Could Civilization become a online-blockbuster? - Page 4

Nostromo · June 13, 2002, 00:03

Quote:

Originally posted by jpww
Sorry, nostromo. I don't know what got into me

As a wise man once said: where are my meds??!

No problemo

Oligarf · July 22, 2002, 16:41

Been away for some time, vacation...
Good comments and replies, it is true that the game takes a long time, maybe that some parts could be automated or something. And nostromo and the others that mentioned Chess, I agree, that is a success, that's the reason because I was looking for a reason CIV isn't really working online. Reading the replies on the scenario idea, I think that scenario's with good starting points for every player could offer chances for CIV online.

HazieDaVampire · July 22, 2002, 16:44

i got idea!

Exelirated expansion! The AI plays the game (without wars or culture flipping) and the game goes forwards to say, 0ad or whenever you want so that you already have an empire.
It could maby do default expansion, or an equil expansion! Everybody owns the same area amount to make sure its fair!

Oligarf · July 22, 2002, 16:49

Quote:

Originally posted by HazieDaVampire
i got idea!

Exelirated expansion! The AI plays the game (without wars or culture flipping) and the game goes forwards to say, 0ad or whenever you want so that you already have an empire.
It could maby do default expansion, or an equil expansion! Everybody owns the same area amount to make sure its fair!

When does the player actually play here?

HazieDaVampire · July 22, 2002, 16:52

after the selected time!
It'll save you from the early building settlers period! Which i thinks boring, or at least would be when your waiting for sombody to take their turn too!

Paalikles · July 22, 2002, 17:29

I suppose the game-engine itself will be a bit more troublesome than the online game;
Tried out v1.29 today, and found myself waiting quite a while for the scenario I was testing to be properly set up and ready to play.

While some people may use more time in the turn-period, the engine will not actually be improving the speed of the game when used online I think.

I am not sure, but I think the game-engine of SMAC didn't do much good to MP either.

(I am of course taking into consideration that people have different OSes, hardware and such, and internet access is probably not equally broad all over the world.

Having recently started playing civ2mp, I can understand that this game was adequately fit for online gaming - connection at the launch time might have been the most serious problem. But the engine from MPS did run faster. I remember having a 100Mhz Pentium with barely 16megs of ram when I first bought civ2 classic, which was sufficient for the game.(IMHO)

All though the engine of civ has been very much improved, it 's too slow for my liking (oh - I have met the required settings, and have a better machine than the recommended, but still....)

as always - just my 2c

JoshHam · July 24, 2002, 00:18

many / most civ people feel RTS is somehow morally wrong. They won't go for it.-nato

People think it is morally wrong? it's a game made by a money hungry company! People should know companies dont have morals.

5 words. Firaxis will screw up PtW badly.

HazieDaVampire · July 24, 2002, 11:38

all RTSs tend to be eye candy and have the same basic rules, build build build!

Cept for EE, where it is build all of these 3 things!
Cuz EE had a system where Tanks kill infantry real easy (Cept some speicle infantry who could kill tanks a little easyer!), Infantry kill AT guns easily, and AT guns kill tanks easily!
It also had Moral, so you could use a leader to make a battle cry that decreases the enemys moral, and your units in its range were had higher moral!

I think moral should be inclueded in civ3 somplace!
Lands units who've walked half way around the world will be pritty unhappy, Naval ships going half way round the world will be a little less unhappy than their land lover friends!
Kinda like the idea of a famus unit! like a singer.

When the British were fighting the japanese from the west they got a visit from some singer and everybody felt "We cant be to far from home if your here!"

Paalikles · July 24, 2002, 13:29

Quote:

Originally posted by HazieDaVampire
all RTSs tend to be eye candy and have the same basic rules, build build build!

Cept for EE, where it is build all of these 3 things!
Cuz EE had a system where Tanks kill infantry real easy (Cept some speicle infantry who could kill tanks a little easyer!), Infantry kill AT guns easily, and AT guns kill tanks easily!
It also had Moral, so you could use a leader to make a battle cry that decreases the enemys moral, and your units in its range were had higher moral!

I think moral should be inclueded in civ3 somplace!
Lands units who've walked half way around the world will be pritty unhappy, Naval ships going half way round the world will be a little less unhappy than their land lover friends!
Kinda like the idea of a famus unit! like a singer.

When the British were fighting the japanese from the west they got a visit from some singer and everybody felt "We cant be to far from home if your here!"

Hm
Reading this makes me want to:
-ask you why this unhappy troops syndrome will make civ3 become an online blockbuster
- morale does not have much to do with mp....at least not in a civ game...I think

- ask you why you want to insert this intoa a game that already has enough war weariness as it is....

that's all - I am not saying that your idea is stupid, and I am not going to question the part where you say that rts is more or less eye-candy. However, feel free to answer my questions....

HazieDaVampire · July 24, 2002, 15:10

i realy cant remember why i said this, usualy i read stuff and sit here fo 5 minutes with my mind wondering! I think its cuz EE is the last RTS i had and sombody brought them up!

And it doesn't have to be like war weariness, it'll just lower preformance a little bit! Its not gunna make them kill each other or form a new units for the enemy!

Oligarf · August 31, 2002, 08:58

Yep, war weariness hasn't much to do with MP, but what I would like to comment about war weariness is that is another concept that hasn't been worked out. It is just another funny aspect that could have been a lot deeper than it has become now.

Hagbart · August 31, 2002, 12:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Paalikles
I suppose the game-engine itself will be a bit more troublesome than the online game;
Tried out v1.29 today, and found myself waiting quite a while for the scenario I was testing to be properly set up and ready to play.

While some people may use more time in the turn-period, the engine will not actually be improving the speed of the game when used online I think.

I am not sure, but I think the game-engine of SMAC didn't do much good to MP either.

(I am of course taking into consideration that people have different OSes, hardware and such, and internet access is probably not equally broad all over the world.

Having recently started playing civ2mp, I can understand that this game was adequately fit for online gaming - connection at the launch time might have been the most serious problem. But the engine from MPS did run faster. I remember having a 100Mhz Pentium with barely 16megs of ram when I first bought civ2 classic, which was sufficient for the game.(IMHO)

All though the engine of civ has been very much improved, it 's too slow for my liking (oh - I have met the required settings, and have a better machine than the recommended, but still....)

as always - just my 2c

I agree very much on this. The civ3 engine is far too slow!

Oligarf · August 31, 2002, 13:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Hagbart
I agree very much on this. The civ3 engine is far too slow!

And that again another problem I have with Civ III as it is now, this way it can't become something online. Although I think that the genre has potential.