Multiplayer MOO battle

[WhiteMage]

I am collecting data for our development of the next generation of MOO (new game).

Imagine an MOO1 combat, where each player has up to 7 ship stacks and up to 7 (possibly human) players playing the same battle. Assume that battlefield size, speed, etc. are all "optimal".

Consider the following 3 design ideas for such battle:
a) Round robin (one player plays at a time, other players wait, pass control in a circle)
b) Simultaneous turn based (All players give order to all of their stacks in the same time. All press "done". When all orders are in, all ships, weapons, specials act (specifics are up to your imagination, I keep this point broad for this survey)
c) Real time strategy

Rate the ideas:
1. Round robin (answer: 1 = awful, 2 = bad, 3 = average, 4 = good, 5 = excellent)
2. Simultaneous turn based (1 = awful, 2 = bad, 3 = average, 4 = good, 5 = excellent)
3. Real time strategy (1 = awful, 2 = bad, 3 = average, 4 = good, 5 = excellent)
4. A different idea from the above three. State it. (1 = awful, 2 = bad, 3 = average, 4 = good, 5 = excellent)
5. Write comments about how you would design multiplayer battle for up to 7 players in MOO.

[Ianus]

Hmm interesting...

1. 4 - this method works great for single player and becomes less attractive as the number of human players increases due to increased downtime as each other player plans their moves. Eventually the game becomes too boring.

2. 2 - because I don't see how this can work. If I order my ships to move to and fire on an enemy stack but then when all actions resolve that stack moves out of range what happens? I am picturing stacks of ships chasing each other around endlessly.

3. 3 - this seems like the best option particularly for multiplayer but I'm not sure that it fits into a turn-based strategy game. In the interest of full disclosure I don't particularly like RTS games but it would make for a more exhilarating battle environment. I just like the chess aspect of the original MOO.

4. A combination of 1 and 2 where movement order is dictated by initiative (a la MOO) and each stack gets some number of seconds for its controller to issue movement orders, then a second "phase" where the controler could issue firing orders where appropriate/possible. The clock constantly runs so if you don't move fast enough that stack gets skipped for that round. That would ensure that battles didn't get bogged down while preserving the turn based nature of the game.

5. I have no interest in multiplayer games and so for me the strict turn based nature of MOO works great since the AI can move instantly, thus keeping the game moving. That being said the challenge with multiplayer TBS games is keeping the game moving and interesting while waiting for other players to finish. For this a timer Ian the very least is critical. Even a simple game like online Hearts or Poker becomes an exercise in futility when a player stops taking their turns, and this problem only becomes worse in a time- and concentration-intensive game like MOO. Obviously this is an issue in more than just space battles, but that is where it first becomes apparent. I know that when I play MOO it is not on a set schedule, so even if I wanted to play against other humans I don't see how we could arrange our schedules to complete a full game. I think that maybe the best option would be to make "Hurry-Up Mode" optional.

[kyrub]

I agree almost word to word with Ianus (thanks!), however, I feel incompetent to speak about the MP, since I very rarely played it.


The only difference is that I really dislike RT, that's awful (1) in my eyes and it would probably put me off from playing the game. RTwP (a la MoO 2) is slightly less awful, but I still don't see the benefits. MoO is for me as close a computer game got to chess without copying it. I'd like to conserve this. Blitz chess (speed chess, with timer) is quite popular sort of chess today - and I would like to try MoO even in single player with a timer, it forces you to think quickly and gives the game a quick pace (which is desirable for me). Timer as a option is very nice solution for me (5).

