Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 449483 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ChildServices

  • Hegemon
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 140
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #945 on: July 29, 2017, 10:38:16 PM »
Wat. All players would have to be awake to be playing in the first place. There's no difference between having a GM or having a player in this case. It's more convenient and less annoying because you have someone who knows everything that is going on doing the turns as they need doing. Instead of a bunch of people expecting one time increment and getting something else. It also can't be ruined by some idiot troll just deciding to never click/always click 5 seconds. As mentioned above, players could get bored while waiting for battles. With a GM they can just go off and do something else whilst the GM and the involved players do the battle. Additionally, having the GM control time actually allows for limited play to continue whilst one of the players is not there. You still haven't told me why you want to eliminate the GM.
Well obviously I want the GM gone because every single one of his functions that you mentioned is something that would be better if automated. Automating these things would be both more convenient and less annoying.

Having the turn automatically process when everybody clicks "ready" is more convenient and less annoying than having to wait for a third party to wake up and hit a button. The "GM" (whoever has the host computer) actually could just go to sleep this way if all he was doing was hosting the game and not actually playing. If you can't see why automating this is still an improvement no matter how small, you're either slow or being deliberately obtuse.

As for getting different increments due to a player either picking something else, having an interrupt, or fighting a battle, you could just have everybody whose increment is still pending receive a prompt (without unpausing their game) when a different increment happens asking them if they want to gain control back and do anything. If you ignore it, nothing happens and the game continues treating you as if you're waiting on your increment. That way you can step away and do something else while you wait for whoever is fighting or dealing with an interrupt to resolve whatever is going on. All you'd need to do is give the game an alarm sound that plays when minimised to force players to be aware that an interrupt is going on and they have stuff to do.
Another feature would be to force increment syncs at certain times, e.g every 6 months or at the end of every year, which would pause every player.

Even having limited play while somebody is away could be solved by having a feature for somebody to flag themselves as absent (or have the host do it) so that the game ignores all of their interrupts. This would last until the player reconnects to the server. This requires near-zero GM oversight.

And why are you playing games with idiot trolls? Mentioning idiot trolls is an absurdly hypothetical scenario because Dominions 4 is very rarely played with idiot troll randoms off of the internet, rather than people you know and trust not to do stupid things. I'm not even sure if current A4x """multiplayer""" is played with a high concentration of idiot trolls.
The need to control idiot trolls is basically the only thing that can't really be automated, and even then it can be solved by just letting the host have a button to kick players and turn their faction into an NPR. The host could actually do this for players who decide they don't want to play anymore, or similar to Dom4 have it automatically set up to cede players to NPR control if they don't submit another turn before a set time.
Aurora4x Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/Q5ryqdW

Cold as steel the darkness waits, its hour will come
A cry of fear from our children, worshipping the Sun
Mother Nature's black revenge, on those who waste her life
War babies in the Garden Of Eden, she'll turn our ashes to ice
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #946 on: July 30, 2017, 04:27:41 AM »
And why are you playing games with idiot trolls? Mentioning idiot trolls is an absurdly hypothetical scenario because Dominions 4 is very rarely played with idiot troll randoms off of the internet, rather than people you know and trust not to do stupid things. I'm not even sure if current A4x """multiplayer""" is played with a high concentration of idiot trolls.

You should try to play some Paradox games like Stellaris or Hoi4 MP ( which are pretty high up on the scale of complex strategy/4x games capable of multiplayer )...

No game which features anonymity + internet MP audience is immune to idiot trolls as explained by this highly scientific theory:




When it comes to Aurora supporting MP I see it as two levels:

  • Allow asynchronous economy phase orders from players
  • Allow asynchronous combat/movement phase orders from players

Where the former is vastly easier to support for Steve with functions to share orders/gamestates and allows fairly decent Multiplayer sessions still if you let a GM handle only combat and movement orders.


« Last Edit: July 30, 2017, 04:35:34 AM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline ChildServices

  • Hegemon
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 140
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #947 on: July 30, 2017, 05:10:37 AM »
Stellaris and Hoi4 are high up complex strategy games? Please.
Aurora4x Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/Q5ryqdW

Cold as steel the darkness waits, its hour will come
A cry of fear from our children, worshipping the Sun
Mother Nature's black revenge, on those who waste her life
War babies in the Garden Of Eden, she'll turn our ashes to ice
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #948 on: July 30, 2017, 05:27:47 AM »
Stellaris and Hoi4 are high up complex strategy games? Please.

Compared to the entire spectrum of games starting at candy crush or angry birds and with aurora at the other end... Yes they most certainly are.

In many cases they have a more complex mechanics or unfriendly interface then even aurora does ( even if the UI have improved alot since their older games ).


But seriously, look at screenshots & tooltips like this and tell me this isn't a complex game again, PLEASE:

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/254839288186262725/DBB1ADDEA0FD054128ECD77EBB919F2292978B1F/


Edit: This is entirely besides the point though, since my point was that the complexity of the game doesn't affect the amount of trolls.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2017, 05:34:37 AM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline Elouda

  • Gold Supporter
  • Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 194
  • Thanked: 21 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #949 on: July 30, 2017, 07:11:17 AM »
I don't think comparing a possible 'MP Aurora' to any of the Paradox games is really the right approach - even if they are more complex than a lot of MP games, they're still 'mainstream' enough to need public matchmaking. I think a more appropriate comparison would be War in the Pacific or War in the East/West, where multiplayer games are measured in months or years. There is no public lobby, matchmaking is done on the forum or by PM, and turns sent by email. While the last point is something thats more an artifact of their age than anything else, I really don't see what a public matchmaking system would add to Aurora if it went MP, and the approach from these games is very relevant given that they're similarly complex and niche.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2017, 07:13:07 AM by Elouda »
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #950 on: July 30, 2017, 09:14:09 AM »
I don't think comparing a possible 'MP Aurora' to any of the Paradox games is really the right approach - even if they are more complex than a lot of MP games, they're still 'mainstream' enough to need public matchmaking. I think a more appropriate comparison would be War in the Pacific or War in the East/West, where multiplayer games are measured in months or years.

