Turn length?

wosung · Post by **wosung** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:28 am

Hi,
first visit to this forum.

Game Idea sounds intresting (although I'd perfer a WW2 Staretgy game as global game, with PTO, China ...)

Esp. i like it to be turn based and not RT.

How long a turn will be in-game. Does it represent 1 week? 1 month? 1 abstract time length?

Regards

firepowerjohan · Post by **firepowerjohan** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:55 am

We are planning roughly 35-45 per game year so turns will be somwhere 1-2 weeks.

vveedd · Post by **vveedd** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:59 pm

I strongly suggest that you reconsider this. Long game is ok against AI only but just how long will take for PBEM or TCP/IP game to finish it?

firepowerjohan · Post by **firepowerjohan** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 5:00 pm

days/turn and time/turn (TCP/IP only) can bet set as option.

scarfacetarraff · Post by **scarfacetarraff** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:31 pm

vveedd wrote:I strongly suggest that you reconsider this. Long game is ok against AI only but just how long will take for PBEM of TCP/IP game to finish it?

Vast majority of those who play this game will be SP. Perhaps a quicker scenario for those wishing to play MP.

vveedd · Post by **vveedd** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:27 pm

triari wrote:
vveedd wrote:I strongly suggest that you reconsider this. Long game is ok against AI only but just how long will take for PBEM of TCP/IP game to finish it?
Vast majority of those who play this game will be SP. Perhaps a quicker scenario for those wishing to play MP.

Vast majority of those who play this game should be PBEM. Otherwise this game will be waste of time and money for developers. There is no singleplayer like multiplayer and there is no AI like human AI I always saying.

SMK-at-work · Post by **SMK-at-work** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:41 pm

You are quite right - people make much better opponents than any AI yet invented. But that's irrelevant. Most people play games single player.

joe98 · Post by **joe98** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:04 am

I don't play single player. Its boring because I can undo a move any time.

I will learn about game mechanics against the AI but wil not play the AI.

PBEM is the only way to go

-

Post by **pipfromslitherine** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:08 am

And yet the vast majority of game players of all kinds play single player... Personally I like SP over MP (and not just because MP is so darned painful to implement...

).

Cheers

Pip

vveedd · Post by **vveedd** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:28 am

pipfromslitherine wrote:And yet the vast majority of game players of all kinds play single player... Personally I like SP over MP (and not just because MP is so darned painful to implement... ).

Cheers

Pip

As you wish. It is your game after all. Just remember my words ??“ very little time after game release you will receive request from many players for multiplayer option because nobody on this planet didn??™t invent good AI so far. True value of all computer games is multiplayer. Game without it is condemned to bankruptcy. Even, the best singleplayer game ever (to my opinion) ??“ Panzer General 2, has multiplayer option).

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:51 am

I'm not sure what you mean? There is a multiplayer option. All Phil is saying is that only 1-10% of players will ever use it, so making a game that relies on it at the expense of teh single player version is a terrible decision for a developer. There are exceptions like Counterstrike, Quake etc, but not many!

The vocal minority who play online and post to forums like this are not representative of the market. We have to keep in mind that 90%+ of our customers will not play and are not interested in multiplayer, but will never express an opinion about it on this forum.

duncan · Post by **duncan** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:50 am

but will never express an opinion about it on this forum.

I'm not interested in MP

.

Even the PO/AI beats me in TOAW III

, what's the sense of being punished playing PBEM

???

vveedd · Post by **vveedd** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:52 am

iainmcneil wrote:I'm not sure what you mean? There is a multiplayer option. All Phil is saying is that only 1-10% of players will ever use it, so making a game that relies on it at the expense of teh single player version is a terrible decision for a developer. There are exceptions like Counterstrike, Quake etc, but not many!

The vocal minority who play online and post to forums like this are not representative of the market. We have to keep in mind that 90%+ of our customers will not play and are not interested in multiplayer, but will never express an opinion about it on this forum.

