Massive Multiplayer Civ?

[Sore Loser]

Being an avid Utopia player of many years (now retired), I think that the ultimate Civ has to be an MPOG one. Why? Because 20k players in the same game allows for a social hierarchy. In a traditional Civ game, your power base is more or less unchanged as the game progresses, it just goes up and down a bit depending on how well you're doing. And the power is all yours.

In the MPOG Civ-like something that has given my poor head no rest for the past two years, power follows a feudal structure. You only rule as long as the power balance in your faction supports your rule. This makes diplomacy a real concern, unlike what we have seen so far. In my hypothetical game, you can be wiped out in no time if your power base erodes, in a traditional Civ clone you can always rely on your power base to be there when you need it.

In a traditional Civ, all players are emperors by default. In an MPOG Civ, players can have all sorts of roles: General, Mayor, Emperor, Assassin, Merchant, Bishop and Gangster, to name a few. I don't think the lowly roles in society should be filled by players, as I can't imagine anyone wanting to play as a shepherd or beggar. This division of roles also serves as a real Imperial Focus system. You can only do a little by yourself, most of your tasks will have to be delegated to your underlings. Delegating tasks to an AI isn't much fun, delegating tasks to your subjects (and then beheading them if they screw up) is much more satisfying. This also means that you don't need much AI in the game, which should make it a lot easier to code.

One final idea: Gods. A number of players could serve as both gods, dungeon masters and moderators at the same time. They would have to be handpicked by the administrator, of course, and they would pretty much have to hide their RL identity from other players. Gods help the roleplaying aspect along, as they can nudge events in the right direction to keep the game from becoming too strategyish. Furthermore, they add another strategic dimension to the game, namely divine power. The details of this are still fuzzy, but I think it could work.

I have a ton of ideas about this, but I'll wait and see if I can stir some interest first.

[Inverse Icarus]

this idea makes no sense unless you have a finite map, if you did that it could get interesting.

if there was a set amount of land in the game, then someone would control it, and other people would occupy it, can could do your gangster idea.

but i still don't like it.

[VetLegion]

The real issue is, how much of your game do you want to be civ, and how much of it do you want to be (massive) roleplaying adventure?

There already exist games that cover both extremes: Diplomacy (game mechanics are all but non important) and traditional civ games (game mechanics are everything, diplomacy is next to irrelevant)

So obviousely you want a mix. What kind of mix? How many elements of a traditional civ game you want to keep anyway? A feudal game can be played without trade and production, map can be abstracted (no tiles)...

[Leland]

MMOG Civ is an oxymoron. I think the first thing you need to do is to throw the idea that this will look anything like a Civilization game out the window.

[Paddy]

oh that is a shame... it was sounding interesting...

[Sore Loser]

Uber: The map will indeed be finite. In theory, the game could be expanded with additional planets if the technology is set to progress into the space age.

The reason why I believe the game will remain dynamic with constantly changing balance of powers are three concepts (which I didn't mention in the first post): Administration, Leadership and Feudalism. Administration denoting the number of cities you can control (or the number of tiles your city can occupy, or what have you) and Leadership denoting the maximum amount of units you can control. Lastly, Feudalism denotes the amount of power you can exercise over your underlings (other players you have convinced/bullied/bought to serve you), meaning that you can donate cities and units to them (freeing up your own Adm/LS points) while maintaining some degree of control over them. This isn't entirely clear yet, something along the lines of "as long as your subject stays loyal he can keep your gifts, but they can be withdrawn at any time".

Leland & Vet:

I realize that this isn't really Civ. I see it more as an expansion of Civ with other elements, but I realize that it has gone way past the Civ template by now. Which is why it doesn't really fit in here, I'm posting it in hopes of stirring up a discussion because there is an active gaming environment here, if someone can direct me to a better forum I'll go there.

As for the mix, the idea is to go for it all. I want EVERYTHING! Trade, population management, something like the ethos idea that should have been in MOO3, advanced tactical warfare, hierarchical RPG structures and pretty much anything you can think of. I know this is not realistic, but unworkable elements can be discarded if they don't hold up. One unworkable idea that I'm thinking of discarding at the moment is the notion of heritage and reoccurring player death of natural causes (the older you get, the greater your risk of dying). I believe the idea has many interesting aspects to it, but also many nuisances that players won't put up with. For one thing, losing everything you built every once is hardly satisfactory, and it makes it pretty much impossible to build long-lasting empires if the members are replaced all the time.

So, should I go somewhere else with my idea or do you feel like discussing it?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sore Loser
Uber: The map will indeed be finite. In theory, the game could be expanded with additional planets if the technology is set to progress into the space age.

