Could Civilization become a online-blockbuster?

Oligarf · March 10, 2002, 16:05

Some time ago, I posted a poll on this matter. But that thread appeared a bit to controversial, only a few seemed to listen to me. Every multiplayer game I know that succeed online are real-time. Checkers and Chess are an exceptions of course, but we all see the difference between civ and these two. Recently me and two friends played a multiplayer game with Civ II on a LAN. The only thing you conclude is that the TURNS TAKE TO LONG!!! My idea was to make the Multiplayer version of Civ III real-time. I truly think, looking at games as Europa Universalis, that this is possible and far more playable online. If the people at Firaxis can make this true, they have instant gold in their hands I think. Now am I wondering if you here agree.

Oligarf · March 10, 2002, 16:33

You may reply of course when you vote.

ixnay · March 10, 2002, 16:37

I doubt Firaxis would make civ3 into a real-time game to boost sales. Though they do keep saying that "they're working on some cool new multiplayer ideas".

Salvor · March 10, 2002, 16:55

I don't think you could make Civ3 real-time. The mechanics just won't work.

You could, however, keep it TBS and make it less boring for those waiting for their turns. You could, for example, allow trading or diplomacy when it's not your turn (which peeved some folks when the AI did it in 1.16). You could also allow players to inspect their own cities and change production orders, or giving goto commands to units and other assignments to workers, cutting down on the time spent doing these things during their turns and keeping them active while waiting. They could also be allowed to conduct espionage missions, but only if they changed the espionage system so people would find it worthwhile to use it.

Bolleck · March 10, 2002, 19:13

No, it is just impossible. If you change it to Real-Time you have to use the gouveners and concentrate at moving Units. It would be like all the other games there but worse.

Do you know for Example Age of Empire? Its a great real-time exploring / building up / fighting game. If i want to play that type of games I play them. And dont try to bend and twist the concept of a great game.

MarkosSuckanos · March 10, 2002, 19:40

no it cant. because there is no multiplayer. there will be no multiplayer. sid laughs at you.

nato · March 10, 2002, 20:01

The problem I see with Civ MP is similar to Axis & Allies MP, and even to some RTS games ...

At some point it becomes obvious who lost, but the game still has a while to go. Then the only reason for the losing guy to stick around is because he is being polite. All of the sudden the game becomes fun only for one person, and no fun or even a waste of time for the other. So either the loser suffers, or he quits and robs the winner of some of his satisfaction. Its a no-win situation.

Going RTS with Civ would alleviate this somewhat by making it quicker (although even in RTS some losers quit rather than finish!). However, at least on this forum, many / most civ people feel RTS is somehow morally wrong. They won't go for it.

Skanky Burns · March 11, 2002, 01:22

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkosSuckanos
no it cant. because there is no multiplayer. there will be no multiplayer. sid laughs at you.

Hmmmm... Your posts remind me strongly of someone who was banned some time ago...

DL DL DL!!!

MP when it is finally released should prove to be somewhat fun.

Capt Dizle · March 11, 2002, 01:34

Sid isn't laughing, Sid is counting his money and looking forward to depositing royalty checks for Civ3:Multiplayer Gold Edition.

Pius Popprasch · March 11, 2002, 04:09

Civilization is a trademark for tbs games. Sid will be smart enough to not spoil his brand.

There are really enough rts out there. AoE is designed by Bruce Shelley who was also designer of the original Civ and it's easy to see where he got his ideas from. So it would be an obvious choice for you.

aneeshm · March 11, 2002, 05:18

If anyone is interested in the RTS version of civ 3, i recommned you click here .

This is being develpoed by Brian Reynold (Big Huge Games) , is going to be similar to AOE , but will continue till the modern age , including Nukes .
The release date is said to be February 2003
For the news at Gamespot , click here .

Oligarf · March 16, 2002, 14:35

The concept Civilization could become a hit on the net, I think, but only if it becomes RT. What is wrong with that. If you don't like RT, don't play it that way than. What I want is to play the game against some friends of my, than it is much more fun if the game would offer a RT experience.

Sun Zi 36 · March 18, 2002, 10:14

Since this poll is actually not asking what I personally feel about civ3 multiplayer, but what I think others would react to it, I cannot answer the question in definite yes/no.

but wat i want to comment is, many here seems to stereotype RTS in terms of AOE or Starcraft. Certainly i dont think civ3 could work under the system that those 2 games work under. but let's not forget there are other kinds of RTS, of which Europa Universalis is a good example that probably fits the civ3 gameplay much better.

But seeing civ3 now takes even much longer than civ2 to complete a game, i still doubt a lot of people would bother taking so much time to play it online, as EU was not really so successful as a multiplyer game too.

even if RT civ3 wont really be so popular, i think there are still benefits such as immediacy and realism in gameplay.

ACooper · March 18, 2002, 11:03

Civ 3 in real time is my nightmare!

Oligarf · March 23, 2002, 13:50

Quote:

Originally posted by ACooper
Civ 3 in real time is my nightmare!

You don't have to play online.

