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.
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.
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.