I see Real-Time game invites popping up all the time.  There’s no way to bring up only RT games to do an analysis, so I just did an informal survey of RT games, focusing on the last 100 games played by the top 40 or 50 players and a few others that post here.  With the exception of falkner1976 (who almost plays them exclusively), I think it’s fair to say that very few who read these boards play them – and for those that do, they play sparingly and often find themselves in RT games that either end up with booted players or are terminated for one reason or another.

I’ve said this before, but I wonder how may people have left WG after joining an RT game and finding it too frustrating.  There are many times I find myself with an hour or so where I want to play an RT game but don’t ..for reasons we all know;..and I think there are many here who feel the same way. So I’d like to start this thread with the premise that RT games are just not working satisfactorily. Yes, there’s no question that a pop-up turn-timer/chess-clock interface would be an improvement, and that may very well be the solution chosen, but there are better.

I was initially excited when an alternative engine was slated to come to town because I was hopeful that the “simul” part of it would address the lightning issue. Needless to say, I was disappointed. SG is a different game, and that’s fine for those that want to play a different game, but it certainly doesn’t address the Lightning issue.  On the other hand, the simultaneous order placement paradigm that SG utilizes is, IMO, the solution to the RT game problem.

I want to play a game on existing boards with 5+ people playing, and I don’t want to wait for a half hour to take my turn.  Heck, I don’t want to wait 10 minutes between turns.  Personally, I’m tiring of what amounts to play by mail.  If WG had a good RT engine, I believe I would play that almost exclusively.

Should I just give up on the dream?

I have been playing for a few months now and have played about 60 RT Warfare games.  They take about 30 minutes on average because they are two player games.  I would not play 3 or 4 player RT because it takes too long.

I played RT Axis and Allies for years on AAWC, so based on that and other observations, I offer the following:

-Consider that the disinclination to play RT may be a result of the culture of the members and not a failing of the RT system.  It may just be that people don't want to play RT.

-If you want to try to change the culture of the members, I would suggest a chat room. Having a place to interact with other players between turns may make someone more inclined to 'hang out' for an hour while playing an RT game.

-If you want to look at the RT system, I would suggest a 2-minute timer.  2 minutes is enough for almost any turn, and you could add a 5-minute chess type timer per game that a player could tap into for moves that take more than two minutes.  The timer would run until placement is over.  With only two minutes or so between turns people may be willing to wait for a 3 or 4 player RT game, I would.

-To expand on above, with only two minutes between turns you could stay on the board and watch your opponents place units and move through territories while you hit update.  A big improvement would be if you could watch real time without having to hit update.  Then, with the 2-minute timer, you would stay on the board the whole time and watch the game unfold.

Regards,

Squint 

Currently I'm still more in favor of Squint's idea of upgrading the Flash Player for RT games so that it is even more real time without hitting update rather than attempting to create a whole other gameplay.  

Assuming M that you're referring to your SG "MEngine" thingy, it's really more of another type of gameplay than simply a way to play the same game real time.  Not that it doesn't still have potential merit, but I would vote to continue to leave it on the back burner for a while, I really think it would be a whole new way to play just like SG, which means a learning curve and confusing for some.

S, If membership isn't interested in RT, then hopefully this thread will illuminate that point.

A 2-min timer with a chess-clock backup for overage is a good idea, and it would certainly make 3 and 4 player games more palatable for many, but why "improve" on what is essentially a flawed paradigm for on-line play?  Just for starters, 2-player games notoriously favor players who move first.

Why not develop an engine from the ground up that can handle any amount of players by taking "waiting for everyone else to take their turn" out of the picture, as well as negate the 2-player issue I just mentioned above?

I think the "culture" isn't there because people haven't even considered that it could exist. One or two RT games on this site with 3+ players is all you need to put a bad taste in your mouth.  The "simul-order" system is a great idea, so clearly there's a "culture" that appreciates this aspect of play.  Throwing out the 3v2 dice to accommodate dealing with larger stacks ruined it for me.  Add to this the delayed order tactics that the system requires/encourages and it's just not the same game.

Yertle wrote:

Currently I'm still more in favor of Squint's idea of upgrading the Flash Player for RT games so that it is even more real time without hitting update rather than attempting to create a whole other gameplay.  

Assuming M that you're referring to your SG "MEngine" thingy, it's really more of another type of gameplay than simply a way to play the same game real time.  Not that it doesn't still have potential merit, but I would vote to continue to leave it on the back burner for a while, I really think it would be a whole new way to play just like SG, which means a learning curve and confusing for some.

My engine is just one solution.  I'd be happy to be part of a design team that develops another from the ground up.  M-engine was an attempt to create game-play that is almost indistiquishable from normal play. Players place there orders and the engine adjudicates them simultaneously. That's the part that would make for a great RT experience.

