Multiplayer Setup Screens

[Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS]

Hey folks. I'd be interested in seeing a discussion on multiplayer setup screens. By that I mean the screen that you use to configure, join, and get information on a multiplayer game. This can include in-game lobbies (like with SMAC) or external ones (like IGZ and MPlayer) or anything in-between. Any comments on what you think is necessary or unwanted would be useful. Please cite your examples to specific games if possible, but don't limit your comments to existing systems. Thanks for the help.

jkm
firaxis games

[Robert Plomp]

Civilization games are known to last long.
Therefor it happens very often that more sessions are needed to complete a game.

Can you include some kind of a sign in the lobby that shows if people often finish games, or often just don't continue on games. That way serious players can easily pick out players that often finish long games, and aren't faced with 3 out of 7 players that stop playing.

Something you should really implement is the so called tribe-system. Thus that every login can belong to one tribe, and these tribes can play multiplayer games and receive points (kinda like Tiberian Sun uses)

CPU / PC-memmory information.
I play much Tiberian Sun, and it only shows us how fast someone's connection is. But someone can have a pretty fast connection on a pentium 133. That means the game goes still as slow as SMAC on a 8086.

Time-information.
For games like CIV it's important to play with people that prefer to play in your timezone. (for if you want to play more sessions) thus it's good if you can give up prefered timezones.

Maybe you can even create a page that shows for every login the prefered playtimes. Then you can e-mail all people that fit in your playsceme.

In fact we need as much as possible information on what players there are, their play preferences (Timezones, duration per session etc.) and how reliable they are.
This is VERY important for long games like civ3.

If I have more ideas, I'll post them here.

CyberShy

------------------
ghen: I still don't know your viewpoints though Quite a confusing individual..
CyberShy: Read Here

DanS: I have every intention of answering your questions when I have time to research and answer them fully.
For the record.....still waiting for his answers.
DanS after he read my signature: Cybershy: as things are going, you will have that signature for quite some time.

[Robert Plomp]

I assume with the above that you create a unique login for everyone. (indeed like Westwood does, if I can name your competitors in the RTS branch )

Thus indeed, all players register to the civ3 server(s) and have their information locked on that server. They can change it themselves of course.

CyberShy

Edit: How comes that Jeffrey posted this about 7 hours ago, and nobody replied ?

------------------
ghen: I still don't know your viewpoints though Quite a confusing individual..
CyberShy: Read Here

DanS: I have every intention of answering your questions when I have time to research and answer them fully.
For the record.....still waiting for his answers.
DanS after he read my signature: Cybershy: as things are going, you will have that signature for quite some time.
[This message has been edited by CyberShy (edited March 21, 2000).]

[Slingshot]

Thanks for the post! It is nice to hear from a Firaxian.

I've never played multiplayer because it is too much of a solid time commitment.

Before the game, I would like to see options that would let a player form "teams." Each member of a team would be in control of their own civ, but the team would be made up of civs that support a union of some sort.

If one member of the team were to drop out, his/her cities could be parceled to the rest of the team members.

During the game, new members could join and receive existing cities from their new team members. These people would wait in a queue. A "new hopeful" icon could appear on the screen and show the number of people wanting to join. By clicking on the icon, you could select a player and drag cities over to his/her control.

Also during the game:

I would like to see permanent icons around the map border - one for each opponent you have discovered. Clicking on the icon would give instant communication.

Maybe these icons could be arranged according to how your civ views them. Or maybe there could be general communication icons that would let you send messages to all allies, all opponents at war with you, etc.

[Slingshot]

So here I am, typing these ideas and thinking I'll be the first to respond.

But then Cybershy slips in his ideas only moments before... and they're so similar!

So is "team play" and "tribe play" the same thing?

