Multiplayer Civ3: How important is it to you?

yin26 · January 31, 2001, 00:48

Can Civ3 manage a strong on-line presence? Or will we all be beating the computer a few days after buying the game, left with:[list=1][*]PBEM games that take months to finish (great on the personal schedule but lousy for how darn long they take); [*]Hotseat games that require eveybody to be in the same room (fun enough when possible, which is never for me); [*] Praying that scenario designers outdo themselves (I would consider scenarios a different civ experience, not necessarily the one I bought the game for);[*] Trying increasingly silly challenges -- forget the "One City Challenge" how 'bout the "No City Challenge"? -- to keep things interesting (more a logic puzzle than a game)?[/list=a]

In my case, unless I can play against other human beings and have everything wrapped up in 2-3 hours, I just don't see how I'll get much challenge/fun out of the game after a few weeks AND have it fit my busy schedule (8 hour on-line games won't fit into my lifestyle, for example, and I imagine most people are the same).

Obviously, PBEM, Hotseat, scenarios and challenges all have their place, and I hope they are supported in Civ3. But I'm not sure anything can replace the fun of logging in to a crowded Civ3 site, finding a room full of friends, and battling for a few hours to determine a victor.

But to finish a civ game in 2-3 hours, how would we need to set it up? Timelimits are fine but artificial. Total points are the same way. "Last man standing" or "Election as World Leader" are the most satisfying to me, but can that be done in 2-3 hours with Civ?

So, my questions:

Do you think MP games are important for Civ3?

If so, how would you suggest it be done?

- Groucho - · January 31, 2001, 01:10

MP games are relatively important - but a better AI is more important, IMHO. Why? Because I just don't have the kind of schedule which is amenable to playing Civ with others (I usually play Civ/SMAC on planes and in hotels so it really is a kind of solitaire for me) and I'm basically selfish so I want the designers to work on the parts of the game I use.

As for how you could design a 2-3 hour MP game, I think you really only have two options - constrain the size of the game (in time or in geography) or constrain the complexity by doing something like enforcing the use of SMAC-style governors. Neither will give you that real Civ experience though, so there may just be no way to do it.

Of course, I find myself taking an hour for a single turn sometimes (especially if I start going nuts with the unit workshop in SMAC), so I may be the wrong guy to talk about this.

Jeje2 · January 31, 2001, 05:55

My only MP game was in CivNet. Now I only play against the computer. (I am a poor looser and the computer doesn't mind me shouting at it.

)

But, MP must be included IMHO. One has to live with it's time and MP has come to stay.
[This message has been edited by Jeje2 (edited January 31, 2001).]

yin26 · January 31, 2001, 07:02

Jeje,

If I ever have the chance to play you in MP, remind me not to use the headphones.

Jeje2 · January 31, 2001, 09:41

quote:

Originally posted by yin26 on 01-31-2001 06:02 AM
Jeje,

If I ever have the chance to play you in MP, remind me not to use the headphones.

Only if, and that is totally impossible, you would be winning is the situation that I would need to remind you.

Oh, Yin
And that was an challenge from you I assume...
Anyday, anywere

... after the official release of course

Grumbold · January 31, 2001, 10:27

If Civ 3 is a success then there surely must be room for set maps with advanced starting positions or limited time play. Any constraints are going to change the nature of the game a bit but I agree that under normal circumstances three hours solid play is difficult to obtain. Being able to suspend (and lock, to prevent cheating) multiplayer games until another time all players can reconvene would be an excellent feature. I'm certainly hoping that the 1 player game will take considerably longer than 3 hours to complete!

Nikolai · January 31, 2001, 11:26

Multiplayer is not very important to me, but I think most of the civ-fans don't agree with me.

January 31, 2001, 11:43

Having the multiplayer option in a civ is the main reason I play. I play multiplayer in 2 ways - LAN and WAN.

On a LAN game, I'm in one room, my opponent(s) are in another. We play for a few hours, or until someone has to leave. The host then saves the game and we continue it later. A game can take a month or two to actually finish.

On a WAN (Internet) game, it's basically the same. We play until someone has to leave. Then the Host saves the game. We coordinate later on when we will continue the game (usually call over the phone or send an email to coordinate the time). Lately I've been using MSN Messanger Service, this way we can all "talk" to one another during the game.

The current game I'm playing is with 7 civs (2 human). I'm in North Carolina, my human opponent is in New Hampshire. I'm the host of the current game, so I contact my opponent via MSN Messanger. I give him my IP Address. I load the saved game, he joins me for the launch. I like it because we can both actually talk to one another during the game. Of course, we normally only play on the weekend (Friday/Saturday nights) because of work schedules.

So as far as the actual length of a game goes, I don't feel its that important since we play when we can.

Ferdi · February 1, 2001, 07:39

MP is not important to me. AI WELL!

Sarxis · February 1, 2001, 15:12

AI should be the strongest ever! But so should the Multiplayer features!

We need both to be well implemented, because this game has followers of both SinglePlay and MultiPlay.

DaveV · February 1, 2001, 17:47

My desire for multiplay will be inversely proportional to the strength of the AI. Many years ago, some friends were passing around a list of "50 reasons why a cucumber is better than a man". One of the reasons was, "A cucumber is always ready when you are, and never ready when you aren't". The computer is exactly the same way, ready to play for half an hour or all day. It won't complain if you want to start over because you're behind or you want to try a new strategy. And I think it's safe to say the computer will always take less time with its turns than a human would.

Bottom line: if the AI is user-tweakable, it doesn't even matter how good it is out of the box; I'll probably never play multiplayer again.

