TripleA Design

ubernaut

@Cernel actually i didnt tel it to to do that but i was kind of thinking that is the only thing that would make sense in terms of grouping those 2 very related play modes

live play is not asynchronous in a true sense bc even if you aren't paying attention or playing at all time u are ostensibly observing when you are not playing.

w/e we call them i think there 3 basic umbrella modes of game play

ubernaut

@Cernel lol i think we are in basic agreement here

Cernel

To be clear, I would say that Chess (as being turn based) is never "synchronous play", no matter if you are simultaneously present. The same for a TripleA game.

If you would say "synchronous Chess", that would make sense to me only if you are playing some sort of Chess variant where both players write their moves in secret and are then revealed and somehow happens at the same time. Of course, that would not be Chess and would need additional rules for when two pieces move to the same square and other things, like eliminating each other or whatever.

Even that, I would rather call it "simultaneous Chess" because "synchronous" is more like when two or more persons intentionally do stuff at the same time (synchronizing themselves).

Cernel

@xxXEddieXxx said:

Altough i really like the coloring of the Factions! We could use that.

I'm mixed on that. It is helpful, but I don't really like it much. I would prefer if they are grouped under headers, like having in selection

Axis

Germany
Japan

Allies

Russia
Britain
America

That way, we can have a select all of the alliance on the header instead of the weird practice of clicking on one of the multiple repeated alliances names on the right.

ubernaut

@Cernel mainly an idea to make the subscreen less boring now that we’re talking abt jazzing up the primary

ubernaut

@Cernel lost me on the synchronous thing. i believe the convention here is asynchronous vs live which i also believe is sort of a universal one. no argument that this is real time vs turn based game engine

Cernel

@ubernaut said:

@Cernel lost me on the synchronous thing. i believe the convention here is asynchronous vs live which i also believe is sort of a universal one. no argument that this is real time vs turn based game engine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_variants

Synchronous Chess: Players try to outguess each other, moving simultaneously after privately recording intended moves and anticipated results. Incompatible moves, for instance to the same square with no anticipated capture, are replayed. Alternatively, two pieces moving to the same square are both captured, unless one is the king, in which case it captures the other. Play ends with capture of king.

Cernel

To summarise, "Asynchronous" is typically used in in video games and digital board games for playing online but not simultaneously online. However, I think it is a bad term because it literally implies that playing any other way is "Synchronous Play", and that is never the case for any turn-based game.

The best and most obvious umbrella term to group Play-by-Forum (PbF) and Play-by-Email (PbE) together is rather Play-by-Post (PbP). Alternatively, Play-by-Message or Correspondence Game.

If wanting to have Asynchronous, I would at least suggest "Asynchronous Multiplayer" over "Asynchronous Play", as that the former is implying that the players are not simultaneously online, whereas the latter is stating that they are not playing at the same time.

ubernaut

@Cernel i hear ya but conventions r conventions if people understand the meaning of asynchronous correct or not, no need for us to try to redefine. multiplayer vs play does not make any kind of sense to me and would be more confusing if a term applies to both modes than it should just be ignored but then that puts us right back where we started

ubernaut

@Cernel not suggesting the term synchronous either bc nobody uses that