DrFell · March 23, 2002, 14:39

'You could, for example, allow trading or diplomacy when it's not your turn (which peeved some folks when the AI did it in 1.16). You could also allow players to inspect their own cities and change production orders'

All this was done in civ2, and I sure as hell hope they let you do it in civ3. In fact many people considered it 'bad manners' to micromanage your cities on your own turn, because it just wasted time, especially in big games.

'At some point it becomes obvious who lost, but the game still has a while to go. '

Depends on the skill level of the players. I've had opponents with double my cities, 4 wonders vs my 0 and large tech leads lose to me before. All it takes is one mistake and I can get back the lead (one game recently my opponent lost all his huge cities to my explorers, for example). I'm not too bothered if a player concedes if they're going to loose if it's not even close, it gets tedious at times having to build all the units to take out a player, move all the units over to them, kill them, etc. If the guy just quits without saying a word then I get pissed... another case of 'bad manners'.

'RTS is somehow morally wrong'

Naah, it simply wouldn't work for civ. You wouldn't have time to manage your cities, and the governors suck ****. You'd have to change a LOT of the rules, so basically the game wouldn't be civ anymore. Anyway, the Brian Reynolds TBS game is looking good so far.

Thrawn05 · March 23, 2002, 15:23

Quote:

Originally posted by ixnay37
I doubt Firaxis would make civ3 into a real-time game to boost sales. Though they do keep saying that "they're working on some cool new multiplayer ideas".

CTF?

nato · March 23, 2002, 18:03

Quote:

Depends on the skill level of the players. I've had opponents with double my cities, 4 wonders vs my 0 and large tech leads lose to me before. All it takes is one mistake and I can get back the lead (one game recently my opponent lost all his huge cities to my explorers, for example). I'm not too bothered if a player concedes if they're going to loose if it's not even close, it gets tedious at times having to build all the units to take out a player, move all the units over to them, kill them, etc. If the guy just quits without saying a word then I get pissed... another case of 'bad manners'.

Well I think it is a significant problem. Comebacks are very exciting, but also pretty rare. Usually in games the person who gets ahead stays ahead, and at some point the final outcome is fairly obvious. Thus you get the no-win situation, either a polite loser waiting or a frustrated winner being quit on ...

But you are right, quality players never give up. My favorite games have been comebacks when I was sure my team was dead.

The "quit without saying a word" thing is annoying! I find myself putting "No Quitters!" on my game names.

Having to play lost games out of politeness, and having quitters, are two built in problems with games. I think they are made worse by online anonymity and, in Civ3's case, the sheer length of the game. Its just a built in problem.

Also, just to be clear, I said many people here think RTS is immoral, not me.

Drefsab · March 23, 2002, 18:41

Besides Civilization, Starcraft is the only other game I have played seriously. If I want to play a good RTS, I play Starcraft.

Civilization has always been a single-player strategy game and multiplayer has always been a low quality afterthought. The game mechanics just aren't built with human versus human in mind. This is especially true with Civ III. For example, if you need oil bad enough and offer enough, the AI will trade it to you. In multiplayer, if I was the only person on the map with Oil and it was at the center of my empire, why would I trade it to other Civs when I can roll over them with my superior motorrized army?

asleepathewheel · March 24, 2002, 00:14

I think a Civ3 would have the potential of being quite nice if it was turn based. For me, I miss the days of BRE, so if something was done like that, where every day each person would have 25 turns or something per day, and could do generic tasks without using a turn, i would probably play. I like the finite time allotment, since I can't really afford to play such a game for hours each day.

Oligarf · March 24, 2002, 13:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Drefsab
In multiplayer, if I was the only person on the map with Oil and it was at the center of my empire, why would I trade it to other Civs when I can roll over them with my superior motorrized army?

That is what I had in mind, and that is what I miss in the game. The smart human player, the only reason it isn't happening because nobody wants to wait on other people their turns. Therefor I thought RT would offer these possibilities.

Nostromo · March 25, 2002, 00:57

I never understood why so many people think that turn-based games make poor multiplayer games. After all, chess is an amazing multiplayer game! Civ3 could make a great MP game. However, it would have to change somewhat. For instance, MP games should last 1 hour tops. Most people don't want to play 5 hours over the net. Other features would also be interesting. Like a speed Civ option, something like speed chess. Simultaneous turns would also be interesting.

rogue785 · March 25, 2002, 01:25

there would be a lack of games with people looking for a good challenge, which would make it impossible to become an online craze. If many people wanted to compete fairly and had the time, then it would be great, but since many people don't, i think its only a dream.

The Thinker · March 25, 2002, 03:55

Quote:

Originally posted by nato
At some point it becomes obvious who lost, but the game still has a while to go. .

If there's one thing I find different about Civ3 over CivII it's the fact I need to play the first 30 turns just the right balance between expand and everything else and if I don't get a good starting place I'm fighting an uphill battle. I think some games around turn 30 I'll feel like giving up, esp if I have no river and tried to get a wonder but the other players scored them instead. Now if I'm playing people I know I'll stick it out but if go on to lose 2 1/3 hours later I'm going to feel that I should have quit right away.

I quess what I'm saying is:
1) It's very easy to lose the game in first age
2) A bad starting position can make it very easy to lose the first age.

