Don't think Multiplayer. Think Online Worlds.

[Bisonbison]

Regarding the big announcement tomorrow: I'm guessing it'll not only touch on multi-player, but perhaps offer a radically expanded multiplayer version of the game.

Which I think would be neat-o.

I just wanted to get my half-assed speculation in now, so that when I'm right I'll look brilliant.

[dainbramaged13]

big announcement?

[sekong]

I second bison's idea.
If you don't get it, I think maybe you don't know mud, or UO,or an online multiplayer game called artifact, or a lot of others.
The idea is having a huge map, and many (could be 100+) players in it. It means 100+ small countries.
I don't know if it's what Bison mean on-line world, but I guess so.
And I also hope that's big idea that firaxis trying to work on
If they don't do it, I'm dreamming it at least.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13
big announcement?

Yes Dainbramaged, MarkG has posted that there will be a chat session tomorrow at 4:00 PM EST. In Markos' own words: Be there.

But getting back to the subject, I think it has to do with Apolyton receiving an advanced copy of Civ3.

But I like your beliefs too Bisonbison and Sekong - That would be really cool to find out more info concerning the future of MP in Civ3!

[Blake]

Online worlds is a pretty cool idea. Just supposing for a moment that it happens, how should it be implmented? Prehaps a really big map of the world with about 50 civs, which are controlled by Humans, or AI's (upon joining a human could choose any AI civ, except for recentely vacated ones, which could only be claimed by there most recent human leader, atleast for a number of hours)
The tech rate would have to be slow, and the turns would have to be simulatenous and timed. Once a game is 'won' it would be restarted in the stoneage.

It would be a massive undertaking to make and perfect.

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by Wittlich

But getting back to the subject, I think it has to do with Apolyton receiving an advanced copy of Civ3.

Oooooh! I will be very curious to see if that's it!!!!!! Lucky shlumps.

[sekong]

For people want to know how to implement a online world of civ type, I suggest them try artifact. It's a free game, although you can pay and get more fun to enjoy it.
It's a combination of turn-based and RTS. The time is mid-age.
The aim is to find and keeping 7 artifacts ( kind of borrow from AOE). The samugame provide game servers. Player download the client side for free. There are 10+ world(games) openning at same time. Generally one game take 2-3 days. Each player have 4+ hours a day to DIRECT your country. The game will re-start after the winner is decided. I don't want to go too much ad about it. If you want, you can find more info from:

http://www.samugames.com/

The down part is that you can't do research. Almost everything (units, buildings) are available at the beginning. Therefore it lacks the depth of strategy, and the fun as CIV. I'm dreamming something combine the civ's depth into this on-line world model. If Firaxis won't do it, I hope somebody will do it, or it's being worked on already.

[sekong]

Originally posted by Blake
Online worlds is a pretty cool idea. Just supposing for a moment that it happens, how should it be implmented? Prehaps a really big map of the world with about 50 civs, which are controlled by Humans, or AI's (upon joining a human could choose any AI civ,

As I borrow the idea from artifact:
There is just one big map. When I new player join the game, he find his settler and other initial unit at a undiscover land. Then you build yr city, etc.

except for recentely vacated ones, which could only be claimed by there most recent human leader, at least for a number of hours)
The tech rate would have to be slow, and the turns would have to be simulatenous and timed.

The producing and research, taxing are turn based. say each 2 minite, or 10 minite, which could be a factor of the game. But the combat and exploration are real timed. And you can give units orders like goto, patrol(?). Then they will do it by their own. Most computation are done by the game server.

Once a game is 'won' it would be restarted in the stoneage.
It would be a massive undertaking to make and perfect.

As I said previously, restart is not a problem.

[DanS]

Hmmm... Online worlds sounds expensive. Like $10/month, the same as Ultima Online.

[connorkimbro]

Yes Dainbramaged, MarkG has posted that there will be a chat session tomorrow at 4:00 PM EST. In Markos' own words: Be there.

But getting back to the subject, I think it has to do with Apolyton receiving an advanced copy of Civ3.

Umm, don't get your hopes up. I'm "hosting" that chat tomorrow, and to my knowledge, there isn't anything like that. PERHAPS there is something that MarkG has or knows, but, not to my knowledge.

[Oligarf]

I think that simulatenous turns are the best. I don't think everyone playing on such a huge world could be online all at once. There could be different worlds depending on how frequent turns are executed.

I personally quite like the idea.

[MarkG]

there is no big announcement

we're just having a chat

[LoD]

Online Worlds - nice idea, but is it viable?

We'll, having 50 some opponents in the game might be interesting and fun, but let's think about it - can the Online World concept be implemented effectively in civ-type games? Simply consider the fact that players don't spend their entire life seating at the computer (well, there are exceptions, but count those as clinial cases ), so eventually a player will have to log off from the game. Let's analize the possible solutions to the problem:

• '50 player PBEM' - . Nuff' said.
• stopping the game - would never do, obviously
• complex subbing system - not viable, since it would require an immense synchronization effort.
• generating the turns as if the player had skipped the turn with no orders - the player would probably find his empire partitioned after he rejoins the game.
• temporory appointing the AI as the leader of the civ - as above.
• temporary dissapearance of a civ from the game - would cause great confusion and rule complication. Possible abuse.
• temporary invincibility of all civ's units, structure's etc. - at first, sounds like good idea, but will provide much confusion. Also could be easily abused.

I may had missed out a cure for the problem, so please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think that civ games are too complex and have a too fragile balance of power (for 50+ players) to be Online World games. 16 civs are quite enough for an MP game.

[ajbera]

Re: Online Worlds - nice idea, but is it viable?

Originally posted by LoD
I may had missed out a cure for the problem, so please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think that civ games are too complex and have a too fragile balance of power (for 50+ players) to be Online World games. 16 civs are quite enough for an MP game.

Well, IMO, just let the AI governor take control of a missing human player. If the AI does something you disapprove of, just think of your return to the game as a return to the throne after a ruler has died or been deposed.

It's a disadvantage, especially if other human players don't have to miss turns, but my feeling is: if you don't like the possibilty of AI governors fouling up your kingdom, or if you can't be present for each session, don't play. Multiplayer requires sacrifices in general - quit bitching and suck it up.

[sekong]

Re: Online Worlds - nice idea, but is it viable?

Obviously, you did not have a look of samugames.com, the host of artifact yet. There IS a cure for all your list of "problems".

Originally posted by LoD
We'll, having 50 some opponents in the game might be interesting and fun, but let's think about it - can the Online World concept be implemented effectively in civ-type games? Simply consider the fact that players don't spend their entire life seating at the computer (well, there are exceptions, but count those as clinial cases ), so eventually a player will have to log off from the game. Let's analize the possible solutions to the problem:

• '50 player PBEM' - . Nuff' said.
• stopping the game - would never do, obviously
• complex subbing system - not viable, since it would require an immense synchronization effort.
• generating the turns as if the player had skipped the turn with no orders - the player would probably find his empire partitioned after he rejoins the game.
• temporory appointing the AI as the leader of the civ - as above.
• temporary dissapearance of a civ from the game - would cause great confusion and rule complication. Possible abuse.
• temporary invincibility of all civ's units, structure's etc. - at first, sounds like good idea, but will provide much confusion. Also could be easily abused.

I may had missed out a cure for the problem, so please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think that civ games are too complex and have a too fragile balance of power (for 50+ players) to be Online World games. 16 civs are quite enough for an MP game.