Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Player Activity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Player Activity

    Player Activity

    There has been much talk about models so you need to read them all to get some idea of what does the player actually do in the game. That leaves the player role in everything a little fuzzy. Lets explain it on one place, everyone please comment.

    Player, being the despot, king, general secretary, prime minister or whatever your government form at a time be, is the sole Ruler of the empire. He is a Character in game, with at least Reputation as a property (we can add more, but we should avoid Dexterity, Stamina, Resistance to magic and such ). He will interact with a limited and final set of game objects.

    Player interacts:

    With Population
    Population, if divided to groups, will be interacted with as described in recent models. Tools for interaction are: Taxation, Negotiation, Donation, Conscription and Supression(at different levels).
    Player can affect growth of population, migrations, and employement to a high level, but they develop on their own mechanisms.
    Player can not:

    With Map and Terrain
    Player can click on terrain to find out info about it. He can modify the terrain with a system of public works. Player will have visible only the amount of terrain he discovered, and has in radius (fog of war will exist). On ocassions player will have positions of a world wonders and big cities revieled to him by travelers. By investing in geography, player can get more accurate picture of the world.

    With Characters
    Other players fit here. Communications with civs will be represented as negotiations between Rulers. Interaction will be on a messaging system with predefined messages and answers, no ICQ agreements. Player will be forced to sign in-game non-agression pacts and treaties or else he will have ocassional border casaulties with growing national intolerance.
    Characters are Rulers (Players), Advisors, Generals and Leaders. Each of those has some characteristics plus some Intelligence (real or artificial). Not all can be negotiated with.

    With Tech and Trade
    This is pretty clear. You set investments in certain tech via sliders. You set Trade Routes between civs and perhaps regions - local trade routes form themselves.

    With Units
    Military are the only units that have a physical representation – a position on the map. Player can give his units orders by clicking on map or via military screen. Player will be commanding armies, together with these units without phisical represenation on the map: spies and diplomats.

    That is about it, in broad and non-refined terms. Can anyone remember anything else we will allow the player to do? I think this is it. Details of player interaction are/will be explained in each model under appropriate section/title.

  • #2
    Role of the player:

    I think the player should not be any individual ruler, but instead the whole government of the civilization. This would give an excuse to allow certain levels of micromanagement which would be unrealistic if the player was "only" the top man. A president can't build stuff where he wants, or command armies, or do any fun stuff.

    On the other hand, having a title would be a nice touch. It should be customizable and have no effect on the gameplay. I don't think characters should have any properties. Reputation, for example, depends on the information available to other civs and their alignment. I cannot see any reason to implement any kind of characters in the game anyway, they would be a distration to the historical theme of the game.

    Populations:

    Agreed. Maybe there could also be propaganda.

    Map and terrain:

    Good.

    Characters:

    If the game is going to be heavily multiplayer, why leave chat and messaging options unused? They'd provide much wider variety of diplomatic activities than predefined requests. I do think that there should be treaties and declarations of war within the game, but they should be just tools to help players keep their promises to each other.

    The interaction between a player and different groups would of course use predefined routes. And characters should not have properties! This is not an RPG.

    Tech, trade, units:

    Sounds good to me, nothing to add here. Just remove characters and I'm happy .

    If the economy model will incorporate companies, that would provide another means of interaction, particularly important in communist states. That's all I can think of at the moment.

    Leland
    [This message has been edited by Leland (edited January 10, 2001).]

    Comment


    • #3
      I think characters would be a nice spice to the game. Ofcourse this is not RPG, that is why I wrote we should avoid putting Dexterity in

      The historical relevance is not bothering me either, I think we should look at history to find interesting things to put in game, but not the other way around - look does our game fit to history perfectly.

      I am not really sure about this character thing because of another thing - the randomness.
      Randomness should be put in game very carefully, and if possible it should be completely avoided.
      Point is to discourage load/save operations. If something happenes (an terrible earthquake) just because it has 1.3% chance to happen on a turn - it is probably a bad thing to have.

      Character properties would be decided randomly and behaviour is bound to have randomness...That worries me.

      And I am not sure what would character properties be. I dont think they would be uniform, not every character would be the same nor would every have AI, nor would every be able to communicate with every other. A character can be only a picture and a simple bonus in some cases.

