🔒 Locked

Making Turn Based games less boring.

Started by RealMarkP Sep 26, 2008 at 8:02 AM 26 replies 5.3k views

Original Post

Sep 26, 2008 at 8:02 AM

This is building on a post I posted earlier with regard to a game idea I had. I have a Turn Based Strategy game that I am working on which mimics the style of Warhammer 40K. The problem as I see it is that when it is a player's turn to move their units, it takes time. This causes other players to wait until it is their turn. I want to eliminate this wait period and make the game more interactive and smoother. Here are some Ideas: Have everyone move at the same time: - PRO: It fixes the wait times to a point. - CON: If one player takes their time moving, the others have to wait until all players are finished. - CON: If units are being moved simultaneously, there may be a problem where two players want to move into the same space. Quantum Physics doesn't work here. Real Time system: - PRO: Eliminates wait times completely. - CON: Eliminates the Turn Based system. - CON: Requires the creation of creator units (ie. Factories to turn out tanks). - CON: Focuses the game more towards speed rather then strategy. Real Time Command Point Based System (Tick based): - PRO: Players use "action points" to move units. Action points are regenerated every few minutes. - PRO: Allows the user to do and undo moves before the Tick is up (some measurement of time). - PRO: Sub-RealTime system that still retains a turned based philosophy. - CON: Might take away from strategy and make the game focused on speed. - CON: Everyone moves at the same time which has the problem of moving two units into the same space. - REFERENCE: Here. This is all I could think of right now. I would greatly appreciate any comments or new suggestions that I can try. How do other games do it? My main goal is to get rid of boring wait times without resorting to realtime strategy.

Spoonbender

Sep 26, 2008 at 8:23 AM

Quote:
Original post by RealMarkP
Have everyone move at the same time:
- PRO: It fixes the wait times to a point.
- CON: If one player takes their time moving, the others have to wait until all players are finished. That's not a con. That'd be true without simultaneous turns too.
- CON: If units are being moved simultaneously, there may be a problem where two players want to move into the same space. Quantum Physics doesn't work here. so you make a design decision. For example the first person (in realtime) to make the move wins. That's what Civ4 does, and it works pretty well. And of course, it encourages you to hurry up a bit

Real Time system:
- PRO: Eliminates wait times completely.
- CON: Eliminates the Turn Based system. yes, that's kind of the point, isn't it? So what will you put instead
- CON: Requires the creation of creator units (ie. Factories to turn out tanks). why?
- CON: Focuses the game more towards speed rather then strategy.

Real Time Command Point Based System (Tick based):
- PRO: Players use "action points" to move units. Action points are regenerated every few minutes.
- PRO: Allows the user to do and undo moves before the Tick is up (some measurement of time).
- PRO: Sub-RealTime system that still retains a turned based philosophy.
- CON: Might take away from strategy and make the game focused on speed.
- CON: Everyone moves at the same time which has the problem of moving two units into the same space.
- REFERENCE: Here.
[/quote]

Anyway, since you don't want realtime, why don't we remove that from the options?
And of course, one simple improvement to the turnbased model could be a turn timer. Each turn may only take X seconds. So if you're not done by then, tough luck. (Civ4 adjusts this according to several parameters, I believe. Later in the game, when your civ is bigger, the timer is extended a lot, and I believe individual players might get a few seconds extra if they've played the last few turns quickly)

loufoque

Sep 26, 2008 at 8:23 AM

Real-time combat depends on both speed and strategy.
If you don't want it to depend on speed, either take a turn-based approach (the active time battle system is a fairly good one IMO) or automate it as much as possible by enqueuing tasks, allowing some other tasks to be triggered when some events occur, etc.
In short, let the player code its own AI and fine tune as things turn out.

Si Hao

Sep 26, 2008 at 8:33 AM

Prefer "Real Time Command Point Based System". Seems like the best of the three choices.

As for the CONs you listed...
- It may be true that there is more of a focus on speed then true strategy, maybe you can incorporate this into a part of your game. Say two different armies, Army A is composed of fast units (costs less points for actions), while Army B is a defensive army with lots of heavy hitters that moves slower (costs more points for actions).

