Multiplayer Setup Screens

[ChrisShaffer]

More configuration options are better. Fewer screens are better. This should be balanced.

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.

Realistically, you're talking about setting up a game that's going to take a long time to play. Using 5 minutes to set up a 200+ turn game seems reasonable.

[Jon Miller]

Hi all

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

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

in addition

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)

Jon Miller

[ChrisShaffer]

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.

I (and many others) have absolutely no interest in playing Civ via direct-connect. That isn't going to change. I'm not saying Firaxis shouldn't include the ability to play direct-connect games. I am saying that they should provide and support other options from the beginning, instead of adding PBEM or server-based asynchronous play as a patch, which they did with SMAC.

[Grumbold]

I can only agree. I've found MMORPGS great fun but ultimately drop them because I cannot devote enough time on-line to get ahead in a realtime environment. Spending 30 minutes organising a group only to leave 15 minutes later hurts everyone.

A viable PBEM version, preferably with simultaneous resolution, would be a great boon. The options to ensure a balanced start point are essential. A couple of screens would be good but if this takes 30 screens to configure perfectly, so be it!

[DanS]

In addition to a change in order for the choices, as Xin mentions, I suggest that "waiting for others to join" be made a more informative and interactive pop up box. I have a wish list of information that includes:

(1) Who has already joined
(2) The approx. speed of their connection
(3) The approx. ping time of their connection to a dummy host
(4) Lost packet info. for each connection
(5) A speed/ping/hops/lost packet analysis and a recommendation on who should host--this could be tied into dynamic hosting, as mentioned above.
[This message has been edited by DanS (edited March 23, 2000).]

[FieryDove]

Would be helpful to list the following:

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.

Just a few thoughts for now...
Cheers,
Rita
"FieryDove"

[Gramphos]

An AutoFill IP would be good.
Check
http://www.apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/002458.html

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I know that this is going beyond the scope of just what the screen should look like, but I'd like to see an option for cooporative multiplayer, perhaps with tribes. By which I mean you have a group of people that all manage different aspects of an empire, and that group is in a game with other groups running other civs. If nothing else, I think it could really speed up multiplayer turns if you have different people all simultaneously controlling pieces of a single civ, especially in the later portions of the game.

[me_irate]

I personally like the lobby and setup that is used to multiplay ctp2. I like the setup for ctp2 just not the bugs, resincs, and other problems that plague the servers.

[tniem]

I think the most important element that needs to be added streamlined for multiplayer games through ISP, LAN, etc. is for the game to be able to saved and then replayed when everyone involved can come back for another round. Countless times, my friends and I have had to quit a SMAC game midway through because one of us had work. Allow saves constantly and allow us to have more control of when to kick people from the game and simply allow a kicked off person to come back.

[Bereta_Eder]

I haven't played many multiplayer games so I am not the one to give you the best suggestions.

But it's great that you ask fans for advice

Ah, CIV III will be great I feel it

[Roman]

I have only one suggestion:

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.

Thank you for asking this question.

[Roman]

One more addition could be included in hotseat, though that could also apply to single player games. There should be a way to combine two civs into one if the two players agree to do so.

BTW: Sorry this is a little OT.

[tniem]

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.

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.


P.S. I also believe that diplomacy must be handled by the player him/herself. Without it all this, let's make diplomacy more important is useless.