Now we have our own thread, away from the contest threads. This is where lengthy rambles might be okay (but certainly not read!), where Gimli can glorify SG and vent about those who don't understand, M57 can question it all (at length), and Hugh will... go insane trying to reason.

I assume you're talking about this thread?

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1703/Simulgear_Questions

No this one which was hijacked by me:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1698p3/You_are_invited_to_help_judge_a_WarGear_mapmaking_competition

M57: Percentage dice are hard to understand for players who are use to regular dice.

Hugh: Really?? Percentages are pretty easy to understand. If I attack with 10 units at a 60% kill rate, and my opponent defends with 8 units at a 75% kill rate, I've got a great idea about what should, and what might, actually happen. What could be easier? You act as though players actually understand "regular" dice. Risk dice are really weird. In my experience, I win because players underestimate the drastic jump between 6v6 and 7v6 dice, and overestimate the non-drastic jump from 6v6 to 6v7. It's so hard to figure out what should happen lining up 3 dice, taking the best two, and comparing it to two other dice, tie going to the defender, that I have a computer do it. (Many tables and simulators have been posted/created by others for this purpose.) 

M57: Personally, I think %-Dice are flawed.  With the standard 60% v 70% dice, if I attack your 100 with my 100 (first), the outcome is in your favor.  Where is the logic in this?

Hugh: On the one hand, it's a game, so no logic is needed, just good game functionality. However, battle logic might say that the invader is usually at a disadvantage, and should lose unless they bring a larger force. With enough extra force, the percentage die give even a relative edge to the attacker, which is something "regular" dice can't do. Also, the designer can change those percentages to 60%/50% (6 to 5, like "regular" dice!) if it is undesirable gameplay.

M57: Why was it necessary to develop such a different paradigm for battle resolution?

Hugh: It wasn't. The dice have nothing to do with the turn resolution. In an ideal design, the two notions are decoupled. I'd love to see turn-based with percentage dice, and I might enjoy SG with (something like continuous attack) versus die. I'm not suggesting the dice type in no way influences resolution, but you're right that in some sense it's unnecessary. However, I think you're wrong that people understand versus dice and that they find percentages confusing or that percentage dice were a bad choice.

M57: As you place orders, there is no way to keep track of what you have done other than to view a pop-up spread-sheet window.  In a format where order is critical, this will be the kiss of death for players who need to see a "current" board that reflects their intentions. 

Hugh: Some improvements might be made to look/feel, but this is no worse than what we had on WF. I use either memory or the pop-up to keep track and adjust. I also use the up/down on turn-order thing. There is no getting around that the ordering is complex, but the tools are at least adequate for handling the complexity. SG turns require effort if you are to achieve good play, and for that reason, it isn't for everyone. 

M57: SG as implemented just doesn't meet the standards that are placed on current suggestions for improvements to this site.

Hugh: There were other turn resolution ideas, yours, Risk II-style (Kjeld had a variation I think), and probably others. Often good game play has less to do with the engine, and more to do with the designer's (and their team of testers) efforts at creating good game play. Poor design is poor design in any engine. We went with SG because of the existence of very well designed maps that could be ported, the existence of a strong playing group who knew the game, etc. It's fun to discuss potential improvements, but barring clean ideas we all like that tom has time for, I would say modifying SG has to be of really low priority. 

KESP would have prevented the confusion =P

Kjeld wrote:

KESP would have prevented the confusion =P

I liked KESP, though I can't remember it's features! 

Thanks for starting the thread Hugh.  I liked your responses to my comments.  Here are some of my thoughts on some of the comments thus far

For those that prefer it, turn-based play with %Dice is an obvious add-on to the standard game.  All that would be needed would be for designers to create a Scenario with %Dice borders. 

KESP was a really strong alternative to Percentage Dice.  One of it's great advantages (IMO) is that it made the issue of who goes first moot.