How many people here automaticly restart if the game give you a bad start.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like Multi-player, and I'd try Multi-player but I don't think the game as it currently is (another example would be the UN) would work for Multi-Player.

Rik

rogue785 · March 25, 2002, 12:42

Quote:

How many people here automaticly restart if the game give you a bad start.

Well it depends on if the position is bad in relation to my opponents. If its bad terrain, and my oppents have worse, then i stay and fight.

But with that principle, i would believe we would be having games that lasted 30 minutes before people start leaving to do other things.

Like with the game Black and White, That had a good multiplayer and everything, but it was damn near impossible to find a group of reliable players to actually finish the game. But Lionhead did something to combat this, they put the AI in the place of the person, so u could hardly tell they wern't there.

So, using that idea, Firaxis might want to implement something along the lines of that.

nato · March 25, 2002, 19:05

Well, to give every player an even chance, you would want something like ensuring everyone had an equal start location. For instance, you would want to ensure everyone had 4 squares of river, 4 squares of grasslands, 1 cow, 1 luxury, and 1 strategic resource, and so on.

This would be similar to AOK. It had random maps, but every player was guranteed to get the same starting resources (1 patch of berries, 2 boars, 8 sheep, and so on).

However, this would cause another problem: predictability. AOK maps were all random, so they were all different ... but the resources were all identicle, so effectively all the maps were identicle. This lead to the so called "20 minute drill" ... (sheep done by 4:00, boar lure done by 8:00, feudal age by 11:00 and so on [flush changed this somewhat]). The first 20 minutes or so of EVERY game was identicle, and it was just a matter of how quickly and efficiently you could do the drill.

I liked AOK, but eventually that 20 minute drill of identicle, robot like routine wore me down to the point I hated AOK.

So you are stuck with another no win situation. You have two bad choices.

One: you could not guarantee that all players get the same starting resources. This will lead to interesting games and exciting exploration. Discovering the map is one of the hallmarks of Civ, and it would not be the same without it. However then you will get uneven games. The person with the great start location will be thrilled, but the people by deserts and jungles will be dropping out of the game. If the situation is bad enough, no game may ever get off the ground.

or Two: you could guarantee that all players get the same starting resources. This will lead to even games, no one will feel cheated, and games have a better chance of finishing. However, KNOWING that you have so many grassland and somewhere nearby you have 1 iron and 1 luxury will seriously change Civ and take away from the game as we know it. Also, I truly believe the identicle 20 minute drill killed AOK, and I think it would turn even Civ into a robotic routine, at least for the first 50 turns or so. (OTOH, with the Settler blitz, Civ3 alreay is a routine game at first, so maybe this is not such a big deal).

So there you have another hard choice. Realistically I think guaranteeing identicle (or at least "equal") starting resources is the only way to go ... but this will make the game less Civ like ... but there are no perfect answers.

That is the second no win situation I have talked about ... don't get me wrong, I am not against MP or anything, I am just considering some of the inescapable design problems it will have.

Sorry for the long post, thanks for reading if you did.

nato · March 25, 2002, 19:25

Just had an idea:

Maybe you could guarantee that everyone gets the same starting resources ... but not always the same resources every game!

Thus everyone will get identicle advantage/disadvantage ... but not know what it is, so the sense of exploration and discovery is still there!

Maybe one game everyone gets 5 rivers, 3 grasslands, 2 luxuries, 1 cow, another game everyone gets 2 rivers, 7 grasslands, 1 luxuries, and 0 cow, and so on.

This way you might be able to get the best of both worlds.

DrFell · March 27, 2002, 09:37

Yes, that might work well. Of course you should make it optional too so that if you want to play with completely random (although potentially unbalanced maps) you should have the choice.

Pyrodrew · March 27, 2002, 15:46

If it's not turn-based it is not Civilization. Period. How many real-time chess games are there? And of those how many chess players would still consider those chess?

Quote:

Well it depends on if the position is bad in relation to my opponents. If its bad terrain, and my oppents have worse, then i stay and fight.

In AOK/AOE berries, boars, sheep, # of workers one started with compared to others was important. In Civilization, the terrain one starts on compared to others is critical. Since Civ3 made the bad starting terrains worse (diseased no-banana jungles, barren no oasis deserts, etc.) and the good starting terrains better (mined grasslands with possible cows) you will have far more people quiting due to their terrain. Terrain plays a huge factor on one's future (those who have played games on desert islands or in the middle of thick jungles know this all too well). If the Civ3 terrains were better balanced instead of the huge gap that currently exists, you would keep more players in a MP game & the skill level of those players would play a larger factor rather than the luck of where one started.

Civ3 needs to move to a more chess-like style for game balance & fairness, NOT to a RTS game of chaos & short-term adrenalin. BTW, I don't play chess... but I do like bananas.

Inverse Icarus · March 27, 2002, 18:09

i'm not voting now because:

there might not ever be a multiplayer
the game is slow (speed wise, not slow paced)
firaxis has sad nothing about MP and probably plans not to for some time
most importantly: my hopes were too high upon initial release.