A's player may move his units faster, but this is part of his strategy since his army is focused upon speed. Whereas player B may simply gave an order once every two or three orders after player A.

In conclusion a slower player may not be at a disadvantage when compared to a faster player.

- In the case of everyone moving at the same time and moving into same space. Simply do a orders queuing and displays it for all players to see and act out the orders one by one, so that players will see that their orders are gonna have conflicts and are able to cancel it, resolve it or simply allows it to go through.

But, there is one problem I can foresee...

- Players with paralysis analysis, will either lose badly or complain loudly, or both of that. Since they will keep wanting to change their orders trying to consider all angles of the latest order given by the other player.

captainfreedom

Sep 26, 2008 at 9:20 AM

I agree with what Spoonbender said.
Anyway, who says turn-based games are boring? All board games (monopoly, chess, risk, etc.) are turn based and waiting for the other player to finish his turn has never been a problem.

vs322

Sep 26, 2008 at 10:06 AM

About simultaneous turns:

How will you deal with actual people shooting at each other? Will they shoot at where their target was last turn / where it is in real time? Will it also be a sort of who shoots first wins as a dead person can't shoot back?

drakostar

Sep 26, 2008 at 10:07 AM

Quote:
Original post by captainfreedom
Anyway, who says turn-based games are boring?

That was my first reaction, but...

Quote:
All board games (monopoly, chess, risk, etc.) are turn based and waiting for the other player to finish his turn has never been a problem.

These games have a social aspect where you're sitting right next to your opponents (plus there are snacks, and hopefully beer), and/or the ability to see the entire board and exactly what your opponent is doing. The former isn't really possible to recreate in an online computer game, and the latter is often hindered, say in a TBS like Warlords where fog of war obscures much of the map. But we can work on that second point. Give your player information to process while their opponent moves. If possible, let them add to the build queue or fiddle with other settings that will only take effect once their next turn begins.

Simultaneous moving is a really bad idea. In an RTS when another player attacks my city, I have time to respond. In a TBS the battle is resolved instantly. The twitch factor would wind up being *worse* than an RTS.

Well, it could be done in a manner where everyone issues commands, which are then processed only after every player has clicked End Turn. I don't see that working either, though. I try to attack your army, except woops, you've moved it. You might be able to make it work, but it'd be difficult.

captainfreedom

Sep 26, 2008 at 10:49 AM

Quote:
Original post by drakostar
These games have a social aspect

I remember playing dofus (which is turn based) you could chat with the other players while waiting, people would slag you off if you took to long to move.

RealMarkP

Sep 26, 2008 at 10:50 AM

Quote:
Players with paralysis analysis, will either lose badly or complain loudly

This is why the Real Time strategy option doesn't work for my game. Or any other game with a large amount of complexity. The user has to manage so much data, it kills the fun of the game. But I do like applying automation to the game that can speed it up (ie. AI).

Quote:
Either take a turn-based approach (the active time battle system is a fairly good one IMO) or automate it as much as possible by enqueuing tasks.

Good idea, but it has flaws:
- What if the user wants to change a queue of actions?
- What if a queue of actions reaches a block (ie. you moved your tank in front of a squad, nulling their queued moves).
- What if the user does not realize that the queued actions just put his squad into danger (ie. not enough feedback).

But I like the idea regardless, it just needs to be flushed out. Possibly with the help of adding AI. For example, you can tell the AI to stop if its in range of another unit or charge the other unit if one comes into range. Or even, have it run away. This would make some of the game a bit faster but on the other hand, might actually take away from the experience. If you have too much AI in the game, the user feels that he is watching a battle then controlling a battle.

MrPickle

Sep 26, 2008 at 11:08 AM

Maybe add a limit to how long you can take to take your turn?

Girsanov

Sep 26, 2008 at 11:26 AM

Quote:
Original post by RealMarkP

Real Time Command Point Based System (Tick based):
- PRO: Players use "action points" to move units. Action points are regenerated every few minutes.
- PRO: Allows the user to do and undo moves before the Tick is up (some measurement of time).
- PRO: Sub-RealTime system that still retains a turned based philosophy.
- CON: Might take away from strategy and make the game focused on speed.
- CON: Everyone moves at the same time which has the problem of moving two units into the same space.
- REFERENCE: Here.

