Author Topic: Details on multiplayer  (Read 16049 times)

Offline Teal_Blue

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
Re: Details on multiplayer
« Reply #15 on: April 12, 2013, 09:09:51 pm »
Really looking forward to this one! I like the concept, very different, a peacemaker instead of the usual brow-beating contest. And in addition, the other elements you mention, like buildings and resources and barracks producing different types of soldiers? archers? pikemen? swordsmen? (not sure, i am generically guessing here) ... But it all seems very involved and well thought out and just my cup of tea. :)  Anyway, I love the artwork, very, very cool! Did Blue do this? If so, tell her very good work!!  :)

Hope i can join in the beta when you start it.
Thanks!!

-Teal

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Details on multiplayer
« Reply #16 on: April 13, 2013, 07:43:17 am »
Regarding playing as multiple players, I doubt we'll do that because there's not much point. If you want an epic game, you can just up the number of turns per round. Right now the default is 40 (for 125 turns in all, with each red and blue placing stuff during each one). But the maximum we have set right now is 200, for 605 turns.

I really don't think that longer games will be attractive: you score is balanced out by length, so you can't just play longer for a better score. Also, I don't think that large maps will be more fun; I think hey will get hard to manage unless you actually have multiple independent people doing it, you know?

The focus is instead on making smart decisions in a fixed amount of time; the games are pretty lengthy even on the default...
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline doctorfrog

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 591
Re: Details on multiplayer
« Reply #17 on: April 13, 2013, 09:44:02 pm »
One thing you can do with the slow player in multi is have a minigame the others can play on the side, like a celestial game of pong or volleyball going on in the background. (Or a limited version of Tidalis.) Something not so busy as to be distracting or complex that would require too much dev time.

The other thing I suppose you could do is have a "foot tapping" button that the players could tick that would give a not-too-annoying auditory cue that only can occur once per second, but simultaneously communicate boredom and frustration, and also give players a sense that they can do something other than wait. It could also be a subtle visual effect, such as clouds gathering over territory, or the screen subtly glowing red.

Ripe for player abuse? Oh my, yes.

Offline madcow

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,153
Re: Details on multiplayer
« Reply #18 on: April 13, 2013, 10:04:41 pm »
One thing you can do with the slow player in multi is have a minigame the others can play on the side, like a celestial game of pong or volleyball going on in the background. (Or a limited version of Tidalis.) Something not so busy as to be distracting or complex that would require too much dev time.

The other thing I suppose you could do is have a "foot tapping" button that the players could tick that would give a not-too-annoying auditory cue that only can occur once per second, but simultaneously communicate boredom and frustration, and also give players a sense that they can do something other than wait. It could also be a subtle visual effect, such as clouds gathering over territory, or the screen subtly glowing red.

Ripe for player abuse? Oh my, yes.

Or time limits on turns as a configurable option - including unlimited of course.

Offline MouldyK

  • Sr. Member Mark II
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
Re: Details on multiplayer
« Reply #19 on: April 14, 2013, 04:50:17 am »
One thing you can do with the slow player in multi is have a minigame the others can play on the side, like a celestial game of pong or volleyball going on in the background. (Or a limited version of Tidalis.) Something not so busy as to be distracting or complex that would require too much dev time.

The other thing I suppose you could do is have a "foot tapping" button that the players could tick that would give a not-too-annoying auditory cue that only can occur once per second, but simultaneously communicate boredom and frustration, and also give players a sense that they can do something other than wait. It could also be a subtle visual effect, such as clouds gathering over territory, or the screen subtly glowing red.

Ripe for player abuse? Oh my, yes.

Or time limits on turns as a configurable option - including unlimited of course.


I prefer his annoying methods. :D

Offline PokerChen

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,088
Re: Details on multiplayer
« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2013, 02:22:33 am »
One thing you can do with the slow player in multi is have a minigame the others can play on the side, like a celestial game of pong or volleyball going on in the background. (Or a limited version of Tidalis.) Something not so busy as to be distracting or complex that would require too much dev time.

The other thing I suppose you could do is have a "foot tapping" button that the players could tick that would give a not-too-annoying auditory cue that only can occur once per second, but simultaneously communicate boredom and frustration, and also give players a sense that they can do something other than wait. It could also be a subtle visual effect, such as clouds gathering over territory, or the screen subtly glowing red.

Ripe for player abuse? Oh my, yes.

Ripe for turning volume off and effects down.. :P

Offline LayZboy

  • Full Member Mark II
  • ***
  • Posts: 162
Re: Details on multiplayer
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2013, 11:08:12 am »
I'm just gonna see how quickly I can try to conquer MouldyK in this game.

