I love turn-based strategy games. Maybe that's because I love board games like Twilight Imperium.

Atlantis_Risen wrote:
Turn based has worked well for more than 20 years of PC strategy gaming, it's the standard for this kind of game. If a player can't be patient while the AI is making it's turn than maybe TBS games aren't a good fit for that person.

After 20 years I think it's time to move on to something new...



I agree that the simultaneous turn system is flawed but the solution is not to bring back an outdated and multiplayer-backward turn based system.

Mansen wrote:
Can... or Can't? Make up your mind.

Should've been "can't." Late night typo demon.

morningStar wrote:
After 20 years I think it's time to move on to something new...



I agree that the simultaneous turn system is flawed but the solution is not to bring back an outdated and multiplayer-backward turn based system.

There has not been a turn-based game yet that was a big multiplayer hit, and it's because that turn dynamic slows everything to a crawl. So I can't really fault the game for trying simultaneous gameplay. But there are no rules for what happens in what order, so it's a very thin and exploitable aspect of the game.



Here's a good example: When a fleet goes through a star system on its way to a destination it stops, turns, and accelerates in the new direction. That animation takes time, so in theory a fleet that started moving at the same time from farther away, but moving in a straight line, might reach the same destination first. So if fleets can expend movement points at different rates, then what is a "movement point" even supposed to represent? Should you build upgrades on your planets to make that acceleration animation go faster, instead of spending that money on faster engines for your ships? It's like playing two different games that don't meet at any point.

Eilarais wrote:
There has not been a turn-based game yet that was a big multiplayer hit, and it's because that turn dynamic slows everything to a crawl. So I can't really fault the game for trying simultaneous gameplay. But there are no rules for what happens in what order, so it's a very thin and exploitable aspect of the game.



Here's a good example: When a fleet goes through a star system on its way to a destination it stops, turns, and accelerates in the new direction. That animation takes time, so in theory a fleet that started moving at the same time from farther away, but moving in a straight line, might reach the same destination first. So if fleets can expend movement points at different rates, then what is a "movement point" even supposed to represent? Should you build upgrades on your planets to make that acceleration animation go faster, instead of spending that money on faster engines for your ships? It's like playing two different games that don't meet at any point.

I agree with you. The game has a lot of flimsy mechanics like this that need to be addressed.

morningStar wrote:
After 20 years I think it's time to move on to something new...



I agree that the simultaneous turn system is flawed but the solution is not to bring back an outdated and multiplayer-backward turn based system.

I couldn't disagree more. If you don't enjoy TBS games or think they're outdated, then don't play them. But they certainly don't need to go away to pave the way for newer, more MP friendly game styles.

its not the simultanous moves that are the problems. So many people say that turnbased is to slow and i agree fully that one player after another isnt the right way. But simoultanous moves with battles after the movingphase are fast enought. maybe just play your cards and click to next battle instead of the video.

Supposedly this game is in the same vein as Master of Orion and Galciv, bot fantastic turn based games. Why in the world would anyone be interested in ES if they don't like TBS games?? Just go play an RTS if you think a TBS is too slow. But please leave the TBS's for us strategy fans that love them.

Atlantis_Risen wrote:
Supposedly this game is in the same vein as Master of Orion and Galciv, bot fantastic turn based games. Why in the world would anyone be interested in ES if they don't like TBS games?? Just go play an RTS if you think a TBS is too slow. But please leave the TBS's for us strategy fans that love them.

Nice strawman...



No one is arguing to get rid of TBS completely. What I am saying is that TBS games in their current incarnation are old and outdated. There have been no new "revolutions" in TBS design in 20 years. One of the problems with the way TBS games are designed now is their crappy approach to multiplayer. ES is trying to break free of this mould and go with something new in the form simultaneous turns.

morningStar wrote:
Nice strawman...



No one is arguing to get rid of TBS completely. What I am saying is that TBS games in their current incarnation are old and outdated. There have been no new "revolutions" in TBS design in 20 years. One of the problems with the way TBS games are designed now is their crappy approach to multiplayer. ES is trying to break free of this mould and go with something new in the form simultaneous turns.

What strawman? You said 'move on to something new'...that suggests leaving something behind, like TBS turn structure. you said it, I simply quoted you. ES is 99% amazing, it's just little things like this weird MP-centric turn structure that keeps it from being even better.



And simultaneous turns are fine, as long as nothing happens until everyone has completed their actions and hit 'end turn'. The way it is now is just a mess.

Atlantis_Risen wrote:
What strawman? You said 'move on to something new'...that suggests leaving something behind, like TBS turn structure. you said it, I simply quoted you. ES is 99% amazing, it's just little things like this weird MP-centric turn structure that keeps it from being even better.



And simultaneous turns are fine, as long as nothing happens until everyone has completed their actions and hit 'end turn'. The way it is now is just a mess.

"Move on to something new" as in either improve the TBS system as it has existed over the past decade or come up with a new system (like ES is trying to do). Do you not agree that the TBS system can be improved over what we have had since the 90s? The addition of simultaneous turns was an attempt (I think) to solve the problem of waiting during your opponent's turn. Although ES hasn't implemented this new system without flaws, it is a step in the right direction.

Whilst I totally agree (and have done in previous posts in this thread) that the ES Simultaneous Turn Based system doesn't work I think we are all "flogging a dead horse" as there seems to be no response or interest in changing things from the developers.



