Pausing during a multi-player game

[Hitori Kyo]

you sould be trying to observe everything on the feild .. thus it doesnt matter if ur unit reacts badly because u should be able to give a unit orders before it runs into trouble .. it can be done just means that u must always be moving and make decisions fast ... (ur tiger should hav infantary support to prevent those bazookas =) )

- Hitori Kyo

[Kecks?]

Pause button can be a usefull feature in MP Games because when someone gets a phone call during game or anything important in real life you can just pause the game. Think about that situation. Or do you wanna **** in your trouser during game instead of pressing pause?

So when you have no Pause option and you need to go to the wc during the game you skip of from game and when you come back u start cry because your troops wiped out because you were not on your machine......pause button had solved this prob!

[JoMac]

Im in agreement with Other Means, i also want a pause feature to be used. Here are some C&C and pause features i would like to see in the game.

First - You issue General Tactical Orders for your troops then click start to begin the game.

Second - Every 60 seconds the game pauses automatically so if you want you can issue new orders. You could even have a time limit to issue new orders just like Combat Mission TCP.

Third - I would like to see a command delay:

If you are a squad leader and issue new orders to your troops there should be atleast a 1 minute delay depending on current battlefield conditions, leader & troop quality, moral, etc, before they can react.

If you are a Platoon leader then there should be anywhere from 2 to 5 minute delay depending on current battlefield conditions, leader & troop quality, moral, etc, before everyone can react to the new orders.

When the game is over you can use the playback feature to view the entire battle from start to finish without the pause interruptions.

I would have to play against the AI a few games before deciding how much micromanagement is needed.

[ September 24, 2006, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: JoMc67 ]

[THE Sabot]

Originally posted by JoMc67:

Second - Every 60 seconds the game pauses automatically so if you want you can issue new orders. You could even have a time limit to issue new orders just like Combat Mission TCP.

Third - I would like to see a command delay:

If you are a squad leader and issue new orders to your troops there should be atleast a 1 minute delay depending on current battlefield conditions, leader & troop quality, moral, etc, before they can react.

If you are a Platoon leader then there should be anywhere from 2 to 5 minute delay depending on current battlefield conditions, leader & troop quality, moral, etc, before everyone can react to the new orders.

I would have to play against the AI a few games before deciding how much micromanagement is needed.

****With your pause fest going on, Id imagine quite alot of micro going on. Youd have to issue orders many turns in advance. I say turns, because when you pause every 60 sec...thats what you got. Call it we-go or whatever..its turnbased. 2 to 5 min delays, huh?...hell, Ill be able to piss and make babies during that time...

Jeeze, pausing every 60 sec was the worse "feature" of CM.

LJ

[Hitori Kyo]

the ability to pause is fine .. as long as all players agree ... issuse orders while paused just defeats the purpose of an rts .. u want a chess game? go play chess if u cant keep up with the pace and demand of a battle.

- Hitori Kyo

[Kellysheroes]

This type of topic always boils down to one of my pet peeves about rts games and pushing to player into a command decision type of gameplay instead of playing the whole game.

Do you want to play the game or watch the game play itself using crappy AI? I prefer to play the game myself instead of relying on some scripted AI playing the game and I merely sit back and watch.

The problem with pause in MP games? Well, I remember the good ole days of AOE, someone would pause the game an another player would unpause it. lol Then I also remember someone would slow the game speed down and someone else would speed it back up or increase it to maximum speed. It was one of the reasons I quit playing rts games online.

My suggestion for pause would be like the replay flags in football. You get 3 pauses per 20 minute period of the scenario you are playing. You have to make best use of them in every 20 minute period. This is real time minutes. The pauses only last for 1 minute just like a timeout in football. That's how I'd program it.

[RMC]

Originally posted by Kellysheroes:

Do you want to play the game or watch the game play itself using crappy AI? I prefer to play the game myself instead of relying on some scripted AI playing the game and I merely sit back and watch.