Offline Kjara

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
Re: Details on multiplayer
« Reply #22 on: April 19, 2013, 07:07:31 pm »
So I play a large number of various board games (mostly eurogames), just wanted to share a few mechanics that I think might map well to a competitive setting (idea dump):

Hidden, but global objectives.  One example of this would be the game Santa Cruz.  The idea here is each player has two objective cards that can be played to give points, but when played, they give points to everyone.  An example: one gives 3 points to each player for every river adjacent location they control.  So you never know exactly if someone has this card (as river's can be quite nice for expanding over a distance), but if you are too obvious about only grabbing river tiles, then everyone will suspect you have this card.  Another fun aspect here is that it costs a turn to play one, so it might be worth it if you meet a condition and one of your opponents is close, but it also sets you back  towards meeting the conditions your opponents might have.

Common global objectives that have a higher reward if less people have achieved them already (I.e. in Thrun and Taxis, the first player to finish each goal gets one more point than the 2nd person, who gets one more point than the third, etc). Even if you and another player achieve the same goals over the course of a game, the order you try to achieve them in can make a huge difference.

Some sort of limited resource to compete over.  See any worker placement game ever (such I.E Agricola,Stone Age, etc), most of the 4x simulators (Eclipse, Twilight Imperium) and many others (Saint Petersberg, Dominion/Thunderstone/Ascension, Vikings, Power Gridetc).  I suspect that this will already be in there in some fashion as all players are interacting with the existing locations and units for each of the two factions, but might be worth pushing for more of this, as it generally leads to more interaction between the players.  Such as in Eclipse, you might sacrifice an early turn to grab a crucial tech, and because of this lose out on being able to explore and control the direction of the wormholes in a crucial area.  Many of the boardgames that my group hasn't enjoyed lack much interaction, and it basically a bunch of people playing solitare against the same random draws.  One idea here that might not work well with simultaneous turns is having some global limit on the number of each type of action that the pool of players can take (scaling with number of players of course).  Not exactly sure the best way to work this into a simultaneous turn without rewarding someone who clicks/plays faster.  Another example would be power grid (bidding over the power plants and limited fuel supplies).  Could perhaps start each round with some sort of auction for access to something to add this in without going fully turnbased.

A food clock(or whatever you want to call it).  A prime example of this Agricola, where you need to feed your family every so often (with this ramping up later in the game so you have to balance development with short term goals).  You already seem to be hitting this with the edict idea.  This doesn't necessarily have to be a game loss, but could easily instead be significant point loss or some other sort of opportunity loss (don't gain access to some extra action if you fail this "quest") if you don't meet the criteria (see also games like Trajan).  (I.E, control 4 cities by turn 40, for each city you are missing, -10 points).  Having strict loss conditions can be poor if its intended for group play, now one of your 4 players is out of the game (rather than just behind and still possibly able to influence the outcome or even come back).   Kingsberg does this by having invasions (with some randomization), that you have to deal with every so many turns, etc.  - This would prob be good even for a single player setting, as its nice to force people to balance longterm + shorterm.

Some randomization besides just mapgen, but not too much.  (Example: Through the ages -- Even though all "random" events besides the first few are chosen by the players, when they happen is somewhat random, and what order the various techs become avail is somewhat random as well).    Just wanted to make sure that it doesn't boil down to, evaluate starting situation and calculate the optimal flow of the game from there, but also that there isn't too much.  Our group no longer plays Settlers because the game is a bit too random, nothing like a game where 6 of the first 10 rolls are 11s.  Seasons is a much better example of adding in randomness in my opinion, where the first player (which rotates in each round), gets first choice out of a number of dice showing various choices, but then the 2nd player gets to pick out of what remains, etc. 

Barter of some sort?  Unsure if this would fit here, examples might be 7 wonders, where gaining access to resources lets your neighbors buy them (which gives you money to then buy other things or resources from them back), or less likely, an actual barter system like settlers of Catan.

Other player interaction could be like Puerto Rico or TI, where each action you take gives some (lesser) benefit to the other players, again might be hard to adapt to a simultaneous move game though?

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Details on multiplayer
« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2013, 07:10:24 pm »
Very cool, thanks for the ideas -- I'm a big eurogames fan myself.  I've not played everything on your list there, but over half of them.  Good food for thought, though since you don't have individual pieces or tiles of your own in multiplayer some of that stuff doesn't work.  But I think there's some good opportunities for fun. :)
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Kjara

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
Re: Details on multiplayer
« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2013, 07:26:21 pm »
Regarding not owning individual units, you could always have an influence system, where each unit has some belief/respect/fear whatever in each god, and have things based on that.  So at any given time, some units/buildings/tiles/whatever "belong" to you without you being in direct control, but can also be stolen.  (such as in carcassonne, where stealing pastures/castles is half the fun).