Jon Miller · February 1, 2001, 17:57

It is my opinion that both AI and multiplayer need to be developed. Current Civ AI is currently too easy (but it would also help if Firaxis just fixed stuff like ICS). Multiplayer is a lot of fun and is better than playing vrs AI. PBEM and LAN both need to be supported well (and for LAN SMAC's simultaneous play seems to work best. I have not really tried over the internet. As for PBEM, it is dependent on the players (like in a current game I am playing we did 3 turns a week until somebody (me) forgot about it and kept on forgteting about it, at that rate it would take a long time to play though). I personally like LAN for the starting and then going to PBEM later (but 8 hours of LAN is always good). Also SMAC does not get by my colleges firewall (and no they are not going to change anything for me) so it must be played PBEM. CivMPGE I have heard can go through the firewall. Also a full game being 2-3 hours just is not Civ, it could be a scenario though.

Jon Miller

tniem · February 1, 2001, 18:10

Multiplayer is important to me. It needs to be able to go through firewalls. I don't want to change everything that I have set up for my computer just to play some Civ III.

PBEM needs to be included to allow my friends and I to play more than one game at a time.

Finally, yin I really don't think that there is a way to make a multiplayer game go very fast except for making a small map and maybe having a quick start option where you are already x years into the game.

Or, maybe Firaxis could make some multiplayer maps/scenarios that don't take too long to play but still have a lot of complexity and are fun to play.

February 1, 2001, 19:03

This is a no brainer - the future of these games IS multiplay. I play civ 2 almost every night and I only multiplay. No-one has yet come close to creating an ai that can match a competent human player.

The civ 2 Gold multiplay platform is very stable and user friendly so I think they should stick with that. Don't change a thing. And PLEASE DON'T try and make us dial into a dedicated server like those CTP fools did. Its much better having the set up where one player hosts.

Also it would be immensely helpful if the game could continue to be run in a window like civ 2 so that players can use icq or aim. Also so they can do other things on their computer during long MP turns.

------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

down th' pub · February 1, 2001, 19:25

I have to say playing hotseat on your own is the ultimate masturbatory experience. (Can I say that?)

And you can't lose; Who's better, who's best?

Boracks · February 1, 2001, 19:49

As I can't commit to lengths of time necessary for online gaming, multiplayer is not that important to me.

That said, a game these days has to appeal to a wide audience and for a game like this, multiplayer is a necessary component. So I have to support it as I want to see the game done.

------------------
"Treat each day as if it were your last. Eventually, you'll be right."

EnochF · February 1, 2001, 19:52

I don't care about multiplayer one way or the other.

yin26 · February 1, 2001, 20:19

Yes, I guess there's no way to play anything close to a full game of civ in a couple of hours. So I hope the MP component is thoroughly designed and tested to make continuing games a breeze.

For example, the PBEM stuff should zip itself and be automatically routed to the next player. That sort of thing.

Lung · February 1, 2001, 20:19

Multiplayer is a must! I play CTP by pbem, and despite taking up to a couple of years to complete, it is infinitely better than playing the AI, which never competes with humans except by being programmed to cheat. Even with a good AI (is that possible?), it's much more fun knowing that somewhere else in the world someone is cursing you for conquering a city, rather than knowing that you're beating a machine than wouldn't even care if it was aware of what was happening. Also, the time it takes to complete a pbem game results in a strange sense of ownership and responsibility for your civ, which can't be explained to anyone who hasn't played a single game for that long. Maybe i'm just a bit weird

Hotseat is also good, but games tend to never finish as, as soon as someone starts to lose they usually quit in disgust!

However, the prospect of playing Civ3 by pbem has me positively salivating at the thought

The idea that we will have far more strategic paths and far less bugs than CTP makes it even more appealing, and a much improved AI only barely reduces this.

[This message has been edited by Lung (edited February 01, 2001).]

tniem · February 1, 2001, 23:34

quote:

Originally posted by yin26 on 02-01-2001 07:19 PM
For example, the PBEM stuff should zip itself and be automatically routed to the next player. That sort of thing.

That is a fantastic suggestion, Firaxis better take notice.

I really think the best way to do multiplayer are some good MP maps that are small and deal with a complex issue in a hour or two. It will make the player think grow and develope but not take all day. I honestly believe it is the best solution to MP TBS.

February 1, 2001, 23:40

quote:

Originally posted by EnochF on 02-01-2001 06:52 PM
I don't care about multiplayer one way or the other.

[EDIT by Yin. AH has been asked to take his meds.]

------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.
[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited February 02, 2001).]

tniem · February 1, 2001, 23:44

DanS found this most amazing thing from Trademark Applications and Registration Retreival (TARR) that has to do with Firaxis. Take a look.

DanS original message.

TARR Latest Info for Firaxis

yin26 · February 2, 2001, 00:01

Interesting indeed. But this could also be Sid's "secret project." Hmmm.

marcuspeddle · February 2, 2001, 07:31

[Rightfully referring to the quote I (Yin) edited out above, of course.]

Was that called for? One thing I like(d) about Apolyton is that I can make a comment and not have someone flame me even if my opinion isn't profound or especially helpful. Since this thread was started to get people's opinions about multiplayer I don't see why his opinion should be attacked since it was about multiplayer. Saying multiplayer isn't important to him is a valid response to the original question. Your smilie indicates you're joking but frankly your comment wasn't too funny; only offensive.

[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited February 02, 2001).]

yin26 · February 2, 2001, 09:47

Yes, AH, he's right. I am trying to get opinions on both sides. Just so people know, AH normally takes his medication. *slap* Now on with the discussion.

Taliseian · February 2, 2001, 14:13

Long time Civ player....never played Multiplayer.

I still break out Civ2, CtP (very rarely), and SMACX for my CivFix.

I know that alot of people look for MP first before anything else....I personally don't.

Make sure the single player component gets all the attention it needs, please.

Taliseian