Will Civ 3 have the Alpha HQ fiasco?

BorderPatrol · June 29, 2001, 23:49

I don't know if anyone has talked about this here already. If so I apologize, just direct me to the right thread please.

With Civilization II we have had the MSN Gaming Zone to meet at for playing matches, which has been cool, although there are a number of ways that could have been better.
But with Alpha Centauri, there was not a stable place to meet for games. There was the AlphaHQ, but it didn't work most of the time and lost interest. This has had a very detrimental effect on me playing Alpha Centauri since I most enjoy games when I can interact with other people. I actually like Alpha Centauri better than Civilization II but never play it because I can't play online. (Never have figured out how you play by email)

To me it doesn't matter how much better Civilization III is as a game if I can't enjoy competition with other players over the internet in an easy to use environment.

Firaxis needs to get a multiplayer forum set up, and they probably need to go ahead and start planning since it takes a while to work out contracts and whatnot. This forum should have a Firaxis sponsored league as well, with a ladder built in. I would even be willing to pay $10 a month for this if it is good. It would be worth the $10 per month not to see another great game gathering dust on the shelf like Alpha Centauri has been doing for me. Does anyone else feel the same way I do?

Rasputin · June 30, 2001, 02:16

it better be the best MP game ever.. not jsut a tacked on add on like Civ 2... and no i wont pay for a ladder ... I jsut want to paly MP for free,,,,

Inverse Icarus · June 30, 2001, 08:29

i already ordered it, so i can't say i wont buy it.

but i'll lose interest in a week if theres no multiplayer.

and i'll burn down firaxis if they make me buy Civ3 multiplayer gold.

Adagio · June 30, 2001, 08:57

About MP I have t say this thing: If the multiplayer games are startet in some HMTL page (lige zone) I WONT play it, cuz it sux bit time

If the MP is like that I will ONLY play SP games

TechWins · June 30, 2001, 17:55

Well, I had to vote for the most important. Even though, I wanted to vote for the second option (important but worry about it after the game is released). I didn't vote for the second option because it needs to be worried about before the game is released. In fact MP diffently needs to come with Civ3 or won't buy the game. I do think it will come with the game because they will lose to many customers it it doesn't.

connorkimbro · June 30, 2001, 23:14

those aren't very good poll options. i DO think that multiplayer is important, and i think it should be done before release. . but it's not the most important thing. if there's no multiplayer at all, i won't cry too long.

but i'd really like a decent multiplayer.

KrazyHorse · June 30, 2001, 23:17

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
i already ordered it, so i can't say i wont buy it.

but i'll lose interest in a week if theres no multiplayer.

and i'll burn down firaxis if they make me buy Civ3 multiplayer gold.

It's already been stated by Firaxis that they're committed to MP being part and parcel of Civ3. Look through their website.

Adagio · July 1, 2001, 04:01

But I couldn't find any place on their site about if it's going to be at website you have to join games from or if the game itself can handle the join/create game, etc...thing.

BorderPatrol · July 1, 2001, 22:29

Quote:

Originally posted by connorkimbro
those aren't very good poll options. i DO think that multiplayer is important, and i think it should be done before release. . but it's not the most important thing. if there's no multiplayer at all, i won't cry too long.

but i'd really like a decent multiplayer.

Well i would have liked to maybe add a fifth option between the first two but I was limited to 4.

But I think if you think it is important for them to take care of multiplayer before release then you should chose option 1.

You can always comment in your post about why you chose that option.

KrazyHorse · July 1, 2001, 23:14

You can change the number of options in the poll to up to 10.

CapTVK · July 2, 2001, 02:55

I'm just happy with the normal MGE MP options. The only thing we need is better handling technical issues like lag time, player dropout etc..

Oh, and some extra player settings at the start like no huts, no start techs with human players, that sort of thing. One thing i would like to improved is the quickstart game option we had in civ2. There you can choose to start at a latter date (3000/2000BC?) with the assorted techs and some cities already in place. I would like that to be extended to later era's like 500AD, 1500AD, 1800-1900AD(colonial era), 1940-45AD (ww2 techs) and 1950-80AD (coldwar era).

