The WG site is getting closer and closer to RT in terms of turn-notifications and board-updates.  Lightning and even quicker games are common, but they are rarely played with more than 3 players.  This means that more and more players want to sit down and play a game, and to the degree that it’s possible, not have to make a move and wait.

I was just editing some of the M-Engine pages with the object of making it a fast-playing RT engine by slashing anything that had to do with “order-stacking/blitzing” and “scenario-dependent” orders. 

The revised engine makes it so that players are allowed to make a limited number of moves at a time (as few as 1 - including the option of using the A and T buttons) with simultaneous resolution for all players.  In theory, players could be making moves every 20 seconds or so if everyone is on board, no matter how many are playing.

I’ve simplified the description on the “What is M-Engine?” page, and the “Basic Description” page.  There are a number of benefits of the stripped down engine that I had not anticipated.  For instance, there’s no need for booting. If a player goes afk for a few minutes, they can return anytime and continue playing.

I haven’t done any simplification of the Battle Resolution pages because it’s not worth the time or effort unless there’s interest.  Needless to say they would be paired down considerably because there’s no need for scenario-dependent contingencies.

I know some of you think I’m beating a dead horse, but frankly I don’t care.  I just want to be able to sit down and play in RT, and I think there are more and more players on this site that want the same thing.  I don’t care what the engine is.  If someone wants to design another from scratch, or use mine as a springboard ..fine.

So.. is there any interest ..yet?

How is an M57 suggestion like a Zombie?

It has to be shot in the head before it will die!!!

P.S.  bang bang

Risky,  I was hoping you would be the first to respond.. 

M57 wrote:

I just want to be able to sit down and play in RT, 

You can...Risk is just slow to play.  I still think you want a type of Simultaneous Play rather than simply "Real Time".

Yertle wrote:

M57 wrote:

I just want to be able to sit down and play in RT, 

You can...Risk is just slow to play.  I still think you want a type of Simultaneous Play rather than simply "Real Time".

True.  The game should never be played in true "Real Time" simultaneously; it wouldn't be the same game. In this sense, my use of the phrase RT is a misnomer.

But if all players can be actively playing all the time, there's much more of a zoomed-in time feel to it and it approaches a RT feel.  The trick is to reduce the time frame to the roll level. 

I've been realizing that the engine set up this way can work with little in the way of modification to the existing player.  Players could essentially use the same attack menus, and the dot scheme used in SG could help players to see orders they've already given.  There are one or two details that would need to be tweaked as far as play is concerned but the game as I envision it pretty much works using the existing capabilities of the site.

Maybe people don't really get what it is.  It brings many benefits to play, but most importantly it's a way for larger numbers (4-16 players) to play most any existing board with very little wait-time between turns.  Set up right, it should have a real-time feel, even when there are a lot of players.

Now that browsers are "listening" to the server and boards are updated in real time, the concept is all the more valid and it can be realized with much less effort than what it would have taken 2 years ago when the engine was designed.  I play a lot of 24-hour games where I can tell because of the speed of play that there are many players who would enjoy something like this.

Clearly, most of the old-guard here is happy with the status-quo "e-mail" style of play, but what about some of you newer players - especially those of you who play lightning games?  Please ask or PM me if you have any questions. 

If you like the idea but not the engine, I would be happy to work with an individual or team to develop something different.

Here is a site will best explain my past, present and future feelings on this topic:

http://users.elite.net/runner/jennifers/no.htm

RiskyBack wrote:

Here is a site will best explain my past, present and future feelings on this topic:

..this is why I'd prefer responses from newer, more open-minded players - including thoughtful criticism that could lead to an even better alternative.

I'm tired of being restricted to "play-by-mail" style of play. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind having a few of those in the que, but  I have a hard time believing that the newer breed of players with their iPads and predilection to instant response and gratification aren't beginning to think that something like this should be an alternative.

How about some comments from some of the newer members?

