The Battle for Wesnoth Forums

Ok, this is not really a features request, is only one mine think about my experence with the game it self.

Are about six or less mouth that i play Wesnoth, not really to mach, to say about or understand it all. This is the problem, it start boring.
I really like turn based game, i like more complicated too. And when i like a game its longevity is endless (until a better sequel if it comes out). And never start to boring alos if i know it all.

So... where is the proplem in wesnoth?
When I start to play it informaly whit friends it is all ok - people with same ideas - and same ability, who play it for fun, and in this time i have played my best game. But this is not evergreen some people have different time, needs, issue... so i start to go to the official server. A new worlds open. And also lot a new problem, who grown with as the time pass.
Different people have different relation with the game style, some play fast, in search for luck or in an "Artistic Way"; some other play as the solve an equation cheking for al moves first and then choosing; lot simply mix this to game style tend from one to one as personal issue influence is emotion.
Tranlsated: some people can have a 15 sec turn, some other a 10 min one.
To put a cap to the time is an horrible think because some people who play in a "better way" really need all this time to check moves and mading choose - is a turn based strategy game - people have to think to move.
But i become boring to wait al this time - and during this time normaly i cannot think a lot of my moves because others side have to move.
I think people quits game for this reason have something better in mind that wait, or when undestand the game will be long (and so boring (for them)) they quit.
Quitting they broke my game. It seems impossible to have a full and fun game whith more than six playes... but also a game in 3 or 4 start to have a lot of "death time".
So is really hard to play a game a good one, and possibly in a reasonable time.

So... what i propose is:
I would like to start a paragon... a never boring game for me i civilization4. Ok... it can have really long turn and a game it self is really longer than wesnoth you need days to finish it. So why it does not boring? Try a 2vs3 - 2 human and 3 AI - and surprise no "death time". How? Temmates have simultaneous turn.

First to say: "Never this is a turn game!" think what appen if this "safe simultaneous turn mode" will be appen.
A lot of changes in gameplay... on moving and positiong of unit. A unit cannot be attacked is is playing the animation... and some more. Ok.
Almost nothing in single player...
Almost nothing on 4 allVSall game, or 1vs1.
2vs2 need half time to be finished - also you and you temmates can inprove your strategy because you have a lot more way to attack/defend.
3vs3 need 1/3 time to be finished ... a six players game that require the same time of an 1vs1... think about it.
2vs2vs2 need half time... and so on for standard game;
but, what appen to all team based game? They alway have almost the same time of a single players game...
6 players survival need 1/6 of the time to be finished!

In this case also if you have a players who made long turn you have to wait less time to play than now... and surprise... he can have longer turn whitout become bored by lot of "fast, please" "play" "kick"...

New and exciting.

Do a search for simultaneous.

Simultaneous turn for teammates... a think about it.

Suggested a million times before, but I don't think it has been outright rejected. Developers don't need any persuasion because the conclusion is along the lines of: it would be great, but it would also be hard to code, requiring a major rewrite with how the server handles multiplayer games. Basically, code it yourself or find (bribe with cash؟) someone to code it and there is an extremely high probability that it would be accepted (can't guarantee it since I'm not a developer). 90% of criticisms of this suggestion involve the difficulty to resolve certain issues in implementing it, not how it'd break the game's existing style.

You also suggested the only way it could possibly be accepted: simultaneous turns for the same team, which would not screw up the basic balance of the game. (It could break up the balance of multiplayer maps that are balanced for teams moving in the order of: 1-2-2-1.)

(EDIT: I would say that this suggestion would probably never happen, but I also would've said that to the numerous suggestions to make an iPhone port before someone actually decided to work on one.)

it would also be hard to code, requiring a major rewrite with how the server handles multiplayer games.

So this should be a priority for 2.0...

Ummm no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-based_strategy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_strategy

Gambit wrote:Ummm no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-based_strategy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_strategy

Ummm, not quite. Civilization is a turn based strategy (by that very wiki page) although its turns are simultaneous for friends and foes alike, everyone moving at once. Then again, I'd consider it more of a hybrid in that sense.

