Thread Tools
Old April 17, 2001, 18:31   #31
ChrisShaffer
Prince
 
ChrisShaffer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:59
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America
Posts: 359
quote:

I find the most frustrating thing about PBEM games is that it takes so long to get going. You move one unit and tell your city to build something and then you have to wait for your opponent to do the same and send it back to you.


Ha! More like "take your turn, send it to player 2, who sends it to player 3...who sends it to player 7, who sends it back to you." And you're lucky if the group is reasonably active and can play more than one turn per week.

Still, we do it. Repeatedly. I'm in games that have lasted more than a year.

Hopefully, Firaxis will provide server-based asynchronous multiplayer -- see my messages above for a description.
ChrisShaffer is offline  
Old April 17, 2001, 20:02   #32
dognheat
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 26
One game that I just recently came across that has a great multiplayer setup/chat/messages/community is Tribes 2. The interface is better than just about anything I have seen yet. It has a tab that is used to join/setup servers, another for IRC chats, another tab for messages from the dev. team, info about patches etc. , and another for buddies and email info. Not sure how a FPS multiplayer screen would benefit a LONG turn-based strategy, but I think it deserves a mention.

------------------
*PLOP*
dognheat is offline  
Old April 23, 2001, 03:59   #33
Alexander's Horse
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Jeff, thanks for thinking of the multiplayer community.

First off, the civ 2 multiplayer platform, as patched, is very stable so I'd be happy if it was retained. If its changed, please don't make us go to a dedicated server. A player should be able to act as host.

Also, the ability to use icq, aim and other toolbar features whilst playing is very very important to multiplayers. Will this be possible????

On multiplayer features, I think the option menu should be expanded. the following would be a good list of additional options:

. No starting techs. Most of us restart a game if someone gets a tech because the advantage is too great. Sometimes in civ 2 this means we have to open several maps before we get a game. Very frustrating.

. No city bribe, no unit bribe. Most of us play without city bribe, many without unit bribe. These would have to be separate options because some play one but not the other.

. Simultaneous movement. This is huge. With civ 2 we can bring up the option by modifying the windows file. Please make it a game option. Multiplayer can be very slow in turn based. If some how there could be another option to make movement simult but fighting turn based that would settle a lot of arguments. Maybe separate the two if feasible (simult movement, simult war options).

. Alliance victories. We have tribes and teams now. People should be able to share wins.

. Surrender civ. Currently can't do this. It would be nice if there was civ surrenders if capital taken option too.

. Win Points. Just thought of this. Better than the PG for multiplayer.

That's all I can think of for now. Please E-mail me if you want to discuss further. I'll link this thread to the multiplayer forum where the hard core civ 2 multiplayers hang out.

------------------
Its over.
[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited April 23, 2001).]
 
Old April 23, 2001, 14:08   #34
jordanz19
Settler
 
jordanz19's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Campbell River, BC, Canada
Posts: 18
I haven't got the Civ2 MP, but a few months ago I got SMAC. I can't find a site to play it online, so I've been playing the IP games quite often. It takes a few sessions to get the game finished because one of us has to leave for some reason. I haven't played it with more than two other people because its too much work to get everyone organized. Multiplayer is vital and adds aw whole new dimension to the game, and I hope it will be bigger and better in Civ3.

Oh yeah, in the SMAC IP Multiplayer setup, when I'm not the host, and we continue our game, I have to re-type all my custom fraction names in, it get annoying after a while.
jordanz19 is offline  
Old April 23, 2001, 17:08   #35
ChrisShaffer
Prince
 
ChrisShaffer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:59
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America
Posts: 359
GNGSpam, you're describing a variant on Turn Based Simultaneous Execution which I certainly hope is included in the game.
ChrisShaffer is offline  
Old April 23, 2001, 20:40   #36
GNGSpam
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wiggins, MS, US
Posts: 214
It doesnt suprise me the idea has been mentioned. Its reminiscent of the old Avalon Hill board gaming rules. Avalon Hill, along with other wargame companies like SSI, turned turnbased gaming into an art form. Civ2, compared to many of those games, is a very crude turn based game. In Civ3, I feel they should probably break out some of the old fashioned board games like Diplomacy, Civil War, or Third Reich and take some notes.
GNGSpam is offline  
Old April 23, 2001, 23:24   #37
OzzyKP
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsDiploGamesPolyCast TeamCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4DG The Mercenary TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
ACS Staff Member
 
OzzyKP's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:59
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 10,595


As a Civ 2 IP Multiplayer, i agree with much of what Markus, DaveV, and Alexander Horse had to say. I like playing games through IP and alot of people would be upset if that were removed, as for other ways of playing mutliplayer i don't really know about them and can't comment. Also be wary of comments by those people who preface their ideas with "i've never played multiplayer before, but..." you should listen to those of us who've really invested lots of time into multiplayer and know every small foible and fallacy.

