Can you include some kind of a sign in the lobby that shows if people often finish games, or often just don't continue on games. That way serious players can easily pick out players that often finish long games, and aren't faced with 3 out of 7 players that stop playing.

Something you should really implement is the so called tribe-system. Thus that every login can belong to one tribe, and these tribes can play multiplayer games and receive points (kinda like Tiberian Sun uses)

CPU / PC-memmory information.
I play much Tiberian Sun, and it only shows us how fast someone's connection is. But someone can have a pretty fast connection on a pentium 133. That means the game goes still as slow as SMAC on a 8086.

Time-information.
For games like CIV it's important to play with people that prefer to play in your timezone. (for if you want to play more sessions) thus it's good if you can give up prefered timezones.

Maybe you can even create a page that shows for every login the prefered playtimes. Then you can e-mail all people that fit in your playsceme.

In fact we need as much as possible information on what players there are, their play preferences (Timezones, duration per session etc.) and how reliable they are.
This is VERY important for long games like civ3.

If I have more ideas, I'll post them here.

CyberShy

------------------
ghen: I still don't know your viewpoints though Quite a confusing individual..
CyberShy: Read Here

Thus indeed, all players register to the civ3 server(s) and have their information locked on that server. They can change it themselves of course.

CyberShy

Edit: How comes that Jeffrey posted this about 7 hours ago, and nobody replied ?

------------------
ghen: I still don't know your viewpoints though Quite a confusing individual..
CyberShy: Read Here

I've never played multiplayer because it is too much of a solid time commitment.

Before the game, I would like to see options that would let a player form "teams." Each member of a team would be in control of their own civ, but the team would be made up of civs that support a union of some sort.

If one member of the team were to drop out, his/her cities could be parceled to the rest of the team members.

During the game, new members could join and receive existing cities from their new team members. These people would wait in a queue. A "new hopeful" icon could appear on the screen and show the number of people wanting to join. By clicking on the icon, you could select a player and drag cities over to his/her control.

Also during the game:

I would like to see permanent icons around the map border - one for each opponent you have discovered. Clicking on the icon would give instant communication.

But then Cybershy slips in his ideas only moments before... and they're so similar!

yeah, I think it's the same

CyberShy

------------------
ghen: I still don't know your viewpoints though Quite a confusing individual..
CyberShy: Read Here

If you can keep the windows down to a minimum of 2 that would be nice, then there wouldn't be so much leaving one area and into another, and then needing to go back (and in some cases you can't!)

I'd like to see a list to the right or left of the screen, that had a list of all the people in the server. And you could message them (A lot like ICQ's system).
And this list is on every screen, even screens where it seems irrelevant. (Just don't put the list on the game screen, make it an option to open up within the game).
This way we can keep contact with people all the time. Because sometimes I end up having to Alt-Tab to get out of the program, send a message to ICQ and then wait for the message to come back, then alt-tab to get back in. It's a pain.

colour code everything, if the person is running a game, that persons name should be red, the rest blue, or whatever.

If you're going to have a chat screen (and I know you are), make it big....big big....not a little box in the corner. (Diablo's chat screen is nice).

Actualy, I was just thinking about gameplay..
If you allow chatting in the game, freely. Then you might reduce the realism of contact.
Even though it seems kind of silly.
I think you should only be able to chat to someone if you've made contact with them. (This is in game btw).
So I suggest no multiplayer chat screens within the game.

Thanks for posting the note.

First, everything should be "clean," of course; easily read and understood. Beyond that...

The thing that became most frustrating in SMAC was simply the handling of more than one PBEM game at a time. I would LOVE to see a "Game's in progress" button that shows not only the games in progress but the status of each game and each player. So it might look like this:

Games in Progress:

1 Yin's PBEM Game (Yin, Uncleroggy, Shiny and Lady Rachel). Large map, etc. Started June 4, 2000--15 turns completed. Current turn with Shiny, sent by Uncleroggy 17 hours ago.
2 Uncleroggy's PBEM Game (Uncleroggy, Yin, Shiny, Jeff). Medium map, etc. Started June 11, 2000-10 turns completed. Current turn with Yin, sent by Uncleroggy 4 hours ago.
3 Yin's IP Game (Yin and Uncleroggy). Small map, etc. Started June 15th, 2000. 7 turns completed. Last turn played by Yin 14 hours ago.

NOTE: If one of these games is currently with me to play a turn, it should be flashing red or something telling me my turn is waiting. So I just click on it, play the turn, and the comp handles sending it on and updating everybody.

ALSO: If a player doesn't play his turn in X hours, the comp should automatically send the player a reminder note followed in a few hours by the comp taking the player's turn and sending on the save. If this happens again, players should vote on replacing this player with the AI or a new player.