In large part, Kjeld's work inspired me to design the M-Engine, which enables what amounts to simultaneous standard risk-style play on most any board, complete with dice and border mods, and even things like URange, when/if it comes on-line.  It also potentially supports true lightning games with as many players as a board can handle.  This is the niche that I still see it filling.  I can't help but think that it would be very popular if it could be implemented such that 5+ players could complete a game in an hour.

I wonder what percentage of people join up here and immediately join a lightning game to see how things work, only to leave with a bad taste in their mouth because the game took 3 or 4 hours. (most of it waiting and clicking refresh).

Edit:  Re: %Dice on a standard board.. The ability of the attacker to re-atttack before the defender can counter would change the way it works a bit, but that might be overcome by modifications to the standard border settings, etc..

M57 wrote:

I wonder what percentage of people join up here and immediately join a lightning game to see how things work, only to leave with a bad taste in their mouth because the game took 3 or 4 hours. (most of it waiting and clicking refresh).

It's great how naturally you hijack threads  It's cool with this thread, because it isn't being used to discuss contest voting or something important. 

I completely agree BTW... I like it when lightning works, but it fails at a tremendous rate (my gf is always joining them and complaining) and it is far from ideal. I like chess clocks (and variations) for real-time timed games. I'd want something like a ping (beeping noise, players must respond within a minute or two) as the game starts so that it doesn't start with dead weight like it often does. 

Hugh wrote:

It's great how naturally you hijack threads 

It's the ADD.  Some call it a blessing; most..

Hugh wrote: I like chess clocks (and variations) for real-time timed games. I'd want something like a ping (beeping noise, players must respond within a minute or two) as the game starts so that it doesn't start with dead weight like it often does. 

Of these, I think the ping stands the best chance of being viable.  Nonetheless, these solutions still maintain the turn-based status quo, which all but guarantees more time than not playing.  This was OK in college when everyone was in the room and you were doing other recreational things (umm. I mean conversing) with your opponents when you weren't rolling the dice.  The virtual world is much less forgiving.

I envision two minutes of taking your turn ..and Boom!, it's your turn again - regardless of how many are playing the board.

Hugh wrote:

M57 wrote:

I wonder what percentage of people join up here and immediately join a lightning game to see how things work, only to leave with a bad taste in their mouth because the game took 3 or 4 hours. (most of it waiting and clicking refresh).

...I like chess clocks (and variations) for real-time timed games. ...

How easy would it be to implement a real-time chess clock?  This seems like a pretty straight-forward concept that people could work with.

For a two-player game with each player getting 30 minutes, there's your hour lightning game right there (vs. several hours with current setup).

What if the game takes more moves than "normal"? ..whatever that is.

Wait, I'll answer that.  You could do a chess-clock where you get 30 minutes to take x/p moves, where p is the number of players.

It still amounts to a lot of down time, but there's no doubt it would beat what exists now.

Or you could give each play X minutes for moves, and whoever runs out of time first just gets skipped until every other player has run out of their X minutes. At that point, each player would get another X minutes and it would start over again.

Still one of the coolest things about SG is that it is a different style and gameplay from Turn-Based.  It's not simply Simultaneous Turn-Based, but rather different dice, different modifiers, different rules, etc.  This is also in line with the defender potentially having the killing advantage, it makes it different from Turn-Based.  It still has some slight hints of Turn-Based with the order resolution, but overall it's a different experience and it is built to be a different experience. 

I really don't think it is meant to be Simultaneous Turn-Based, and playing it like that is probably not the right way to play.

Yertle wrote:

Still one of the coolest things about SG is that it is a different style and gameplay from Turn-Based.  It's not simply Simultaneous Turn-Based, but rather different dice, different modifiers, different rules, etc.  This is also in line with the defender potentially having the killing advantage, it makes it different from Turn-Based.  It still has some slight hints of Turn-Based with the order resolution, but overall it's a different experience and it is built to be a different experience. 

I really don't think it is meant to be Simultaneous Turn-Based, and playing it like that is probably not the right way to play.

I think yours is a very good assessment of what SG is and isn't.  It took quite a while for me to figure this out, and my misunderstanding contributed to some of my frustrations with the engine.