LOL. That's CM. You watch the AI do its thing. You get to coach the AI every 60 seconds, but in the end it is still the AI playing the game, not you. It's the ultimate irony of the CM wego turn system. When you are "playing" the game in the orders phase there is no action. The action comes in a movie you can only watch. All those carefully crafted orders with multiple waypoints tend to fall apart because of the AI's reactions to the changing situation.

CM offers the illusion of total control and it amazes me that so many are completely taken in by it.

[Manx]

In CM, if you are foolish enough to send a squad over open fields without doing any recon first and they get wiped out, then you it's your tactical failings, for the most part, that will be at fault and this will be simply down to the fact that you DO have the time to consider your options before making decisions and taking actions.

In a typical RTS game, it will usually be because you weren't quick enough to see what was unfolding on the otherside of the map/battlefield, because your attention is being drawn to some action elsewhere.

That gameplay video a while back showed us exactly how we are going to be playing this game -- constantly zooming-in/out, rotating this way and that, scrolling left right and centre.

Not meaning to sound critical of TOW, or RTS's in general, but a very different approach is going to be needed with this baby.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Originally posted by Kellysheroes:

This type of topic always boils down to one of my pet peeves about rts games and pushing to player into a command decision type of gameplay instead of playing the whole game.

If players aren't gonna face time pressures in decision making what's the point, what's being simulated? Flight sims don't allow orders to be issued while the game is paused. Although, if your nerves can't take it, I suppose you can play one of those silly, turned based flight-monstrosities.

This is computerized tactical "wargame," correct?

Turns? Pauses? In a computerized environment, they're both crutches, and they're both cheats. "Now, how am I gonna outsmart my opponent, how is Hans gonna nail that JSIII from the top of the Reichstag with that Panzerfaust?"

That sounds neither "fun" nor "realistic" to me. In fact, it sounds contrived to the point of lunacy, especially given the insistance of so many here that wargames stress "authenticity," the ever guiding hand of the almighty-Borg notwithstanding.

I have shelves full of old, POS tactical wargames that allow players to cheat by moving via turns or pauses. I don't want another one. I consider the "feature" a waste of programming resources that could be better spent on other aspects of the game.

PoE

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Originally posted by Manx:

In CM, if you are foolish enough to send a squad over open fields without doing any recon first and they get wiped out, then you it's your tactical failings, for the most part, that will be at fault and this will be simply down to the fact that you DO have the time to consider your options before making decisions and taking actions.

In a typical RTS game, it will usually be because you weren't quick enough to see what was unfolding on the otherside of the map/battlefield, because your attention is being drawn to some action elsewhere.

That gameplay video a while back showed us exactly how we are going to be playing this game -- constantly zooming-in/out, rotating this way and that, scrolling left right and centre.

Not meaning to sound critical of TOW, or RTS's in general, but a very different approach is going to be needed with this baby.

Good combat officers make terrible mistakes in war. They often do so for want of accurate information and/or because they are forced into doing so by the tasks they're assigned, time pressures included. A lot of them get their men and/or themselves killed in the process. I can't for the life of me understand how a game that depicts this possibility could be considered fatally flawed from its inception.

PoE

[Grapeshot]

Originally posted by Prince of Eckmühl:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kellysheroes:

This type of topic always boils down to one of my pet peeves about rts games and pushing to player into a command decision type of gameplay instead of playing the whole game.

If players aren't gonna face time pressures in decision making what's the point, what's being simulated? Flight sims don't allow orders to be issued while the game is paused. Although, if your nerves can't take it, I suppose you can play one of those silly, turned based flight-monstrosities.

