MULTYPLAYER in CIV III

007 · May 31, 2001, 17:07

I'm starting this thread to let Firaxis know what we think multyplayer mode should look like.

MY first proposal is:

The game must have a built-in score system.
It may involve such additional options as surrender.
Basicly I'd like to see "a built-in game league".

another point, the game must create "fair" start conditions for each player. (ctp multiplayer outcome is mainly depands on starting location).

What do u think must Multyplayer look like?
Do u agree that "built-in score system" is a good feature?

007 · May 31, 2001, 19:36

i guess another good thind would be if

the games would be hosted on Firaxis server rather than on user's comp.

right now there is never even 100 games that take place at the same moment. So hosting even 500 over the entire world shouldn't be a big deal.
So, when people crach, the game does not get lost or screwed as it usualy happens now.
Let say all players crash, the game reamains on server for enother hour or so, so the people can come back to play or just to comeback and save the game.

It also would be nice to be able to save games on the network (let say for a month) so it would be available to all particiapting players and would not take long to load (since it is hosted on the server)

dainbramaged13 · May 31, 2001, 22:05

good ideas. i think a built-in score system is a must, and only 'ladder' games should count, as in starcraft or something.

YEs, i also think that firaxis shuold host, but what are the chances of that?

Derfner · June 1, 2001, 00:07

if firaxis hosted it would probably cost money to play, unless they're cool like blizzard is with b-net.

fair shmare, civ is all about being unequal. if you can't handle a little adversity you can go cry to you mommy about it.

i would like to see simultanious play, but i doubt that will happen.

007 · June 1, 2001, 00:13

it is not a news Dainbram. that Firaxis is monitoring Apolyton, so there is a big chance for them to get the idea. Besides we can propose to Mark to make a pole about "hosting".

Why would they do it?
1st : they want to make a good game Righ?
2 they'd need to dedicate some recources to the net anyway, so y not to make the most out of it.
3rd There more then likely will be a site reflecting the score. This site could generate some additional $ for mainteining the system. (i wouldn't mind it they place a banner or 2 there)

007 · June 1, 2001, 00:15

explain a bit mote about simultanious play

Derfner · June 1, 2001, 00:24

like they had in smac. where each player played their turn at the same time. that way you don't have to wait for everyone else to play their turn before your's comes around. although you still have to wait for them to finsih their turn before you go on to the next round.

playing this way did seem to make smac crash alot though...

007 · June 1, 2001, 00:41

OK, o agree with u, but at least the turn could be split into 2 parts:

part 1 unit motion
part 2 domestic troubles

For example you finish your units - your enemy may start moving his, but he can't finish his turn untill u finish your citys.

This way players don't have to be afraid that thay won't have enough time to manage therir citys.
What happens now, is we would do units, then citys then press turn INSTEAD of doing units pressing end, doing citys.

imgod2u · June 1, 2001, 01:14

I'd like to see mass multiplayer........
It'd be hard to work a concept in that would be fair, but it would be more realistic and actually make having a huge world make sense.

TechWins · June 1, 2001, 01:27

I think the most of the time I spend waiting in multilplayer is because of the other person moblilizing his or her units for war or exploration. If the AI is smart enough there won't be that much time being taken up because of long moves across a continent or ocean, you'll just tell the AI where you want to move and they'll find the quickest route to that spot. Which Firaxis claimed in an earlier interview is possible now. So let's just hope for a smarter AI!!!