Civilization certified as a professional game?

[BorderPatrol]

I would like to do another poll with a different approach to the same subject.

In order for Civilization to achieve professional status like chess, there needs to be a place where matches are played and the results are certified and recorded. These games would be able to be saved on the game server and the host could restart them at a later date.

That way nobody can cheat between games because the game is saved elsewhere.

Also this would insure game longevity. The host could start could start the game with the same people or anyone who would be interested in that game. Anyone would be able to view basic information about the game on the game server.

[SerapisIV]

Time makes a game a classic. The entire Civ series is barely 10 years old. It's also to abstract to be useful like Nova Logic's Delta Force is by the Army. So I'd say that its not poissible for Civ to be a certified professional game.

[SerapisIV]

Whoops took the post out of context. Thought you were talking about chess comparisons, not starcraft comparisons for professional gamers. I'm not sure long games like Civ are well-suited for pro-gaming like South Korea has. Does S. Korea have long games like Civ played professionally? Can a 25 hour game be profitable to hosts?

[BorderPatrol]

Originally posted by SerapisIV
Whoops took the post out of context. Thought you were talking about chess comparisons, not starcraft comparisons for professional gamers. I'm not sure long games like Civ are well-suited for pro-gaming like South Korea has. Does S. Korea have long games like Civ played professionally? Can a 25 hour game be profitable to hosts?

This can be profitable if they have a monthly fee like they have with MMORPG's. I would be willing to pay $10 a month if the site was good enough. Or maybe they could do it like Cases ladder where you get basice capabilities to play for free but you would be able to have your games rated and use other features with a monthly fee.

As far as a long term game being possible, I think it would be with the capability to save those games on a game server and pick them up later. This would avoid the problems in the past of cheating on saved games since they would not be available for the players when they arn't playing them.

[Adagio]

As far as a long term game being possible, I think it would be with the capability to save those games on a game server and pick them up later. This would avoid the problems in the past of cheating on saved games since they would not be available for the players when they arn't playing them.

That could be great if the games are saved on the server (and deleted if not used for a certain amount of time), but I think if they have to that, they will problerly charge us some money per month for it...And if they charge us money there isn't many people back to pay for it. Some other poll showed about 40-50% wouldn't care about if there where MP support in the game or not, and I think about 25% of the remaining will leave if there's a monthly charge

Since I'm not sure about this I think I'll make a poll (if I can figure out how it's done )

[Eli]

Originally posted by ADG
and I think about 25% of the remaining will leave if there's a monthly charge

Looks more like 75% for me.

They must make it free IMO.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Eli


Looks more like 75% for me.

They must make it free IMO.

It was supposed to 75% not the 25% I wrote, woops

[BorderPatrol]

The more I think about it ther more I think it would be good to have basic playing capability free, and it would be worth itf or hard core civers to pay a modest monthly fee if they wanted to have all the bells and whistles.

[Inverse Icarus]

i voted: Firaxis just needs to have a site where players can meet and play by LAN.

i NEED multiplayer, and the Alpha HQ fiasco is ringing in my head.

maybe the zone could serve as a meeting place?

[TechWins]

"Firaxis just needs to have a site where players can meet and play by LAN."

I'm not sure how to understand this. Should I read this as a site where people can play LAN, sholud I read this as a site to play by internet and an option in the site to play by LAN, or should I read this as a site to play by internet and an option in the game to play by LAN?

[Inverse Icarus]

play by internet and play by lan are the same, they just used different protocols.

(at least in civ 2)

lan used IPX. internet used TCP/IP.

if u were on a lan and ure ip was 192.168.0.3 (me on my lan), you could host an internet game, and have LOCAL machines join via that ip, and DISTANT machines join with your main one.

techies. w00t!

[TechWins]

That's not my question Uberkrux. My question is that option to play the game on the site there for people who want to play by the interent or by LAN and the internet. Meaning if I want to play just by LAN am I going to have to go to that site to play by LAN? Not, can I play by LAN and the internet at the same time.

[eNo]

I never used AlphaHQ (didn't have time to play anything lengthy online) but a possibility is that Firaxis could work something out with Gamespy and have a built in player-matching service like Lionhead did with Black and White. (It's like what Starcraft has except I think Gamespy maintains the servers instead of the game publisher/developer).

[dennis_caver]

This could be the start of various touraments and yearly championships. I
think most civ players have a little meglomania in them and a WORLD
Champion would appeal to most.

