Mini-games to Spruce up Multiplayer turn-taking

There is no doubt that this is the best solution for waiting times. The success of it will all be hinged on the quality of these mini-games and how significantly they impact other aspects of the game.

It would be good if the type of mini-game was somehow related to the effect it will have on the larger game. For example, solving a puzzle might result in you researching your current spell a little quicker, a reflex game might improve the personal stats of your sovereign, or a quiz on lore might open up more quests sooner.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I abhor this idea. Mini games are fine. Having mini games that actually effect the real game? terrible idea. It means that the person who clicks the fastest will have an edge. If that is the case, we might as well be playing a RTS instead of TBS. The only thing that should effect the game is the game itself, not some mini games that you can complete to gain extras and bonuses.

If you don't like players taking a long time, put a timer that forces end of turn after a certain amount of time. Punishing players for being careful is counter to the idea behind taking turns. The whole point of turns is that a player can take the time to be careful and do it right. Forcing them to rush is pure bad.

I hate to really come down on an idea like this, but the premise really is hostile to the whole idea of TBS games. And yes, i saw that you said

Naturally, it wouldn't be a huge bonus you'd get, but it'd still be quite an incentive to play efficiently.

However, the bonus should be 0. Any more than 0 is way way too much.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Why not intra-sovereign betting on when the last player will finish?

If you choose to participate, select your amount to bet and an amount of time. Whichever guess is the closest to the actual time the last player took to finish their turn takes the pot.

This way, the only time players are really waiting is if the last player has gone way over compared to all the guesses. It still offers a bonus to the winner, but at the same time, it's also consentual, making it another strategic decision like everything else. "Should I bet and try to win big and go for that big project I've been looking at, or do I wait and try to get it the normal way? Am I going to lose the game if I don't win this and use it to get ahead? Am I going to lose the game if I put too much on the line? Am I going to lose if I participate at all, potentially gimping myself?"

At the same time, it doesn't pressure the last player to hurry the eff up, maintaining the spirit of a TBS game.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Mini Games that affect gameplay in SMALL or INCONSEQUENTIAL ways.

For instance, we play a card-game or something in-game, we bet on it in gold, whoever wins gets teh gold. Gold is something quick and easy, which can be used in such minigames. As well as traderoute bonuses/effectivness, one-time bonus/malus of prestige, et all.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well, if we're going to go with a gambling solution, Tasunke's method is obviously the better out of our two ideas...

I like my idea, however, because of the jeering and pushing and prodding, sheer manipulation really, the Already Finished players would be doing to try to get the last player to finish on or nearest their bet. It'd be fun to see. ...Yes, that is the entirety of my motivation behind that... So sue me. =P

Edit: I actually have a question regarding the Tactical Battles, and it -does- pertain to this thread. Now, I'm sure there will be the ability for several, or should the circumstances present themselves, all players to take part in a Tactical Battle on their respective sides.

But what about the times when there are players being left out? Does action on the Strategic Map continue whilst the other player(s) are fighting their battles on the Tactical Map?

More important, though, is the time required to wage the Tactical Battles. Mini-games, regardless of whether or not they have any sort of potential advantage or disadvantage to be given, do need to be a part of the equation here. Tactical Battles are going to draw things out more-so than your standard Stack-Attack style TBS game. Without something to occupy their time, the players are going to get bored, maybe even upset, with the time it takes to get through a turn or series of turns where there are lots of fights going on. Without something to hold their interest in the mean-time, I forsee lots of Multiplayer Games having people just bow out due to lack of interest, boredom, anger, frustration, etc etc.

Even if action continues on the Strategic Map, I'm sure there are going to be times where the player(s) not taking part in Tactical Battles will run out of things to do before the rest finish their battles, or where the player(s) are doing their Tactical Combat at the end of their turn, REALLY dragging things out for those already finished with their turns.

Again, it seems to me some way, or a number of ways even, to hold players interest in the mean-time is not only convenient, but necessary.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Cerevox,

reply 2

I abhor this idea. Mini games are fine. Having mini games that actually effect the real game? terrible idea. It means that the person who clicks the fastest will have an edge. If that is the case, we might as well be playing a RTS instead of TBS. The only thing that should effect the game is the game itself, not some mini games that you can complete to gain extras and bonuses.