[toddestan]

This is tough. Here's my thoughts:

1. 4. This seems the most reasonable of the three options presented.
2. 3. I have the same concerns as Ianus, but if this kind of way could somehow be made to work, then it would be a good solution (I have some ideas below).
3. 2. MOO, at heart, is not a real time strategy so I don't like this idea.
4. Here's some things I could see working:
a) Full Auto. All battles resolved automatically by the AI. Hate it already. 1.
b) One Human, Rest Auto. One side is human controlled (the defending side*) and all other sides are forced to be automatic control. I would define the defending side as the side that owns the planet. Battles would act a lot like MOO does now. I like the mechanism but this would likely end up giving a huge advantage to the human-controlled side in any battle which would not be desirable. 2.
c) Directed Auto. At the start of the battle each player could give orders to their ships. Orders could include "Attack planet", "Attack specific enemy stack", "Attack this player", "Defend specific stack", "Defend other player", "Circle and Defend planet", "Hold", "Retreat", "Full Auto", etc. as well as toggles for turning on/off specials/missiles/bombs and toggles for whether the ships should attack or not attack each player. After the orders are given out by the players at the start the battle would run automatically. Battle would run automatically to the end. 2-3.
d) Per Turn Directed Auto. Alternatively, similar to Directed Auto, the action could stop and new orders could be given every turn (or every few turns) which could allow for a form of the "Simultaneous turn based" method presented above, hopefully without the deadlock as the stacks would be reacting to the current state of the battle field when it's their turn to move, not just blindly following some order given at the start of the turn. 4.
e) Radio Silence Auto. Each side would dictate a "command stack" of their choosing which would be the only one one they could control and the other stacks are controlled automatically (as if there must be radio silence so the battle commander can only control his command ship and the others must act on their own). This would speed things up while still allowing the players some control over the battle and the ability for fine control of one of their designs. 2.
5. The problem with round robin and the way initiative works now is that ships may take their turns out of order. This could mean a lot of switching seats with a battle with six stacks on each side and a planet. It would be most desirable to have each side order their stacks all at the same time. One way to accomplish that would be to have the (for example) defending side move first, then the attacking sides. For the attackers, the side with the most initiative (perhaps an average of all the ships?) could move first. This doesn't seem desirable as it negate the advantages of some designs and specials, or could be a bit exploitive as one could try to game it so they have a bunch of low initiative ships but still get to go first due to game mechanics. So I'm still a bit on the fence on this. I don't really like it, but without it a round robin battle could be very slow and tedious. One thing I would do would put individual Auto toggles for each stack, so hopefully the players would choose to only control some of their stacks so battles could be sped up. Perhaps auto control could come with a small bonus to initiative (it makes sense - the ship captain can react faster to a changing situation than the emperor!), or maybe for a ship to be controlled manually you must have "command module" installed which would take up a slot or space/power (don't like that idea but I'll throw it out there anyway). Personally, I would try to see if I could get the Per-Turn Directed Auto to work and see if it's enjoyable.

*I'm going to assume that like MOO, most battles would take place over a planet, and the ones that aren't would be mostly early game scout skirmishes. The defending side would be the side that owns the planet. Obviously some mechanism would have to be put into place to determine the defending side for battles not over a planet but that probably wouldn't come into play that often.

[PlzBreakMyUmMap]

I am collecting data for our development of the next generation of MOO (new game).

Imagine an MOO1 combat, where each player has up to 7 ship stacks and up to 7 (possibly human) players playing the same battle. Assume that battlefield size, speed, etc. are all "optimal".

Consider the following 3 design ideas for such battle:
a) Round robin (one player plays at a time, other players wait, pass control in a circle)
b) Simultaneous turn based (All players give order to all of their stacks in the same time. All press "done". When all orders are in, all ships, weapons, specials act (specifics are up to your imagination, I keep this point broad for this survey)
c) Real time strategy

Rate the ideas:
1. Round robin (answer: 1 = awful, 2 = bad, 3 = average, 4 = good, 5 = excellent)
2. Simultaneous turn based (1 = awful, 2 = bad, 3 = average, 4 = good, 5 = excellent)
3. Real time strategy (1 = awful, 2 = bad, 3 = average, 4 = good, 5 = excellent)
4. A different idea from the above three. State it. (1 = awful, 2 = bad, 3 = average, 4 = good, 5 = excellent)
5. Write comments about how you would design multiplayer battle for up to 7 players in MOO.