[BorderPatrol]

I read in an interview that Sid Mier likes Blizzard and has a lot of respect for them for what they have accomplished. I can only cross my fingers that Firaxis uses a Blizzardlike interface that will enable us have certified and recorded games and to save games on a community server that the host could restart at a later time.

This would cut out cheating between multiplayer games by having the games stored elsewhere. Also with the game being on a community server people could view basic information about the game ans see if they wanted to play it.

Additionally, we would be able to have ratings to see who is best and could have Firaxis sponsored tournaments.

[Henrik]

Originally posted by eNo
a possibility is that Firaxis could work something out with Gamespy and have a built in player-matching service like Lionhead did with Black and White. (It's like what Starcraft has except I think Gamespy maintains the servers instead of the game publisher/developer).

If this happens mac users wont be able to play this way (gamespy is not available to the mac), that might not mean a lot to most of you but there are plenty of people who use macs.
The myth II server that Bungie (and now Microsoft since they bought Bungie) runs is/was great, you could connect to it (both PC and Mac gamers) and then play games on it, all for free, plenty of "rooms" and several hundreds (if not thousand games) per day still take place.
Something like that would be better.

[Rasputin]

hopefully they will leave th eoption of connecting via IP address as is case now. I dont use anything but ICQ or apolyton to find games now, i hope it doesnt change ...

[BorderPatrol]

Originally posted by Rasputin
hopefully they will leave th eoption of connecting via IP address as is case now. I dont use anything but ICQ or apolyton to find games now, i hope it doesnt change ...

I don't want them to change that!! Don't get me wrong, that is a great option, that should stay!

What I am saying is that it would be FANTASTIC to have a site where games can be #1) rated, and #2) have the results recorded into a statistical database. The best way to do this, I believe, is to have those games played and saved on a Firaxis (or approved vendor) server.

I also like the idea someone brought up of Firaxis farming this out to another company that specializes in these kinds of networking issues. That way Firaxis doesn't have to take any resources away from game development.

Rasputin, if they leave that ability to connect by ip, the only issue you would have to deal with as far as this idea is concerned is if it is too successful you won't be able to find people for ip games because they will all be playing on the server! :

[BorderPatrol]

In looking at the results of the poll thus far, I must say I am quite surprissed at how many of you don't care how good our game is a s far as multiplayer is concerned! I find this quite disturbing since the game may very well be as good as we make it. If you don't think Firaxis is watching this forum and guaging thier efforts for multiplayer capabilities on thread such as this one, you better think again.

You guys who just think it's some kind of joke to be negative about whatever the topic is about are going to ruin Civilization III for all of us.

I was hoping to get intelligent responses by posting this poll/thread but this crap is really discouraging me about the quality of Apolyton forums.

[Executor]

I would just prefer that Firaxis spend their time perfecting the AI rather than the multiplayer.

[KoalaBear33]

I have been trying to figure out online perceptions but people are flaming me badly on another thread. I'm trying to figure out how strategy games are when it comes to online features. Anyway here are my thoughts...

Don't even compare civilization to chess. Civ just isn't where chess is. Strategy games are just in their infancy when it comes to online gaming.

The first and most obvious thing is that the game must be balanced. If there are a few strategies that will win out all the time, then everyone would go for that and it won't be much fun. If there were tournaments then everyone would do the same thing and it would be pointless. This basically means that the developers should address any faults with the game on a continual basis (kind of like RTS games).

The second thing is something I'm not sure about. How long does it take to play strategy games online (I have never played online)? Hopefully a game will finish in a few hours, or in the worst case a few days.

They also need to come up with a good scoring system. If games finish quickly (few hours) then wins/losses is probably sufficient. But if they last longer then it is probably more meaningful to come up with a system that values your resources, cities and so on. I don't think they should use the in-game scoring system because those are often exploited and might not even cater to online gaming (online vs single player is usually a big diffrence because you are playing against "smart" people unlike the dumb AI ).

As far as how to do it, there are many choices. Since civ is a turn based game it should be very easy to create a good online environment. The best thing is to have a matchmaking server (as in RTS games eg. battle.net for Blizzard games; The Zone for AOE; WOL for Westwood games). I don't know if the developer/publisher of civ can afford this but I think they can.

Once all these are satisfied and online gaming is stable, then civilization can follow one of two paths. First option is for the developers/publishers to set up their own tournaments, ladders, and so on. In this case, the developers must monitor the ladder and watch out for abuses and that sort of thing. The other option, which is more desirable, is to get accepted into something like the PGL (professional gamer's league), where people play for prizes (I think there is a small entry fee for everyone though).