[Robert Plomp]

You got 7 hours to post them before me :P

yeah, I think it's the same

CyberShy

------------------
ghen: I still don't know your viewpoints though Quite a confusing individual..
CyberShy: Read Here

DanS: I have every intention of answering your questions when I have time to research and answer them fully.
For the record.....still waiting for his answers.
DanS after he read my signature: Cybershy: as things are going, you will have that signature for quite some time.

I don't play multiplayer, so I'll leave the main ideas to them, but the constructive interface I can help on.

If you can keep the windows down to a minimum of 2 that would be nice, then there wouldn't be so much leaving one area and into another, and then needing to go back (and in some cases you can't!)

I'd like to see a list to the right or left of the screen, that had a list of all the people in the server. And you could message them (A lot like ICQ's system).
And this list is on every screen, even screens where it seems irrelevant. (Just don't put the list on the game screen, make it an option to open up within the game).
This way we can keep contact with people all the time. Because sometimes I end up having to Alt-Tab to get out of the program, send a message to ICQ and then wait for the message to come back, then alt-tab to get back in. It's a pain.

colour code everything, if the person is running a game, that persons name should be red, the rest blue, or whatever.

If you're going to have a chat screen (and I know you are), make it big....big big....not a little box in the corner. (Diablo's chat screen is nice).

Actualy, I was just thinking about gameplay..
If you allow chatting in the game, freely. Then you might reduce the realism of contact.
Even though it seems kind of silly.
I think you should only be able to chat to someone if you've made contact with them. (This is in game btw).
So I suggest no multiplayer chat screens within the game.

I'm getting flooded with ideas, but they're all in-game ideas, not multiplayer screen ones, sorry!

you can look at my post on dino, its the same thing for both

[yin26]

Jeff,

Thanks for posting the note.

First, everything should be "clean," of course; easily read and understood. Beyond that...

The thing that became most frustrating in SMAC was simply the handling of more than one PBEM game at a time. I would LOVE to see a "Game's in progress" button that shows not only the games in progress but the status of each game and each player. So it might look like this:

Games in Progress:

1 Yin's PBEM Game (Yin, Uncleroggy, Shiny and Lady Rachel). Large map, etc. Started June 4, 2000--15 turns completed. Current turn with Shiny, sent by Uncleroggy 17 hours ago.
2 Uncleroggy's PBEM Game (Uncleroggy, Yin, Shiny, Jeff). Medium map, etc. Started June 11, 2000-10 turns completed. Current turn with Yin, sent by Uncleroggy 4 hours ago.
3 Yin's IP Game (Yin and Uncleroggy). Small map, etc. Started June 15th, 2000. 7 turns completed. Last turn played by Yin 14 hours ago.

NOTE: If one of these games is currently with me to play a turn, it should be flashing red or something telling me my turn is waiting. So I just click on it, play the turn, and the comp handles sending it on and updating everybody.

ALSO: If a player doesn't play his turn in X hours, the comp should automatically send the player a reminder note followed in a few hours by the comp taking the player's turn and sending on the save. If this happens again, players should vote on replacing this player with the AI or a new player.

Now if I click on one of these games, the information on each player should pop up, along with tools for contacting the group or individual player:

"1 Yin's PBEM Game (Yin, Uncleroggy, Shiny and Lady Rachel). Large map, etc. Started June 4, 2000--15 turns completed. Current turn with Shiny, sent by Uncleroggy 17 hours ago."

1. Yin: 5 PBEM games completed. Won 3 and lost 2. Average time to pass on turns is 9 hours. Currently involved in 3 games (2 PBEM and 1 IP). No incomplete games. e-mail@: XXXX
2. Uncleroggy [info]
3. Shiny [info]
4. Lady Rachel [info]

To e-mail this group, click here.

There should also be an easy way to change the players in a given game if people drop out. Either a comp or another human player should be able to take over another player's spot with ease.

Finally, a roster of all players past and present would be nice. NOTE: I would love to be able to sort ALL players according to # of games finished, average turn time, etc. This would allow me to create a "target" group of players.

