HELP SID Make a Civ Massive Multiplayer Game!

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by ChrisiusMaximus
Firaxis should remake Colonization instaed of this project.

A new colonization would be a lovely addition to my games collection

yes man

I've been waiting for Colonization II for 10 years.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by ruby_maser
The very idea behind the Civ series is putting the control over the destiny of a nation in the hands of the individual, the player. How do you go about restructuring that framework to include so many people that you invariably must take power out of the hands of most all and place it in the hands of a select few?
(...)
What does everyone else pay to do in the meantime, subject themselves to that? And how is that satisfying?

Good analysis.
I'm thinking about a shift of perspective, here: if Civ single player is about a single demi-god governing the whole civilization for 6000 years, in a massive multiplayer should we come back to shorter period of government?
Tell me what you think about this: the game is played by "teams" of players that join a civilization of their choice.

Every player can chose few traits and a name to customize itself (Role Play Game touch).

The first bunch of players (one for every Civ) will found every Civ capitals and gain the first Civ command for some turn. It only need few players to start: anyone will join the game after that will start as a unit leader.

The Civ leader can give general rule command, like "explore", "escort", "defend city or area", etc. and general building order (like we can give today to automated governor in Civ III).

After some (enough) turns the unit leader players could be promoted to city governor (if any city is available), then Advisor (science, military, etc), while the Civ leader keep the Capital and general leadership.

We can reward units achievement (resource discovery, first contact with another civ, victory in battle, etc.) raising player ranking - useful to rate promotion to governor, advisor, etc.

Given the civ IV condition we don't know in details right today a player could become a great person, and switch itself on that special path. The chosen starting trait and game achievement will guide the game engine to assign the new role (general, artist, merchant, prophet, etc.).

Please note player ranking is vital to keep high the interest into the game: after a given period or a special events (i.e. citizen revolt) the current leader will "die" and be replaced from and advisor or a succesful city governor - based on ranking.

Of course this need that unit leaders and governors have some freedom of command while respecting general order by the civ leader. Once every (simultaneous) turn the civ leader can give an exact order that the receiving player can't refuse if not revolting.

That could be a fair mix between strategic role of the Civ leader and his/her focus on a single event.

Every "defeated/died" player will be put back (resurrected) leading a new unit or put on a wait list for a new opportunity.

Units without human leader available will be left on AI control (always guided by general command of Civ Leader), until a new human player join the game or someone need to "resurrect".

I think it could be a game design choice to let the resurrected player to chose again its trait or to keep the old "charma" and restart with the same trait as modified by previus turns history.

Newly founded city should have enough available human player to have a defined governor from start; otherwise the Civ leader can fully manage the city until a governor is available.

Of course the government / civics active on a Civilization could limit the power of the civ leader (a dictatorship or a monarchy feudalism should have a different leader power than a democracy).

Here we are: the higher the rule (civ leader) the shorter the turns period the player can enjoy the power and try to leave a memory of him/herself. A less key player can have more time to improve his/her career.
If you can't grab the throne, you should have enough reward to enjoy the game nevertless. Old unit leader player can be "promoted" leader on a new, powerful unit or "updated". Army leader could be another opportunity.

A player missing a turn can be substituted by a related advisor (militar for combat decision, etc.) or the civ leader him/herself.
The missing Civ leader could be substituted by one of the advisor: in war time by the military advisor, in peace time by...
If nothing else works, we can live with an AI help here and there. "Show must go on" theater mantra.

Yes, the Massive game will become a bit more complex of plain Civ as a whole, but every player will manage only a piece small enough, IMHO.
The turnover of command and the team (clan, civilization) pride should work well enough to keep the game running.

Anyone will be so kind to correct and improve my proposal?
I'm open to your help (a better massive Civ is better for any of us, isn't it?). Sorry for the long (massive) post.

[Darkstar]

Humm...

So, he wants to compete with Star Dock's Society?

That's the only way I can think of making Civ into a MMO offhand. Otherwise, he needs to make a large MP player hosted matching service. You'd pay a small monthly fee to have an account and play as many games as you want against other members.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Darkstar
So, he wants to compete with Stardock's Society?

Isn't Society a Real Time Massive Multiplayer? I don't think anything more revolutionary than a simultaneous turn can be accepted from players *and* can fit into the Civ game model...

[Darkstar]

But MMO TBS is old tech. That's just really old school PBEM conquest games, after all.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. They can be a lot of fun.