KoalaBear33

[JellyDonut]

I'm probably going to play Civ3 single-player the vast majority of the time. I would like to play with someone sitting next to me if possible and I might consider playing over the internet, but I definitely won't if there's a fee attached. I never bothered to play Civ2 multiplayer because of ICS, and won't play Civ3 on the internet if ICS is not contained.

[JellyDonut]

As for the format of the Internet playing, I would like to see something like Warcraft II Battle.net. A free server where Mac and Windows users can both play.

However, I don't think wins/losses will work well, because only 1 out of 7 people wins a 7-player game, so losses will be much higher than wins for most people. It should take into account the fact that so few people "win" the game and how long you lasted, i.e. if you play a 7-player game and are among the 2 left and lose, you should get more points because you outlasted 5 civs, or if say 4 civs are left and one goes to AC, the other 3 should get credit for staying around until the last civ won. It should also take into account resources, cities, economy, culture, etc. as was suggested earlier but civ score might work if it is not easily manipulated in Civ3.

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by BorderPatrol
In looking at the results of the poll thus far, I must say I am quite surprissed at how many of you don't care how good our game is a s far as multiplayer is concerned! I find this quite disturbing since the game may very well be as good as we make it. If you don't think Firaxis is watching this forum and guaging thier efforts for multiplayer capabilities on thread such as this one, you better think again.

You guys who just think it's some kind of joke to be negative about whatever the topic is about are going to ruin Civilization III for all of us.

I was hoping to get intelligent responses by posting this poll/thread but this crap is really discouraging me about the quality of Apolyton forums.

• People DO care about multiplayer options for civ3
  
• Firaxis IS watching the forum, but one thread with a couple of negative responses will not affect the game.
  
• Nobody thinks civ3 is a joke.
  
• The game will not be ruined by this one thread.
  
• There are intelligent responses in almost every thread, if you take the time to read them.
  
• Peoples' responses to your poll/thread have nothing to do with the quality of the Apolyton forums, merely about the people who post in them.

[Sabre2th]

Also -- I think a multiplayer setup like battlenet would be a vast improvement over previous civ options.

[KoalaBear33]

Originally posted by JellyDonut
However, I don't think wins/losses will work well, because only 1 out of 7 people wins a 7-player game, so losses will be much higher than wins for most people. It should take into account the fact that so few people "win" the game and how long you lasted, i.e. if you play a 7-player game and are among the 2 left and lose, you should get more points because you outlasted 5 civs, or if say 4 civs are left and one goes to AC, the other 3 should get credit for staying around until the last civ won.

I like your suggestion. When I said win/losses I meant that you will get a score and not a win/loss. For example, you might get 3 points for a win, and 0 or maybe -1 for a loss. A good example of a win/loss system is Starcraft's (RTS game). Starcraft (SC) awards points based on how good the opponent is (more points if a lower player defeats higher ranked player and vice versa). Let me paste what SC uses:

Winner's rating increases by K * (100% - probability_of_winning)
Loser's rating decreases by K * probability_of_winning

K=50 for new players
K=30 for players who have played 30 or more ladder games
K=20 for players who have attained a rating of 2400 or higher

Probability = 1 / (1 + 10^(-difference_in_ratings / 400))


A system similar to Starcraft's is suitable if they games are fast (ie. each game is only like 1 to 2 hours); if the games are longer then you want a more sophisticated system (otherwise everyone will end up with similar scores since they will play a small number of games).

It should also take into account resources, cities, economy, culture, etc. as was suggested earlier but civ score might work if it is not easily manipulated in Civ3.

Yep I want to see that too. I want to include resources, economy, etc in the scoring since that is more appropriate in a strategy game. But you have to watch out for exploits. For example, if it is easy to get a high score by having a large number of cities then people will just try to artificially boost the score by buliding tons of cities even if it makes no sense. So this must be designed well. In any case, I want to see resources, etc being counted. After all, this is Civilization and involves more than an RTS

KoalaBear33

[KoalaBear33]

Originally posted by Sabre2th
Also -- I think a multiplayer setup like battlenet would be a vast improvement over previous civ options.

What exactly do strategy games use now? Are they popular?

KoalaBear33

[Grumbold]

Please, please, please take general discussion about strategy gaming and online competition to the off-topic forum. When I get 10 minutes to read a few new Civ-3 posts I want them to be about Civ-3 not tournament scoring systems!

[Sabre2th]

This is a discussion about civ3 multiplayer, Grumbold.

[Hasdrubal]

While I do hope that all the wishes of you MP-ers out there will be fullfilled, I'm really only interested a good SP game.