If you don't like players taking a long time, put a timer that forces end of turn after a certain amount of time. Punishing players for being careful is counter to the idea behind taking turns. The whole point of turns is that a player can take the time to be careful and do it right. Forcing them to rush is pure bad.

I hate to really come down on an idea like this, but the premise really is hostile to the whole idea of TBS games. And yes, i saw that you said

Naturally, it wouldn't be a huge bonus you'd get, but it'd still be quite an incentive to play efficiently.

However, the bonus should be 0. Any more than 0 is way way too much.

I think the idea is to make mini-games an actual part of the game, i.e. make them fit within the lore and mechanics of the game so that you don't feel like your just doing something else in the meantime. And so, just like any other aspect of the game, your actions will have an effect on your empire.

The other advantage is that players who want to take their time don't feel like they are annoying the other person/people. When a player's turn is over, they have the opportunity to get the same bonuses. Sometimes a player may take 2 minutes for their turn, other times much longer, and so I think it will probably end up roughly evening out.

You can also think of it as a trade-off, as the person who gives more time to their decisions and the smaller details of their empire should ultimately end up with a better empire on average, whereas quicker players rely more on the small bonuses of the waiting games.

So, I think that they shouldn't even be considered or referred to as mini-games, but rather just the handling of aspects of your empire from a different perspective or via a different method. For example, a certain interaction can be taken as an investment into spell research (e.g. relevant puzzle solving), whilst another interaction could be taken as additional combat training for the sovereign (e.g. a one-on-one combat module).

In this way, rather than simply waiting for a timer, or playing an arbitrary mini-game, the player can keep the immersion going throughout the entire game and feel like all of their actions are relevant.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Istari,

reply 1

There is no doubt that this is the best solution for waiting times. The success of it will all be hinged on the quality of these mini-games and how significantly they impact other aspects of the game.

It would be good if the type of mini-game was somehow related to the effect it will have on the larger game. For example, solving a puzzle might result in you researching your current spell a little quicker, a reflex game might improve the personal stats of your sovereign, or a quiz on lore might open up more quests sooner.

Or waiting time could be where you "train". Instead of an automatic level up, you have mini games to do (if you want) : want to improve casting power ? you get a mini game related to that (In kengo, a ps2 game, you could enhance your warrior this way. That was really good to play)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Cerevox,

reply 2

I abhor this idea. ...

I concur.

Quoting Istari,

reply 6

I think the idea is to make mini-games an actual part of the game, i.e. make them fit within the lore and mechanics of the game so that you don't feel like your just doing something else in the meantime. And so, just like any other aspect of the game, your actions will have an effect on your empire.

The idea is to force players to play as quick as possible to deny possible bonuses to skillful players that play quick during their turn and master the minigames (bound to happen) to get more and more bonuses by the simple fact of being faster in their turns.

Simply minigames to be entertained while waiting for the others to finish like a solitaire using the Elemental cards would be something nice (and I'd pay the developers to make it). A crystalsweeper would work too. But in general, nothing that has real effects in the game (at most, cosmetic effects like unlocking visual stuff? would hurt single player though unless minigames are playable outside the main game). If they can be about "in-game" stuff the better (like a mini game of the Sovereign trying to put the books of his library in order or whatever). In the most serious case, a Elemental Poker or something like that to bet money against Ais and/or other players.

(Egads x2)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Another idea - make the minigame tactical battles, randomly generated, between players as far as possible. Of course, with an uneven number of players waiting one has to fight the AI. And if you want betting - make it a tiered tournament, with beaten players being able to watch other duels and bet on the outcome (with a small percentage going to the tournament winner). If the tournament lasts longer than the turn of the currently active player, continue if the player whos is on next is already out.

You can easily integrate this into the game, even. Only players who researched and built arenas participate.

Cheers,

G

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Wintersong,

reply 8

The idea is to force players to play as quick as possible to deny possible bonuses to skillful players that play quick during their turn and master the minigames (bound to happen) to get more and more bonuses by the simple fact of being faster in their turns.

I think that may not be as accurate during real games. In TBS, certain things need to be checked on and adjusted, other things are not absolutely necessary but still beneficial, and these things do not differ from player to player. In other words, skill is not largely measured by speed in turn based strategy, even in multiplayer. The exception being that a more experienced player can navigate the screens more quickly and get into a rhythm of empire inspection and instruction, and also narrow down favourable options in less time. But, though it may sound like I'm contradicting myself , I don't believe these time differences are really that significant, and moreover they will probably average out to be roughly equal as game states take a player from easy sailings (less thinking needed) to rough seas (more thinking needed). And again, the player that rushes or doesn't take time to consider a larger number of possible strategies, is more likely to make a less favourable move, as in a timed game of chess VS a non-timed game.

