I had an interesting thought today, which I thought I would share:
Our server game runs whenever people play, and waits when they do not. This means that the more people play, the more / faster the timeline advances.
It means that when an era is boring, the timeline does not advance much. It also means that when an era is very interesting (e.g. new technology arrives), it advances pretty quickly as everyone races to take advantage of it.
I think we may have it backwards. The server game should advance when nobody is doing much, move faster towards more interesting times, and slow down the clock to a crawl when people are playing lots, i.e. are interested in the game *right now*.
This would ensure there was a minimum of "boredom" and the strategies to "reserve routes", because there would be an ample amount of time to play when the game timeline is most interesting.
Thoughts?
That is an interesting idea, but I suspect that it would be fiendishly difficult to implement from a techncial perspective, not least because speeding up a developed map is likely to require more resources than the server actually has available to it.
Quote from: jamespetts on May 08, 2014, 06:24:18 PM
not least because speeding up a developed map is likely to require more resources than the server actually has available to it.
Wishful thinking perhaps from one with no knowledge of coding :)
Could it not be done the other way, slowing down a developed map? I.e. either slowing game speed or increasing bits-per-month setting on-the-fly, depending on player interaction (e.g. counting simultaneous player game connections separately perhaps...)
An interesting idea. When 1829 hit it was "go" time for everyone, we were building like mad trying to set up our new train infrastructure/lines. Then new trains kept hitting us 1829-1833 and it was a really hectic period of transformation, upkeep, tweaking, etc. I spent many, many hours this past weekend working on it, much to the neglect of the many other tasks to which I should have devoted more time :)
It would be very challenging to try and match game speed with the needs of the players... certainly the size of the map played a big factor in the time consuming nature of this era... and the frequent desynchs that we had to contend with.
Ultimately, though, just like in any other online game, the players with the most free time do the most. If you slow down the clock it just gives those players even more time to set things up.
I theory, I suppose, it could be slowed down, but actually communicating the new speed to the clients, not to mention working out what the new speed should be, represents a very substantial amount of coding work touching on areas that I have not previously studied in the code at a time when there is a long list of higher priority projects. This sort of code would also make future desync bugs more likely (at least it would if I were to write it).
Quote from: Sarlock on May 08, 2014, 06:42:07 PM
An interesting idea. When 1829 hit it was "go" time for everyone, we were building like mad trying to set up our new train infrastructure/lines. Then new trains kept hitting us 1829-1833 and it was a really hectic period of transformation, upkeep, tweaking, etc. I spent many, many hours this past weekend working on it, much to the neglect of the many other tasks to which I should have devoted more time :)
Exactly. One long weekend away at the wrong time and a key decade is missed. C'est la vie I suppose.
It would just be nice if everyone knew that e.g. 1829 was essentially going to wait for as long as everyone was playing it, before advancing, so that there was no need to pull an all-nighter at a critical game moment!
Hello All
Its Possible to Make Networkgames with a BPM over 24?
Yes, there is no restriction in principle to the bits per month setting of an online game.