Dedicated Server Mode

Gjost · May 3, 2000, 23:53

A nice feature would be the inclusion of a dedicated server mode for Civ
III. Granted it is probably too late to work this in now, but Perhaps a
patch or some such can take it into account.

This dedicated server mode would allow someone to run an instance of
Civilization that runs 24 hours a day and is open to new players at any
time. It would have to of course have a sufficient backend for the database.

Allowing some 20 to 30 players to play in a world, log off and return,
hopefully to their country which is still intact, would be grand. Further it
would allow for the creation of "Server Communities" and heighten the
profile of Civilization.

Currently there are other games in production which provide a dedicated
server mode for strategy games. I know of one MUSH that is producing a real
time version of civilization to support over 100 players. Don't miss the
boat guys.

Marcel I · May 4, 2000, 07:37

Gjost,

Do you mean that the game is continued while you log off and the AI takes over your Civ in the time you are not present?
It sounds interesting to me.

------------------
Adopt, Adapt and Improve

mwaf · May 4, 2000, 10:22

I would like more of a 'different players play different kings of the same civ' clan system. A clan that would be a group of lets say min. 4 people. Clan members should have quite different time zones so that it would work 24h day. The map should be huge with up to 30 civs (or more if the server could handle it). The movement rate should be standard although the big map size so that the game would last at least those 24h (preferably more) but science rate could however be slower or you'll meet your first enemy with cavalry (well of course if there where 40 civs maybe this wouldn't be necessary.

The game would work like this; one player of each clan stars the game and the game goes as a normal multiplayer game. When the first player has played some time the 'King' would change and the second player would continue playing from where the first player ended and so on. When no one is playing the AI would take over (this should be an disadvantage but not a suicide move either)

Gjost · May 4, 2000, 23:37

Yes Marcel, that's basically what I mean, the additional idea of mwaf's is good as well. Perhaps a mixture of the two would be the best. In Fact it could be taken even a step beyond, which I mention in parentheses below.

The current release of Civ II locks players into a static mode of play and one that requires simply much too long a duration to fully enjoy the complexities and nuances the game could provide. Furthermore finding people to play multi-player is a tiresome chore, once you find some people to play, someone drops out here, then another and finally the last guy to be playing wins ... What is that? It may very well be that if Civ III provides a good implementation of PBEM then my points are moot, however I'm on a roll so will stay upon my soap box.

A More granular approach and actually simpler to code, I have discovered, is a split of Economics from everything else in the way turns are generated.

An economic turn comprises all production, taxes, luxuries, building, pollution and all the other little bits of pieces, these turns happen at regular intervals, (customizable by the host operator.) Each Economic turn would grant each country the ability to move its pieces (settlers, tanks, planes etc) at any time, but limit the amount each piece can move to what is currently done. These movements should be done in real time. In so doing, if a piece occupied a region/square and then moved and someone else's piece moved into the same square a second later, there would be no combat, however if the square were occupied, battle would occur as usual. Herein lies the problem with the current engine. Politicking, trades and all the other diplomatic like activities could also happen in real time.

The Database in the current implementation is static and the client has sole ownership of the database until his turn is over by time limit or he finishes. Civ II's net play component is a hack at best. Though I do think it is a good hack. I do not however think it was the right hack.

The current CivII Engine would have some difficulty in this mode of play. The way to resolve this is change the way turns are done and place the Database in a more queued and transaction based architecture. Currently a turn encompasses everything, Military, Economics, politics. Even in multiplayer, your play your turn and then deal with the political things with other players.

Further and to create worlds instead of simply "games" is allow the server operator to decide what the duration is between Economic Turns, this could be once every two hours, five minutes, once a day, even once a week. What this would do is open the game to facets that it does not currently have or can even attempt to have. With long durations Players can interact, devise complex deals and relationships ... they will go beyond creating simple two dimensional countries in a twelve hour game. Instead they will begin to create Cultures in games that last for weeks and months. If Maps were large enough games could go on theoretically forever as players leave the game and new players join in, perhaps take over control of a country from the previous ruler. With this you no longer have people playing games as a past time, you have true enthusiasts creating, thinking, making and living as kings - And is this not the escape that makes Civilization so much fun? Imagine it ten times so.

(And this is beyond my scope, but if this can be done (above), then countries could be further split into regions/States where in a ruler could grant control to other players and they in turn move up through the ranks. The dynamics of play would be so far beyond the current implementation that Civilization would no longer be a casual game, but instead a test and challenge to the diplomatic, strategic and tactical skills of anyone.)

There are a few games around now that are moving in this what I call "Life Games" direction, Acheron's Call and now Allegiance are two prime examples, Quake Clans and Homeworld Squadrons are another attempt at "Life Games" or at least a way to project continuity from one game to the next by allowing players to have group relationships. Before I go to much further along in my rant I should provide solutions.