So the advantages of "training games" while you wait should not really harry the other player to get a move on, or give them the sense that their pace is disadvantaging them. Could I be wrong? Quite possibly, but I think it will be hard to say before some real trial runs.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well I hate this idea, it distract player from the main focus of the game.

That, being said, mini-game can add to the game IF AND ONLY IF the devs cannot find a way to streamline Multiplayer games. So let me put it that way, mimi-game should really be the last resort to resolve the multiplayer issue.

Under this presumption, maybe it will be fun for someone to start a thread to see what kind of mimi-game people would like to see. For me, I'll like some kind of Magic the gathering-like card game.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Cerevox,

reply 2

I abhor this idea. Mini games are fine. Having mini games that actually effect the real game? terrible idea. It means that the person who clicks the fastest will have an edge. If that is the case, we might as well be playing a RTS instead of TBS. The only thing that should effect the game is the game itself, not some mini games that you can complete to gain extras and bonuses.

If you don't like players taking a long time, put a timer that forces end of turn after a certain amount of time. Punishing players for being careful is counter to the idea behind taking turns. The whole point of turns is that a player can take the time to be careful and do it right. Forcing them to rush is pure bad.

I hate to really come down on an idea like this, but the premise really is hostile to the whole idea of TBS games. And yes, i saw that you said

Naturally, it wouldn't be a huge bonus you'd get, but it'd still be quite an incentive to play efficiently.

However, the bonus should be 0. Any more than 0 is way way too much.

You assume far too much--- I expected better out of you, Cerevox. Your arguments are sound, but they are based solely on your personal tastes. You basically need some kind of timer in multiplayer or the game will be ruined for 95 percent of multiplayer enthusiasts, whether it be an incentive system like the mini-games or literal timers. It just so happens that minigames are more flexible and can accomodate both playstyles. The plodding sloth gets to take as much time as they want and the crisp, swift player's efforts to economize their turns don't go unrewarded. Istar explanied it well. It would be more like a management menu popping up for you: a judgement game, not "asteroids plus," "Mortal Combat," or "tetris." But how the mini-games manifests themselves is irrelevant.

The reality is that different people prefer different playstyles and options, and the more options, the merrier! Some of us want something to do while we wait for other players and don't mind minor incentives and disincentives based on skill and judgement. I disagree with you on what you demand that turns be. I think, again, that people have different ideas of what a turn should be, all of which are legitimate. I personally don't like allowing turns in multiplayer to grant a person infinite time, but I don't think timers are always efficient either in resolving this issue. I like not just good thinking, but efficient thinking, to be rewarded in my games and excessive lethargy to be punished. I like it. That's what I enjoy and it's pointless for you to demand that I enoy it otherwise. If someone likes playing differently, I'm all for allowing options that let them play in the way they prefer. They would also be negligibly easy to program. But you don't seem like you would agree with this point.

You called my idea terrible because you enjoy a specific type of game. That is what I call opinion totalitarianism or just plain snobbery. If you "abhor the idea" then turn it off in multiplayer. It will not influence game mechanics either way. There's no reason to deny the option to people who like it just because you can't imagine that someone would.

I understand how you like to play the game in multiplayer: that you like to take you time. In single player, I'm the exact same way. But you called my idea "just plain bad" on the grounds of your personal gaming taste buds. How incredibly peevish. It's like saying "timed chess" is just plain bad because you personally don't like being rushed. Some people play timed chess because they like using efficiency like an asset. What's wrong with that? Sheesh.

As for other people's ideas about minor gambling games to keep fallow players busy, also a good option but also requires an on or off button.

As for Climber: Who gave you the authority to declare what a person's focus in a game should be? I air on Frog Boy's wisdom. Give people options and let them pick the focus they find most fun. Don't like it? I'm not offended that you don't. So switch it off. Frog Boy's games master this concept, and I give him major props. Just because someone might switch it off doesn't mean that it shouldn't be an option to others.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The idea of mini-games is fine, as long as it does not detract from the game. Something like hero professions and backgrounds in a "choose your own adventure" type of format would be awesome and would add a lot of flavor to the game. Nothing overly complicated, of course. Just enough to distract you and get you a bit emotionally invested in your heroes.

