Multiplay only Civ3

UltraSonix · August 24, 2000, 06:20

How about a multiplay only Civ3? I now it sounds weird, but think about it for a while.

There are two reasons for doing this:
*gameplay can be greatly enhanced because right now it has to be made simple for the AI to cope.
*Firaxis can concentrate on other stuff like the graphix engine.

An example of this is if the game was to do the SMAC factions thing again - whereby different civs has different strengths/weaknesses. The AI would have to be built to know how to play each of the factions well and that would be impossible.

Note that I haven't actually played multiplay civ2/smac, so if multiplay-only was to be implemented, issues would have to resolved - such as the speed of the game, and cost (once-off or monthly).

Hummm... I'm posting some rather controversial stuff lately, eh?

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited August 24, 2000).]

Evil Capitalist · August 24, 2000, 06:39

Neveeeeeeeeeeeer!
I don't play multiplayer, I never have played multiplayer and I do not intend to play multiplayer.

August 24, 2000, 06:52

The Idea is in itself interesting, but 2002 is way too early for this to happen. As I see it, for this to work well more people need permanent, hassle-free internet connection. As a civ game usually takes several (up to 20+) hours, there'd need to be a system in which this was co-ordinated. This would require many available players...

I'm sorry, I just don't see this as happening.

Shadowstrike · August 24, 2000, 11:07

How would Civ Denizens live without their single player existance!? If Civ3 was multiplayer only, I would not buy it and I think many ohters feel the same way too.

Patriqvium · August 24, 2000, 11:34

Most TBS games I've played were unplayably boring in multiplayer (except hotseat and PBEM), so I don't see a point in this idea.

DarkCloud · August 24, 2000, 21:06

I'm sorry but I do not support multiplay-only civ for I find that it is easier to plot against the computer.
easier being it takes less time and since internet time costs money and playing against yourself only costs electricity money then I would rather take the cheaper course.

So no. I would not buy a multiplay only Civ III, they should do as they did with Civ Net for those who want multiplay.

January 23, 2001, 09:54

I have to agree with snapcase....even though I am an avid multiplay civer, the option for single play still needs to be included....after all, how else are you going to practice your strategies between the multiplay games?!

Ralf · January 23, 2001, 14:51

quote:

Originally posted by UltraSonix on 08-24-2000 06:20 AM
There are two reasons for doing this:
*gameplay can be greatly enhanced because right now it has to be made simple for the AI to cope.
*Firaxis can concentrate on other stuff like the graphix engine.

True, but there are problems also, besides commercial ones (how many of all potential Civ-3 buyers can play/want to play multiplayer only?)

- Firstly: the length of the game - and the fact that it is turnbased. Internet multiplayer is really best suited for shoot-em-ups and racing games. Realtime strategy to somewhat less degree. Then it comes to turnbased-several-hours games like Civ-3; PBEM (play by e-mail) and Hotseat is perhaps better suited alternatives compared to playing through Internet.

- Secondly: the technical problems. Internet traffic congestions, slow 56K modems, unstable lines with sudden quirks and spontaneous close-ups, and so on. Its slowly getting better, but still...

- Thirdly: some multiplayers can be very single-minded (= boring) in their playing-style. Using more or less extreme ICS-strategies, with one single unimaginative goal only; conquer everybody as ultra-fast as possible. Its really not particularly fun to play against these civers. Only boringly annoying.

- Fourthly: the "bad losers/quitting" problem. Then about 50-75% of the game has been played, it becomes obvious who have fallen behind too much, and who is on a winning streak. Instead of thinking of ways of working together in alliances in order to contain the leader - some civers simply quit without a single word. If THEY cannot win supreme, then to hell with it. Its so easy to do this then playing anonymously behind a computer on the other side of the planet, i guess.

Firaxis should of course include all kinds of multiplayer options in Civ-3, including PBEM and Hotseat. But, they should under no circumstances, look at the AI-issue as a secondary help-alternative, compared to Multiplaying. It must really be the other way around!

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 23, 2001).]

drake · January 23, 2001, 16:13

Its all in the group you play with Ralf. Go to the zone, and yes you will get shafted in the ways you described. However, there are many dedicated players who will play a very interesting and engaging long term game. To find these players might require a little work, but it's well worth the effort.

Ok, I'm outnumbered around here, I'll leave. When you all want an interesting opponent who might actually challenge your abilities, head on down to the multiplayer forum

...there are good players waiting.

Boracks · January 23, 2001, 16:44

One of the reasons I still play Civ2 is that I can fire it up when I've got 20 minutes to kill and get a few turns in. (Well, OK, 30 mnutes. My wife is used to a '3 turn delay' in response time.

) There's no way that could be done on-line.

One interesting idea that occurs from this is a perpetual 'drop-in and be leader for a few game years' type of online game. If they could set up a system where you take over a civ when someone else leaves in an online game, you might have some interesting expiriences.

------------------
"Treat each day as if it were your last. Eventually, you'll be right."

drake · January 24, 2001, 01:04

I feel sorry for the players who will spend their civ career only playing a mindless bunch of chips, but I do have to agree that you have to have a single player option. Finding games can be a challenging task at times and sometimes we all want an easy victory against a primitive ai. So I think we definetly have to have a sp option.

Why the opposition of multiplayer games? Why would anyone NOT want to play someone with a brain? The complexities of a sp game are very limited, whereas in mp games, the skies are the limit.

Steve Clark · January 24, 2001, 01:33

I don't play multiplayer, I never have played multiplayer and I do not intend to play multiplayer.

Henrik · January 24, 2001, 01:57

If you take away singleplayer you won't be able to play scenarios whitout finding a player for every nation.

Grumbold · January 24, 2001, 20:04

Multiplay civ is something that has appealed to me, but I could rarely -if ever- commit to being online for 3+ hours uninterrupted. For that reason single player and PBEM are my favourites. Now if there was a competent AI that could run my position for a few turns while I sort out the latest domestic emergency then hand back over to me without my opponents realising, then I could go for it and we would also have a kickass AI for single player games

January 24, 2001, 20:53

Drake, you're not alone in this discussion.
I'm on your side. Most people who don't play Multiplayer, haven't ever tried multiplayer. For me I play multiplayer both over the LAN (within my home) and WAN (internet)...though most of my civ multiplay games have occured over the LAN, since it's easier to coordinate start/stop times (ie, yell at them!

).

However, even CIV II Multiplayer Gold Edition has both multiplay and singleplay. This, I believe, should remain so with CIV III.

PS: Of course, for stability purposes, playing multiplay over the internet helps if you have DSL

Sabre2th · January 25, 2001, 21:43

if civ3 was multi only, there is no way i would buy the game. multi gets boring and takes up too much time. i for one can't spend half the day sitting at my computer, i have too much to do.