I will be here every time you post about this because it offends me that you have been told that the administrator of the site does not want to do this and yet you continue to bring it up.  You aren't much different than the guy trying to sell boots on the forums but rather than directing us to a site to buy the boots you are trying to get this site to start making boots!

RiskyBack wrote: you have been told that the administrator of the site does not want to do this and yet you continue to bring it up. 

This is news to me.. Where?  Please post.. 

Risky, I'm tiring of your constant invective couched in what you think is hilarious banter. I'm finding more and more of your posts insulting at best, and offensive at worst. You accuse and malign me at every turn.  I have responded with no invective.

Now, you seem to have turned to creating false statements.  I wonder if you actually believe what you are saying or if you are actually fabricating outright lies. Tom followed the early discussions regarding a second engine along with the development of my contribution with interest.  Once the SG engine was decided upon, to the degree that I could help with its implementation, I did.  The name SimulGear was my suggestion.  I am admittedly not a fan of the engine.

From there, more important projects have filled tom's docket, but tom even mentioned at one point that the future may hold a place for yet another engine for play.  Our private messages have given me no reason to believe he thought this was not a possibility, and never has he asked me to drop the subject, certainly not privately, and to my knowledge, not publicly.  Many members on this site have assisted me with it in off-site dev play, and the current incarnation of it that I am proposing involves using it in a much more radical implementation. So in many ways, it's a new proposal.  I realize tom has many other projects on his list.  I'm in no hurry.  I'm looking forward and hoping the site continues to grow and offer more ways to enjoy the game and the work that many have put into the board designs.

Unless you can be a productive participant, ..or back up your accusations, please go away - at least from this thread.  Otherwise, you are not doing anything to help your reputation.

I know I'm not a new poster but want to give my $0.02 before I step back and see responses:

I have no problem with having this discussion for further development of separate game engines.  After all, it's just discussion and M57 has been very forthcoming in both giving credit where it's due and also making sure he's operating within the rules of the site.  I also believe that tom monitors these threads frequently and M57 hasn't been trying to hide any of this from the public eye.  At the end of the day, for this site to be successful it needs to continue to appeal to the user group and adapting to changing needs is the right way to do that.

So, in response to M's initial post, as a potential player using the M-engine I'd like to ask a few basic questions that hopefully move the discussion forward and help with development:

Note: I'm asking these questions after viewing M's site which goes into more detail.

1) The stated advantage of the M-engine is RT play.  What would be the similarities/differences between the M-engine and a RT game like StarCraft?  

2) If I was in a game and had to leave the computer for a minute (i.e. coffee break) does play continue when I'm not there? Assume everybody else in the game is actively placing orders while I'm away.  (There is a style of play on ConquerClub that seems to do this).  Even after reading the M-engine explanation I still don't have a clear picture of what happens in this case.

3) In a hypothetical game, how many "sets" of orders do I place at one time?  From the website it almost sounds as if I'm placing at least 2 sets (1 for the current round and then another set of orders for the immediately proceeding round).  Would this # of sets be variable from game to game? A host option? 

4) Would there be a "history" in the current sense of the word?  i.e. is the game still broken down into a temporal series of events?  This is currently the case with both Turn-Based and Simulgear, where each event correlates to a specific moment in time.

5) This is an important one: Would my success at the M-engine be dependent on the speed at which I place orders?  i.e. would my APM (actions per minute) be a factor with this game engine?

Again, I'm asking these basic questions to help further the discussion.  

~ATH

I don't get it.

I went and read everything on your sites pages with an open mind, and, well, it was open when I started. It shut down once I started trying to get through the part about multiple attacks on a single territory. I had an easier time understanding calculus based statistics in grad school. I'll admit, its been a long time and my brain has lost a lot of good cells over the years. Maybe I've just grown to be dumber than I ever had to admit.

I still don't really even understand who rolls what and when. I'm partly thrown off by the term 'real time'. At first I thought that meant that we were controlling our armies like units in an RTS like Warcraft, but after reading for a while, I don't think that's the case, but then again... it might be? So if I can click faster than the other guys, I can throw more attack rolls than they can? No, that doesn't seem to match some of the other stuff I read.