Random other thought for events: Something like each player chooses an event, then 20 turns later one of them is chosen at random gives you a nice mix of strategy + randomness and doesn't rely on the players actually controlling pieces/tiles (but would only work if there was some short term ownership/influence involved or different goals for the different players).  Or even in single player, you are given a list of 6 events, you get to veto 2 of them, then some number of turns later one of them is chosen at random (so you have some idea of whats coming, but only partial control).

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Details on multiplayer
« Reply #25 on: April 19, 2013, 07:29:27 pm »
Wow... a belief system is actually really brilliant!  I had been thinking that this would be more along the lines of (in PVP, not co-op) each player having their own competing edicts they were working toward.  That gets pretty messy with more players, however.  The edicts are still a big thing of course either way, and are how you lose in single player and co-op (and how "everybody loses" in PVP).  But having a belief system in PVP would be super interesting, I think, and would be less overwhelming.  Mechanically I don't yet know how that would exactly play out, but there are several ways in which it could.  Great idea!
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Hearteater

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,334
Re: Details on multiplayer
« Reply #26 on: April 19, 2013, 07:41:37 pm »
I've got so many things going on I haven't been following Skyward Collapse as well as I'd like.  I know you play the role of gods, but are there specific gods you take the role of which affects play?  Or generic gods?

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Details on multiplayer
« Reply #27 on: April 19, 2013, 07:43:48 pm »
I've got so many things going on I haven't been following Skyward Collapse as well as I'd like.  I know you play the role of gods, but are there specific gods you take the role of which affects play?  Or generic gods?

You play as The Creator, which is sort of a Mega-God, so to speak.  You boss around a variety of Norse and Greek gods, like Zeus and Thor (and 14 others).  But there is The Master above even you.  Nobody else on down the hierarchy even knows he/she/it exists.

The general hierarchy is: The MAster -> The Creator (you) -> Greater Gods -> Lesser Gods -> Mythological Creatures -> Humans
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Teal_Blue

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
Re: Details on multiplayer
« Reply #28 on: April 19, 2013, 08:34:47 pm »
I've got so many things going on I haven't been following Skyward Collapse as well as I'd like.  I know you play the role of gods, but are there specific gods you take the role of which affects play?  Or generic gods?

You play as The Creator, which is sort of a Mega-God, so to speak.  You boss around a variety of Norse and Greek gods, like Zeus and Thor (and 14 others).  But there is The Master above even you.  Nobody else on down the hierarchy even knows he/she/it exists.

The general hierarchy is: The MAster -> The Creator (you) -> Greater Gods -> Lesser Gods -> Mythological Creatures -> Humans


Quick question? Why have a Master above the player? Or are there things the player is expected to do, or asked to do? Hmmm... Not sure i understand this direction. I wonder if it could lead to having my (creator) as benevolent, when the Master is archaic, or avenging... or the reverse... I am guessing this could be a mechanism to push the player in directions they may prefer not to move in, for the sake of...? Or perhaps trying to balance the extremes the Master is forcing the direction of the game in? Or I suppose in multi-player the direction the other players are pushing the game in for their own agendas?

 So rather than a direct control mechanism, we have something a bit more indirect and not a certainty at all?

I am guessing here because i have no idea what having a Master does for the game.

Could the 'creator' be different each time? Giving and understanding this time, gentle... Hard line and avenging and aggressive next time? Indecisive? Prejudiced against one of the factions that has to be balanced in some way? If there were several of these in the game per each player i might find myself having to balance two Edicts that are at odds with one another.

Such as establish military outposts in 3 of 4 Norse settlements, while the other Edict wants at least half of all Norse settlements destroyed by xx time in the game.

Just a thought, but in this way, the player could be playing as much against themselves as well as the other players, even in multi-player. And in Solo play, if the AI simulated dual Edicts of other villages? It could vary the number of variables in single player mode as well.

Just thoughts at this point...

-Teal

(edited half a dozen times because i couldn't figure out how to say what i was saying...)

« Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 09:16:57 pm by Teal_Blue »

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Details on multiplayer
« Reply #29 on: April 19, 2013, 08:41:59 pm »
The Master mostly had to be added because of the addition of Edicts, which were a player idea (and an awesome one).  Who gives edicts to the creator?  Has to be someone higher up.  And actually that made for a more interesting story anyhow.  You're upper-middle management, heh.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!