This way players won't have to slough through the entire game to get to tanks.

BorderPatrol · July 2, 2001, 14:16

thanks krazyhorse,

unfortunately it won't let me do that now

Next time I start a poll I will look for how to do that, I didn't see it this time.

SerapisIV · July 2, 2001, 15:28

With all the online-only games and the success Blizzard had with online game matching, Firaxis would be foolish not to set up a centralized MP game-matching/hosting website. Even if most Civ players stick to SP, some kind of official or officially sanctioned online presence is needed for significant success.

Adagio · July 2, 2001, 17:52

Quote:

Firaxis would be foolish not to set up a centralized MP game-matching/hosting website

I think it would be foolish to set up such website, multiplayer options (hosting, joining, etc) should be implentet in the game itself!!! Some web site makes everything unfriendly

Rasputin · July 2, 2001, 18:05

well looks like from the poll above that firaxis may not need to make MP as good as I would like becuase too many people obviously only play SP ...

SerapisIV · July 2, 2001, 18:56

Quote:

Originally posted by ADG
I think it would be foolish to set up such website, multiplayer options (hosting, joining, etc) should be implentet in the game itself!!! Some web site makes everything unfriendly

I never said that, of course the options will be in the game, just as they were in SMAC. A website would be for player matching, ladder games and community support.

Rasputin · July 2, 2001, 19:12

i dont have a problem with them setting up a website , providing that isnt only way of playing MP.. i like the current join at IP address we can do now, just find people on Here or at ICQ....

TechWins · July 2, 2001, 19:23

I just hope that they have LAN MP that is at least as good as Civ2 MGE. I love playing LAN it's the best way to play.

BorderPatrol · July 3, 2001, 09:39

I would like to see Civilization move up to professional status with certified tournaments like chess has. In order for this to happen there needs to be an official place where matches are played, and results are certified and recorded.

BorderPatrol · July 3, 2001, 11:01

I have started a new poll with better choices. Sorry for the inconvenience. See the Other thread for further discussion please.

Adagio · July 3, 2001, 12:39

Quote:

I never said that, of course the options will be in the game, just as they were in SMAC. A website would be for player matching, ladder games and community support.

Well, I haven't played SMAC for than an hour (and it was offline), so I don't know how their MP support is like. And it's not of course it is in the game, just take the game Settlers IV, there you have to go to the website, install and other program to join/host games, while in Settlers III it was all inplented in the game...

Quote:

i like the current join at IP address we can do now, just find people on Here or at ICQ....

I don't like the join by IP adress, I want it to be able to search for an IP adress with a game just about to start

Swissy · July 4, 2001, 01:28

I prefer a server, actually a bunch of servers, to play online. The system Activison has for their CTP games is about the only thing they did right with a civ game. You can meet in a game lobby to set up a game. Plus I don't like ICQ; horrendous amouts of spam, the program is a resource hog, the unwanted contacts. Just give me a place to go to meet players and play the game. Fraxis wouldn't be running the servers, usually the game publisher does that and Firaxis is the game developer.

Adagio · July 4, 2001, 06:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Swissy
I prefer a server, actually a bunch of servers, to play online. The system Activison has for their CTP games is about the only thing they did right with a civ game. You can meet in a game lobby to set up a game. Plus I don't like ICQ; horrendous amouts of spam, the program is a resource hog, the unwanted contacts. Just give me a place to go to meet players and play the game. Fraxis wouldn't be running the servers, usually the game publisher does that and Firaxis is the game developer.

That's what I'm talking about, everything else would be annoying

tniem · July 4, 2001, 12:45

I think a MP system for Civ III should compose of two sections.

One would be the Blizzard type server where everyone could log on to find someone to play against.

The other section would be for play be email games. There should be a way built into the game where the game would update itself and find out what PBEM games you need to play and then send them for you. The best way to do this would be a centralized Firaxis server where you would play your turn upload it and then your opponent would download it.

Just my two cents.