The wargame reboot? Are you paid staff?

anyways A) = 3. Its what people expect but its an abstraction. Still allows for endless chasing (I use this strategy in MoO to end a combat I would otherwise lose, due to the turn limit)
B) 5. far more difficult to program but superior. So yes, if you want to fire on the ship that moves out of range, you will miss. This is highly realistic and allows players to not feel cheated by an abstraction of "initiative"
c) 2. Doesn't really work for classic MoO style, but could be made to work. Would require live play, latency checks, etc. I love RTS's, but suddenly going from planing-mode to "live fight" mode, would be very jarring.

PLEASE try for B. Yes its hard. Yes its complicated (for the software). But its VERY easy for the player, and its frankly the most fun. You get to "guess" ahead about what a player is going to do without instant omniscient-reaction time standard in RTSs. It's highly realistic and very strategic. It's perfect!

[Zeraan]

I am collecting data for our development of the next generation of MOO (new game).

Imagine an MOO1 combat, where each player has up to 7 ship stacks and up to 7 (possibly human) players playing the same battle. Assume that battlefield size, speed, etc. are all "optimal".

Consider the following 3 design ideas for such battle:
a) Round robin (one player plays at a time, other players wait, pass control in a circle)
b) Simultaneous turn based (All players give order to all of their stacks in the same time. All press "done". When all orders are in, all ships, weapons, specials act (specifics are up to your imagination, I keep this point broad for this survey)
c) Real time strategy

Rate the ideas:
1. Round robin (answer: 1 = awful, 2 = bad, 3 = average, 4 = good, 5 = excellent)
2. Simultaneous turn based (1 = awful, 2 = bad, 3 = average, 4 = good, 5 = excellent)
3. Real time strategy (1 = awful, 2 = bad, 3 = average, 4 = good, 5 = excellent)
4. A different idea from the above three. State it. (1 = awful, 2 = bad, 3 = average, 4 = good, 5 = excellent)
5. Write comments about how you would design multiplayer battle for up to 7 players in MOO.

The wargame reboot? Are you paid staff?

anyways A) = 3. Its what people expect but its an abstraction. Still allows for endless chasing (I use this strategy in MoO to end a combat I would otherwise lose, due to the turn limit)
B) 5. far more difficult to program but superior. So yes, if you want to fire on the ship that moves out of range, you will miss. This is highly realistic and allows players to not feel cheated by an abstraction of "initiative"
c) 2. Doesn't really work for classic MoO style, but could be made to work. Would require live play, latency checks, etc. I love RTS's, but suddenly going from planing-mode to "live fight" mode, would be very jarring.

PLEASE try for B. Yes its hard. Yes its complicated (for the software). But its VERY easy for the player, and its frankly the most fun. You get to "guess" ahead about what a player is going to do without instant omniscient-reaction time standard in RTSs. It's highly realistic and very strategic. It's perfect!

No, Whitemage isn't from MoO reboot team He's helping us for Dominus Galaxia

[rboplayer]

I agree with kyrub that the chess aspect of moo is great and one of the key things of the game.

1. 3 - this could work, an adaptation of the current system

2. my favourite - 5. this can work like the game diplomacy. just ensure as ianos says that the ships don't chase each other forever - if one ship pulls back too much it can be withdrawn from the battle.

3. I don't see RT working well, so 1. I've tried real time in civ3 and it was a very different game and didn't like it.

[Ianus]

Has anyone on the Dominus Galaxia dev team taken a look at Galactic Civ 3? Sulla has been playing it lately and it seems to contain examples of some of the questions you have been asking. I recommend at least reading his thoughts on the games strengths and weaknesses as he has experience with MoO and compares the two pretty well.
Link: http://www.garath.net/Sullla/GC3/gc3.html

[Zeraan]

Has anyone on the Dominus Galaxia dev team taken a look at Galactic Civ 3? Sulla has been playing it lately and it seems to contain examples of some of the questions you have been asking. I recommend at least reading his thoughts on the games strengths and weaknesses as he has experience with MoO and compares the two pretty well.
Link: http://www.garath.net/Sullla/GC3/gc3.html

Jeff has, but I'm not sure about the others. Sulla's writeup is very interesting, sounds like GalCiv3 got some things right. Some interesting ideas there!