Now if I click on one of these games, the information on each player should pop up, along with tools for contacting the group or individual player:

"1 Yin's PBEM Game (Yin, Uncleroggy, Shiny and Lady Rachel). Large map, etc. Started June 4, 2000--15 turns completed. Current turn with Shiny, sent by Uncleroggy 17 hours ago."

1. Yin: 5 PBEM games completed. Won 3 and lost 2. Average time to pass on turns is 9 hours. Currently involved in 3 games (2 PBEM and 1 IP). No incomplete games. e-mail@: XXXX
2. Uncleroggy [info]
3. Shiny [info]
4. Lady Rachel [info]

To e-mail this group, click here.

There should also be an easy way to change the players in a given game if people drop out. Either a comp or another human player should be able to take over another player's spot with ease.

Finally, a roster of all players past and present would be nice. NOTE: I would love to be able to sort ALL players according to # of games finished, average turn time, etc. This would allow me to create a "target" group of players.

"To e-mail players in all current games, click here. SEE list."

"To e-mail ALL players in both past and present games, click here. SEE list."

"To create a new group, click here."

...except thanks for asking.

Agreed that PBEM is a mess as implemented in SMAC. I make a strong second of yin26's post above. There needs to be provision for the AI to take a player's turn while respecting build queues or other priorities set by the player - i.e. the AI shouldn't turn the empire 180 degrees in one turn.

Simultaneous movement with asynchronous orders (is that a mouthful?) would be a great boon for multiplayer Civ. For example:

• All players (human and AI) receive a turn report, which can be reviewed and replayed as desired.
  
• All players create a set of potential orders for units, cities, and diplomacy.
  
• All players submit orders.
  
• All orders are adjudicated (on schedule or when all players have submitted orders). Conflicting orders are decided using a rule-based priority system.
  
• Game generates turn reports.
  
• Repeat.
  

See the Simultaneous Turns of Play thread in the list of ideas for more on this topic. Note that this would also allow players to create their own (complete or modular) AI's to manage their empires :-)

Another thing that's needed on the game setup screen is a 'moderator' password - a password that can be used to change game settings and reset players' passwords and such. Too many PBEM games die because a player dropped out and nobody has their password, or the AI can't take over an abandoned position.

Number of settlers
Number of starting techs
Goody huts/no huts
Min/max distance to other players
Min/max island/continent size
Number of [specials,hills,grass,etc.] in 4-square radius
And more, I'm sure...

It would be nice if I got to setup my tribe (tribe name, and leader name under different governments) BEFORE logging on and waiting for connection. This way I can custom my tribe, save it and use it in other games.

I would like to see the following options.

Starting techs
Settlars
Allow bribing
Turn off all huts
Kick Player (often a player drops but he is still there in the game and he can't rejoin)
Max amount of cities.
Something to alter science rate (ie speed it up or slow it down)

Players cities count and units should be removed from the join screen. And they should be added to the foriegn affairs screen when you establish a embasy, as well as graphs standings etc.

I think the idea of needing a civ server to play is rather stupid. Civ isn't a RTS game and most games are co-oridinated by icq, they take HOURS to finish. The ability to let anyone host and to allow the rotation of hosts(ie if host quits)is fantastic and i think more games should move towards that.

The startup screens to customize a game of SMAC take almost 10 screens to set just a few options - use custom map, then map size, then % ocean, then erosion, then cloud cover, then native life, then difficulty level, then one screen to set each human player.... This could (should) be consolidated to one screen.

On the other hand, I'd hate to see the number of multiplayer setup options limited because you decided that you had to fit all the options on one or two screens.

I play extensively on LAN
( my school has every dorm completely connected by Lan and a fast connection from there to the rest of the net), but I want to say that while that is nice if you can find enough people to play you when you want to play it sucks when you want to play over the net because of the schools firewall

if you coud make civ3 (and dinos) be played online in such away as to bypass the firewall students like myself would play it online

I and a lot of other students would play way more online games if we could use our school connection (it provides fast service to all of us)

also many of the ideas listed above sound good

envasis should be on ease of use of picking up a game that was in progress before and facilitating player entrances and exits without ending the game (if the players wish this enabled)

there are advantages both to using your own site and working through heat or mplayer or some front like that

the advantage of company site is that it would probably be better set up for hosting the game (note this must be set up good and kept up good), the other option might put the game out there for those players that frequent that site

the problem with putting it on multiple sites is that there needs to be enough players to make an active site (if the site is not active people will have to wait long periods of time to play and will get tired and leave) and having it offered on only one sites brings them all there

I will repeat again that the site that is end the end chosen (whether dedicated or through someone else) must be able to handler it and not crash

I do not play email

and I assume those that praise email would come over to the dark sidr ( real games) if they had opponents and the connection (or a game that was set up well enough for multi that the net would nnote slow things down)

in order to get lots of players (which will be needed to get the first part, opponents there when you wish to play) you will have to sell the civ multiplay idea (and have an easy to use site, no dos please)

quote: and I assume those that praise email would come over to the dark sidr ( real games) if they had opponents and the connection (or a game that was set up well enough for multi that the net would nnote slow things down)

This is insulting. No, we would not all do this. IP games are not "real" games and PBEM games are not "fake" games. Speed of connection and number of opponents have nothing to do with it. I want:

• 1. Time to micromanage to my heart's content.
  