The database technologies for this sort of things are freely available and within the public domain, it would take little effort on the part of a targeting development team to implement this concept. If Civilization does not do it someone else will, I'd much prefer to see Civilization do it than anyone else, except perhaps myself...

Marcel I · May 5, 2000, 02:48

This really is a nice idea Gjost. It turns Civ to a strategy equivalent of Ultima online.

However, because of the development of the civs it would be nearly impossible for new players to enter and win a running game at later stages. That is, if every player has to start from scratch (IMHO, building your empire from humble beginnings to a world power is the greatest attraction of the game).
It should be posible for players who start, say 1000 AD to get a tech level for that period (based on the level of the other players?) to start with. And there should
be room on the map left to expand your empire.

------------------
Adopt, Adapt and Improve

mwaf · May 5, 2000, 03:22

quote:

Originally posted by Marcel I on 05-05-2000 02:48 AM

(IMHO, building your empire from humble beginnings to a world power is the greatest attraction of the game).

I agree on this.

quote:

Originally posted by Marcel I on 05-05-2000 02:48 AM

It should be posible for players who start, say 1000 AD to get a tech level for that period (based on the level of the other players?) to start with. And there should
be room on the map left to expand your empire.

This would be good, however, not too interesting, as you self pointed out it more fun to play from start. If entering in anything more advanced than ancient it would be quite boring, I mean, how likes founding cities in modern ages? there's simply too much to build. Ok, 1000 AD maybe isn't to advanced to give this effect but it's still far more fun to play from scratch, which in this case would be quite unfair.

Gjost · May 5, 2000, 18:37

Again you both bring up good points and this could be solved by giving the
system Operator choices when he creates the Game. Choices could be New
Players get nothing beyond Stone Age and the one or two settlers, New
players are given One city of some size X and no technology or and this is
probably the most balanced approach, new players are given one city and a
tech level that matches the barbarians. In Civ II the barbarians always seem
to stay just a step or two behind, whatever is used for this algorithm could
be used to create new players.

With a long running game new players are sure to come in, but in "long
games" which could last for months the attraction would not only be making
the country from the ground up, but the interactions in diplomatic
relations. Just as in the real world, some smaller countries (Can't really
call them new) must have relations with the larger powers. This would happen
in "Long Games" ... playing a small rouge state might be more fun than
having been one of the original players in our theoretical game. If this
client/sever architecture were to exist, and with the proliferation of cable
and DSL connections there would be hundreds of games, finding a new game
would not be much of a problem, heck, you could host your own.

The mention of "Ultima Online" is valid, but in one way only, it is a "Life
Game". My Proposal for a dedicated server is also a "Life Game" but not like
Ultima Online. Ultima Online is more geared to Role Play of the individual,
while Dedicated Civilization Server presents the player with the same
"Omni-present/Deity" like interface it uses today. There is a significant
difference. Further more I do not suggest that Players connect to some
Server Farm and pay for the right to play, but people set up there own
servers in their dorm rooms, house and on the ends of their cable modems.

Marcel I · May 6, 2000, 03:49

You have thought it over quite well.
I do think it's aan interesting idea, but not for a game like Civ, where as I mentioned before, developing from zero to powerful is the most important aspect of the game.
I bet it would work better in games where technology development isn't the key aspect of the game as it is in Civ.

------------------
Adopt, Adapt and Improve

Gjost · May 6, 2000, 04:05

Yes, I have thought it over, Probably because I am writting code to do just this thing.

The Tech Tree is one aspect, and I understand your point very well. Keep in mind that with a "server" in the box of the retail version there will be ample oppertunity to find a new game and join it from the begining and not in the middle. Some people may like comming in late. They find the discovery and intrigue of all the unknown plots intresting to be thrown into unprepared. In this way we can satisfy both types of players.

jbvg · May 31, 2000, 13:28

Great idea!

I would probably be addicted and loose my job, but it sounds like the way to go!

June 1, 2000, 22:27

Excellent idea.. At the end of the day, the winner should be immortalised on the web site.. (which one? i dunno..)

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

UltraSonix · June 3, 2000, 01:58

This seems like a good idea, but even with the suggestions above I don't know if it'll work for civ3 specifically. I mean, it'll take take a pretty huge map (and hence a monster computer) if you were to have a map that could hold a thousand players...

For me, the civ-ness of the Civ2/SMAC came from the fact that I created my civ from the ground up. Joining another game halfway seems to just not fit in with this somehow.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

Gjost · June 4, 2000, 00:57

Yes, it would need a good sized machine. But if Client/Server messages were small and the database was relational and properly normalized the average home machine could support 50 players and some 20 or so AI. Database tecnology is rather advanced these days.

Apparently FreeCiv has this turn type I have discussed, but it is not optimized for Long durations games.