PoE </font>

[M Hofbauer]

there is no right or wrong in this debate.

even the opponents of the turn-based system cannot claim realism because it is just as unnatural to be hovering over the battlefield, zooming here and there, with the ability to be with every unit and having total map knowledge.

if such a game was to be anywhere near realistic, and this is a very old description, at this type of battle you would have to be sitting somewhere to the rear with only a fractional view of the battlefield, and getting reports (status reports, contacts, casualties) every now and then via messenger or radio, and give out orders the same way. the more ego-shooter inclined out there might feel tempted to have some FPS alter-ego - type commander guy running around the frontline trying to shout orders to the units out there.

--> this is a game, no matter whether it is RTS or turn-based, it is nowhere near realistic.

if you accept that fact, then you have to admit it is simply a matter of taste how one likes to be entertained by such a game.

some people like the adrenaline rush of having to deal with several threats at once, with the chaos of war, with the urgent need to manage after unexpected things happen or go wrong.

others like to sit back and play their game with a cup of tea or coffee and a biscuit. they like to ponder over things, revel in planning, check on everyone of their soldiers.

neither one is right or wrong, since it is a matter of personal taste.

though I do tend to think one can get used to playiong the other way, too, even if it might seem awkward (rts --> turn-based) or chaotic/stressful (tunr-based-->rts) at first.

[ September 26, 2006, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[Manx]

PoE,

All i'm saying is i would rather lose a tank/squad to my own lack of situational awareness of the battlefield, or my own lack of knowlwdge on how best to use my units effectively, than to have lost them purely down to my lack of skill with a mouse.

Don't forget, while your busy roaming around the map trying to keep your SA, you ain't going to be giving orders to your units.

Having said that, i WILL be buying this game, and i'm sure i will enjoy it, but perhaps on a different level than to CM et al.

[RMC]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

....usual brilliant, icnisive commentary...

But that's not really at issue here. Arguing the merits of RTS vs TB is beside the point. What we've got here is a group of people who are unable to accept that ToW is RTS and that as such it is probably not their cup of tea. Instead they want the RTS game to be modified so that despite its inherent RTSness it is more palatable for their TB tastes. It's a sports car. They don't like sports cars. But it looks pretty so they want the sports car to be modified into a sporty family sedan.

[Vergeltung]

seems like the game could be set up to please everyone. don't like the pause feature? don't use it.

it's not really that complicated.

[RMC]

People are agitating for more than just a pause. That's there. They want MP pause. They want pause and orders. They want automatic pauses.

I don't want any coding effort to be spent trying to accomodate people who are fundamentally opposed to RTS games and seem hell bent on turning ToW into a stand-in for CMx2 WWII.

[MeatEtr]

The age old debate, RTS vs. TBS. Their completely different play experiences IMO. You all do realize that CM was in design/dev like about a friggin decade ago. It is, at it's core, a board game converted to pc game. Keep in mind too, IIRC Steve said a long time ago, CM simply could not have been made in real-time. Way too many calculations being made for CPU speed to handle in real-time. Hence, ToW's high CPU requirements(2.6Ghz).

ToW's not the first game to try to make a RTS game grounded in realsim. But it's looking like it's the first to do it correctly(fingers crossed).

Here's my prediction:

Typical RTSer complaints-

* y is there a delay for all my units, they don't move right after i issue an order

* wtf, my tanks r too slow, they take forever to speed up

* wtf, it takes too long for my tanks and guns to reload

* how come my arty and airstrikes aren't accurate

* need to simplify damage to vehicles/soldiers, bring back the health bars

etc.

Typical CMer complaints-

(since we'll be use to all the realistic ramifications listed above, our biggest hurdle will be..)

* damn, i gotta get use to managing all my units in real-time, at least for MP

[Vergeltung]

yeah, it will be an interesting adjustment, the MP in ToW that is.

[THE Sabot]

****If the MP is played COMPETITIVELY...between strangers or not, and the main goal is to WIN for a WIN, then pause has to be ommitted in order to keep a level playing field.

****If the MP game is played SOCIALLY...between friends, and the main goal is to enjoy the tactical tit-for-tat of company-level combat, then a pause is needed...for reasons already stated ad nauseum...