The reason why I believe the game will remain dynamic with constantly changing balance of powers are three concepts (which I didn't mention in the first post): Administration, Leadership and Feudalism. Administration denoting the number of cities you can control (or the number of tiles your city can occupy, or what have you) and Leadership denoting the maximum amount of units you can control. Lastly, Feudalism denotes the amount of power you can exercise over your underlings (other players you have convinced/bullied/bought to serve you), meaning that you can donate cities and units to them (freeing up your own Adm/LS points) while maintaining some degree of control over them. This isn't entirely clear yet, something along the lines of "as long as your subject stays loyal he can keep your gifts, but they can be withdrawn at any time".

Leland & Vet:

I realize that this isn't really Civ. I see it more as an expansion of Civ with other elements, but I realize that it has gone way past the Civ template by now. Which is why it doesn't really fit in here, I'm posting it in hopes of stirring up a discussion because there is an active gaming environment here, if someone can direct me to a better forum I'll go there.

As for the mix, the idea is to go for it all. I want EVERYTHING! Trade, population management, something like the ethos idea that should have been in MOO3, advanced tactical warfare, hierarchical RPG structures and pretty much anything you can think of. I know this is not realistic, but unworkable elements can be discarded if they don't hold up. One unworkable idea that I'm thinking of discarding at the moment is the notion of heritage and reoccurring player death of natural causes (the older you get, the greater your risk of dying). I believe the idea has many interesting aspects to it, but also many nuisances that players won't put up with. For one thing, losing everything you built every once is hardly satisfactory, and it makes it pretty much impossible to build long-lasting empires if the members are replaced all the time.

So, should I go somewhere else with my idea or do you feel like discussing it?

the idea is interesting but i have several questions thoughts

1. There already exist democracy games, which IIUC, involve numerous players on a side sharing control of a civ/country. What would make a MMPOG different is actual immersion. But to the extent that civ involves simply being an official and giving orders, would it work as an MMPOG. You would have to go down to the soldier/citizen level to do so - but given the realities of historical armies and citizenries, would it be very interesting for most players?
2. The Civ genre is distinctive from other history oriented empire builders (like EU, Total war, etc) in that it covers a 6000 year sweep of history, and govt types from bronze age despotism to modern industrial democracy. You mention a feudal type structure. I wonder if it would be possible to model teh entire 6000 yr sweep in a way that works as an MMPOG? perhaps you really want one historical era only, or even a non-historical setting
3. Are there currently any historical MMPOG's? I even wonder how many historical RPG's there are?

[Sore Loser]

Thank you for your comments lord of the mark, you raise key issues:

1) What is the lowest level of operation that should be player controlled?

In (extreme) theory, I'd like the idea of 1 citizen = 1 player. But as you mention, it is completely out of the question; for one thing, noone would want to play as a soldier or a farmer. And you'd have to time population growth with player growth, which is not realistically possible.

That said, I think the border goes somewhere around Mayor, General and Merchant. Assassins and Scouts are sitting on the edge, while Envoys, Soldiers and Workers are definitely too boring.

As for the Democracy games, I must admit I don't really get the point. Is there real competition in those games? As I understand, you don't have any power base of your own except the office you're voted into. This way, you both have a personal power base AND a diplomatic power base, based on your social status in your faction. Besides, the main point with this is that it's so much more fun playing against players than against an AI. IMHO.

2. Can the same game model be used throughout for different historical periods?

This is another problem that I don't have a good solution for. The obvious answer is to limit it to a certain historical period, at least at first. This is not a bad solution, but it doesn't go down well with my ambition to have EVERYTHING! The way I envision it right now is along the lines of x000 BC until 1000 AD. But I'll keep working on principles that make the same game function equally well in the Stone Age as in the Space Age. It's probably not possible, but impossible tasks amuse me.

I'm not all that well-versed in the MMPOG genre. What I have seen is fairly simplistic, and that is what I would like to change. They're simplistic because the designers can't come up with concepts to handle more complexity, not because there isn't player demand or technical capability, IMO.

[Leland]

Some random thoughts...

• Technological progress is, in my humble opinion, impossible to do the way civ does it. If you insist on the game progressing from, say, 1000BC to 1000AD, then what? Will the game just end and restart, or will people keep playing even if there're no more technological advances? In the former case there's a dent in the pervasiveness of the game world due to the periodical reboots. Players who happen to start two days before the reboot will be frustrated because just when they're starting to get into the game, they're told they have to start all over. That's a big turn-off. On the other hand, if the game just goes on forever, the "early years" become something of a luxury... you only go through them once everytime you start a new server (or a game) and never get back there. Why waste time designing elaborate ancient game mechanics if that's only a small fraction of the actual game?
  