"To e-mail players in all current games, click here. SEE list."

"To e-mail ALL players in both past and present games, click here. SEE list."

"To create a new group, click here."

Anyway, sorry for the mess. What I'm getting at is for an easy way to manage the games and the people in multiple PBEM, IP and LAN games. Hopefully simultaneous turns will be implemented as well to speed things up, but the MP aspect of Civ3 should focus on streamlining the mechanics of asynchronous turns as much as possible so games don't die out of confusion. SO much of this can and should be handled by the computer and summarized for the player, who is then only one click away from contacting the relevant players.

[MidKnight Lament]

I haven't played much MP, so I haven't got much to say...

...except thanks for asking.

- MKL

[ChrisShaffer]

Most people who want to play multiplayer Civ don't have time to play direct-connect games. Support PBEM or server-based asynchronous play (see below) from the start! I, for one, will never have the time to sit down with six of my favorite opponents to play a game - but I love playing SMAC via email and would really like to see that system improved.

Agreed that PBEM is a mess as implemented in SMAC. I make a strong second of yin26's post above. There needs to be provision for the AI to take a player's turn while respecting build queues or other priorities set by the player - i.e. the AI shouldn't turn the empire 180 degrees in one turn.

Simultaneous movement with asynchronous orders (is that a mouthful?) would be a great boon for multiplayer Civ. For example:

• All players (human and AI) receive a turn report, which can be reviewed and replayed as desired.
• All players create a set of potential orders for units, cities, and diplomacy.
• All players submit orders.
• All orders are adjudicated (on schedule or when all players have submitted orders). Conflicting orders are decided using a rule-based priority system.
• Game generates turn reports.
• Repeat.

See the Simultaneous Turns of Play thread in the list of ideas for more on this topic. Note that this would also allow players to create their own (complete or modular) AI's to manage their empires :-)

Another thing that's needed on the game setup screen is a 'moderator' password - a password that can be used to change game settings and reset players' passwords and such. Too many PBEM games die because a player dropped out and nobody has their password, or the AI can't take over an abandoned position.


[This message has been edited by ChrisShaffer (edited March 22, 2000).]

[DaveV]

A lot of the discussion on MP involves setting up a level playing field for all players. Lots of people restart if the host has techs or someone has more settlers than the rest. It would be nice to have a configuration screen that let you specify certain parameters that would apply to all players:

Number of settlers
Number of starting techs
Goody huts/no huts
Min/max distance to other players
Min/max island/continent size
Number of [specials,hills,grass,etc.] in 4-square radius
And more, I'm sure...

If the map generator can be improved so that it can produce several medium-sized islands on a small map, that would make a lot of people happy.

[Xin Yu]

What I don't like for the internet game of Civ2 MPE is that I waited several minutes for connection (waiting for other people) then got to choose my tribe. i.e., there were two steps for a setup and I must constantly pay attention to the screen in between.

It would be nice if I got to setup my tribe (tribe name, and leader name under different governments) BEFORE logging on and waiting for connection. This way I can custom my tribe, save it and use it in other games.

The game can randomly assign a color for each civ after logging in.

[markusf]

I play a lot of IP games as i think the majority of players do. And i have noticed a LOT of things that can be improved. I am currently at the top of the Civ II ladder and when playing others of equal rank it turns into nothing more then who is luckier.

I would like to see the following options.

Starting techs
Settlars
Allow bribing
Turn off all huts
Kick Player (often a player drops but he is still there in the game and he can't rejoin)
Max amount of cities.
Something to alter science rate (ie speed it up or slow it down)

Players cities count and units should be removed from the join screen. And they should be added to the foriegn affairs screen when you establish a embasy, as well as graphs standings etc.


I think the idea of needing a civ server to play is rather stupid. Civ isn't a RTS game and most games are co-oridinated by icq, they take HOURS to finish. The ability to let anyone host and to allow the rotation of hosts(ie if host quits)is fantastic and i think more games should move towards that.