[Jon Miller]

well, I want to develope it more

but I just don't have time.. I think that the idea of a Diplo MMO Civ, or a PBEM MMO Civ are stupid and would not generate much interest besides that which already exists in them.. (the standard PBEM and Diplo game types)

you deffinitely couldn't get more then a few hundred to pay for it for more then a short time.. it would be a great loss...

here is my idea, it has all the hallmarks of a successful MMO

MMO Civ like game

1. Needs to be addictive, there always needs to be another thing to do.
2. Needs to be coherent, the player needs to identify some stuff as theirs.
3. Needs to be a Civ like game, the player needs to be controlling an empire.
4. Needs to allow players to join and leave at different times at all times.
5. Needs to be able to support 1000s of players per server.
6. Needs to be able to have players begin playing long times after the start of the game.
7. Needs to have PvE content, as most players seem to desire that.
8 Needs to be able to played in 24 hours a day or 2 hours a week for years.

To handle 7, and possibly 4, 6, and 2 I think that perhaps one of the alternate Civs should be done.
Like a MOM style MOO. This would enable the players to fight monsters (PvE content).

Also, magical worlds can have magical effects. So one could imagine all the players are Wizards.

I am also thinking of having 3 different types of areas, Lands, Borders, and Wilds.

Wilds
The Wilds would be a shared space, where everyone interacts. People who have been playing for long time periods.
People who have been playing for short time periods. Powerful Lands, weak Lands. Everyone.
This is also the most interactive portion of the game, anyone can attack anyone else.
And there will be monsters that need killed to advance your Land.
The reason that you don't want the entire game like this, is that it benefits the people who play all the time, too much.
Also, it would be hard for new players to join, as well to not just be destroyed by bigger players.
The Wilds would also allow structures to be built, however, since the Wilds are free, they probably won't last long.

Lands
That is why there will be another area, Lands. Lands are only accessed from the Borders,
which can only be accessed by others (those who want to attack you) by Gates.
The Land is your main area, it is where you have your main cities and artifacts and all that.
It is the Land that the player should be able to advance, bit by bit, every time they play.
This is what handles 2. When the player isn't logged on, his/her Land isn't accessible.

Borders
The Borders are the third area. Borders are at the edge of the Lands. In them are Gates.
Borders also have some PvE content, like monsters and such, they are not a safe area,
although the player can build there as well (in fact will need to, to expand).
It is by the Gates that one leaves a Land to get to the Wilds, and it is by Gates that other players can attack a Land.

Expansion
In order to assist the addiction, it is often nice to have a 'leveling' up that is done.
This can be done in this sort of Civ Like also. The size of the Land can be thought of as it's level.
The resources available in the Land, and probably those available in the Borders, aren't enough to Expand your land.
Note that a players Land isn't where the player can build on, it is an area s/he has special abilities on.
Once the power of the player is to a certain level (magic, ammount of resources, technology, etc), then the Land expands.
Border areas right next to the Land become part of the Land, and new Border areas are added at the outside.

Defense
Basically you need to let the defending player defend the stuff s/he has build up,
otherwise they won't be able to defend it as theirs. However, players like some PvP as well.
The Lands should be able to be attacked, but only through the Gates (which close when the player is not logged on).
The Land also is given bonuses for defense, which increase as the length of time of the attack goes up.
These also could be learned or aquired somehow also. Like a Land of nature might have trees that come alive.
These defensive abilities will be strong compared to the general level of the Land (and increase in time,
to make sure that the Land being attacked isn't destroyed). High level Lands are also not allowed to attack low level ones.
This is done by making the Gates be at different distances from the Land. High level Gates will be farther away.
Low level ones will be closer. A given Lands Border only goes out so far,
how far it extends limits the Level of the Gates that exist. This makes its so much stronger Lands can't attack.

Leveling
Leveling is done by collecting resources. This can be done many different ways.
Some Magic and Technology can be researched (this of course takes time, based upon other resources collected).
Others needs to be found, in ancient structures in the Wilds or by Barbarrian nations in the Wilds.
Also, resources need to be collected. There aren't enough resources in a Land for it to expand.
Although of course, as the Lands level increases, more resources will be able to be held within it.
So to get the resources a player needs, that player will have to go to the Wilds to get them.
Like iron won't be available initially, and if a player wants to use iron weapons,
they will need the technology, and to go and take an iron mine in the Wilds (And defend it).
There will also be other Races that you can go aquire from the Wilds, and so can have different types of people.