I have played a HoI Multiplayer match that took 6 months to finish... Just like you can play a casual game of Aurora in an Afternoon if you spam the advance 30 day button until you get the stuff you want.

It's more about the player and the level of detail you want to take it to, to be honest ( for either game ).

I agree with your point that public matchmaking would add little to Aurora though.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2017, 09:18:04 AM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #951 on: August 06, 2017, 01:19:55 PM »
Quote
These changes should make ground unit morale and commander ground training bonuses much more useful and add the chances of elite ground forces. It is also makes assignment of ground unit HQ commanders more interesting.

This needs an 'Elite Unit' checkbox for automated ground unit commander assignment, prioritizing them for getting assigned a ground unit commander with a high training bonus.
 
The following users thanked this post: Gyrfalcon

Offline hyramgraff

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • h
  • Posts: 44
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #952 on: August 09, 2017, 10:15:21 PM »
Steve, the changes to the administrative command structure look really exciting and I can't wait to try it out.  However, I see one potential issue with the new setup: if you have multiple commanders that share the highest rank in your navy then one of them won't be able to give or receive any admin bonuses because they're not a lower rank than the head of the command tree.  In 7.1, I can assign each of the rank four commanders to lead a task force and get full benefits from both of them.

In the early phases of my games I usually have two rank four commanders at the top of my navy and it takes years for the pyramid of command to grow from 2-5-17-53 to 1-2-8-26-80.  Would it be possible to have the automatic promotion algorithm make sure that there's always only one commander at the highest rank in the command pyramid?
 

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 544
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #953 on: August 10, 2017, 07:44:27 AM »
Steve

The admin piece looks really good. It would be helpful if there is an easy way to see who is and is not getting bonuses and where any breaks of problems with the chain of command are arising. Also are you expecting to have a similar auto assign as per the current version of Aurora and will that consider rank levels when assigning? Finally I assume you will be boosting the number of officers you get a year to help fill in all of these new positions?
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 921
  • Thanked: 58 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #954 on: August 10, 2017, 04:58:53 PM »
The admin command structure looks really cool.  I'm excited to try it.

That said, I'm going to keep pushing for command ships (like the Blue Ridge, not just normal flagships).  Looking at the way you have it laid out, the obvious suggestion is that a big module (at least 25,000 tons) should give a radius of 0, affecting only the system it's in.  Or if you're willing to give it a radius of 1, that would be even better.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11667
  • Thanked: 20436 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #955 on: August 10, 2017, 05:31:27 PM »
The admin command structure looks really cool.  I'm excited to try it.

That said, I'm going to keep pushing for command ships (like the Blue Ridge, not just normal flagships).  Looking at the way you have it laid out, the obvious suggestion is that a big module (at least 25,000 tons) should give a radius of 0, affecting only the system it's in.  Or if you're willing to give it a radius of 1, that would be even better.

I probably will add some form of Admin Command module post-launch. I just want to make sure everything functions as expected before adding any further complexity.
 
The following users thanked this post: bean

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 921
  • Thanked: 58 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #956 on: August 11, 2017, 12:02:59 PM »
I probably will add some form of Admin Command module post-launch. I just want to make sure everything functions as expected before adding any further complexity.
Excellent.  I'll stop bugging you about it, as I don't want you holding up release.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2791
  • Thanked: 1052 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #957 on: August 15, 2017, 06:05:16 AM »
Fleet 1 is part of Admin Command AA that is part of Admin Command B. Both have a command radius of 1.

Sol - B

1 jump

Alpha Centauri - AA

1 jump (2 jumps from Earth)

Barnard's Star - Fleet 1


Would Fleet 1 still get bonuses from both AA and B or only from AA? I think Steve's explanation says that the fleet doesn't have to be in-range of all admin commands, as long as the admin commands are in range of each other but I'm not sure.
 

Offline Silvarelion

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • S
  • Posts: 63
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #958 on: August 15, 2017, 09:33:40 AM »
It was my understanding that the fleet would get bonuses from both admin commands
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath.
  ~The Mistake Not, Hydrogen Sonata, Iain Banks
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11667
  • Thanked: 20436 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #959 on: August 16, 2017, 04:54:13 AM »
Fleet 1 is part of Admin Command AA that is part of Admin Command B. Both have a command radius of 1.

Sol - B

1 jump

Alpha Centauri - AA

1 jump (2 jumps from Earth)

Barnard's Star - Fleet 1


Would Fleet 1 still get bonuses from both AA and B or only from AA? I think Steve's explanation says that the fleet doesn't have to be in-range of all admin commands, as long as the admin commands are in range of each other but I'm not sure.

Yes, would receive bonuses from both. Each link in the chain only has to be in range of the immediately previous link. With a network of command centres, you can spread bonuses across your territory.
 
The following users thanked this post: Yonder, Garfunkel, MagusXIX