• Okay, so no civ-like progress. That leaves two alternatives: no progress at all, or a fantastic world where all the different technology levels coexist at the same time. Regular folks farm land and fight with swords, whilst the royalty enjoy fusion power and fighter planes. This is utterly non-historical and non-realistic no matter how you look at it, but I think it's more fun than having a static tech level.
  
• I can imagine the players starting out by selecting a few units to start with (military, merchant, etc. depending on what route they want to take) and then jumping into the game. But then what? What do you do with a few military units at your disposal, just attack someone? Or should players be given land as well? If so, then there's the problem of running out of good real estate... I think it might make more sense to let players either buy their own land with the money they earn from mercenary business or trade, or try to become vassals of existing players.
  
• There should be some standard way players can "prove" their worth. If I was in need of a few good generals, I'd rather not just pick some random newbies whom I know nothing about. Maybe some sort of tournaments where newbies fight against each other and the "oldies" can pick the winners to do tasks for them? Or an option to set bounties for particular tasks, for instance a tract of land to whoever conquers this or this city... these would have to be regulated by the game engine somehow to avoid newbies being screwed.

[Sore Loser]

1) Tech progress

Ideally, there should be infinite technological progress. More techs can be added as the game is underway, changing the code mid-game. Realistically, each game will take, say, half a year. While this isn't the best solution, it isn't all that bad either. Looking at Utopia, it starts over every three months. This coincides nicely with the "natural" length of the game, meaning that after about three months it starts losing momentum and the game becomes stale. This also encourages players to go out with a boom, launching massive campaigns at whoever bugged them during the round.

As for the fantasy world scenario, I don't think it's all that unappealing. Or even unrealistic, assuming a fantasy setting. This applies particularly to the galactic dimension of the game, where frontier worlds can be hopelessly backwards because noone has found them worth investing in.

Again, I'd really prefer the never-ending concept. Let's say progress from the Stone Age to the Medieval takes about one year for the fastest players. Then another year to reach the Industrial Age, and another year to reach the Space Age. Technological progress doesn't have to be fast, technological leaps should be something significant that really gets your blood pumping. In Civ, you quickly get used to discovering new things all the time, usually meaning that whatever new units you can build are obsolete by the time you're done drafting your new army.

3) How do players start out?

This is unclear as of yet, this is what I have so far: Each player will start out with a band of nomads, living as gatherers, hunters and raiders. Eventually some of them should start settling down, forming villages. The game will have to be balanced so there is an incentive to refrain from doing this right away. Maybe building costs could be extreme in the beginning, meaning that early house builders will be left at the mercy of fierce nomad tribes who have grown faster. Again, this means multiple game models will have to be used, letting players play both as nomads and city dwellers. These two models can co-exist throughout the game. After all, guerillas and crusaders are a kind of nomads too, only more briefly and for other reasons.

As for roles, I think these should be fluid. While there could be character stats to denote your abilities in various areas (like Adm, LS and Feudalism described earlier), any player should be free to do whatever he feels like.

As for real estate, this will be plentiful in the early part of the game. People will still quarrel over the best tracts of land, if it's profitable, but major warfare will generally be limited. Basically, if a tile is uninhabited and undefended then you can settle there. A neighbour who wanted it for himself can then be upset with you, but he can't prevent it unless he has troops stationed there.

Another option is to become another player's vassal. This becomes increasingly relevant later in the game, when land becomes scarce and warlords emerge. Rather than trying your luck with a fledgling outpost among hostile neighbours, you're probably better off serving a mightier lord. This will both give you a reliable income (assuming the lord is honest), and give you a good hierarchical position (assuming the lord is succesful). Furthermore, the lord might reward you for loyal service by ensuring a good piece of land for you. Or you could stay in his service, and become a key figure in a powerful faction.

4) How to recruit vassals

For one thing, you'd rarely put a complete newbie who hasn't proven himself to you in charge of a major task. Most likely you'll have small missions to send him on first, to make sure he's capable of following orders. Furthermore, a player can present his stats to another player (or you can spy on other players' stats), revealing the player's strengths to you.

I like the idea of bounties. I'm not sure if it'd have to be a formal part of the game engine, but there should certainly be a way of informing everyone of the challenge. While I usually advocate against giving priority to realism over playability, I often find myself arguing in favour of an intuitive flow. Without it, the game just won't have as much atmosphere. In Utopia, everything is very abstract, and you just can't bond with your province the same way you could if it felt more "real".

[Sandman]

It's an interesting idea, certainly. I like the idea of the game starting with each player owning a nomadic tribe, and empires forming as the players clump together into social units.

The game would have to be far vaster in scope than civ, with dozens (if not hundreds) of resources, tens of thousands of techs, dozens of terrain types, and a really complicated terrain/ecology system.