Personally, it would be nice to be able to do the micromanagement part of the game during other player's turns and leave actual "actions" for your turn.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Personally, it would be nice to be able to do the micromanagement part of the game during other player's turns and leave actual "actions" for your turn.

The turns are simultaneous. Not only will you be able to do the micromanagement thing on their turn, you will be able to do the moving and actions part too. Everyone takes their turn at the same time.

Successfully updated karma reason!

While I'm not happy with the idea of a mini-game which influences research and such, I'm actually kind of fond of the idea of a "gambling" mini-game with gold in the pot. As long as the pot is relatively small, I don't think there's much harm in that. Otherwise I'd be happy with a small Tetris or Bejeweled game to pass the time.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ya. Having little mini games with no effect, or mini games with effect that everyone can participate equally in are fine. Its just, if a mini game has an actual effect on the game, it should allow everyone to participate on even footing. If its based on speed of turn finish then its screwing over all the slow players and players with large empires.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Cerevox,

reply 16

Ya. Having little mini games with no effect, or mini games with effect that everyone can participate equally in are fine. Its just, if a mini game has an actual effect on the game, it should allow everyone to participate on even footing. If its based on speed of turn finish then its screwing over all the slow players and players with large empires.

Well, I would personally like to see the little guy keep at least a little bit of an edge. As for disadvantaging slow people, I personally prefer too to do so. In single player, taking your time is great because no one is waiting on you. In multiplayer, lethargy is death. I used to play Civ4 with my college roommates without the timer on. It was hell. I always ended my turns quickest (even though I won every game, pretty much) but one of my friends would literally check every single city every single turn. So in short, yes, you must coerce slow players to play somewhere close to the speed of most players, otherwise it ruins the multiplayer turn based experience for everyone. The mini-games I suggest is just one way.

Successfully updated karma reason!

As for Climber: Who gave you the authority to declare what a person's focus in a game should be? I air on Frog Boy's wisdom. Give people options and let them pick the focus they find most fun. Don't like it? I'm not offended that you don't. So switch it off. Frog Boy's games master this concept, and I give him major props. Just because someone might switch it off doesn't mean that it shouldn't be an option to others.

Isn't it too early to throw the towel that the devs cannot resolve the multiplayer TBS problem? I am sure u have awared that SD is trying to make tremendous progress in this particular genre.

It's quite funny that when you are expressing this mini-game idea, you become having the authority to forbid me from expressing I hate this idea, this last resort idea.

Just look at the bright side, maybe Frogboy and the gang will find the solution to this MP TBS issue. Mini-game is a kind of idea that imply the solution is not found.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Actually, now that i look at it a little more, I realize there is a critical flaw in the whole idea. What is the problem? That we might have to wait a minute at most for another player to finish up? Every turn based anything since forever has had this issue. Every TBS game, even those on a real board. Even conversations have this "problem". You have to wait for the other person to stop speaking before you start.

I respect stardock greatly, but i don't think they are going to be able to alter a fundamental rule of life and human society in a single computer game.

Learn patience, or keep a stack of books next to your computer.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Climber,

reply 18

So Elemental is destined to have multiplayer, which means it will run in to the same problem that every turn based game has when more than one human player is involved: one player will take longer than other players to complete their turn, leaving the other players waiting. Even if there is a time limit, slower players are likely going to run the clock down to the last second.

I personally think that if you do have simultaneous turns, you need to provide as much incentive as possible for players to play efficiently and not soak up time (or disincentives for taking too long.) On the same token, you want to give people who have already ended their turns something to actually do with their time while they wait rather than just quo up unit movement or construction. So here is my idea...

Players that finish before the last player hits "end turn" take part in their own mini-game which would represent the sovereign having extra free time on his hands. Success in this mini-game could improve spell research (sovereign studying notes and texts), augmenting mana supply (attuning ley lines and magical flow) or even improving hero recrutiing (sovereign personally courting heroes at pubs and inns.) Naturally, players who take too long don't take part in the minigames very often (represented by the sovereign overmanaging their empires and not having free time to do extra research, etc.)

This system would reward snappy players and encourage slow players not to re-check every single city before they hit "end turn." And of course, it keeps everyone busy so that no one is waiting around for the (s)lowest common denominator.