[This message has been edited by markusf (edited March 22, 2000).]

[ChrisShaffer]

If you're talking about Civ2, the only reason that "a majority of players" play IP games is because it is MUCH too easy to cheat in Civ2 PBEM. If PBEM were made easier (see simultaneous turns above) and it were harder to cheat in PBEM, I think you'd find that the majority of games would be played via PBEM - not IP. As one example, most SMAC multiplayer is PBEM, very little is IP.

[ChrisShaffer]

More configuration options are better. Fewer screens are better. This should be balanced.

The startup screens to customize a game of SMAC take almost 10 screens to set just a few options - use custom map, then map size, then % ocean, then erosion, then cloud cover, then native life, then difficulty level, then one screen to set each human player.... This could (should) be consolidated to one screen.

On the other hand, I'd hate to see the number of multiplayer setup options limited because you decided that you had to fit all the options on one or two screens.

Realistically, you're talking about setting up a game that's going to take a long time to play. Using 5 minutes to set up a 200+ turn game seems reasonable.

[Jon Miller]

Hi all

I play extensively on LAN
( my school has every dorm completely connected by Lan and a fast connection from there to the rest of the net), but I want to say that while that is nice if you can find enough people to play you when you want to play it sucks when you want to play over the net because of the schools firewall

if you coud make civ3 (and dinos) be played online in such away as to bypass the firewall students like myself would play it online

I and a lot of other students would play way more online games if we could use our school connection (it provides fast service to all of us)

also many of the ideas listed above sound good

envasis should be on ease of use of picking up a game that was in progress before and facilitating player entrances and exits without ending the game (if the players wish this enabled)

there are advantages both to using your own site and working through heat or mplayer or some front like that

the advantage of company site is that it would probably be better set up for hosting the game (note this must be set up good and kept up good), the other option might put the game out there for those players that frequent that site

the problem with putting it on multiple sites is that there needs to be enough players to make an active site (if the site is not active people will have to wait long periods of time to play and will get tired and leave) and having it offered on only one sites brings them all there

I will repeat again that the site that is end the end chosen (whether dedicated or through someone else) must be able to handler it and not crash

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

in addition

I do not play email

and I assume those that praise email would come over to the dark sidr ( real games) if they had opponents and the connection (or a game that was set up well enough for multi that the net would nnote slow things down)

in order to get lots of players (which will be needed to get the first part, opponents there when you wish to play) you will have to sell the civ multiplay idea (and have an easy to use site, no dos please)

Jon Miller

[ChrisShaffer]

quote: and I assume those that praise email would come over to the dark sidr ( real games) if they had opponents and the connection (or a game that was set up well enough for multi that the net would nnote slow things down)

This is insulting. No, we would not all do this. IP games are not "real" games and PBEM games are not "fake" games. Speed of connection and number of opponents have nothing to do with it. I want:

• 1. Time to micromanage to my heart's content.
• 2. The ability to fit the game into my very "real" life.

Item 1 isn't very easy in direct-connect games, as there are usually time limits imposed.

Item 2 is next to impossible in direct-connect games. I rarely have time to play 10 turns in a row - even in single player mode. I have a family, a job, lots of activities...and nowhere in that do I have more than 15-30 minutes at a stretch to play games like Civ or SMAC. I have to be able to pause the game to take care of family crises at any time - would you really want to play a direct-connect game with me given those limitations? However, I find it very easy to play a turn here, a turn there in PBEM games.

I (and many others) have absolutely no interest in playing Civ via direct-connect. That isn't going to change. I'm not saying Firaxis shouldn't include the ability to play direct-connect games. I am saying that they should provide and support other options from the beginning, instead of adding PBEM or server-based asynchronous play as a patch, which they did with SMAC.