      As for ICQ - I dont think it would be forbidden. I think we should have in-game chat as all other games do.
      Just that there is going to be a replay at the end of the game. So what if you look at replay and see two bordering civs which never had any agreements but are not fighting, and they donate each other some things or involve at strange conflicts with other civs.

      The game logic should be visible, just from looking a saved replay.

      So waging war together should be doable only if appropriate military agreement exists (if not - units would fight what they think is enemy). Also trade and donations should be possible if trade agreement is signed, etc.

      This would also allow for spy activity to intercept negotiations which is impossible if they are dealt ICQ only.


      Comment


      • #4
        Good idea, this thread. Everythings looked good to me. Some thoughts:

        Perhaps player could hire expeditionists, explorers and mapmakers to map unknown terrain? Also it's an important point that you should have quite a good idea of your surrounding area much farther than just few tiles as in civ2 - those people live there, they know the land! Also, you would know pretty well the geography of your neighboring civs, if you are in trade contact with them. Also you would know something about the more faraway trade partners.

        About characters, I would like them in the game. Though we have to design them carefully.

        About diplomacy between human players, I think we need to do it with a diplomacy system rather than with chat. This is supposed to be a game of global politics and militarym, not a chatting room! Of course the diplomacy messages could be composed by the player, but they should be somewhat formal. But of course there could be an option to send a friendly greeting to a neighbor ruler. But generally, chatting should be sligtly discouraged, in my opinion.

        Comment


        • #5
          Hmm, about the chatting thing, I was only thinking the other day how cool it'd be to have one. I think it'd spur the game on, create ally's and rivalries if everyone can speak either to all people or to individuals in real-time. With humans, friendships and hatreds ( ) are made over time, not in just a few phrases...just my opinion....plus it'd give people something to do whilst waiting for whatver system of end turn we use.
          "Wise Men Talk because they have something to say, fools talk because they have to say something" - Plato

          Comment


          • #6
            And, as far as characters go, I don't see anything wrong with putting limited amounts of 'advisors' in there, maybe even with unique skills. I don't want to see the game just become a system of interacting with inidividuals, that's RPG like Vet said

            Maybe they could be relegated to a sub level, with you not having direct contact with them, but rather them affecting various parts of your nation.

            Like for example, there could be several military advisors for you to choose from, each with a unique price to be paid, but having different levels of 'Attack' and 'Defense' abilities, or something.
            "Wise Men Talk because they have something to say, fools talk because they have to say something" - Plato

            Comment


            • #7
              Do you mean like a Spokeperson or Head Diplomat, relating the Computer's estimation of the general actions of a Civ? I think it would be possible for the software to evaluate the overall activity of a Civ and put put text and a face on it for the rest of the world to see.

              I look at it this way... It would not be too difficult to have a graphics image and simple message depicting a combination of a few factors. If a Civ was growing militarily in the top 33%, but populationwise in the middle 33%, and technologically in the bottom 33%, then one image could be presented. And if other combinations existed then a different image would be seen.

              Suppose that there were 10 parts to a Civ image, and each part had 3 possibilites. That would allow 10^3 possibilities, but would not be a complicated software subroutine.

              Just to give an example of a possible table:

              Horizontal Headings: 0-33%, 34-66%, 67-100%

              Vertical (Image Parts):

              Population, (Faces Around Head)
              Economics, (Left Hand Object)
              Technology, (Hat)
              Military, (Right Hand Object)
              Food, (Torso Image)
              Disease, (Facial Expression)
              Plant Domestication, (Right Foot Object)
              Animal Domestication, (Left Foot Object)
              Immigration, (Right Knee Object)
              Emmigration, (Left Knee Object)
              Land Area, (Double Arrow Chest Object)

              Bizarre, I know, but consider this "table" of 3 columns:

              Population, (1, 2, 3 Small Faces Around Head)
              Economics, (Coin, Bank, Stock Exchange Chart)
              Technology, (Bare, Medieval Helmet, Modern Helmet)
              Military, (Spear, Sword, Gun)
              Food, (1, 2, 3 Ears of Corn)
              Disease, (Placid, Threatening, Malevolent)
              Plant Domestication, (Berry, Wheat, Corn)
              Animal Domestication, (Chicken, Pig, Cow)
              Immigration, (Down, Sideways, Up Arrows)
              Emmigration, (Down, Sideways, Up Arrows)
              Land Area, (Left, Double, Right Arrows)