I looked through your possible solution and maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see how this would necessarily speed up the process of RT games.  With that solution I can easily see some RT games taking longer than what they currently are.

Beastlymaster wrote:

I looked through your possible solution and maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see how this would necessarily speed up the process of RT games.  With that solution I can easily see some RT games taking longer than what they currently are.

Let's say there are 10 people playing in a RT game using the "M" or any simul-order engine.  They place their orders, (placing M-Engine orders is like taking a mock-turn), which takes about 2 minutes on average, with some players maybe taking 3 or 4 minutes.  As soon as the last order is placed by the slowest player, it's the next turn.  I think there are variants of the M-Engine that could easily handle a 2 or 3 minute clock, even less depending on the board. Most importantly it doesn't matter how many play; potentially it's your turn every 2 or 3 minutes.  I can easily envision a 5 minute clock being more than adequate for most boards.

B, Which part of what you read makes you think that it would take longer than currently?

Technically, the current SG Engine could be played on a 5 minute clock with as many players as the board can handle.  It's just a matter of players checking in.  If all RT boards are set to refresh every 30 - 60 seconds after orders are submitted, the start of each turn could be delayed by that much.  I once mentioned a 5 minute clock that auto-cycles at 5, 10, 15, etc.. minutes on the hour.  That way you know you will make a turn every five minutes and you can walk away from the computer at :17 to get a soda knowing that it won't be your turn until :20.  You could make the timer even shorter by making the turn start time divisible by 4 ..or even 3.

Right now in my limited experience with the SG games I have noticed that some, not all, people are much less offensively minded and more defensively minded.  And in my limited experience SG games have always gone longer than other standard game play.  I'm not sure how or why, but they always seem to.  Maybe I mispoke and shoudl have said that I can see some games taking a while.  But that's the case for any of our maps right now.

Personally I love this site BECAUSE I can take my turns when I wish.  I just happen to be one of those people who have this on at work and can take my turns frequently.  Maybe we just need to change the description from "Real-Time" to "Fast paced" or something like that.

Beastlymaster wrote:

Personally I love this site BECAUSE I can take my turns when I wish.  I just happen to be one of those people who have this on at work and can take my turns frequently.  Maybe we just need to change the description from "Real-Time" to "Fast paced" or something like that.

Good point.  My understanding is also that a lot of players like to take their time placing SG orders.  In fact, when you consider the implied order-stacking aspect of SG, it's almost mandatory for good play, and this is what makes it a poor Lightning Engine.

M-Engine, on the other hand was meant to support lightning-style play.  All players take a "mock-turn". The order in which they make their moves is irrelevant because all moves are then played out by the engine simultaneously by executing all orders "handful by handful of dice" until all relevant orders are played out.  This battle resolution mechanism is what's unique about M-Engine.  It should actually speed up play because players shouldn't have to think about the ramifications of "when they do what."

M-Engine can support complex order-stacking too, but that's not the playing niche that needs to be filled.

SquintGnome wrote:...

-Consider that the disinclination to play RT may be a result of the culture of the members and not a failing of the RT system.  It may just be that people don't want to play RT.

...

Before we go down this road again I think we should get the pulse of the community as Squint mentions above.  Might prevent a lot of work around something that will always be a niche market.

Would also be worth looking at what the end goal is here: Is RT meant to be real-time like Starcraft/Command & Conquer?  Is it meant to just be a faster option than 2-day? Or as M mentions is the goal to really create a unique playing experience such as "simultaneous" turn resolution vs. really fast turn-based resolution?

Since most of the boards on this site (irregardless of the skill of the players involved) require consciously formulating a strategy and thinking through options, my guess is that there's a break-even point when it comes to players who want to finish a game quickly but still have the time to make quality moves.

~ATH

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Before we go down this road again I think we should get the pulse of the community as Squint mentions above.  Might prevent a lot of work around something that will always be a niche market.

~ATH

+1

Since I would most likely not play this way and would hate to have Tom or anyone for that matter spend a lot of time on something only ~2% of the people will play or use.

(The ~2% is just a guess)

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Would also be worth looking at what the end goal is here: Is RT meant to be real-time like Starcraft/Command & Conquer?  Is it meant to just be a faster option than 2-day? Or as M mentions is the goal to really create a unique playing experience such as "simultaneous" turn resolution vs. really fast turn-based resolution?

~ATH

 I am one of those people who took RT as faster.  I would even like to see something in the range of 1-day.

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Before we go down this road again I think we should get the pulse of the community as Squint mentions above.  Might prevent a lot of work around something that will always be a niche market.

Would also be worth looking at what the end goal is here: Is RT meant to be real-time like Starcraft/Command & Conquer?  Is it meant to just be a faster option than 2-day? Or as M mentions is the goal to really create a unique playing experience such as "simultaneous" turn resolution vs. really fast turn-based resolution?