But if it's not driving units in real time, then (like you said) "real time" is something of a misnomer. And then that would mean that we're entering if-then statements. I think I've read you mention if-then (conditional orders) statements or something like it before. If that's the case, and I hate to be a negative nelly here, but wouldn't that mean an exponentially increasing number of options for each step into the future you're trying to program? Wouldn't it take longer to sit and try to enter orders for 2 or 3 turns than to just wait until everyone else goes in a lightning round game? Especially on a large board.

And, as I continue to think about it, and sorry, but I can't help but go back to playing tabletop Risk. I think a love for that game is what brought us all here. That may make me a dog too old to learn new tricks, like RiskyBack up there, but so be it. Even at the tabletop we aren't writing down if-then moves on a piece of paper to be executed in order. I may plan out moves and conditional moves in my head 2, 3, 10 turns out into the future, but see that as distinctly different.

So I guess I get that the M-Engine is supposed to be something entirely different from digital Risk. Props on thinking it all through and coming up with a new set of game rules. I don't understand them. I don't even understand the concept.

I don't get it.

So, I kept thinking about this while I was typing my last response, and the best analogy I can come up with for what I think I'm looking at is a multi-player version of Conway's Game of Life where someone wins when everyone else goes extinct.

How accurate would that be?

Cramchakle wrote:

So, I kept thinking about this while I was typing my last response, and the best analogy I can come up with for what I think I'm looking at is a multi-player version of Conway's Game of Life where someone wins when everyone else goes extinct.

This would be a good cell-phone app. Someone make it and cut me in 40/60.

A, these are great questions!  Hopefully I'll be able to answer most of them. For continuity's sake, I'm going to answer them out of order.

3) In a hypothetical game, how many "sets" of orders do I place at one time?  From the website it almost sounds as if I'm placing at least 2 sets (1 for the current round and then another set of orders for the immediately proceeding round).  Would this # of sets be variable from game to game? A host option?

Exactly.  If we're thinking in terms of being able to play on any board, it would be a host option.  I'm really hoping the process involves guar 1 set of orders per move. Here are some examples:

1 order per every 30 seconds

3 orders / 1 minute

unlimited orders / 90 seconds

These times may actually be too long. Remember, there's no blitzing. If you think of most games that you play on most maps, your battles on any given turn rarely originate from more than 3 or 4 territories.

The only reason there may be a need for orders on the "next" round is to allocate armies moving forward.  I think it is best if this is pre-defined.  (this is one of those areas that the community needs to get involved in). In this case the discussion would be about the balance between having more control ..and keeping the game moving. 

2) If I was in a game and had to leave the computer for a minute (i.e. coffee break) does play continue when I'm not there? Assume everybody else in the game is actively placing orders while I'm away.  (There is a style of play on ConquerClub that seems to do this).  Even after reading the M-engine explanation I still don't have a clear picture of what happens in this case.

At this point, I see nothing wrong with this. It beats getting booted, and in fact there will be many rounds that players will not participate ..either because they are out of options, or possibly as a delay tactic, kind of like order-stacking in SimulGear.

Because the turn doesn't end until all players have ceased making orders, players may "gamble" that the turn won't end and that other players will do their dirty work for them. Then they can place their orders in later rounds.  A potential downside to the engine is that when a single player is "blitzing", everyone has to wait "roll by painstaking roll".. even with the T button, 90 seconds per territory could drag.  This is one of those areas where solutions (such as an togglable "end turn" button) could be considered.  Another solution is that when all but 1 player has toggled "end turn", the round clock time is cut in half or some other percentage.

4) Would there be a "history" in the current sense of the word?  i.e. is the game still broken down into a temporal series of events?  This is currently the case with both Turn-Based and Simulgear, where each event correlates to a specific moment in time.

Short answer, yes.  All orders in a given round are adjudicated at one time.

