Multiplayer Setup Screens

[ChrisShaffer]

quote: How do you do Diplomacy with another civ in Email games, the AI takes over all contacts while you load as SP virtually in PBEM game. You cant call up another human and do tech trading form alliance or swap citys etc.... This needs to be done live !!!!!

Did you even read my message? I said that the diplomacy model in the old Civ2 and SMAC multiplayer PBEM systems had very bad tools. There is no way that Firaxis is going to be stupid enough to hand diplomacy over to the AI in PBEM or turn-based simultaneous-execution games.

quote: As for your comments re PBEM SMAC being more popular, you will notice I was referring to Civ 2 MP not SMAC, for any one itnerested goto Civ 2 Multipalyer threads to see number of games organissed for IP versus PBEM...

We're referring to Civ3. All of its predecessors are applicable examples. In fact, Civ2 basically doesn't support PBEM except in very hacked, cheatable ways. So using the number of Civ2 IP vs. PBEM games as the sole measurement of the popularity of one system over the other is basically unfair. It's about the same as saying "nobody plays Civ1 multiplayer, so multiplayer must not be very popular, so there's no need for multiplayer in Civ3."

quote: We MP people havent asked for SP to be altered to suit us and make it better for us to try , so please dont mess with our MP version let us MP people decide what will work better for us.....

I'm an MP person, just like you. All the people asking for changes to the MP system want to play MP. Why do you assume we aren't MP people?

quote: I just want to say that ip games are the only way I'd ever play. PBEM is way too slow.

That's the whole point of turn-based simultaneous-execution, which would solve the problems of slow PBEM games.

quote: The whole idea behind PBEM is that its played at peoples leisure. If you're running a continuous loop, talking with everyone while you wait for the game to arrive, you might as well play ip.

Did you even read what we wrote? There are serious significant problems with IP play. All players have to be online at the same time. Players must play for hours at a stretch. Taking a break kills the game for the other players. Players are rushed to finish their turns so that other players won't have to wait. Do you really want to play an IP game with someone who wants to spend and hour fine tuning a single turn? Does IP play allow me to stop for 20 minutes because my daughter needs attention right now? I didn't think so. IP isn't for everyone. We're not saying that we want IP eliminated, just that we want other options!

quote: Besides, getting hundreds of saved games in my email is not my idea of a good time.............

Again, you're using the example of the really sucking implementation of PBEM as the only yardstick to judge PBEM. The whole point of the turn-based simultaneous-execution model is that you don't have to send or receive games by email. In the best of all possible worlds, I'd go to the game webpage, click on the link for the particular game, and Civ3 would fire up and let me take my turn and would automatically upload my orderset when I was done.

Why are you IP players opposed to the idea of Firaxis supporting a different way of playing multiplayer? How will it hurt you for Firaxis to support turn-based simultaneous-execution play?

[EdwardTKing]

A major problem with Civ2 is that it can become very asymmetrical.

One tribe has 4 or 5 cities and 20 units; another has 40 or 50 cities and 200 units. While AIs will play on stoically when their tribe is pathetic; real people cannot be expected to wait 15 minutes for an ICS leader and then play for 30 seconds in a hopeless situation. There is nothing worse than being a host on the defensive and being asked to give me another
10 minutes [so I do not risk hurrying my 50 unit assault on you.]

I would therefore suggest for Civ3 three new multi-player parameters:

(a) maximum number of cities each tribe could build

(b) maximum number of units each tribe could build

(c) maximum number of units each tribe could move each turn.

I believe that this could dramatically improve multi-play quality.

[Zylka]

Edward, I completely disagree. This game should not hamper with equality of outcome, but rather equality of opportunity. To achieve this end, variables such as huts and starting postions should be made less powerful, or more consistent, or both. I suggest either:

1.)Lessening the disparity these key variables can produce in the game program itself.
2.)Keep it the way it is in civ2, but offer more options on these variables when setting up a multiplayer game. ie.)
-Huts on/off
-Hut consistencies
-Extra settlers on/off
-Extra tech on/off
-Each civ starts with * resources in view (or) Start resources random
-Intelligent default for equal surrounding land on/off

Many would argue that this adds to an already complicated list of game options, so you could group them all off to the side in a "variable options" table that most advanced players would choose to use. Those that enjoy unequal game situations with difference and "character" (including myself on many occasions) can choose not to tweak these variable settings. If the game becomes too asymmetrical from there then too bad, either one player is better than the other, or you should have chosen to equalize the variables.