Since most of the boards on this site (irregardless of the skill of the players involved) require consciously formulating a strategy and thinking through options, my guess is that there's a break-even point when it comes to players who want to finish a game quickly but still have the time to make quality moves.

~ATH

I think you've hit the nail square on the head, A., and certainly where M-E is concerned. ME is not Lightning Risk.  Cut to its core, it could be one-attack-at-a-time, 10-15 sec. per move/roll kind of gaming experience where all players watch the game unfold and place orders whenever they need to.  On the other hand, if all people want is to do is play the standard game as fast as possible and are willing to wait while others move, it's just a matter of rolling out a better notification system, and maybe a chess-clock for added flexibility, then bring the timer down as low as possible, but I don't see 6-8 player games ever becoming popular with that engine format.

Your point about "quality moves" is on the mark too.  It's hard to make quality moves playing chess on a 5 minute clock, but that's part of the experience.  Everyone else is in the same boat.  Consider that many actually enjoy the rush of playing on the clock.

Anyways, that's the point of this thread.  To gauge what people want, though I wonder that it may not be possible. I'm concerned that those who want to play RT visit WG and are gone.  They're certainly not going to wait around for a good RT engine to be built.  If we only poll those who are happy here now, I think we are doomed to conclude that everything is just fine.. or at least "good enough".

What it will take is a "build it and they will come" attitude.  I think that if we do go down this road, we should shoot for a more dynamic RT experience.

Beastlymaster wrote:

Since I would most likely not play this way and would hate to have Tom or anyone for that matter spend a lot of time on something only ~2% of the people will play or use.

(The ~2% is just a guess)

Fair enough.  I agree. 2% would not cut it.

I'm going to throw a different number out there .. I just took a look at the first 200 completed games of WarGear Warfare.  40, or 20% are Lightning games!  Do a search of "All" games and the number of terminated lightning games you'll find is staggering. These players are all candidates for a good RT and better lightning experience. Add to that the players who know better than to play Lightning games as they are currently offered.  I don't think there's anyone who reads these boards who wouldn't give it a try if it was offered.   Come on; wouldn't you occasionally pop off a game of Micro-Mission when you have a half hour on your hands?  I think 20% in the first year is a conservative estimate.  I predict that RT/lightning numbers would easily eclipse SG numbers ..and as more people visit the site and see that they can actually sit down and play a game (this will be an entirely new class of customer), I see it becoming a big piece of the WarGear pie.

My guess is still that players are looking to play Risk fast, not play Risk simultaneously.  Again, the discussion you are proposing M is a different style and not simply Risk faster.  In order to play it well, players would have to understand the mechanisms behind it (just like SimulGear), in which learning to play a Simultaneous game would take some time and would be different than the normal Turn Based which players are familiar with.

Yertle wrote:

My guess is still that players are looking to play Risk fast, not play Risk simultaneously.  ...

If this is the case, then it sounds like the chess clock is the best solution...maybe that's why it's stuck around so long for such a classic game.

Perhaps we hijack threads here:

A Chess Clock Widget!

I think the chat feature, which debuted briefly before being retired due to some performance issue that I can't recall the details of, would be a big help in this department. Can Tom bring that back?

My definition of RT is to play a game fast not simultaneously.  Fast to me means 30 minutes to an hour, perhaps up to two hours if it is a 4 or 5 player game. 

I think it is important to mention that a two minute timer does not imply a 'rushed' move.  If you can watch the game real time, you will be thinking about your strategy and upcoming move while your opponent takes their turn(s).  If you monitor yourself in a real life game I think you will find you take very little time thinking about your move when it is your turn.  This is because you are fully engaged with the game.  When you take a turn every day or every few hours you need to refresh your memory, review the history, etc.  You spend 10 minutes getting back up to speed.

In summary, I think the best solution is to use the same system with a faster timer, nothing else would be needed.  

Why can't we just ask tom to set up something like a 3-minute clock and see what happens?  Can't be any worse than a 10-minute wait-fest.

SquintGnome wrote:
In summary, I think the best solution is to use the same system with a faster timer, nothing else would be needed.  

So the other day I was thinking that a 2-3 minute timer with an auto end-turn feature would be nice.  There would not be any boots, but if a player left the game would still end rather quickly because of the auto end-turn feature.  This would also cut-off a turn that was in process, but was taking too long.

I have recently tried to play a few SimulGear games and I have found the biggest problem to be me and not the mechanics or engine.  Twice now I have been interrupted and had to walk away (leaving my opponent to wait for a boot) or surrender.  The opposite has happened to me and the twenty minutes of inactivity is frustrating.

These may seem to be in contrast and they probably are, but I thought I would give my opinions.