Perhaps the top suggestion i can give, and i'm sure everyone else will agree on, for both Multiplayer and Single player is to make the game WINDOWED! Nothing frustrates a player more than having the game take up the entire screen and being unable to do several things at once. The modern gamer and computer user typically has ICQ, AIM, webpages, a word document, a game, and all sorts of things going at once. I know that one reason i don't especially like CTP and SMAC is that everything else i'm doing has to be forsaken because the game takes over the entire screen. Keep the windowed version of Civ 2. DON"T CHANGE IT!!! It helps for multiplayer too, because often people communicate through various chat software like ICQ, so being able to use that and play is essential.

Also, things to speed up the game are needed. In some big games with lots of units and players can take hours to get through a few turns. This is very frustrating and discouraging, something that includes simultaneous play but allows for turn based war would work. I like GNSpam's suggestions, but it sounds too complicated to work properly.

Also with IP games there is lots of difficulty starting up. So a window displaying to everyone who else is in the game and what stage they are at is good to ensure everyone that things are happening. And the Kick option that Markus mentioned would be very helpful. Often in games someone gets kicked offline or out of the game and can't get back in because the game never recognized him leaving. So then everyone has to leave and restart which takes time and is a big pain in the ass.

Also i suggest incorporating it better. Multiplayer was just an add on feature to Civ 2, i'd like to see it become more central. I don't have any specific ideas as to how that would be, but i'd like to see some aspects of the game that are open only to multiplayer or new dimensions that open up when played that way.

And wonders like Eiffel tower, great wall, united nations and whatnot loose much of their use when in multiplayer so if wonders like that exist in civ 3 develop functions for them in multiplayer that compliment those that are lost from single player.

More win conditions would be nice. I think you all have already mentioned this, but multiplayer often seems too directed to one thing, and i'd like to see other options open up to allow for other strategies. Anyone kicking around Gameleague and Civ2 multiplayer is aware of how tedious games have become because people have reduced the game to a science and they all know exactly what they must do to win. There isn't any real creativity or variety of game styles, there is just a formula that is applied. If it could be opened up more it'd be real good.

Explaining the factors that contribute to the powergraph would be good, and allow it to be viewed during the game. Likewise with the demographics screen.

Hope it helped, i'm sure i've got more ideas, but i'm busy now. Hey Jeff, check back in so we all know you are listening.


OzzyKP is offline  
Old April 24, 2001, 00:35   #38
GNGSpam
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wiggins, MS, US
Posts: 214
Though possibly over ambitious, I think the game should be seperated into "phases". With City Managament, Movement, and then Combat phases. City Managament and Movement can be done simultanously. During the Movement phase you can "tag" units for attack. Then in the Combat section, you can add in some sort of "intiative" system, where units are given an intiative rating (based of movement and experince). Then, all units tagged for "attack" are moved according to intiative, meaning that the players turns will intersect. Ill move my tanks, then he moves his, then I move the supporting Marines, and then he moves his, etc. Of course you will be allowed to intentionally lower its intiative, so that you can save some tanks for a counter later in the round, if you so choose.

The beauty of it is since you wont know how combat will develop while your moving your units, youll often have to make hard choices of tagging units behind the front for combat so they can counterattack, but them possibly not being needed and therefore sitting unused, or moving them to the front. What about just tagging them for combat and just moving them in the combat section when no enemies are around? Dont allow movement in the Combat round unless they are in range of an enemy unit, and then only in the direction of the enemy. So if you tag 4 tanks in a city behind your line for a counterattack just incase they break the front, but they fail too, you would just not move them that turn.

