soory about what i said. I was really pissed off with the world and i needed to let of steam. im sorry for sying you dont have a life outside off pcs and what do you mean about holidays??
Printable View
soory about what i said. I was really pissed off with the world and i needed to let of steam. im sorry for sying you dont have a life outside off pcs and what do you mean about holidays??
Re mp campaign map: I think it wouldn't require any more from your connection than the current TW mp does. You could play your turns individually on your own computers. When your turn is complete, you click end turn and you can then keep trying to send your progress to the host. When the host has recieved your decisions, the host calculates which battles have to be fought and sends info to all players. They now play a second "turn" where they all decide whether to fight or withdraw etc., and then they submit their info again. Those battles that need to be fought can then be played on the normal battlemap.
Of course this would require some changes of the campaign map. For example you'd set waypoints for all troops instead of moving them right away, or you would need to go back to an M:TW style map. Anyway, I think an mp campaign is possible to do, although it would require much work.
The alternative would be to use a simplified campaign map with a time limit per turn and where the players are connected to each other during the entire campaign.
Well, let them just unlock some of the script commands to be used in console (change faction), and we'll at least get rag-tag hotseat...
1: I disagree. You will only get an update when they've hit end turn, so it won't continuously be taking the connection. Fundamentally every player does not need to know the exact details of every battle, they just need the update sheet at the end. You don't need to know that in x battle y moved z metres before breaking. You just need to know that they broke, how many died and what experience penalty there was. With a few area searching rules, the majority of users could ignore the data from areas that don't affect them, until they do start to affect them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
As for time, well do something else. Read a book, write an essay, defenestrate someone if you really want to (don't actually do that last suggestion, it's probably illegal). I've played MP civ games where turns took hours, and I just did something else.
2: I don't see how lag will be an issue. The strategic part of the game isn't realtime. It can take 30 minutes to get the data from someone's turn if they want, and it won't matter. The only area where this could be an issue is in the tactical battles, and I haven't seen any major complaints about it so I'll assume there are none.
3: The people issue. I agree with you, I don't like to play with randoms off of the internet. About five years ago I gave up on playing internet games with those I don't know. It's sad but that's where gaming has come to. I tend to only play with people I know from forums/real life, and so rarely have bad gaming experiences, and that's what I think you would have to do here.
Insulting someone you are in disagreement with is not an acceptable practice here at the Org and is in violation of forum rules. If you feel you have been insulted, the proper course of action is not to retaliate, but rather report the post to the moderators. Just click on the white triangle with red outline and "!" inside to the lower left of the offending post and type in your reason for reporting the post.
The disrespect some patrons are showing to each other lately is not only in very poor form as far as keeping decent discussions, it goes against the forum rules and the friendly atmosphere we like to maintain here. Think before you post and resist the temptation to attack your adversaries.
Gah. Maybe you're right. But campaigns would take forever, and there would be problems with the AI. I mean, who would supply the AI? Which computer? In that respect, I'm actually curious.Quote:
1: I disagree. You will only get an update when they've hit end turn, so it won't continuously be taking the connection. Fundamentally every player does not need to know the exact details of every battle, they just need the update sheet at the end. You don't need to know that in x battle y moved z metres before breaking. You just need to know that they broke, how many died and what experience penalty there was. With a few area searching rules, the majority of users could ignore the data from areas that don't affect them, until they do start to affect them.
As for time, well do something else. Read a book, write an essay, defenestrate someone if you really want to (don't actually do that last suggestion, it's probably illegal). I've played MP civ games where turns took hours, and I just did something else.
2: I don't see how lag will be an issue. The strategic part of the game isn't realtime. It can take 30 minutes to get the data from someone's turn if they want, and it won't matter. The only area where this could be an issue is in the tactical battles, and I haven't seen any major complaints about it so I'll assume there are none.
3: The people issue. I agree with you, I don't like to play with randoms off of the internet. About five years ago I gave up on playing internet games with those I don't know. It's sad but that's where gaming has come to. I tend to only play with people I know from forums/real life, and so rarely have bad gaming experiences, and that's what I think you would have to do here.
I've said it about 4 times now....Look up "Master of Orion 2," and see what it did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Well, play a turn a night or something (this is working on the assumption of a fixed siege bug), and get it done over a couple of years. I know I've done that with Civilization games, and I think there would be quite a few TW players who would be interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
As for the AI, well I assume you would nominate a server, which would coordinate the game.
Up for a game if it gets implemented? ~:cheers: ~;)
A quick Google search reveals nothing major about the multiplayer. And MOO2 didn't have the graphics and loading times RTW has, correct?Quote:
I've said it about 4 times now....Look up "Master of Orion 2," and see what it did.
I'll play if some of the other bugs are fixed. And if we can agree on a good mod. ~:cheers:Quote:
Well, play a turn a night or something (this is working on the assumption of a fixed siege bug), and get it done over a couple of years. I know I've done that with Civilization games, and I think there would be quite a few TW players who would be interested.
As for the AI, well I assume you would nominate a server, which would coordinate the game.
Up for a game if it gets implemented?
Like you said, the loading times will be rather miniscule in comparison to the waiting for other/all players to finish their turn(s) in a turn based strategy game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
I've played it MPlayer. It's possible. It's a turn based strategy game.
MoO2 in multiplayer was pretty quick. Planet maintenace was pretty easy, you set your projected moves, and hit endturn. Combats ocurred 1 at a time during the end phase, but they didn't take too long to complete.
For this to really work with TW, all moves would need to be ordered, not executed sequentially during the player's turn (think MTW), so that all the combat happened in the endturn phase. I think this is more realistic anyway, you can't exploit the strategic map like you can in Rome. A better empire view and control screen would also help speed the build orders. The combat phase would last a little longer (or maybe not, with Rome's killfest speed). Aside from the battle time, Medieval would be a better multiplayer game, since there are fewer battles (no annoying rebel speedbumps) and the strategic map mechanism is more conducive to turn-based multiplayer.