[This message has been edited by Zylka (edited April 26, 2001).]

[OzzyKP]

This thread was started a year ago, and left untouched for that long before it was picked up again, and now everyone is arguing in it. I'm doubtful that it really matters any more. I doubt they are still watching this thread, and if they happen to notice it it is probably too late because the ideas they asked for were a year ago and have no doubt already been worked on.

[ChrisShaffer]

OzzyKP, if we limited our discussions only to those topics likely to be seen or read by Firaxis, or likely to have an impact on game development, there wouldn't be much of a message board left.

Why are you telling us to stop talking about it? It doesn't hurt anything for us to chatter, eh?

[Rasputin]

I dont have a problem with PBEM beiung built into the Civ3 engine, but I love the IP game play with online negotiaitons and pressure mounting. So I odnt want them to change that at the expence of building a PBEM system, both would be better , suit you and me then.

If Firaxis are reaaly serious about getting our opinions why wasnt this thread ever posted to Civ 2 MP section. Most MPers dont come over here to check on threads as there has always been an overabundance of SP issues and our MP issues were seemingly lost early on.

I for one wont buy Civ3 if it doesnt have an adequate MP playabilty including IP games. Whilst modern technology may allow so much more to be added to Civ 3 compared to Civ 2 I hope most of the changes are reaaly only the bug fixes we always wanted but never got.. Thats jsut my opinion..

We need some sort of reply from Firaxis to make sure our thoughts hav ebeen taken on boaRD... OR Are they no longer reading this thread as it started so long ago

[EvilProphet]

Why the hell are the programmers asking for the opinion of players on something as technical as this? I've never heard of something like this on another game. All the while all of you bicker and go over what you feel is the correct way to set all of this up. This is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever seen. From what I've seen of Civ3 so far, I'm not impressed. And I'm especially not impressed with this constant ask the players what they want strategy. It sounds more to me like this game is going to be a "give them what they want so they'll shut up" game.

[Guest]

quote: Originally posted by Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS on 03-21-2000 10:57 AM Hey folks. I'd be interested in seeing a discussion on multiplayer setup screens. By that I mean the screen that you use to configure, join, and get information on a multiplayer game. This can include in-game lobbies (like with SMAC) or external ones (like IGZ and MPlayer) or anything in-between. Any comments on what you think is necessary or unwanted would be useful. Please cite your examples to specific games if possible, but don't limit your comments to existing systems. Thanks for the help. jkm firaxis games

I'd really like a minimum of setup dialog boxes. I hate selecting one option at a time and pressing OK forever when setting up or joing games.
I'd rather have one 'form' where ALL the choices for SP or MP are available as pulldown menus/radio buttons etc.

I like the idea of a server that hosts hundreds of MP games.
It could build up your reliability rating as a player and display it as some have suggested; buld up your game skill profile so you can find players of similar skill levels; links to the ancilliary game setup thread and a separate 'story' thread; your 'character' profiles for different games would be available to choose from in the setup screen; plus all the fine-tunings we like to use like no-city bribe, degrees of simul play etc.

You must NOT display the number of units available to each civ when re-starting a session! It gives away too much in MP

We must however retain the ability to host the games independently and be able to minimise the game to run other programs in the b/g.

Having more than seven civs is a basic expectation IMHO




------------------
*deity of THE DEITIANS*
aka: half-assed dieticians
icq# 8388924

[Guest]

quote: Originally posted by EvilProphet on 04-27-2001 02:44 PM Why the hell are the programmers asking for the opinion of players on something as technical as this? I've never heard of something like this on another game. All the while all of you bicker and go over what you feel is the correct way to set all of this up. This is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever seen. From what I've seen of Civ3 so far, I'm not impressed. And I'm especially not impressed with this constant ask the players what they want strategy. It sounds more to me like this game is going to be a "give them what they want so they'll shut up" game.

ahhhh, civ3 will do away with successful strategies based on unrealistic 'features'..... the sour grapes are starting already!