One more CON: There will be situations where no one want to spend their action points first, both are waiting for the other player to use up his action points so that they can react to his moves.

RealMarkP

Sep 26, 2008 at 11:48 AM

Quote:
One more CON: There will be situations where no one want to spend their action points first, both are waiting for the other player to use up his action points so that they can react to his moves.

There is no real solution for this, that I can see. There are, however, things that can speed up that one person's turn. Someone mentioned queued actions, which work well until something blocks it. I mentioned AI assisted queued actions that make a decision when blocks are met (ie. Combat, Physical Block, etc). And lastly, someone mentioned cutting the time amount down to something manageable. All of these are viable solutions.

Quote:
If possible, let them add to the build queue or fiddle with other settings that will only take effect once their next turn begins.

This might be a good way to go. A game cannot be 100% action. Even in starcraft you are waiting for something to finish building. So there is always some wait time. But the problem now becomes how do we limit the amount of time you are sitting idle.

Quote:
Well, it could be done in a manner where everyone issues commands, which are then processed only after every player has clicked End Turn. I don't see that working either, though. I try to attack your army, except woops, you've moved it. You might be able to make it work, but it'd be difficult.

Well, I will be modeling my game after something that is already existing and proven. Warhammer has several distinct phases - Movement, Shooting, and Combat. So those similar phases will be in my game too, to some extent. The movement phase is the only one that the user will have control over. Combat will be resolved by using unit stats, initiative, etc.

So how does one avoid missing a squad because they moved? Maybe all movement happens on the players turn rather then once you hit End Turn. This will avoid missing a squad.

Quote:
How will you deal with actual people shooting at each other? Will they shoot at where their target was last turn / where it is in real time? Will it also be a sort of who shoots first wins as a dead person can't shoot back?

Once movement phase is complete, you will enter into a shooting phase where everyone can line up their shots and take fire. Therefore you wont have to worry about missing a squad that wasn't there. Having said that, what happens to units that should technically dodge a shell because they are moving. The units will have stats for dodge and miss chances, so its not that big of a deal, IMO.

Spencer Bowers

Sep 26, 2008 at 12:24 PM

Quote:
Original post by RealMarkP
Have everyone move at the same time:
- PRO: It fixes the wait times to a point.
- CON: If one player takes their time moving, the others have to wait until all players are finished.
- CON: If units are being moved simultaneously, there may be a problem where two players want to move into the same space. Quantum Physics doesn't work here.

This is the method I would use. To address the cons:
slow players: This will be an issue in any turn-based game without a time limit. Voice chat is another way to help with this.
units moving to the same spot: As was said before, design for this. Each unit gets a speed score and fastest unit gets the spot. On a tie, nobody gets the spot.
shooting at moving units: Same way it works in real-time: you're shooting at units, not just locations. When you choose the spot to shoot at, you're actually shooting the unit in that spot. So you shoot at that unit even if they happen to move this turn.

Telastyn

Sep 26, 2008 at 1:22 PM

No multiplayer

This is what most TBS games do, and it works well. No waiting because computers are fast. I know that you rather imply multiplayer in your post, but just pointing out that it is technically a design option.

Personally, I hate AP systems. They act as a mechanism to limit actions so that things go quickly, but they also limit the strategy without the added skill requirement of RTS.

In my hobby game (shelved while I work on another project), I go with option #1. The last CON can be alleviated by engineering a system where the command execution is done in batches or in a manner fair to all players. Example system from my project

RealMarkP

Sep 26, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Quote:
Original post by Telastyn
No multiplayer

This is what most TBS games do, and it works well. No waiting because computers are fast. I know that you rather imply multiplayer in your post, but just pointing out that it is technically a design option.

As appealing as this option is, the point of the game will be to face off armies against your friends' army. I would like to keep a Multiplayer option in there if at all possible.

Majorlag

Sep 26, 2008 at 8:11 PM

I once played with the idea of a system similar to a simultaneous system. The game was such that the player only had to move one unit, so you'll have to change some of the details.