Naturally, the mini-games couldn't be too easy, otherwise they would be "gamed." They can't be too complicated either. So ideally, each mini-game session would terminate each time every player has hit "done" with their turn, and new minigames would start. So someone playing the minigame would have to make an estimate as to how much time they have left to work with. If they decide to go for broke and everyone end's their turn pre-maturaly, they could lose all that they gained in that specific mini-game session.

Ideally, the mini-games can be influenced, too, by the "landscape" of the game up to that point. For instance, if you are pursuing spell research during your free time, the mini-game's own "landscape" would be based on what you have researched so far. It could be a "stealing" mini-game where you try to reverse engineer other player's spells or it could be an "extrapolation" mini-game where you strive for a creative breakthrough based on your own spells.

In the end, it would be a fun, even suspenseful, way to keep people busy in multiplayer while other players are taking their turns. At worst, the players could always just turn the feature off if they don't like it.

The mini-game's parameters would be different depending on the the activity and the player could choose which activity to enhance. Players who finish sooner get to play the minigame longer and enhance that goodie more.

Naturally, it wouldn't be a huge bonus you'd get, but it'd still be quite an incentive to play efficiently.

I am only suggested that we allow people to choose their own options, and that more options are better. I shall state for the 7th time now... this idea is one that can be disabled if you don't like it. So what's the hang up? I'm not demanding that it be forced upon people. I'm not even declaring that everyone would or should like it. But I do find it aggrivating when people start demanding others to enjoy the game like they do or to "focus" on the game the same way that they do.

I take offense to people who call an idea "terrible" specifically because it doesn't tickle their personal gaming taste buds. How arrogant.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Speaking as a player who takes his time, I think the concept needs a little work. Maybe if you made it so that a player could pick 1 minigame during their off-time, get 1 bonus, and after that just play for fun. That way, even the slowest player would have an opportunity to get the same bonus as a speedy one.

On the topic of the proposed cash game, I think it'd be better if you make the stakes unlimited. It'd be hilarious to watch a player's empire crash and burn because he burned through all the gold in his treasury to feed his channeler's gambling addiction

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Cerevox,

reply 19

Actually, now that i look at it a little more, I realize there is a critical flaw in the whole idea. What is the problem? That we might have to wait a minute at most for another player to finish up?.

I'm not quite sure how you experienced you are with playing a TBS multiplayer but if you believe 'a minute at most' is as long as off-turn will be I'm afraid that's rather naive. The wait period is routinely much much longer, especially late game.

Quoting Cerevox,

reply 19

Every turn based anything since forever has had this issue. Every TBS game

And many have already applied different aspects to alleviate this established problem, just one of which is a mini-game. See my thread on streamlining for a bit of history. There is precedent for this.

Quoting Cerevox,

reply 19

You have to wait for the other person to stop speaking before you start.

I respect stardock greatly, but i don't think they are going to be able to alter a fundamental rule of life and human society in a single computer game.

With all due respect I'm afraid your metaphors at this point have become proposterous. I don't know what wild thinking it takes to try and pass off the suggestion of a between turn mini-game as trying to "alter fundamental rules of human society". There are games that have already addressed this problem to varying degrees, this idea you claim has a 'critical flaw', or are you saying that Triumph Studios and 3DO have already 'altered the fundamental rules of human society'?

The problem is unique to the medium, do you understand that? During a board game you can watch other peoples turns and have conversations, whilst you're waiting for somebody to finish speaking you have something to do - listen to them! It's not the same as staring a a message that says "RED PLAYERS TURN" for 15 minutes. Not even remotely so.

We get that you don't personally want a mini-game but then you clearly aren't in the demographic this is aimed at.

But I do find it aggrivating when people start demanding others to enjoy the game like they do or to "focus" on the game the same way that they do.

I take offense to people who call an idea "terrible" specifically because it doesn't tickle their personal gaming taste buds. How arrogant.

I agree. I'm pretty dissappointed coming to these boards. I was expecting an adult exchange of ideas about something we all love but instead I'm finding open hostility, elitism and trolling, garnished with plenty of fallacious thinking.

A lot of people seem to be putting their personal tastes way behind that of whats best for the title, Stardock and the fanbase that already exists. It seems we have some people here who have made a sport of arguing on Stardocks boards, flitting between forums and cherry picking small parts of ideas to nit-pick at, and they greatly dillute our only medium to get heard.