I havent fully developed the concept but, hopefully your getting the idea.
GNGSpam is offline  
Old April 24, 2001, 00:37   #39
Fuzzball
Prince
 
Fuzzball's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: of bellybutton fluff
Posts: 489
What I think would be awesome in civ3 multiplayer support , would be if the lobbies/online database for civ3 were just that. An online civ3 database. This would hold civ3 default multiplayer startup files, decreasing multiplayer game connections and runtimes for all. It could store the stuff like the maps, ai data, civ's, all the basic stuff pretty much. If it had an option for players or teams to store a game file there to be continued at a later time, that would be awesome too. Do you think something like this is possible in the future of civ3? And if so, would it be possible to implicate without a 12 meg patch?
Fuzzball is offline  
Old April 24, 2001, 05:28   #40
Lord Maxwell
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Uppsala - Sweden
Posts: 328
quote:

Originally posted by DaveV on 03-22-2000 08:34 AM
A lot of the discussion on MP involves setting up a level playing field for all players. Lots of people restart if the host has techs or someone has more settlers than the rest. It would be nice to have a configuration screen that let you specify certain parameters that would apply to all players:

Number of settlers
Number of starting techs
Goody huts/no huts
Min/max distance to other players
Min/max island/continent size
Number of [specials,hills,grass,etc.] in 4-square radius
And more, I'm sure...

If the map generator can be improved so that it can produce several medium-sized islands on a small map, that would make a lot of people happy.



I second all the above. This is absolutely vital to include, you want to blow the competition out of the water here. (The competition being freeciv.)

Also make the scales for world setup finer, maybe not as fine as in ctp2, but finer than in smac. (More than three settings for ocean sizes.) Lots of little settings like "All continents should connect via landbridges".

I think three screens will be needed, one for setting things up with players, one for setting rules and victory conditions and one for world parameters. Just make sure that you can skip back and forth without loosing data.
Lord Maxwell is offline  
Old April 24, 2001, 19:18   #41
Rasputin
lifer
DiploGamesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
Deity
 
Rasputin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Between Coast and Mountains
Posts: 14,475
AS a MP person I would like to think tha tinstead of just an addon like Civ 2 MP was , that Civ 3 MP is an integral part of the game.
I see once again a number of SP people have posted their ideas for MP and whilst some of these will be wonderful, as Alexender Horse says be mindful that only MP people reaaly know what the problems currently are that need fixing and what works well.
I think one big reason I wouldnt switch from IP games to PBEM game sis lack of Diplomacy. In my opinion that is what makes MP far more fun than playing AI. By all means maintain a good PBEM system I know lots of people tha tuse it, but the IP version is still far and away the most popular as it allows human interaction. I would love to see more diplomacy allowed not less. As a few people here have stated, most of us use ICQ or AIM or both to communicate outsdide of the game, some do this to avoid use of spys in KingChat (not sure if this cheating or not ) provided civ 3 is windowed game we can stil lcontinue to do this.
I dont feel the need for a Lobby or server to connect to. There are enough forum sites such as this one to go find players. Perhaps just a note in manual or helpfiles listing such sites as suitable to find other players. These forums tend to maintain a good listing of players including ICQ numbers. To double up on this information by providing your own sserver would seem ot me to be awaste of good resources that could be better used in making civ 3 MP the best game ever.
So although this thread was started mainly to ask how to do setup I hope that you guys at Firaxis have read the Cheats thread so aptly maintained by Ming and remove all of the "bugs" that allow people to utilise loopholes in MP that probalby werent envisioned in Civ 2 SP.

Thankyou for asking for our input, I look forward to finally seeing Civ 3 on my shop shelves very soon.
Rasputin is offline  
Old April 25, 2001, 10:25   #42
ChrisShaffer
Prince
 
ChrisShaffer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:59
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America
Posts: 359
quote:

I think one big reason I wouldnt switch from IP games to PBEM game sis lack of Diplomacy. In my opinion that is what makes MP far more fun than playing AI. I would love to see more diplomacy allowed not less.


Huh? This is wacky-wrong. PBEM games allow more diplomacy than IP games, not less. I've had SMAC PBEM turns where the email and instant messaging and chat room meetings (and even telephone calls) have been fast and furious. IP games have less diplomatic capabilities, not more.

The only problem with PBEM diplomacy in previous Civ and SMAC game systems was poorly designed multiplayer diplomacy tools grafted onto the game engines as afterthoughts. Since Firaxis is designing multiplayer from the start and building a more robust diplomatic system, this won't be an issue in Civ3.

quote:

By all means maintain a good PBEM system I know lots of people tha tuse it, but the IP version is still far and away the most popular as it allows human interaction.