              Given that, it would not take much to allow a general male and female background depending on the Leader chosen per civ.
              Civ2 Demo Game #1 City-Planner, President, Historian
              Civ2 Demo Game #2 Minister of War,President, Minister of Trade, Vice President, City-Planner
              Civ2 Demo Game #3 President, Minister of War, President
              Civ2 Demo Game #4 Despot, City-Planner, Consul

              Comment


              • #8
                Interesting, and important thread.

                Player activity
                Some people have severe opposition to characters. Personally I don't have any strong opinions to any one of them. Otherwise I agree here, except the idea of the player being the sole ruler of the civ. I think the whole concept of domestic politics is to give the people power as well, and thereby not make the player absolute.

                With population
                Yes, I agree here. I think the negotiation and suppression would be the types mostly used. And I agree with Leland that propaganda is a good thing, too.

                With map
                I agree.

                With characters
                I don't think ICQ negotiations should be avoided. I think they are great. People can discuss freely. Then, when it is time to make a deal there should be some preset things to do, via a diplomacy screen, that would avoid people cheating. This would mean that you could give things (from a long list including pretty much everything - advances, money, hexes etc etc) to the other player, and he can give you the stuff that you agreed upon.

                With tech and trade
                Tech I agree with. Trade, on the other hand, I do not. I think people will trade on their own. You would just allow them to trade with a certain civ (or not) and decide the tax levels, tariffs etc etc. You would have the role of the government, not the role of the civ.

                With units
                I agree.

                ------------------
                "If I sink to the bottom I can run to the shore!"
                - Homer J. Simpson

                GGS Website
                "It is not enough to be alive. Sunshine, freedom and a little flower you have got to have."
                - Hans Christian Andersen

                GGS Website

                Comment


                • #9
                  For people conversing during game, I do think it's an absolute must, and more over it should be made as equal for everyone as possible...that's why I really think we need an ingame chat system as apposed to ICQ. It's hardly fair to think that ppl with ICQ or similar would be much more able to communicate with each other. I want to write a chat system anyway! It wouldn't be hard to do.

                  Obviously, they'd still be set negotiations, and you'd have to offically sign peace treaties etc. for them to have any in game use.
                  "Wise Men Talk because they have something to say, fools talk because they have to say something" - Plato

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I agree with you completely, Chris.

                    And it's extra cool if you want to program it!

                    ------------------
                    "If I sink to the bottom I can run to the shore!"
                    - Homer J. Simpson

                    GGS Website
                    "It is not enough to be alive. Sunshine, freedom and a little flower you have got to have."
                    - Hans Christian Andersen

                    GGS Website

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Very cool! I like that idea. It shouldn't be really hard to code I think and it's really cool in our game. Very interactive. Only thing is that you cannot ICQ with the AI, only with the diplomacy screen.

                      I'm happy with the things presented here. Only the characters should be avoided I think. I don't like them.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I started this confusion, not intentional

                        I also liked ICQ, and chat when playing Civ2MP is excelent! We should have a chat system, just that you should be forced to sign in game agreements to formalize it too.

                        This would give AI civs an opportunity to understand what is going on

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          cavebear I would also like something like that. As much detail in it as possible. In civ this allowed the effect of rumors, giving you some info you dont get otherwise.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            There might be some change in the way player interacts with the map.

                            If we go with 'area approach' player will be interacting with different areas in different layers and not tiles. not all layers would be always visible, so player may be required to switch between differen views...

                            one other thing could be that player can draw freeform polygons on the map he uses to play (terrain layers: elevation, vegetation and structures) and request a summary of productive, political and population situation.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Well, you are right. But it should indeed be possible to have several layers visible at the same time. Just if they all were the picture would propably get too messy.

                              But elevation, terrain, cities & structures, armies and political borders could easily be visible together.

                              Apart from that there would be nationality, population density, raw materials economy (trade etc) and propably more.
                              "It is not enough to be alive. Sunshine, freedom and a little flower you have got to have."
                              - Hans Christian Andersen

                              GGS Website

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X