C# Aurora Changes Discussion

[TMaekler]

In general it could only work as the game works at the moment - the game is run by one person who inputs all plans & settings and lets it play for some time until he gives out information again to the different fractions as to what happens. I was more thinking in a way of automating the process of sending and collecting this information - not doing a real multiplayer. Don't think either that could be possible.

[TCD]

In general it could only work as the game works at the moment - the game is run by one person who inputs all plans & settings and lets it play for some time until he gives out information again to the different fractions as to what happens. I was more thinking in a way of automating the process of sending and collecting this information - not doing a real multiplayer. Don't think either that could be possible.

Oh, more of a dungeon master mode. Yes, I could see that working. One person controls the time increments but other players can do what they like while the system is paused, along with some kind of "I'm done now" button that the DM can look for or ignore.

[Barkhorn]

Why do we need a person to be DM?  That kind of thing can be automated easily.

"If all players have checked 'next increment' or X amount of real time has passed, go to next increment"

This is really simple, and is how Dominions 4 works.  Dom4 is coded entirely by one guy.  The hard part is the networking to pass all the players' decisions to the DM.

[Hazard]

The problem with multiplayer Aurora is its variable time increment. Dominion has a fixed time increment that is always relevant on the timescale the game works on and battles are entirely automated, while with Aurora the time increment is extremely flexible and battles, which take a lot of time relatively speaking, need to be done by hand.

[Triato]

Then the game would only run the smallest time increment imputed. If a player clics a month but other clics a day, the game only advances a day and pauses again for the player who imputed one day but keeps the one who imputed a month waiting (with a chance to pause it too).

Such system should have audio alerts that lets you know if the increment you imputed has passed and/or if your increment has been interrupted by an event. That way you can surf the internet or work while waiting. (This feature would help current aurora too)

[Person012345]

I don't see how that would work with the time system as it stands? I mean, fine for monthly updates, but what happens if, say, two players out of 6 are fighting, do you make everyone go through 5 sec increments? Who decides when to move to 30s increments etc?

The way I'd see a multiplayer aurora working is basically the exact same as the way multiplayer currently works except that instead of having to manually send the database back and forth, the game would automatically sync everyone's game. Players time increment buttons would be disabled and only the designated GM  would be allowed to advance time (for simplicity the host of the game could always be treated as the GM).

[Person012345]

Why do we need a person to be DM?  That kind of thing can be automated easily.

"If all players have checked 'next increment' or X amount of real time has passed, go to next increment"

This is really simple, and is how Dominions 4 works.  Dom4 is coded entirely by one guy.  The hard part is the networking to pass all the players' decisions to the DM.

Because this would be annoying. Aurora isn't really a game you just shove on for half an hour with some randy you've never talked to before. Everyone who commits to a game of aurora probably has some level of contact already and all players will be able to be in contact with the GM anyway, through IM or whatever. There's no reason not to have the GM control time increments.

[Barkhorn]

I'm saying we do not need a GM at all, not that the GM should not have this responsibility.

I repeat, Dominions 4 does nearly this exact system automatically, without a GM.  Even over the internet.  And it is programmed by one guy.

Europa Universalis does variable-time multiplayer.  It goes with the slowest speed any player selects.  It works fine.  People do not generally play EU with random people, so they don't mind waiting for someone who needs a low speed.

[Person012345]

I'm saying we do not need a GM at all, not that the GM should not have this responsibility.

I repeat, Dominions 4 does nearly this exact system automatically, without a GM.  Even over the internet.  And it is programmed by one guy.

Europa Universalis does variable-time multiplayer.  It goes with the slowest speed any player selects.  It works fine.  People do not generally play EU with random people, so they don't mind waiting for someone who needs a low speed.

Yes but that presumes that having a GM is undesirable. Why are you trying to eliminate the GM? It's the more convenient, less annoying system and can't be messed up if one guy just decides to be an obstinate dick.

[ChildServices]

Yes but that presumes that having a GM is undesirable. Why are you trying to eliminate the GM? It's the more convenient, less annoying system and can't be messed up if one guy just decides to be an obstinate dick.

Why is having a GM necessary? Apart from ego, maybe, I don't see it. You say it's "more convenient" and "less annoying", but why? Why is having to wait for one guy (who may or may not actually be playing) to wake up and decree that the next increment is allowed to process more convenient and less annoying?

