - Eclipse: A New Dawn For the Galaxy is the most streamlined 4X out there and playing async sucks.



The best thing Amplitude can do is give us some options in the game that promote shorter play times (it wont be an hour, but 3 would be a good target). Things like small maps, faster pacing options and options for advanced starts would all be welcome.



Timers are necessary in TBS online play. Do you want to spend most of the game waiting for other players (or them for you)? IMHO, Endless Space has the best timer system. It allows you to set a fixed limit or a "last player" option which gives the slow guy a little bit more time to finish after everybody else.

Propbuddha,



I hear your opinion that asynchronous games only work if strategy is not too deep. It may indeed be a concern, even if I haven't experienced it myself in the past for I did not play as many different games as you did.



But synchronous games come with other concerns that are insurmountable for players like me ! 3 hours, though I agree is a good target for a game, is way too much as an undivided period of time and I can't think of any 'options' that will cope with this. Asynchronous seems the only way.



When it come to timers, it is probably necessary for synchronous play but I find it stressful and it also lessens the strategy involved in the game. For asynchronous play however, you can set a very big timer such as 1 day and it's no problem.



I understand that some players will prefer to play synchronous and others asynchronous. Of course, the ideal solution to this is if Amplitude Studios could provide both ! You would choose the mode at the creation of the game. I wonder if that would be too much development for them ?

I'd like to have the option at the start of the game to chose either sequential or Simultaneous turns with simultaneous movement

- Nobody forces you to play for more than 30-60 minutes per day - (In my experience, except for small duels (3 hours seems right for that), you just cannot hope to complete a 4X game in a single day) - it's just that if the game itself isn't conductive to players playing in short stretches of time, you will have to find players willing to put up with your schedule. It requires some extra effort, sure, but it's not impossible.



- In my experience (with SotS1) a timer isn't mandatory, even when playing with people you don't know. You just have to ask people to be polite and not take too long (and often, that wasn't even necessary). What helped, I think, is that SotS1 has a dropdown menu showing whether a player has finished its turn or not, as well as a sound warning when you're the last remaining player. This compels you to not to take much more time than the other players. (Plus the fact that you can still do some things like designing ships even when you're waiting for the others.)



- Space Empires 5 is a very complex game that was played mostly asynchronously in MP, and if anything, waiting a day between turns made for deeper strategy.

Regarding timers : Endless Space had a nice/fair rule. When everybody but one had finished, a countdown was launched for the last player.

"Propbuddha" wrote:
Asynchronous games (like Uniwar, Hero Academy, Words with Friends), work when the strategy isn't too deep

Go check Neptune's pride 2 then. It's not at the far end of the complexity spectrum but you can do loads of meaningful things and everything is clicking well for up to 64 players to play in asynchronous fashion. And there is a social layer (boardgame like, not facebook like).



But I'm not sure asynchron is a real option for Amplitude. I'm no expert in network dev but I think it implies to shift from a " player host + players clients" system to a "every player is a client and Amplitude has to buy loads of servers to host those games, waiting for us to continue them" system.



I don't really get this "Simultaneous with end phase" vs "totally simultaneous" but a good thing would be when a player engages an player controlled army, to check if this army still has move points. If so, a pop up is sent to the attacked player notifying her that she can move her troops out of enemy reach or stay there and fight. Okay we have something intrusive which asks for a bit of reaction but there is already lot of pop ups working the same way and you probably aren't bothered by them anymore so, one more/one less ^^

Asynchronous doesn't necessarily mean the company that made the game has to pay for the servers : they can be hosted by the players themselves, like in this case : http://pbw.spaceempires.net/

BlueTemplar wrote:
I feel that we have to talk about this (hopefully it's not too late to influence EL).





My own preference is 2 > 1 > 3 (because the chaos of simultaneous movement is such a deal-breaker to me).



What kind of MP design do you prefer?

Same for me. Simultaneous movement without end-phase is a deal-breaker to me as well: too messy and it doesn't make sense to me to play a turn-based game where "who clicks faster wins"! I'm not playing an RTS...

Maybe it could be added as an option during the set-up phase of a game?

#3 is their stated goal. Combat can take place while players are taking their turns and even the participants can go do other things during the combat.