How do you know that IP is more popular than PBEM? I think you're wrong. I see lots more SMAC PBEM games offered on the message boards than IP games. Until someone presents emprical evidence that IP is more popular than PBEM, I'm not buying it. And at any rate, I believe that turn based simultaneous execution games would be even more popular than the current cluncky PBEM systems.
ChrisShaffer is offline  
Old April 26, 2001, 05:44   #43
Rasputin
lifer
DiploGamesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
Deity
 
Rasputin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Between Coast and Mountains
Posts: 14,475
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 !!!!!


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...

Not all Civ 2 players have migrated to SMAC as it doesnt reaaly interest us. WE are awaiting a Civ 3 not a SMAC 2 !!

For the interests of MP this thread should be moved to Civ2 MP threads as that is where the majority of MP people on APolyton hang out having a good time discussing the games we play.

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.....
Rasputin is offline  
Old April 26, 2001, 08:39   #44
drake
King
 
drake's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:59
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Maine, US
Posts: 2,372
I just want to say that ip games are the only way I'd ever play. PBEM is way too slow. And diplomacy in PBEM? C'mon now. 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. Besides, getting hundreds of saved games in my email is not my idea of a good time.............

Civ 3 Mp better be good. I'm not buying the game if it's not good.
drake is offline  
Old April 26, 2001, 08:53   #45
rah
lifer
Apolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV: Multiplayer
Just another peon
 
rah's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:59
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: who killed Poly
Posts: 22,919
"Number of settlers
Number of starting techs
Goody huts/no huts
Min/max distance to other players
Min/max island/continent size
Number of [specials,hills,grass,etc.] in 4-square radius
And more, I'm sure..."

I agree.

Also agree with options for city OR/and Unit bribing.

Good Idea XIN for customizing while waiting for all to join.

PLEASE CONTINUE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO HOST>

KICK option good, to avoid having to restart game.

I really like all the connection/speed monitor ideas. It's always nice to know if you're having problems, where the likely cause is. Even though some people with consistent lousy connections might find themselves discriminated against by people that aren't patient.

BUT THE BIGGEST THING>>>>>>> MAKE SURE IT IS PLAYTESTED BY REAL PLAYERS>
unlike, CPT2, nough said..

RAH
Sorry, not a lot of new ideas, but I got here late


rah is offline  
Old April 26, 2001, 15:43   #46
ChrisShaffer
Prince
 
ChrisShaffer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:59
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America
Posts: 359
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?
ChrisShaffer is offline  
Old April 26, 2001, 15:56   #47
EdwardTKing
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: England
Posts: 51
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.


EdwardTKing is offline  
Old April 26, 2001, 20:08   #48
Zylka
Civilization II MultiplayerDiploGamesApolytoners Hall of Fame
King
 
Local Time: 00:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hidden within an infantile Ikea fortress
Posts: 1,054
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).]
Zylka is offline  
Old April 27, 2001, 00:17   #49
OzzyKP
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsDiploGamesPolyCast TeamCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4DG The Mercenary TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
ACS Staff Member
 
OzzyKP's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:59
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 10,595


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.
OzzyKP is offline  
Old April 27, 2001, 07:29   #50
ChrisShaffer
Prince
 
ChrisShaffer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:59
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America
Posts: 359
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?
ChrisShaffer is offline  
Old April 27, 2001, 09:14   #51
Rasputin
lifer
DiploGamesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
Deity
 
Rasputin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Between Coast and Mountains
Posts: 14,475
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
Rasputin is offline  
Old April 27, 2001, 14:44   #52
EvilProphet
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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.
 
Old April 28, 2001, 23:35   #53
deity
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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
 
Old April 28, 2001, 23:40   #54
deity
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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
 
Old April 29, 2001, 00:34   #55
Russian King
Chieftain
 
Russian King's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: In Hell
Posts: 78
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
Russian King is offline  
Old April 29, 2001, 02:04   #56
Alexander's Horse
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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).]
 
Old April 29, 2001, 02:08   #57
Alexander's Horse
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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
 
Old April 29, 2001, 13:17   #58
EvilProphet
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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.
 
Old April 29, 2001, 17:34   #59
ChrisShaffer
Prince
 
ChrisShaffer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:59
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America
Posts: 359
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.
ChrisShaffer is offline  
Old April 29, 2001, 23:59   #60
deity
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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
 
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:59.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team