[Grumbold]

I can only agree. I've found MMORPGS great fun but ultimately drop them because I cannot devote enough time on-line to get ahead in a realtime environment. Spending 30 minutes organising a group only to leave 15 minutes later hurts everyone.

A viable PBEM version, preferably with simultaneous resolution, would be a great boon. The options to ensure a balanced start point are essential. A couple of screens would be good but if this takes 30 screens to configure perfectly, so be it!

[DanS]

In addition to a change in order for the choices, as Xin mentions, I suggest that "waiting for others to join" be made a more informative and interactive pop up box. I have a wish list of information that includes:

(1) Who has already joined
(2) The approx. speed of their connection
(3) The approx. ping time of their connection to a dummy host
(4) Lost packet info. for each connection
(5) A speed/ping/hops/lost packet analysis and a recommendation on who should host--this could be tied into dynamic hosting, as mentioned above.
[This message has been edited by DanS (edited March 23, 2000).]

[FieryDove]

Would be helpful to list the following:

Connection speeds/pings of all players.
Also a search/match for similar speed players would be great.

Players win/loss/disconnect/non-completed game records.

Listing of players wishing to play Co-op vs the computer opponents would be cool too.

Just a few thoughts for now...
Cheers,
Rita
"FieryDove"

[Gramphos]

An AutoFill IP would be good.
Check
http://www.apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/002458.html

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I know that this is going beyond the scope of just what the screen should look like, but I'd like to see an option for cooporative multiplayer, perhaps with tribes. By which I mean you have a group of people that all manage different aspects of an empire, and that group is in a game with other groups running other civs. If nothing else, I think it could really speed up multiplayer turns if you have different people all simultaneously controlling pieces of a single civ, especially in the later portions of the game.

[me_irate]

I personally like the lobby and setup that is used to multiplay ctp2. I like the setup for ctp2 just not the bugs, resincs, and other problems that plague the servers.

[tniem]

I think the most important element that needs to be added streamlined for multiplayer games through ISP, LAN, etc. is for the game to be able to saved and then replayed when everyone involved can come back for another round. Countless times, my friends and I have had to quit a SMAC game midway through because one of us had work. Allow saves constantly and allow us to have more control of when to kick people from the game and simply allow a kicked off person to come back.

[Bereta_Eder]

I haven't played many multiplayer games so I am not the one to give you the best suggestions.

But it's great that you ask fans for advice

Ah, CIV III will be great I feel it

[Roman]

I have only one suggestion:

Please, let the player control his/her own diplomacy while playing hotseat games, because the diplomacy AI has the tendency to spoil the player's plans (which is not suprising - it doesn't know them) I appreciate the difficulty of this, but my suggestion would be to provide each player with a password, so when you initiate contact with his civilization, you have to call him to the computer, he types in the password you make your deals together and both of you approve the deal with your passwords. You then carry on with your turn.

Please if the above is too muddled to understand indicate it and I will retype it in a clearer way.

If the above proves to be impossible, than at least have the contacting player set up a deal, which then appears in a po-up box at the beginning of the other players turn, who procceds to approve it, or not, and the deal takes effect immediatelly.

Thank you for asking this question.

[Roman]

One more addition could be included in hotseat, though that could also apply to single player games. There should be a way to combine two civs into one if the two players agree to do so.

BTW: Sorry this is a little OT.

[tniem]

I find the most frustrating thing about PBEM games is that it takes so long to get going. You move one unit and tell your city to build something and then you have to wait for your opponent to do the same and send it back to you.

I think it would be a great addition if you allowed PBEM games to start as a LAN game, allowing all participants to work the early part of the game for a couple of hours before carrying on to the more strategic part of the game. This first part of the PBEM game would end either by a default time setting or when one person has to leave. From then on, the game becomes a normal PBEM game.


P.S. I also believe that diplomacy must be handled by the player him/herself. Without it all this, let's make diplomacy more important is useless.