Really? Well from my experience this is wrong. You must have both (good AI and good multiplayer). I will say some very good newest examples: Strategic Command 1 & 2, Gary Grigsby World at War. These games have solid AI but multiplayer and PBEM are main parts, parts which these games make so good. Of course, AI is needed but lots of players using AI just for learning how to play (because of fact I already have said ??“ nobody invent good and challenging AI so far ). I can mentioned one good example more ??“ Bruce Harper??™s World at War. Game is still in development but developers decision to make multiplayer version first (they will add AI in next phase) to my opinion is great. This old board game is playing for years with lots of help utilities just because it is great in multiplayer.
I like singleplayer also, especially because of fact that you can play game whenever you want but playing against AI is no challenge like playing against human opponents. You must know how to lose if you want to win. Players like Duncan are chicken

duncan · Post by **duncan** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:00 am

vveedd wrote:Players like Duncan are chicken

Yeah, I'm worthless

you should kill me and then feed your dog/cat with my dead body

I will uninstall TOAW III ASAP...and maybe I'll sell my computer. Any good offer???

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:56 am

vveedd wrote: Really? Well from my experience this is wrong. You must have both (good AI and good multiplayer). I will say some very good newest examples: Strategic Command 1 & 2, Gary Grigsby World at War. These games have solid AI but multiplayer and PBEM are main parts, parts which these games make so good. Of course, AI is needed but lots of players using AI just for learning how to play (because of fact I already have said ??“ nobody invent good and challenging AI so far ). I can mentioned one good example more ??“ Bruce Harper??™s World at War. Game is still in development but developers decision to make multiplayer version first (they will add AI in next phase) to my opinion is great. This old board game is playing for years with lots of help utilities just because it is great in multiplayer.
I like singleplayer also, especially because of fact that you can play game whenever you want but playing against AI is no challenge like playing against human opponents. You must know how to lose if you want to win. Players like Duncan are chicken

You'll find that with both the games mentioned the number of people who play single player massively outnumbers those who play multiplayer. The problem is you've never spoken to them or seen a message posted by them and you never will. They are the silent majority. As game developers we have to weigh up the feedback we get on the forums and take into account this is a very small proprtion of our audience and decide what to do based on that and our own experience.

We are planning a strong AI and a great multiplayer game as we want to appeal to the silent majority and the vocal minority

*Lava* · Post by ***Lava*** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:24 am

vveedd wrote:
Vast majority of those who play this game should be PBEM.

Your kidding... right?

Ray (alias Lava)

vveedd · Post by **vveedd** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:34 am

lavaxxx wrote:
vveedd wrote:
Vast majority of those who play this game should be PBEM.

Your kidding... right?

Ray (alias Lava)

No. Why? If you find it challenging and fun to beat stupid AI that is your right. To me, only challenge and fun is to play against human players.

*Lava* · Post by ***Lava*** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:31 pm

vveedd wrote:
lavaxxx wrote:
vveedd wrote:
Vast majority of those who play this game should be PBEM.

Your kidding... right?

Ray (alias Lava)
No. Why? If you find it challenging and fun to beat stupid AI that is your right. To me, only challenge and fun is to play against human players.

I bow to your martial prowness.

Nevertheless, the vast majority of strategy game players aren't interested in PBEM.

Thanks.. but no thanks.

Ray (alias Lava)

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:06 am

Some people prefer to play human vs human.

Some people prefer to play human vs AI.

That's just how it is. Neither mode is better or worse, but please let's respect each other opinion and not get into a slagging match about whether playing vs AI is better than playing vs human. I play both ways and depending on teh situation both has it's merrits for me. We will make sure that both modes are great fun so whatever your preferrence you'll have an enjoyable game.

ungers_pride · Post by **ungers_pride** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:08 pm

iainmcneil wrote:I'm not sure what you mean? There is a multiplayer option. All Phil is saying is that only 1-10% of players will ever use it, so making a game that relies on it at the expense of teh single player version is a terrible decision for a developer. There are exceptions like Counterstrike, Quake etc, but not many!

The vocal minority who play online and post to forums like this are not representative of the market. We have to keep in mind that 90%+ of our customers will not play and are not interested in multiplayer, but will never express an opinion about it on this forum.

You are exactly correct.

In most polls I have seen the vast majority of people play single player. So I am very glad to hear that you are centering your game design around this knowledge.

If gamers can mod many aspects of the game, then this will allow gamers to alter the challenge to suit their playing styles.