Player Interaction
Players can interact peacefully by trading. They can also interact by attacking eachothers Lands.
Also, they can interact by raiding eachother in the Wilds. Another important interaction is form Nations.
A Nation is like a clan, org, or guild in an MMO. Like in AO, you can determine different types of Nations.
Different types could include a Monarchy (where the leader is King and the other players are Nobles)
or a Republic of Lands (where there is an Elected Leader, and then each Land is controlled by its player).
There would be bonuses, like players could help defend eachothers Lands,
and defends eachothers structures in the Wilds, in addition to the trading and lending of resources.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by ChrisiusMaximus
Firaxis should remake Colonization instaed of this project.

A new colonization would be a lovely addition to my games collection

Here Here!!!!!!

[Ennet]

Well a Civ MMO is far from impossible to create. I think our demo games on theese very forums are pretty close from what it would be like. Only that all that the forums feature would be built in-game. Several (presumable a lot) nations consisting of many players each. Players will decide on matters and appoint leaders/gouvinours throught in-game mechanics. The game would run on something similar to the pit boss servers mentioned for cIV (which btw, will be perfect for our future cIV dgs) and feature simultaneos movement. Playing perhaps two turns per day, or whatever seems fitting.
Fun? I dare say it wouldn't be too hard to make fun. There are a lot of text based games building on very similar ideas out there, and yes -some people are even willing to pay for them..
Profitable? No. I dont doubt you can get players to pay enought for the project to go around. Make it proffitable enought i'll seriously doubt.

Meanwhile im looking forward to some truly amazing DGs on the pit boss servers. Imagine we could play some 18 or so teams with the game still moving forward 1 turn per day or more.. with simulteanious movement ofcourse, but still, far faster than any of the civIII DGs..

[Trifna]

Alot of people do play "mass multiplayer" strategy games, but just with no graphics. So I would not say that there is no market.

But who forms this market, and what they want exactly I'm not sure. I would guess that many like to play a something that not only gets more powerful in the future but which has some caracter in the present. Just as Everquest's caracters get more powerful but are suppose to be cool in themselves too (and cool to play and "be").

How can this achieved in the way this market would want? Is it the same kind of market as the one for no-graphic mass-RTS/TBS?

[conmcb25]

Why does the RTS market that now plays and MMORPG want to do it? (Warcraft Series)

Figure why that works, change it to CIV and you might have something.

And graphics aren't everything, I played EQ2 which has great graphics (The game is already designed for the next generation of video cards that aren't even on the market yet) and I've played Guild Wars.

I stopped playing EQ2 because although the graphics were great I had other issues with the game and no longer wanted to pay the 15 bucks a month.

I still play Guild Wars although due to RL issues not very much in the last month or so.

Why? Because there is no monthly fee, and for the game you get with no monthly fee its pretty dam good. Just look at the other games forum. A bunch of Apolytonites are playing GW. A few play WoW and even fewer play EQ2 (or at least thats what it seems like)

Make a great game, dont worry about killer graphics, and have no monthly fee or just a very small one. If its anything like CIV I think the community here will flock to it.

[Trifna]

One thing I would see as a must for a MMOTBS of Civ would be a "history of the Civ", with past wars, death tolls, achievements, and so on in a storyline. Like many RTS, but adapted to the history and Civ contexts.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Trifna
One thing I would see as a must for a MMOTBS of Civ would be a "history of the Civ", with past wars, death tolls, achievements, and so on in a storyline. Like many RTS, but adapted to the history and Civ contexts.

Yes!

A great story line is a must! Thats one of the things that makes GW a pretty good game

[Harovan]

Originally posted by conmcb25
Why? Because there is no monthly fee, and for the game you get with no monthly fee its pretty dam good. Just look at the other games forum. A bunch of Apolytonites are playing GW. A few play WoW and even fewer play EQ2 (or at least thats what it seems like)

I think I am the only one who's still playing EQ2, at least of those who post regularly. September 13th the first expansion went out and combat has been revamped completely. It also introduced PvP, like duels (with consent) and arena fights. To be honest, I don't like the changes much.

I share my time, about 1/4 goes to EQ2, 1/2 Guild Wars and 1/4 to other games (mainly EU2, and as of late, a bit of Civ3).

[DarkCloud]

Hmm... Interesting idea.

Problems/Unique

* Would the game be continuation, or would it be death-match similar to today's MP games, but with many more pepople playing simultaneously rather than turn based.

Personally, I think that death-match with gaining cultural bonuses and honors would be the best solution- but if it would be continuation (like most MMORPGS out there today- where you can log off and then log on into the same game), I have solutions for both below.

Death-Match Style
Imagine a world where MP-Civvers and Demogamers had their games hybridized- but that everyone got to be the important one, playing the civ- and all civs evolved at the same time, like in a RTS.

How can this be possible? How can this work?