I think a new breed of TOP PLAYERS may emerege with civ3 -
Players who rely on real strategies and not bugs in the civ program.

------------------
*deity of THE DEITIANS*
aka: half-assed dieticians
icq# 8388924

[Russian King]

quote: Originally posted by Slingshot on 03-21-2000 05:44 PM Before the game, I would like to see options that would let a player form "teams." Each member of a team would be in control of their own civ, but the team would be made up of civs that support a union of some sort. If one member of the team were to drop out, his/her cities could be parceled to the rest of the team members.

NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
That would spoil the game completely! The game is designed to recreate future. It even says on the box that you are not given a predefined future. IE: You let the coarse of the game take you!
Slingshot: no offence but you should play Age of Empires

[Alexander's Horse]

quote: Originally posted by deity on 04-28-2001 11:35 PM I like the idea of a server that hosts hundreds of MP games.

NO NO NO DEITY! We don't like this. Players must be able to host IP games. Think about it - what if the server is down, slow, whatever. How is it going to perform if the server is in the States and we're playing in Australia????? What if Macs can't use it?

I know you just want to show off by building up a player profile but THAT is just a stupid suggestion!

------------------
Founder, Dear Leader and Great Helmsman of PROT -the People's Republic of Topics www.delphi.com/prot1
[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited April 29, 2001).]

[Alexander's Horse]

quote: Originally posted by Russian King on 04-29-2001 12:34 AM NO NO NO NO NO That would spoil the game completely! The game is designed to recreate future. It even says on the box that you are not given a predefined future. IE: You let the coarse of the game take you! Slingshot: no offence but you should play Age of Empires

YOU can get the hell out this thread too Russian King - you obviously don't multiplay

Carry on Slingshot




------------------
Founder, Dear Leader and Great Helmsman of PROT -the People's Republic of Topics www.delphi.com/prot1

[EvilProphet]

Deity I will forgive your ignorance. I am the best or one of the best at every single game I have ever played. What's sad about all this is that you apolytoners actually think you are good players. You think you are great at building a civ, true perfectionists unmatched. I have news for you, you are nothing. You are still figuring stuff out now that I have known for years. Only one person has shown me something that I did not already know and that was Markusf. 1 player out of the sorry lot of you actually came up with something innovative. I can only laugh as you all try to show off your strategies. Strategies that are flawed in the very fundamentals of the game.

"I think a new breed of TOP PLAYERS may emerege with civ3 -
Players who rely on real strategies and not bugs in the civ program."

Keep hoping and praying deity, but as always I will arise as the greatest player. They can change the game completely and I will still find a way to win. What it really comes down to is that you Apolytoners feel that "micromanaging" and "realistic features" are what civ is all about. What it really comes down to is that you don't fully grasp the concept of this game. You pride yourself as being 1x1x players, "purists" of the game. In reality you know as little about 1x1x as you do about 2x2x. Don't try to tell me I'm wrong because if you did you wouldn't be naming off the differences, you'd be naming off the similarities. There is virtually no difference between the two. It changes the game hardly at all. The real difference is that in 2x2x you must fight from the very outset of the game. Something you "purists" are incapable of doing. So let them change every single feature of civ3, I will still be the best and I always will be the best. I hear their going to make settlers take off 2 population points, you actually think that will slow me down? HA! I've already got several ideas of how to get around that. Face it, I will ALWAYS be the best.

[ChrisShaffer]

I want server-based games please. That doesn't mean I want special servers that are only located in the US (or whatever). I want to be able to run my own server for me and my friends. I want every Tom, **** , and Harry to be able to run their own servers. Enough of us have stable IP addresses for this to be feasible.

[Guest]

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 04-29-2001 02:04 AM NO NO NO DEITY! We don't like this. Players must be able to host IP games. Think about it - what if the server is down, slow, whatever. How is it going to perform if the server is in the States and we're playing in Australia????? What if Macs can't use it? I know you just want to show off by building up a player profile but THAT is just a stupid suggestion!

No, no, WE don't want servers, sorry

What I want is everything we got now PLUS the option of servers.
No problems with that?

What doth the Aussie mafia think?

Servers will be more reliable than the current options and less cheat prone too.

------------------
*deity of THE DEITIANS*
aka: half-assed dieticians
icq# 8388924