I've hosted games of Dominions 4 before and I can tell you right now that my job as "GM" pretty much ends at setting up the start conditions. I don't want to have to manually hit the "next turn" button for everyone, that's tedious and annoying. Aside from having space master to debug, and being able to boot people from the lobby, I just don't see what a GM would actually do if we had "true" multiplayer like in every single other modern game.

[TMaekler]

While all active players are in 'exploration' mode, this kind of Dom4 multiplayer might work. But when someone goes to battle those not involved would get bored waiting 3 hours during they could do nothing. The time increment of battle compared to exploration in Aurora is too different to make people not fall asleep while others battle.

[Zincat]

And you KNOW there would be the.... OCD person using 5 seconds time increments ALWAYS.

And whats going to happen when someone does an overhaul of their fleet, using 3+ hours planning components and such? I certainly do quite often. Is everyone else going to go and read a book in the meanwhile?

I don't think Aurora is suitable for true multiplayer. Not at all.

[sloanjh (OP)]

And you KNOW there would be the.... OCD person using 5 seconds time increments ALWAYS.

And whats going to happen when someone does an overhaul of their fleet, using 3+ hours planning components and such? I certainly do quite often. Is everyone else going to go and read a book in the meanwhile?

I don't think Aurora is suitable for true multiplayer. Not at all.

And the most important part is: "Does Steve want to spend the time to code it up?"  Even if he does, he should wait until he gets single player mode out the door.  One of the things Steve is really good at is driving towards getting a working application going as quickly as possible.  Part of this in this context is not getting distracted by major rewrites of game mechanics - most of the changes he's making are at the margins as he recodes specific pieces of functionality.  Trying to put in inter-process or inter-computer communication would be a diversion which would only delay C# Aurora even more.  And don't forget, this is a hobby for Steve - most of the stuff he's writing is for him to use; he's simply kind enough to share it with us.

The most likely way I see significant multi-player functionality getting into Aurora is if Steve has someone he wants to play multi-player Aurora with   If that happens, then I expect the details of how it's implemented will be highly dependent on the logistics of how they want to play

John

[Barkhorn]

And you KNOW there would be the.... OCD person using 5 seconds time increments ALWAYS.

And whats going to happen when someone does an overhaul of their fleet, using 3+ hours planning components and such? I certainly do quite often. Is everyone else going to go and read a book in the meanwhile?

I don't think Aurora is suitable for true multiplayer. Not at all.

Dominions 4 allows asynchronous multiplayer if you want.  It has to be set up this way when you start the game, but it can be done.  In Dom4 with asynchronous multiplayer on, the players are given X amount of time (I think most people do 24 hours) to complete their turns and send them to the host.  Once they're all in or the time is up, the host then goes to the next turn and the process repeats.  I think they're sent via the same protocols as email.  It's kinda like playing chess by mail like people used to do pre-internet.

What this would allow is players who were not in combat could go do something else while they wait.  If something triggers an interrupt, the host can contact the affected players and get them to handle it.  So say there's 4 players, and 2 start fighting.  The two who aren't fighting just click 30-days, and go play something else for a little while.  Meanwhile, the two in combat fight it out at 5-sec increments as long as they have to.  If the fighting spills over to a third player, an interrupt would trigger for him, stopping his 30-day increment.  The host can call him on the phone or skype or steam and get him to work out the interrupts.  Obviously I'm assuming this will only really work if all players know each other.  But I think that's a fine assumption, I don't believe many people play Dom4 or Europa Universalis 4 with strangers.  Dom4 has no matchmaking at all, and EU4 barely does.

I agree with sloanjh though.  This is all just waiting on Steve playing multiplayer with someone.  I hope it happens soon.

[Person012345]

Why is having a GM necessary? Apart from ego, maybe, I don't see it. You say it's "more convenient" and "less annoying", but why? Why is having to wait for one guy (who may or may not actually be playing) to wake up and decree that the next increment is allowed to process more convenient and less annoying?

I've hosted games of Dominions 4 before and I can tell you right now that my job as "GM" pretty much ends at setting up the start conditions. I don't want to have to manually hit the "next turn" button for everyone, that's tedious and annoying. Aside from having space master to debug, and being able to boot people from the lobby, I just don't see what a GM would actually do if we had "true" multiplayer like in every single other modern game.

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.