Well, the graphics are already there- Civ IV's full-3D can attract the mass market- and while it seems too cluttered for a TBS game- it looks perfect for a RTS-MMO game. Why, you ask? Well, the more eye candy the game has, the longer people will be mesmerized by its offerings.

As for what the game should cost per month- I suggest against charging a monthly fee if the game is deathmatch- instead, charge per hour of gameplay. Automatically deduct the amount from players' credit cards. Or, alternatively- offer a flat rate of 100 dollars/month or some amount of cash that sounds reasonable for people who want unlimited play.

The Details

* Each player gets a nation, one of 24-36 "civilizations" on a map at least four times the size of the original civilization II map.

* Randomly generated maps are available, as are Earth maps and maps of different sizes.

* The death-match games can range in number of players and regions being fought over, much like Europa Universalis MP games are structured.

* Pre-set scenarios can recreate important historical events, such as : "World War II, World War I, German Wars of Unification, the Napoleoanic Wars, etc."

* Each nation can research/build as fast as a certain 'timer' runs down on their units- a la "KungFu Chess..." the innovative game whereby Chess was turned into a real-time-strategy game.

* For example: Every second, your society produces "Movement Points" that can be used to do actions. This can help level the playingfield so that faster players don't over-dominate.

Things can also be queued to build- a la most RTSes... and research tech trees pop up when the time is needed.

* Games are played to the finish. If a player leaves, the computer takes over their nation.

* Diplomacy state-to-state is conducted in real-time- players should quickly learn the keystrokes. However, if a meeting of the UN or Great Powers is convened where more than 2 nations are in negotiations- the game will momentarily stop and all players involved will be plunged into a diplomatic discussion screen. (These conventions may only happen every 50 years, for example, to prevent abuse of the system.) For the nations not in the discussion, they will be allowed to (in paused time) survey their land and make decisions.

---Continuation Game

* Imagine a system where points accured in older games could transfer to later games... or a world where civilizations evolved over time, and it wasn't just a one-shot death match.

Is this wishful thinking? Possibly... but maybe not completely.

What if...

* The entire world was represented- and the world began with say 24-36 "civilizations" on a map at least four times the size of the original civilization II map.

* The game ran with 'resets' every 60 hours or so, when all the technology is reset to stone age- BUT the winners of the day receive both Generals' stars and badges as well as special 'cultural bonuses'

Examples would include:

* Germany (most wealthy nation at the end of the reset)
+.05% trade
+.01% economy
Special Citizen unlocked: German Teamsters (+ Industry)

Now, would this make the game unbalanced?

Possibly, but I think not. In MMOs, characters with extra powers usually can't run around destroying lower level characters. This is usually possible through PvP and PvE zones and the accruing of negative auras through attacking people of lower levels than yourself.

But how would Civ work around this problem? Three words- Sanctions and Pollution. Attacking people of significantly lower level than you without being provoked could lower your trade and increase environmental destruction on your borders.

ANOTHER SOLUTION FOR RESTARTS
* The game restarts when you manage to get to alpha centauri, where you and others begin again in the stone age, trying to work up to the space age and dominate a new world with new neighbors.

YET ANOTHER SOLUTION FOR LEVELLING
* Gameplay begins in "Eras" and moves ahead when one civilization discovers a "golden advance" like Philosophy or the Printing Press.
The first nation to acquire any of these things then gains special points usable in the "Total War" version of the game.
-
What about when people log-off?
If people get dropped from the game in the continuous one- who plays their cities and their armies? Does their land become a no-go-zone, which no one can touch?

One solution would be for it to be 'swallowed up' and suddenly, for example if nation X touched Y's borders and Y logs off, then X now touches nation Z's borders and all of Y's terrain has disappeared.

Another solution would be for it to be blacked off as a no-go-zone, but this creates problems for people wanting to attack through a territory and for lamers who only log on when they know that their neighbors won't attack. and makes it impossible to expand ones' territory

Total War Version of the Game
*A special scenario running zone where people can use bonuses gained in the continuous zone with impunity. Here, no thought is given to unbalancing. The more stars and victory points you earn, the more bonuses your civ has to everything as you race toward a goal- conquest of some resource- taking of the high land with your troops- holding a pass- preventing a civil war- breaking away with half the nation- etc.

In Conclusion
The Deathmatch verison of the game would work best, no doubt, but the Continuation version could perhaps make a passable B- game. I don't think that I would play it, but it wouldn't be unplayable. Deathmatch, on the other hand- might be simply amazing!

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
He could call it... CivNETII



Edit: This one just occurred to me. CivO (Civilization Online: Clean, concise, easy to remember and pronounce )

Why not "WorldCiv"?