• 2. The ability to fit the game into my very "real" life.
  

Item 1 isn't very easy in direct-connect games, as there are usually time limits imposed.

Item 2 is next to impossible in direct-connect games. I rarely have time to play 10 turns in a row - even in single player mode. I have a family, a job, lots of activities...and nowhere in that do I have more than 15-30 minutes at a stretch to play games like Civ or SMAC. I have to be able to pause the game to take care of family crises at any time - would you really want to play a direct-connect game with me given those limitations? However, I find it very easy to play a turn here, a turn there in PBEM games.

Connection speeds/pings of all players.
Also a search/match for similar speed players would be great.

Players win/loss/disconnect/non-completed game records.

Listing of players wishing to play Co-op vs the computer opponents would be cool too.

But it's great that you ask fans for advice

Please, let the player control his/her own diplomacy while playing hotseat games, because the diplomacy AI has the tendency to spoil the player's plans (which is not suprising - it doesn't know them) I appreciate the difficulty of this, but my suggestion would be to provide each player with a password, so when you initiate contact with his civilization, you have to call him to the computer, he types in the password you make your deals together and both of you approve the deal with your passwords. You then carry on with your turn.

Please if the above is too muddled to understand indicate it and I will retype it in a clearer way.

If the above proves to be impossible, than at least have the contacting player set up a deal, which then appears in a po-up box at the beginning of the other players turn, who procceds to approve it, or not, and the deal takes effect immediatelly.

I think it would be a great addition if you allowed PBEM games to start as a LAN game, allowing all participants to work the early part of the game for a couple of hours before carrying on to the more strategic part of the game. This first part of the PBEM game would end either by a default time setting or when one person has to leave. From then on, the game becomes a normal PBEM game.

quote: I find the most frustrating thing about PBEM games is that it takes so long to get going. You move one unit and tell your city to build something and then you have to wait for your opponent to do the same and send it back to you.

Ha! More like "take your turn, send it to player 2, who sends it to player 3...who sends it to player 7, who sends it back to you." And you're lucky if the group is reasonably active and can play more than one turn per week.

Still, we do it. Repeatedly. I'm in games that have lasted more than a year.

First off, the civ 2 multiplayer platform, as patched, is very stable so I'd be happy if it was retained. If its changed, please don't make us go to a dedicated server. A player should be able to act as host.

Also, the ability to use icq, aim and other toolbar features whilst playing is very very important to multiplayers. Will this be possible????

On multiplayer features, I think the option menu should be expanded. the following would be a good list of additional options:

. No starting techs. Most of us restart a game if someone gets a tech because the advantage is too great. Sometimes in civ 2 this means we have to open several maps before we get a game. Very frustrating.

. No city bribe, no unit bribe. Most of us play without city bribe, many without unit bribe. These would have to be separate options because some play one but not the other.

. Simultaneous movement. This is huge. With civ 2 we can bring up the option by modifying the windows file. Please make it a game option. Multiplayer can be very slow in turn based. If some how there could be another option to make movement simult but fighting turn based that would settle a lot of arguments. Maybe separate the two if feasible (simult movement, simult war options).

. Alliance victories. We have tribes and teams now. People should be able to share wins.

. Surrender civ. Currently can't do this. It would be nice if there was civ surrenders if capital taken option too.

. Win Points. Just thought of this. Better than the PG for multiplayer.

That's all I can think of for now. Please E-mail me if you want to discuss further. I'll link this thread to the multiplayer forum where the hard core civ 2 multiplayers hang out.

The beauty of it is since you wont know how combat will develop while your moving your units, youll often have to make hard choices of tagging units behind the front for combat so they can counterattack, but them possibly not being needed and therefore sitting unused, or moving them to the front. What about just tagging them for combat and just moving them in the combat section when no enemies are around? Dont allow movement in the Combat round unless they are in range of an enemy unit, and then only in the direction of the enemy. So if you tag 4 tanks in a city behind your line for a counterattack just incase they break the front, but they fail too, you would just not move them that turn.