Tech and map trading would have to be very limited, obviously.

[Leland]

Originally posted by Sore Loser
Ideally, there should be infinite technological progress. More techs can be added as the game is underway, changing the code mid-game.

Interesting. So the technological advances might be crafted by the "gods" of the game world, perhaps with some sort of powerful scripting language to keep them interesting, so there's always something new for the players to hunt down?

Realistically, each game will take, say, half a year. While this isn't the best solution, it isn't all that bad either. Looking at Utopia, it starts over every three months. This coincides nicely with the "natural" length of the game, meaning that after about three months it starts losing momentum and the game becomes stale. This also encourages players to go out with a boom, launching massive campaigns at whoever bugged them during the round.

Good point... I wasn't even thinking of non-persistent worlds myself. But I do think that you have to choose one or the other.

Again, I'd really prefer the never-ending concept. Let's say progress from the Stone Age to the Medieval takes about one year for the fastest players. Then another year to reach the Industrial Age, and another year to reach the Space Age.

How the heck are you planning on playtesting something so slow? It seems that what you want is to start the game before actually figuring out how it's all going to work out in the end. Me, I'm a bit conservative and I'd prefer the whole game to be consistently designed in advance (not that there won't be changes along the way, but every change request is a potential disaster in my opinion).

3) How do players start out?[

This is unclear as of yet, this is what I have so far: Each player will start out with a band of nomads, living as gatherers, hunters and raiders. Eventually some of them should start settling down, forming villages.

Okay, but what about players who start midgame? Won't the pre-existing players be utterly superior to the newcomers in every regard, having grabbed all the (good) land and resources, thus making it frustrating for them to start playing?

As for roles, I think these should be fluid. While there could be character stats to denote your abilities in various areas (like Adm, LS and Feudalism described earlier), any player should be free to do whatever he feels like.

Agreed. Especially if the game is open-ended. By the way, regarding your three stats, I don't think that "feudalism" should be a hard-coded value... rather, it's completely up to you whether you'll trust other players to work under you. Give them too much, and they'll turn against you, give them too little and you waste your precious admin/leadership points to trivialities.

[Sore Loser]

Originally posted by Sandman
The game would have to be far vaster in scope than civ, with dozens (if not hundreds) of resources, tens of thousands of techs, dozens of terrain types, and a really complicated terrain/ecology system.

Finally, someone understands my delusions

Tech and map trading would have to be very limited, obviously.

They would certainly have to be restricted somehow. I have some ideas on this, but they're not coherent at the moment...

[Sore Loser]

Originally posted by Leland
Interesting. So the technological advances might be crafted by the "gods" of the game world, perhaps with some sort of powerful scripting language to keep them interesting, so there's always something new for the players to hunt down?

Not neccessarily by the gods, although that's an interesting perspective.

How the heck are you planning on playtesting something so slow? It seems that what you want is to start the game before actually figuring out how it's all going to work out in the end. Me, I'm a bit conservative and I'd prefer the whole game to be consistently designed in advance (not that there won't be changes along the way, but every change request is a potential disaster in my opinion).

On this question I'm fairly radical, I see every change request as a potential improvement. But the game will obviously be unsatisfactory to play if bugs pop up all the time. I think the best compromise is to start out with a limited game (either going from 4000 BC to 1000 BC or simply using a static tech level). After the initial trial, assuming it's succesful, the main game can then be started. Whenever a change is needed (and I'm thinking about small changes here, the game models used throughout the game should be pretty much set from the beginning), a small test game can be set up to run for a month or so to find out how it would work.

Okay, but what about players who start midgame? Won't the pre-existing players be utterly superior to the newcomers in every regard, having grabbed all the (good) land and resources, thus making it frustrating for them to start playing?

The balance I'm striving for is to make sure the players would view new players as potential ressources rather than potential competitors. If you're well-established then you needn't fear a poor little newbie. Instead, if the newbie shows some interest in the game then you could probably benefit yourself by showing him the ropes and recruiting him to lead some small raiding mission or run a hamlet on the outskirts of your empire.

Agreed. Especially if the game is open-ended. By the way, regarding your three stats, I don't think that "feudalism" should be a hard-coded value... rather, it's completely up to you whether you'll trust other players to work under you. Give them too much, and they'll turn against you, give them too little and you waste your precious admin/leadership points to trivialities.

There is a problem with this, as I see it. If you give up all control of the power (cities and armies) that you assign to your vassals, then it's just too easy to stab the top dog in the back. Besides, this would make players very reluctantly to share power with their vassals, and I want to encourage them to do so. A well-functioning hierarchical system is the best way to promote social mobility, IMO.

[pg]

civ really needs more players(both human and ai). after playing eu2 i have seen the light!