What makes a good multi-player game?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Boco
Chris, I don't know who's snubbed you, but I doubt your post here is being ignored. Watch out, you sound like an ideal playtester.

Thanks, I have done a bit of it for Bebro, Stefan Hartel, Kobayashi, Exile, John Ellis, Jesus Fernandez, ect.

I also write scenario reviews at civfanatics as AoA, so it's not like I have no concept of scenario design.

But I have noticed that several times I offered the league help with the web site and other matters I got a zero answer, so I no longer bother.

SP requires detailed events files and augmenting the AI's forces, MP requires an even playing field for several players, and most scenarios are not suited to it.

PBEM can handle large Nemo-like scenarios rather well, but the main problem is player comitment, finding people to stay over a year and more is problomatic at best, I am part of a dedicated group, but it is rare.

One thing though, a PBEM game is NOT a good place to playtest a scenario for bugs, most players are trying to win, not looking for errors, and many games don't get past 20 turns, whereas most errors are found at the back end of the tech tree, or in things the designer never intended, and aern't seen till the middle or late game.

I'm sure we have all enjoyed some scenaio only to have some flaw ruin many hours of play, such as the dreaded freeze up caused by the AI having nothing to research (This is the most common error, usually brought about by having techs given in the events file too late, or the player misses the trigger, and the error cannot be corrected), or a seeing a unit is unbuildable because it's domain is incorrect, ect.

Sometimes the mistake is in HP ratio, this one is also fairly common, and can ruin a game.

Case, one turn per week is rather slow, we manage 3-5 turns per week in some games.

[our_man]

In the scenario I'm designing for the scenario contest, I've decided to take what I hope is a novel approach that has not been tried before. Without giving too much away I have at the moment two computer controlled tribes (one of which is isolated at the beginning at the game,the neccesity for this being is that I want the latter, more powerful Civ to take over the other AI's cities later in the game via events for historical reasons and to provide the human players with a greater challenge).

I'm trying to envision a PBEM scenario where it is neccesary for the human controlled tribes to join their efforts, at least for a small duration of the game, in order to try and hold back the more powerful AI tribes.

What do all the PBEM players out there think of this idea? Or is the most fun of a PBEM taking on solely other human controlled tribes and wiping them out?

[techumseh]

Thanks everyone, that's very helpful. I assume events have to be strategic (if the Germans capture Baghdad, such and such happens) rather than historical ( a Japanese fleet appears off Hawaii in Dec '41).

How about the built-in diplomacy vs. the human player to human player negotiations? Should the built-in stuff be left intact, or should there be an event to prevent negotiation?

BTW, is anyone else having trouble accessing the forums in the last couple of days?

[Exile]

More about Events . . .

Techumseh,

When I first put together the events file for AoW, it was designed to augment the historical accuracy, yet not "straightjacket" the players. That original file worked ok for SP (to an extent). But the initial comments from the first people playtesting it in MP made me realize that several events were not really needed, and, given the rather wildly ahistorical diplomacy in the MP games, another event file, created specifically for MP, was a good idea. So I simply pared down the original events file and then included it with the scenario, along with instructions for its use. It's what is now used in the AoW PBEM games now.

On another note; In response to Case's comment about slow moving units. I submitted a revised copy of AoW to JayBee and, AFAIK, this new revised version is up and available on his site now. In it, the naval movement rates are very much increased. There are some new graphics as well, and the scenario has been generally "cleaned up."

[techumseh]

Thanks Exile. The files from your games are an invaluable resource. I get the picture. Keep it simple event wise, and let the players make their own history.

[JamesJKirk]

I think it would be a hinderance to take away the traditional system of negotiating. I don't know how many times I've had to trade maps, or techs, or units or whatever w/ a human and that was the best way to do it. As long as there are understood rules that you don't go asking for tech and money every turn, and otherwise screw up the player, it's fine.

[JMarks]

shoot, now I forgot who's question I'm replying to but:

I for one would love to see some ToT multi-player games, and some people to fool around with them. Especially if its done well.

So, are there some? Or is someone going to make them?

[techumseh]

Well....maybe.