I remember the first time I played it, I was excited because I thought BAO might be the Holy Grail of on-line Risk ..simultaneous play.  After all, in some cases it used the same board (I'm thinking of that circle fill Malta board).   Of course, it turned out to be anything but.  

When you consider some of Y's points, it becomes clear that typical Risk strategies are doomed with a game like this because it turns some of the fundamental mechanics of the game on its head. And I hope you all can understand why is was so disappointing for me when you consider my expectations, and this was only exacerbated by the lack of any reasonable documentation regarding how it works, much less how a different approach to play is necessary ..but then I have to say that my hopes for a true simultaneous play engine were only whetted by my frustrations. 

M57: As you place orders, there is no way to keep track of what you have done other than to view a pop-up spread-sheet window.  In a format where order is critical, this will be the kiss of death for players who need to see a "current" board that reflects their intentions. 

Hugh: Some improvements might be made to look/feel, but this is no worse than what we had on WF. I use either memory or the pop-up to keep track and adjust. I also use the up/down on turn-order thing. There is no getting around that the ordering is complex, but the tools are at least adequate for handling the complexity. SG turns require effort if you are to achieve good play, and for that reason, it isn't for everyone. 

And what we really have here that ToS did not have, is a graphical history of events once they happen.  Remember playing BOA games where you had to look through the history text to figure out what happened every turn? 

Yertle wrote:

Still one of the coolest things about SG is that it is a different style and gameplay from Turn-Based.  It's not simply Simultaneous Turn-Based, but rather different dice, different modifiers, different rules, etc.  This is also in line with the defender potentially having the killing advantage, it makes it different from Turn-Based.  It still has some slight hints of Turn-Based with the order resolution, but overall it's a different experience and it is built to be a different experience. 

I really don't think it is meant to be Simultaneous Turn-Based, and playing it like that is probably not the right way to play.

This is how I feel when I'm in a good SG game or two. When you really get into it, and consider the possibilities for your turn and your opponent's, it's so rich tactically. It's a very very different experience. When I get more time, I'll have to start a bunch on Risky's GearWars: The Force Unleashed. That's probably my favorite (at least for duels).

BlackDog wrote:

M57: As you place orders, there is no way to keep track of what you have done other than to view a pop-up spread-sheet window.  In a format where order is critical, this will be the kiss of death for players who need to see a "current" board that reflects their intentions. 

Hugh: Some improvements might be made to look/feel, but this is no worse than what we had on WF. I use either memory or the pop-up to keep track and adjust. I also use the up/down on turn-order thing. There is no getting around that the ordering is complex, but the tools are at least adequate for handling the complexity. SG turns require effort if you are to achieve good play, and for that reason, it isn't for everyone. 

And what we really have here that ToS did not have, is a graphical history of events once they happen.  Remember playing BOA games where you had to look through the history text to figure out what happened every turn? 

Ughh...don't remind me!

BlackDog wrote:

And what we really have here that ToS did not have, is a graphical history of events once they happen.  Remember playing BOA games where you had to look through the history text to figure out what happened every turn? 

..and I would consider this is a necessity for any game where orders are simultaneously placed.  But not being able "see" the placement of orders is still a major problem.  A "list" is a weak substitute.  I can imagine trying to follow a list of orders on a board with hundreds of territories, which are typically numbered (T43 attack T17, etc.).

M57 wrote:

BlackDog wrote:

And what we really have here that ToS did not have, is a graphical history of events once they happen.  Remember playing BOA games where you had to look through the history text to figure out what happened every turn? 

..and I would consider this is a necessity for any game where orders are simultaneously placed.  But not being able "see" the placement of orders is still a major problem.  A "list" is a weak substitute.  I can imagine trying to follow a list of orders on a board with hundreds of territories, which are typically numbered (T43 attack T17, etc.).

How about an scroll bar/slider next to the order list that shows (visually) the progress of your prospective move list?  Similar to the History slider.  It would ideally update the map image in the player or in a popup window.