Having teams move at the same time would reduce time required to play team games significantly. 8p and 9p games could be within the same time frame as 4p team games, and non-traditional type games like RPGs and survivals would also benefit.

DDB_Diego wrote:

it would also be hard to code, requiring a major rewrite with how the server handles multiplayer games.

So this should be a priority for 2.0...

I believe the developers set their own priorities, and will choose when 2.0 comes. I wouldn't get your hopes up. In a project like this, if you want something done the best way to do it is to do it yourself. There's more ideas than manpower.

Ken_Oh wrote:New and exciting.

Do a search for simultaneous.

Ken_Oh is right, this was discussed frequently in the past.
Check out the following threads:

>>> http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=10693
>>> http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10472
>>> http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=4634
>>> http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4506

Especially check out the last one. I think it is quite interesting to see that Dave himself actually proposed an idea very simliar to your own, Diego. But this was years ago! As nothing visible happened since then I guess the idea has been abandoned or set back due to technical reasons or taste.

I'm an ardent supporter of this idea and I've submitted a feature request already for it. At some point I'd like to really see what would be involved to male it actually happen.

This idea has been proposed, debated and generally rejected as a mainline idea, as there are enduring advantages of the present system which militates for its retention.

First off, the current system actually promotes greater team coordination than the proposed idea by adding a level of complexity. Individuals (on both sides) need to take into account how turn order affects their turns, which creates complications and advantages. The best example of this is of the popular clash map, which was recently changed to a 1221 style then reverted to 1212 because it actually made the map less interesting. At the same time it greatly increases the need for communication but less complexity. This, to some degree, would make playing joint turn maps unplayable for people of different languages. In current maps, communication is needed and can be very advantageous but not necessary for gameplay.

This leads to a second problem; it requires a major rebalancing of maps if it was ever implemented; results of which cannot be assured to be successful as the clash example suggests.) The system would not be used for any present mainline maps and its presents alot of difficulties for any future map makers. With simultaneous turns, there is a greater likelihood one side can just overwhelm another side in a single turn. Breaking up turns adds a level of balance into maps, and will actually make team healing much less useful for RPG maps.

Finally, I doubt it would have any effect to speed the game up. Team coordination is not the problem for long games; coordination often just doesn't happen. The problem is typically people just taking too long with turns. If coordination takes too long, people can talk on others turns, which is just as effective. For this problem, setting a timer usually solves that as a problem.

So for these reasons its not been implemented as part of mainline.

To say that being able to move at the same time as your allies would not speed up any games at all seems a absurd statement to me.

To say that maps would need to be majorly redone seems to be a dubious statement at best.

Anyway, it could be just another option available, rather then a replacement. So if it causes trouble because not everyone speaks the same language, then you simply wouldn't use it. If it doesn't work on X map, then use a different map or use the older option. But in a good number of circumstances, it would be very nice indeed to be able to switch to such a option. I think it would become even more popular still as people got a taste for it.

I am sorry to hear that this idea would be so hard to program, because it seems like a very good idea to me.

I personally envision that it would be a map setting, so that map makers wouldn't have to redo their maps and others could specifically code for it.

With simultaneous turns, there is a greater likelihood one side can just overwhelm another side in a single turn

You make the map balanced enough for that not to be a issue. Anyway, in single player games one side can suddenly surge over the other side lots of times. But that doesn't mean the battles over, you surge back. You prepare defenses. It might play a bit differently but I doubt it would be less interesting or fun.

. Breaking up turns adds a level of balance into maps, and will actually make team healing much less useful for RPG maps.

Its true that it will mean that no matter how many healers you have, you can never be healed more then once a turn which might add a bit of challenge to RPG maps. But you can usually choose difficulty levels to adjust for this.

But it would be well worth it for the time saving on a RPG map, where everyone is your allie and you have a large number of them. Where it doesn't matter if one side moves first, because your all on the same side. Which I think means no need to change any RPG map to accommodate such a option.

Molean wrote:I am sorry to hear that this idea would be so hard to program, because it seems like a very good idea to me.

The reasons have been stated to answer your thoughts on its viability for inclusion, and if you are unwilling to even provide an example of this by doing the work yourself or having someone do it for you, then this thread serves little purpose.

Locked.