Coop simultaneous turns

[bushez]

So from what I saw even when you play with simultaneous turns if ur friend get into battle u have to go watch it u cant still play ur turn on the campaign map in the meantime I hope maybe they will add a option for that.

[Elitewrecker PT]

Can you say: "desync"

[RecalledDread]

Would be open to abuse by the other players;
"Oh, Player 1 is in a battle!" *Takes a couple of his cities*

It could maybe be mitigated by making a queue system for battles, but that could cause issues down the line. Especially since you might need to move armies depending on the outcome of those battles.

[Slynx Jewel]

Originally posted by RecalledDread:

Would be open to abuse by the other players;
"Oh, Player 1 is in a battle!" *Takes a couple of his cities*

It could maybe be mitigated by making a queue system for battles, but that could cause issues down the line. Especially since you might need to move armies depending on the outcome of those battles.

i know it's necroposting...but taking his cities is pvp. and coop is pve. no? XD

[Wubbinz]

The game already struggles with simultaneous coop as it is, don't push it too hard. It already nearly crashes if a player goes into diplomacy.

[Elitewrecker PT]

Originally posted by Slynx Jewel:

Originally posted by RecalledDread:

Would be open to abuse by the other players;
"Oh, Player 1 is in a battle!" *Takes a couple of his cities*

It could maybe be mitigated by making a queue system for battles, but that could cause issues down the line. Especially since you might need to move armies depending on the outcome of those battles.

i know it's necroposting...but taking his cities is pvp. and coop is pve. no? XD

That's because it's not really coop, it's Multiplayer campaign. Whether it's PVE or PVP is up to you.

[Slynx Jewel]

Originally posted by Elitewrecker PT:

Originally posted by Slynx Jewel:

i know it's necroposting...but taking his cities is pvp. and coop is pve. no? XD

That's because it's not really coop, it's Multiplayer campaign. Whether it's PVE or PVP is up to you.

yeye...still the marketing were that turns will be simultaneous. but it turned out to be misleading cuz they are "not really" XD cuz majority of time you're doing battles.

as for pvp-pve...the easiest solution is to treat players and ai differently. like turning off sim turns if 2 players interact. or use queue (like homm5 i think. great example of sim turns done ...ok)

[Elitewrecker PT]

They are as simultaneous as possible. Everyone can move armies and heroes, do diplomacy, and issue building and recruitment orders at the same time. But battles have to be spectated by everyone, since everyone decides what side they'll participate in if the battle is played (although I guess they could possibly not draw everyone's camera into the battle decision screen until the intervening parties decide whether to fight or not).
And logically the campaign can't progress while some players are fighting. They'd have to somehow make those players immune to attacking while the battle is happening, and some info from the campaign map would also have to be constantly tracked while they were fighting so they could load the new state of the map once the battle was over.

[Slynx Jewel]

Originally posted by Elitewrecker PT:

They are as simultaneous as possible. Everyone can move armies and heroes, do diplomacy, and issue building and recruitment orders at the same time. But battles have to be spectated by everyone, since everyone decides what side they'll participate in if the battle is played (although I guess they could possibly not draw everyone's camera into the battle decision screen until the intervening parties decide whether to fight or not).
And logically the campaign can't progress while some players are fighting. They'd have to somehow make those players immune to attacking while the battle is happening, and some info from the campaign map would also have to be constantly tracked while they were fighting so they could load the new state of the map once the battle was over.

i doubt the word "possible" is fitting.
they could've made so that every player could have their battle at the same time if they don't wanna join\spectate. they could've made that players can reinforce the ongoing battle if the want for a little surprise element XD
(but that'd require to re-make engine or online part to handle multiple battles or world map and battle). sacrificing max player count to achieve this is a valid option imho.
as for the map state...i doubt it's too difficult to track. after all only up to 8 players are moving. while ai are waiting for their turn.

but they've decided a lazy way: when the pre-battle starts - everyone should stop what they're doing and watch it (and it doesn't matter that you'll forget what you were doing later). or when there is an event dilemma - others should wait again.

ps: eh, whatever XD nothing will change. though it's sad that it was a bit of false advertising on CA's part

[Elitewrecker PT]

An example of true simultaneous turns is Endless Legend, but there the battles are also turn-based and directly use the campaign map itself (which is tile based) for it.

[The Great White Shiekh]

Originally posted by Slynx Jewel:

Originally posted by Elitewrecker PT:

They are as simultaneous as possible. Everyone can move armies and heroes, do diplomacy, and issue building and recruitment orders at the same time. But battles have to be spectated by everyone, since everyone decides what side they'll participate in if the battle is played (although I guess they could possibly not draw everyone's camera into the battle decision screen until the intervening parties decide whether to fight or not).
And logically the campaign can't progress while some players are fighting. They'd have to somehow make those players immune to attacking while the battle is happening, and some info from the campaign map would also have to be constantly tracked while they were fighting so they could load the new state of the map once the battle was over.

i doubt the word "possible" is fitting.
they could've made so that every player could have their battle at the same time if they don't wanna join\spectate. they could've made that players can reinforce the ongoing battle if the want for a little surprise element XD
(but that'd require to re-make engine or online part to handle multiple battles or world map and battle). sacrificing max player count to achieve this is a valid option imho.
as for the map state...i doubt it's too difficult to track. after all only up to 8 players are moving. while ai are waiting for their turn.

but they've decided a lazy way: when the pre-battle starts - everyone should stop what they're doing and watch it (and it doesn't matter that you'll forget what you were doing later). or when there is an event dilemma - others should wait again.

ps: eh, whatever XD nothing will change. though it's sad that it was a bit of false advertising on CA's part

Having battles at the same time? what happens when one battle ends before the other, or one player having many battles to do while others dont have any, want to wait at the end of your turn while your friend could be busy for how long fighting battles?

Reinforce ongoing battles, game is turned based that would give players an unfair advantage since the AI wont be able to move their armies and do the same.

The points you are making wouldn't fit a turn based campaign map like this game.

Some things could be better like the events and what but its still much better than not having it. Try some of the older total war games that lacked this feature for Coop, rather have this than go back to when the games took even longer since you had to wait your turn to do anything.

[Darklight]

You have other options than just spectate. You can play as the enemy team, you can be gifted units to play yourself. Whatever you and your coop partners agree to.

Honestly I'd rather be stuck spectating a battle than twiddling my thumbs on the campaign map but to each their own.

[Slynx Jewel]

Originally posted by The Great White Shiekh:

Having battles at the same time? what happens when one battle ends before the other, or one player having many battles to do while others dont have any, want to wait at the end of your turn while your friend could be busy for how long fighting battles?

Reinforce ongoing battles, game is turned based that would give players an unfair advantage since the AI wont be able to move their armies and do the same.

The points you are making wouldn't fit a turn based campaign map like this game.

Some things could be better like the events and what but its still much better than not having it. Try some of the older total war games that lacked this feature for Coop, rather have this than go back to when the games took even longer since you had to wait your turn to do anything.

wdym what will happen? you'll just continue your turn as normal. maybe even start a 2nd battle/ same thing you'd do in a normal turn.
the only situation it'll matter - when there is an interaction between player and another player. while is player vs ao - nothing matters that much (border case scenario: someone if that fast that attacked the target other player wanted first)

[an entire Roman legion]

the point of a coop campaign is to also "coop" the battles...
dafuq OP?

[Prisoner 76561197992841073]

I dont think bushez has really thought this one through

[an entire Roman legion]

I now realize the date this thread was started......