Each player was given 10 seconds for their "turn", which all players did simultaneously. During this time they would designate the movement of their avatar, which way he was looking for targets, and how he should react (fire, duck, retreat) if he saw any. After the 10 seconds is up, everybody's moves are carried out for 10 seconds, and then its back to decision time. Basically, it was real-time with 10 second breaks every 10 seconds.

The game never really got off the ground so I can't say how it worked or didn't work in practice. Another option is to time turns (as others have mentioned), but give the players something to do during the other players' turns. If a traditional RTS was made turn based, this would be things like designating sites for new buildings, selecting research priorities, queuing up unit production, etc.

Wyrframe

Sep 26, 2008 at 8:43 PM

Quote:
Original post by Girsanov
Quote:
Original post by RealMarkP

Real Time Command Point Based System (Tick based):
...

One more CON: There will be situations where no one want to spend their action points first, both are waiting for the other player to use up his action points so that they can react to his moves.

That's not a con. That's a fact of battle; eventually, someone's gotta move, or else they end up running out of time to act themselves. Both players either make flurries of desperate activity late in the turn, or pool up large amounts of action points waiting for his opponent to make his move.

One possible fix is to cap the maximum number of action points that can be pooled from one tick to the next; say, exactly two ticks' worth (if you earn 10 AP each tick, cap the players to 20 AP). If someone doesn't want to waste AP, they have to use at least enough AP to get one tick's worth under the threshold.

Zouflain

Sep 27, 2008 at 3:13 AM

RTS does not imply a need for hasty decisions or a focus on speed. Many successful RTS's do rely on speed (Starcraft comes to mind), but this is not inherent in an RTS, just those applications of the game style.

There is no difference-at least with respect to time-in a game where a building takes 30 minutes to build, or 10 three minute long ticks. If a battle takes two hours to resolve, and all things move very slowly, there is an implied limit on time (you cannot stop the game) but no real rush, no call for hasty decision making, and no circumstance where you wont be able to employ strategy due to some time constraint. In fact, the only time you'd have this constraint would be if you left the game for an extreme amount of time, and in a TBS system this would be disastrous for everyone, not just that player.

Actually, all the cons can be dealt with without eschewing the real time genre:
-Having no Turn Based system isn't a con, or at least it is only as much of a con as having a turn based system is.
-Units can quite easily "appear from thin air" if this is your design concept. Perhaps they are teleported in from elsewhere (which takes time), or grown like crops. No factory units are required, they're just the norm.
-I've already addressed the speed issue.

Now, I'm not saying adopt an RTS, but I think you've skipped over quite a viable alternative because you've taken the norms and assumed that they are the rule.

Tangireon

Sep 27, 2008 at 6:33 PM

Quote:
Original post by RealMarkP
I have a Turn Based Strategy game that I am working on which mimics the style of Warhammer 40K. The problem as I see it is that when it is a player's turn to move their units, it takes time. This causes other players to wait until it is their turn. I want to eliminate this wait period and make the game more interactive and smoother. Here are some Ideas:

If your goal is to preserve the essence of the turn-time gameplay while trying to reduce the wait times, you can do this in many ways:

#1. Chess-like: Rather than have a player move all of their units before it is the next player's turn, make it so that each player moves only one unit in each of their turns, so that the activity of waiting is significantly reduced between each of the players' turns.

#2. Unit Initiatives (Final Fantasy Tactics-like): This is just like suggestion #1's chess-like, except that now the units' move order is determined by a stat value such as Speed, Initiative, or some other stat value. The unit with the higher of such stat value will go first, while the unit with the lowest of that stat value will go last. Additionally, unit initiatives may also make it so that a single player may move multiple units before ending their turn.

In addition to this, you could add unit counter attacks whenever units get attacked by an opposing player (Final Fantasy Tactics, X-COM) to make the wait times (now waiting only for a single unit to move rather than the entire army to move) even more interactive - and to make that even more interactive, you could also add in some mechanic involving the players controlling some aspect of their counter attacks, so that there will always be something to do whether it is their turn to move a unit, or the opposing players' turns to move their units.

Witchcraven

Sep 27, 2008 at 6:50 PM

How about the game switches to guitar hero while you wait for the other player moves.

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.