In the GAMES2GETHER part of the forum this issue was raised here /#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/11406-discussion-simultaneous-movement-design-flaw at the beginning of May (this also seems to be one of the most active current threads in this forum as well) and the developers have done nothing to address the issue in the last 3 months.



Unfortunately it looks like I'll have to put ES on the (virtual) shelf next to SOTS2 and go back to GalCiv2 and Armada 2526 for the foreseeable future.

morningStar wrote:
"Move on to something new" as in either improve the TBS system as it has existed over the past decade or come up with a new system (like ES is trying to do). Do you not agree that the TBS system can be improved over what we have had since the 90s? The addition of simultaneous turns was an attempt (I think) to solve the problem of waiting during your opponent's turn. Although ES hasn't implemented this new system without flaws, it is a step in the right direction.

The concept of: I complete my turn, 1st AI completes it's turn, 2nd AI completes it's turn, etc...doesn't need to be improved upon. It's the essence of TBS games. I don't believe the ES developers were trying to improve on that system, but were simply pandering to MP players in their game design.

Wolfe1759 wrote:
Unfortunately it looks like I'll have to put ES on the (virtual) shelf next to SOTS2 and go back to GalCiv2 and Armada 2526 for the foreseeable future.

This is what I was thinking too.

Atlantis_Risen wrote:
The concept of: I complete my turn, 1st AI completes it's turn, 2nd AI completes it's turn, etc...doesn't need to be improved upon. It's the essence of TBS games. I don't believe the ES developers were trying to improve on that system, but were simply pandering to MP players in their game design.

It is clear that no advances in AI in the near future will be able to offer a truly enjoyable and modern game experience. Multiplayer is the only natural avenue left to pursue in order to keep the genre progressing and moving forward. I know you don't agree with me but I am tired of playing 4x games with essentially the same formula that was invented in the 90s. In any event I believe that fundamental game mechanics which are based on a multiplayer experience are always good for a game - singleplayer or not.

morningStar wrote:
It is clear that no advances in AI in the near future will be able to offer a truly enjoyable and modern game experience. Multiplayer is the only natural avenue left to pursue in order to keep the genre progressing and moving forward. I know you don't agree with me but I am tired of playing 4x games with essentially the same formula that was invented in the 90s. In any event I believe that fundamental game mechanics which are based on a multiplayer experience are always good for a game - singleplayer or not.

I disagree. I can fire up Galciv whenever I want and have a great game. AI are consistent, and they play as they're supposed to. Humans are whiny, cheating, exploit-seeking and just not fun to play with at all. Plus, I like my TBS games to take weeks or months, played at my own pace. You just can't do that with human players, except play by email. I just have no interest in TBS MP whatsoever. And looking at that new poll about how we all play ES, I think most agree.

Atlantis_Risen wrote:
I disagree. I can fire up Galciv whenever I want and have a great game. AI are consistent, and they play as they're supposed to. Humans are whiny, cheating, exploit-seeking and just not fun to play with at all.

Well see that's where we differ. I don't see how you can become a better player by playing a "consistent" and formulaic AI. Over time you will know how an AI plays and reacts making improvement as a player impossible. Playing against humans is the only way a player can get better at a game and really explore strategic gameplay. Cheating, and exploit-seeking is a function of game design not people. In a strong multiplayer game like Starcraft, for example, none of your points are applicable.

Plus, I like my TBS games to take weeks or months, played at my own pace. You just can't do that with human players, except play by email. I just have no interest in TBS MP whatsoever. And looking at that new poll about how we all play ES, I think most agree.

I suspect the reason most people don't play TBS multiplayer because it is impractical in terms of time - not because of some inherent flaw of multiplayer. To be honest, I don't think you will get anything of value out of playing a 4x match for months over match that lasts a few hours.

I think its not to complicate to add a checkbox where u can mark: battles after the turn. so all people would be happy.

morningStar wrote:
In a strong multiplayer game like Starcraft, for example, none of your points are applicable.

Did you hear about the Starcraft AI contest?

Skynet meets the Swarm.



Berkeley's team's AI was so good at using one unit that it was able to beat that unit's hard counter (i.e. the Overmind only uses a single unit, mutalisks, but it uses that unit so well it's able to devestate an opponent using the counter-unit, high templars).

morningStar wrote:
Well see that's where we differ. I don't see how you can become a better player by playing a "consistent" and formulaic AI. Over time you will know how an AI plays and reacts making improvement as a player impossible. Playing against humans is the only way a player can get better at a game and really explore strategic gameplay. Cheating, and exploit-seeking is a function of game design not people. In a strong multiplayer game like Starcraft, for example, none of your points are applicable.

.

For me, and I suspect a lot of the single player crowd winning isn't everything. I play a game to enjoy the ride not for the glory of winning. I don't particularly strive to be a better or more successful player I just want to have fun playing a game. If I win but have no fun what is the point. This is also one of the reasons I avoid multi-player, competitive, pressurised, do anything to win - far too much like real life.

Mansen wrote:
Suspect? How so? - It speeds up gameplay immensively, which is perfect for multiplayer 4X games.

Agreed, simultaneous turns are great. And if a strategy game doesn't have multiplayer I loose interest incredibly quickly, gal civ 2 for example, lack of multiplayer is why I've played it far less than far inferior games which do offer multiplayer.