5) This is an important one: Would my success at the M-engine be dependent on the speed at which I place orders?  i.e. would my APM (actions per minute) be a factor with this game engine?

I hope that the answer to question 2 sheds light on this.  The fastest mouse has no advantage.  In the sense that all orders from a given round are settled with no regard to order, there is also no advantage to quick play.  Attacks are not made on behalf of the first player that gets their order(s) in. Finding the right tempo for play may not even be that critical.

Let's  say for instance, that you are in a 2 move/minute game, but you're the type of person that likes to study the board for a minute before you make your moves.

First, you could choose to not place any orders in the first minute.  This should be safe because if everyone else does the same, the turn ends and no-one gets cards (although they will receive bonuses).  And delaying your moves is not necessarily a bad thing (although standard dice does favor the attacker). 

Second, you could place a "hasty" order.  This shouldn't be too hard, you will have had time to think about the master plan while you were cashing cards and allocating your armies. (maybe there's 90 seconds for that). 

Third, you could choose to purposely not place any orders in the first round, for reasons cited earlier.

1) What would be the similarities/differences between the M-engine and a RT game like StarCraft?

This I can't answer because I am not familiar with SC, but I would ilke to reiterate that the term RT may very well be a misnomer here.  The goal is more of a RT feel, but only in the sense that everyone must complete a "set" of orders in a relatively short period of time, which then are adjudicated by the engine.  It is much more like Simulgear in this sense.  One of the main differences is that the slice of time represented is much smaller. there is no order-stacking, and no need to place "anticipatory" orders.  You are placing orders that will be executed on the board exactly as you see it when you place the orders.  Even if you are attacking one territory from two of your own.

Again, great questions.   There are still holes that need to be plugged. I'm aware of what a lot of them are and I have solutions, but there may be better solutions, so I'm trying to leave things open ended.  In fact, if the idea gains traction, it may be best to pull it apart and rebuild it.  Even for some of the things that in my mind are in stone, there may be better alternatives. For this to work, I know I have to let go and let others add and redesign.

Cramchakle wrote:

I don't get it.

I went and read everything on your sites pages with an open mind, and, well, it was open when I started. It shut down once I started trying to get through the part about multiple attacks on a single territory. I had an easier time understanding calculus based statistics in grad school. I'll admit, its been a long time and my brain has lost a lot of good cells over the years. Maybe I've just grown to be dumber than I ever had to admit.

..more likely my explanation of how orders are executed is poor -- I probably should have re-written the page that goes into the mechanics or battle resolution.  That should undoubtedly be my next assignment.  I know there are some that understand.. I'm pretty sure Kjeld had a good grasp of it a while back.  If you have armies that aren't defending, they can attack.. If you are attacked, 2 armies must "retreat" and defend.

I still don't really even understand who rolls what and when. 

Undoubtedly there are some if/then components that determine "which" orders are filled (who throws what). But once the list is compiled, there is no conflict.  This is what enables the engine to resolve all battles "simultaneously."  In the end, and just like in the real game, there is only 1 die per army. Does that help?

Ok -- I just posted a few explanatory videos.  I've been told they give a much better description of how it works.

https://sites.google.com/site/m57sengine/home/battle-resolution

Is that Blue or Purple? 

Have you changed the attacking/allocation for defense idea since the last version?  I don't remember the whole allocation and seemingly high number of "canceled" orders...wasn't there blitzing at first as well?

I'm still taking in the video...and I haven't re-read the stuff on the site again (I had a long while back), but I think I am more confused after the video, especially in regards to the whole allocation of defense, why wouldn't 3 (or 4) armies stay to defend rather than only 2?  Would the attack have to kill 4 or just 2?  Or is there not really the whole Attack with All concept here?  It's a single attack per "round"?  Perhaps I've missed this and it's already been answered above?

Is there potential that this could lead to longer games since there are potentially more wasted moves?  And wouldn't wasted moves get annoying?  Seems like this could also lead to more stalemates with the canceling of orders (although I may not be thinking this completely through).