Wolfe1759 wrote:
If I win but have no fun what is the point

That is a sign of poor game design, and does not mean that there is something wrong with "playing to win". I would argue that if you aren't playing to win then there can be no strategic depth to your gameplay and you are essentially playing with a map editor.

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.







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 we just enjoy different things. I want to play against a number of other races that all have their own personalities and aren't necessarily just trying to wipe me out as quickly as possible--as a human opponent would. I like to build a slow empire and win through scientific or diplomatic means. Trading and maintaining good relations with as many other races as I can. MP matches are just quick warmonger games to see who can create the biggest fleet first and wipe out their opponents as soon as they can. That doesn't interest me much.

Atlantis_Risen wrote:
MP matches are just quick warmonger games to see who can create the biggest fleet first and wipe out their opponents as soon as they can. That doesn't interest me much.

One of the X's in a 4x game stands for eXterminate. If you're not using your military, you are not in fact playing the 4x game.

Iceciro wrote:
One of the X's in a 4x game stands for eXterminate. If you're not using your military, you are not in fact playing the 4x game.

The appeal of 4x games to me is the variety and options. If I just wanted to kill stuff, there are tons of better games for that. To me, it get boring playing games a lot these days because of how focused most games are on killing.

Wolfe1759 wrote:
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.

+100, assuming I have that many points to bestow (let's just assume I do). I play 4x games primarily because I can play them while I do other things, and those other things already have enough clocks and timers to drive me insane. That doesn't mean that there's not room for such things in 4x games, but the point is that turn-based strategy is a refuge from the frenetic activity that plagues RTS games, and it would be a shame if they lost that in the great hybrid-ization of the genre.

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.

Yes, and I am a bit disappointed to see all of these "don't fix what isn't broken" posts advocating a return to a turn-based system. Regardless of what you want to see this game become, the core of independent gaming is in trying new things. When a new type of game is released, it will have flaws. Those flaws become new problems to solve. If those problems are solved creatively, then the result can become a new genre.



I see this whole G2G initiative as a way to crowd-source this process, and if that initiative were to result in a traditional 4x game then I would have to call it a failure. I am much more interested in how this simultaneous turn-based concept can be used to create something new. What does the relationship need to be between these battle timers and the strategic setup that preceded it? can this turn-based setup really be used to contribute to a compelling RTS experience?

Wolfe1759 wrote:
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.

This is my take also...100%.

Iceciro wrote:
One of the X's in a 4x game stands for eXterminate. If you're not using your military, you are not in fact playing the 4x game.

Oh, I build a military, but not usually to conquer the galaxy. Usually for defense.

Eilarais wrote:
Yes, and I am a bit disappointed to see all of these "don't fix what isn't broken" posts advocating a return to a turn-based system. Regardless of what you want to see this game become, the core of independent gaming is in trying new things. When a new type of game is released, it will have flaws. Those flaws become new problems to solve. If those problems are solved creatively, then the result can become a new genre.



I see this whole G2G initiative as a way to crowd-source this process, and if that initiative were to result in a traditional 4x game then I would have to call it a failure. I am much more interested in how this simultaneous turn-based concept can be used to create something new. What does the relationship need to be between these battle timers and the strategic setup that preceded it? can this turn-based setup really be used to contribute to a compelling RTS experience?

I just wish they were more open in the beginning about this new turn system, I would have held off on buying. Now it's too late, they have my money. And if I wanted to play an RTS, I would. I stick to TBS because I loathe RTS's (except Sins)...

Atlantis_Risen wrote:
I just wish they were more open in the beginning about this new turn system, I would have held off on buying. Now it's too late, they have my money. And if I wanted to play an RTS, I would. I stick to TBS because I loathe RTS's (except Sins)...

"except Sins" is exactly the sentiment I'm talking about here. There's an opportunity in this here TBS-RTS mash-up, and Amplitude won't get there by cloning Civ4. Anyway, that hole in your wallet makes you a proud supporter of the independent games market, if nothing else. You have to be willing to eat a couple of disappointing results if you want a good thing. And from what I've seen so far, this developer wants to make a good thing.

Eilarais wrote:
"except Sins" is exactly the sentiment I'm talking about here. There's an opportunity in this here TBS-RTS mash-up, and Amplitude won't get there by cloning Civ4. Anyway, that hole in your wallet makes you a proud supporter of the independent games market, if nothing else. You have to be willing to eat a couple of disappointing results if you want a good thing. And from what I've seen so far, this developer wants to make a good thing.

I'll definitely stick with it, I love almost everything about ES, and I really want to support indie developers. Maybe the TBS/RTS thing will grow on me.

Atlantis_Risen wrote:
I think we just enjoy different things. I want to play against a number of other races that all have their own personalities and aren't necessarily just trying to wipe me out as quickly as possible--as a human opponent would. I like to build a slow empire and win through scientific or diplomatic means. Trading and maintaining good relations with as many other races as I can. MP matches are just quick warmonger games to see who can create the biggest fleet first and wipe out their opponents as soon as they can. That doesn't interest me much.

I realy like to play long games with friends.

Why not make at least posssibly to remove the battletimer and make a turn timer. So you have more than 10 secs to react but the overall time is limited

morningStar wrote:
...Playing against humans is the only way a player can get better at multiplayer.

Fixed that for you - don't mix becoming a better singleplayer with becoming a better multiplayer. The two are generally not compatible when it comes to strategy in any genre of game.