MULTIPLAYER will be imbalanced

[Pembleton]

One word: Resources. Need I say more? Well I guess I will anyway.

For example, how boring will a game be if one player has iron or saltpeter (if the game lasts that long) and the other doesn't? Or how about if one person has 2-3 luxuries early in the game while the other doesn't have his first until he has 5-6 cities or more?

[Faboba]

Thats all I've got to say



Well what in the name of god do you WANT?!?!?!?! You want multiplayer, but you don't want it to be like the actual game.



Can someone feed the rabbit which control Pembletons brain? It seems to be too lazy to feed him information about the meaning of the word competition........

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Faboba


Thats all I've got to say



Well what in the name of god do you WANT?!?!?!?! You want multiplayer, but you don't want it to be like the actual game.



Can someone feed the rabbit which control Pembletons brain? It seems to be too lazy to feed him information about the meaning of the word competition........

Actually I don't want multiplayer. I was one of the many who didn't care. It was just a passing thought that crossed my mind.

[Hipshot]

I really want MP, cause I LAN alot, and got many friends that also likes the game.

I really want a lot of MP options to, like Allied Victory, and maybe that u will be able to remove the rescourses so that the game wont be unfair. Its impossible to play a decent 1on1 when one of the sides starts with alla resources... u get it...

[KoalaBear33]

Re: MULTIPLAYER will be imbalanced

Originally posted by Pembleton
One word: Resources. Need I say more? Well I guess I will anyway.

For example, how boring will a game be if one player has iron or saltpeter (if the game lasts that long) and the other doesn't? Or how about if one person has 2-3 luxuries early in the game while the other doesn't have his first until he has 5-6 cities or more?

I have never played a multiplayer TBS game but I think resources can only increase the fun factor. Players will have greater incentive to trade with each other or to start wars. I don't know how multiplayer was before but I imagine that alliances, trading and teamwork will finally be important.

As far as some people getting stuck with no resources/luxuries well it's all random so it's "fair". Besides, you should know well ahead of time what resources you need. I haven't played far yet but so far, I always try to get some hills/moutains close to my cities (iron). Sometimes (depending on my civ) I also watch where potential locations for horses are.

Just to finish off my thought... Just because things are not identical does not mean it is imbalanced. In RTS games for instance (that's my background) units don't necessarily have the same stats and some maps aren't symmetrical. Yet the games are well balanced and fun. There is one concept that dominates RTS games (not sure if it carries over to online TBS games but I think it would). This is the concept of opportunity cost. Even if you are "worse off" in many aspects, you can often catch up because you can do something that your opponent can't do. For example, if an enemy gets really good city locations, resources, etc and is able to do one thing really well (say research fast), you might still be able to defeat that person by building faster and attacking (rushing). The reason this works is because your opponent can only do finite number of things (eg. can only build one thing in a city). So you can exploit that person's weakness. TBS games are much more complicated and are strategic as opposed to tactical (ie. long term vs short term nature of RTS games) so I don't know how well things will be. Nevertheless I dont' see any imbalance problems from a resource/luxury point of view (I'm not sure about civ bonuses and unique units though--haven't tried them all).

KoalaBear33

[drake]

Hate to break news to you, but terrain is often imbalanced in civ2 mp as well

It will make it interesting. It will encourage diplomacy and cooperation (I hope!).

[General Ludd]

Civilization isn't about balance, it's about strategy and diplomacy.

[gamadict]

I think it'd be pretty interesting. If you're the only Civ on the map with an important resource, you have to trade, simply 'cause every otherCiv will be gunning for you otherwise, and you need some friends to watch your back. On the other had, let's say only two Civs on the map have an important resource (in, say, a 6 or 8 player game). They might not have any reason to trade, they could just ally and dominate the game...

[Hipshot]

I really would like to be the only civ with all resources ... then all my friends would hafto do as I tell them or else they wont get thier oil etc.

[Pembleton]

Well a lot of people were talking about diplomacy, which is a good point and I realized that already, but I guess I was talking about 1v1.

[drake]

I really would like to be the only civ with all resources ... then all my friends would hafto do as I tell them or else they wont get thier oil etc.

With that attitude, they'd probably be more likely just take it from you than beg you for it

Share!

[Admiral PJ]

I think MP resource possesion could be a problem, we should use fair maps that are edited to give each civ starting point equal amounts of resources ( with some differences to spice things up)
They encourage you to colonise and conquer, which must be good.

How about alliances against 1 greedy civ that insists on not sharing any oil/iron That would show those greedy capitalist pigs :>

[Blunderdog]

There would be no point in hogging a resource. If the other Civs are smart, they'll gang up and take it from you if you withhold. Might as well paint a target on your back. It's better to use the leverage the resources give you at the bargaining table.

[Admiral PJ]

NOTE: we ought to gives firaxis some good ideas for multiplayer..

Smaller civs should be given a fighting chance, making them get a stronger less diluted culture, so they are less vulnerable ( give them more culture than normal).

[Delthayre]

Multiplayer

My biggest concern about multiplayer is the time factor. A game of Civ 3 (4000bc-2050ad) in single player is a very long undertaking, and the time between turns can get very long. The length of game could be alleviated by adding an accelerated mode which reduced times on science etcetera and reduced the number of turns, and/or an ability to save mulitplayer games (quite doable). Length betweent turns will, however, be a far greater problem. Lag and other factors will make it very difficult to keep mp playable.

I think this is part of the reason mp has been delayed.