People calling things terrible and abhorrent and other emotional charged, unconstructive terms are doing so due to the absent of a compelling argument that actually engages the subject.

It tickles me how many people who have SO MUCH to say on the subject of multiplayer design then turn around and say, in the same breath that they 'don't care' about how multiplayer is and 'won't play it'. They fail to see the irony of acting an authority on a subject in which you openly confess you have no experience or interest!

The selective reading is infuriating too. How many times have people replied to one part of your posts yet totally ignored the other parts that addresses said part??? (i.e. ON/OFF OPTION).

I am just relieved I have opened up some direct internal dialog as well because getting heard in this playground poses a serious challenge.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree. I'm pretty dissappointed coming to these boards. I was expecting an adult exchange of ideas about something we all love but instead I'm finding open hostility, elitism and trolling, garnished with plenty of fallacious thinking.

A lot of people seem to be putting their personal tastes way behind that of whats best for the title, Stardock and the fanbase that already exists. It seems we have some people here who have made a sport of arguing on Stardocks boards, flitting between forums and cherry picking small parts of ideas to nit-pick at, and they greatly dillute our only medium to get heard.

People calling things terrible and abhorrent and other emotional charged, unconstructive terms are doing so due to the absent of a compelling argument that actually engages the subject.

Yes, very well spokenwell spoken SRW. You've expressed my concern perfectly, as well as a whole host of others that don't necessarily even apply to this thread. What's really aggrivating is when people begin arguing for the sake of arguing or, as you said, when people grapple on to random, easily modifiable segments of an argument or idea, poke at it, and then declare that the entire idea is unraveled. There are certain people that literally have quotas of nitpicking to fullfill.

At any rate, I'm not offended that someone would enjoy what I'm suggesting. I'm offended when someone tries to chop down an idea based on, "well that's eeeewey to me." It's like saying first person shooters are terrible because they are too twitchy and not contemplative enough.

I do feel, though, like I need to defend most of the people on this board. Most boards like this are always going to have diversions, distractions, and trollers, but I don't think any of the people in this thread are major offenders, though we do sometimes confuse our levels of analysis or substitute what is good for our own vision for what is good for the game (myself included, sometimes). I've seen everyone here come up with some good ideas and add constructively. I think there needs to be some development in criticism ettiquette, though.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I thought Heroes of Might and Magic V had a good system in multiplayer, although I'm not sure how well it would adapt here. Basically, every player had a "ghost" that they could control during other players turns that had an opprotunity to take certain actions, some benefical to the player, others gave some minor detriment to opponents. For instance, you could spend a certain number of the ghosts movement points to "haunt" a resource node of an opponent, which would lower its output for a turn. You could also "Possess" NPC critters on the map and if an opponent engaged it during their next turn you could control one of the stacks in battle.

How much your ghost could do was based on how long your opponent took to complete his turn. It ususally managed to find a good balance between allowing your opponent to take enough time to consider his actions while discouraging them from dawdling. I never felt like it had a major destabilizing effect on the game either, since most of the ghost's actions were pretty limited in scope and duration. Most of them amounted to minor nuisance penalties for players who were taking way too long to complete a turn.

Just a thought. Like I said, I'm not sure how well it would adapt to a game like this.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I thought Heroes of Might and Magic V had a good system in multiplayer, although I'm not sure how well it would adapt here. Basically, every player had a "ghost" that they could control during other players turns that had an opprotunity to take certain actions, some benefical to the player, others gave some minor detriment to opponents. For instance, you could spend a certain number of the ghosts movement points to "haunt" a resource node of an opponent, which would lower its output for a turn. You could also "Possess" NPC critters on the map and if an opponent engaged it during their next turn you could control one of the stacks in battle.

How much your ghost could do was based on how long your opponent took to complete his turn. It ususally managed to find a good balance between allowing your opponent to take enough time to consider his actions while discouraging them from dawdling. I never felt like it had a major destabilizing effect on the game either, since most of the ghost's actions were pretty limited in scope and duration. Most of them amounted to minor nuisance penalties for players who were taking way too long to complete a turn.

Just a thought. Like I said, I'm not sure how well it would adapt to a game like this.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Mini-games to Spruce up Multiplayer turn-taking

Demiansky