****This ToW is not going to be a COMPETITIVE MP game. It will be social and groggy...like CM. Hell, by your own admissions, half you geezers dont have the computer and/or the datapipe to run modern MP RTSs anyways. Most "flashbangers" will be totally turned of by the "slowness" of ToW and the dated graphics...your worrys about clickfesting are unneeded.

LJ

[traemyn]

Originally posted by THE Sabot:

****If the MP is played COMPETITIVELY...between strangers or not, and the main goal is to WIN for a WIN, then pause has to be ommitted in order to keep a level playing field.

LJ

I disagree with your first point. There are many easy ways to balance the use of pause if it is included so that 'fairness' in competitive MP exists. Ex. A certain pool of time each play has for pausing. A certain number of times with the pause coupled with the time pool.

It doesn't matter what game mechanics are present for a game to be competitive, as long as things are balanced, competition gameplay can exist.

[1Cowboy8]

Damn....scroll back through these posts and NOT ONE STATES: "Well I guess if the enemy AI is sharp enough to wipe out my troops then I guess MY troop AI should be good enough to handle a situation that arises and wipe out those enemy troops just as easily."

Hmm think about them apples for a second.....If you didn't like the enemy AI then this game would be your coffee cup coaster before you could say "Jiminy Cricket this game sucks". Soooo, I guess if the AI is good enough to be shot at and not roll over, then it should be good enough to be on your team too.

[Sammy_Davis_Jnr]

Ok i hear people say pause ...no pause

To pause or not to pause that is the question right?

Ive been thinking ( i know scary ) but if you want pause in SP thats ok i dont give a flying F#$K what you do in your own home..and who cares.

Multiplayer is a whole different problem. I dont want to sit around and wait until people survey the sitution and ponder...you might as well play by e-mail...cmon thats just dowm right boring.

Multiplayer should be engrossing, challenging and exciting...i dont want a tea and biscuit while i play...F#$K i might as well play scrabble.

How long will it take for the good players to work out the AI or to give it a thrashing once you become good at it????? Sooner or later.

Multiplayer is a strong reason why lots of games that are ok survive for long periods ...look at the FPS games.

A pause button would destroy multiplayer as i see it. Having 4 the limit might do it anyway...but imagine if they released it as say total of 8...imagine the wait when we are all pausing away...painful as queing up at the bank.

--------------------------

I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. Isaac Asimov

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by 1Cowboy8:

Damn....scroll back through these posts and NOT ONE STATES: "Well I guess if the enemy AI is sharp enough to wipe out my troops then I guess MY troop AI should be good enough to handle a situation that arises and wipe out those enemy troops just as easily."

Hmm think about them apples for a second.....If you didn't like the enemy AI then this game would be your coffee cup coaster before you could say "Jiminy Cricket this game sucks". Soooo, I guess if the AI is good enough to be shot at and not roll over, then it should be good enough to be on your team too.

you're lumping together tacAI and strategic AI.

those are two entirely different cups of tea.

[1Cowboy8]

No I am specifically stating tactical AI, because thats where the rubber hits the road, the pedal hits the metal, yada yada. Player irritation develops when someone sees their men break cover and run directly for the next hedgerow when GEEHOSEFRITZ didn't they know that MG nest was right there? Dammit I will do all the orders from now on you stupid AI sergeant...your demoted to private!!

Strategic AI is scripted like a chessmaster. Not enough machine intelligence to adapt to a changing battlefield for it to compete decently with a human. Someday perhaps.

THATS WHY WE LIKE MULTIPLAYER RIGHT?

[Hitori Kyo]

once again i bring back the perfect multiplayer example of rome total war, which is very easy to control, includes a pause feature (if both player agree) for breaks, is exciting and has plently of room for tactical decision. i belive timing to be very important in a battle, with a pause(orders) feature i belive this will be destroyed .. for people whom are used to tb games, it will be only a slight learning curve to adjust to an rts that will come with practise.