What makes a good multi-player game?

[techumseh]

Not being an active PBEM player, I'm curious about what makes a good one. This is not for the Contest, but for something else I hope to release before the end of the summer. What do you have to watch for? Can 1 or 2 AI civs be integrated with a majority of human players? What kind of events work with multiplayer?

[Exile]

I don't know if it's art, but I know what I like.



You might take a look at AoW and Imp1870 events files. I honestly can't answer this question, and I have thought about it. All civs having different, but interesting advantages and adversities seems to work. Choice of civs and period is important. No one wants to play a "lame duck" or otherwise unimportant civ. I use the wonders to help balance the scenario as much as possible.

Hope this helps.

[techumseh]

Scenario League used to be about making scenarios, as well as playing them. It used to be a place where ideas for new scenarios were debated and scenarios were avidly discussed and praised or damned. And it used to be a place where assistance was readily available for anyone who asked, even newbees.

By my count, 13 people have posted for various PBEM games since I asked my question. In that time I've only had one reply (thanks, Exile). It seems to me that if people want a place to play PBEM games and draw the odd unit, that's fine. But I think SL is about more than that. Does anyone else?

[DarthVeda]

Hey without us there wouldn't be any PBEM games

Since I don't play a lot of MP games I can't provide a lot of insight, but I think Exile has hit it on the mark.

[MagyarCrusader]

Sorry Tec, we are living in the post-civ2 era now...

[Chris 62]

Well, I'm as active as any in PBEM (see the Spanish forum, we have games going over a year and a half there), so I'm as qualified as any to comment on this.

For a good PBEM scenario, you must have at least 4 fairly even civs, powerful AI civs are fine, the players will destroy them over time anyway.

The Tech tree MUST be free of error, or it's very bad, especially if you devote a year to a game and find a stupid mistake (this is another matter, I find a LOT of scenarios aern't tested properly before release, they have errors that a few play tests would reveal, yet nothing is done).

Time period is a factor also, and I find that including a spy/diplo is a very BAD idea in PBEM games.

Just my 2 cents.

[Chris 62]

One other thing, I find some of the attitudes in the SL rather elitest towards players like me, as if not designing a scenario nulifies my opinion.

In fact, I have offered to help several times and been ignored, so I'm adverse to ever bothering again, and I'm not alone, others also feel this way, so it's not surprising the lack of responces these days.

[techumseh]

I'm sorry you've had that experience, Chris. And thanks for your suggestions, they're helpful. I just find it ironic that the PBEM crowd doesn't have more to say, given that I'm working on a project with them in mind.

MJ, I don't agree about this being the "post-Civ2 era." At least not entirely. There seems to be quite a bit more scenario 'buzz' over at CivFanatics, but IMHO, SL is where it should be happening. Perhaps we need a new forum for PBEM's. What do people think?

[DarthVeda]

Give up now Tech... you cannot defeat me!

[techumseh]

Originally posted by DarthVeda
Give up now Tech... you cannot defeat me!

At what?

[DarthVeda]

[techumseh]

Originally posted by DarthVeda
Give up now Tech... you cannot defeat me!

Is it a contest about who can finish their scenario first? ....No, it can't be that. Hmmm. It's not the scenario contest, cause I'm not in it. I give up!

[JamesJKirk]

I don't think the forum should move. I'm happy with it here, and as it stands now, SL would probably die sans all the PBEM games.

I think the two things I think most important in pbem games are balance between the civs and choices. This is the reason that Exile's AOW and Imp1870 are played by so many. They're both at a time where no power can completely dominate another. This necessitates an alliance system, and backstabbing, and all that fun stuff. They're very easy games to really get in to. I prefer these more open-ended type games rather than those that start out in the middle of a full-scale war.

In regards to events, I prefer carrot & stick type events (ie "For doing that you get this" and "Because you did that, you're punished with this") as opposed to one's reliant on turn #. This pretty much lets everyone have access to the events, so it's good for mp.

I think 1 AI civ is acceptable, and 2 should be the absolute maximum. It's nice to have the small nations represented, but they, without fail, just turn into huge areas for powers to expand into relatively unchecked. While there's always fun negotiating and power plays involved, I don't like that this comprises most of the early turns of a game, and then suddenly there's nowhere left to carve up. Although perhaps that's most historical, in a global sense.

[Boco]

Tech, am I glad to see this thread. It does seem that the single player scenario is in decline.

Not a PBEM'er myself, I seem to see about four common themes in this thread:

1) lots of opportunity for diplomacy and research;
2) >4 civs with an equal chance of winning;
3) relatively quiet start. No one appears to want to start in the middle of a Nemo-style juggernaut.
4) events that flavor things without straightjacketing the players into recreating history;
5) lots of opportunity for diplomacy and research;

Is writing a multiplayer ToT scenario a foolish idea?
Can the victory conditions be tailored for each civ?

Chris, I don't know who's snubbed you, but I doubt your post here is being ignored. Watch out, you sound like an ideal playtester.

[Case]

Unit movement rates is another important factor. Given that it's rare to play more then one turn of a PBEM per week, it's really frustrating to deal with slow moving units (this is my main problem with Kobi's otherwise excelent ZWK).

Another important factor is to keep things simple. This seems to encourage people to play their turns quickly, which is an important factor in keeping a game enjoyable (GNB is an excelent example of this).

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Boco
Chris, I don't know who's snubbed you, but I doubt your post here is being ignored. Watch out, you sound like an ideal playtester.

Thanks, I have done a bit of it for Bebro, Stefan Hartel, Kobayashi, Exile, John Ellis, Jesus Fernandez, ect.

I also write scenario reviews at civfanatics as AoA, so it's not like I have no concept of scenario design.

But I have noticed that several times I offered the league help with the web site and other matters I got a zero answer, so I no longer bother.

SP requires detailed events files and augmenting the AI's forces, MP requires an even playing field for several players, and most scenarios are not suited to it.

PBEM can handle large Nemo-like scenarios rather well, but the main problem is player comitment, finding people to stay over a year and more is problomatic at best, I am part of a dedicated group, but it is rare.

One thing though, a PBEM game is NOT a good place to playtest a scenario for bugs, most players are trying to win, not looking for errors, and many games don't get past 20 turns, whereas most errors are found at the back end of the tech tree, or in things the designer never intended, and aern't seen till the middle or late game.

I'm sure we have all enjoyed some scenaio only to have some flaw ruin many hours of play, such as the dreaded freeze up caused by the AI having nothing to research (This is the most common error, usually brought about by having techs given in the events file too late, or the player misses the trigger, and the error cannot be corrected), or a seeing a unit is unbuildable because it's domain is incorrect, ect.

Sometimes the mistake is in HP ratio, this one is also fairly common, and can ruin a game.

Case, one turn per week is rather slow, we manage 3-5 turns per week in some games.

[our_man]

In the scenario I'm designing for the scenario contest, I've decided to take what I hope is a novel approach that has not been tried before. Without giving too much away I have at the moment two computer controlled tribes (one of which is isolated at the beginning at the game,the neccesity for this being is that I want the latter, more powerful Civ to take over the other AI's cities later in the game via events for historical reasons and to provide the human players with a greater challenge).

I'm trying to envision a PBEM scenario where it is neccesary for the human controlled tribes to join their efforts, at least for a small duration of the game, in order to try and hold back the more powerful AI tribes.

What do all the PBEM players out there think of this idea? Or is the most fun of a PBEM taking on solely other human controlled tribes and wiping them out?

[techumseh]

Thanks everyone, that's very helpful. I assume events have to be strategic (if the Germans capture Baghdad, such and such happens) rather than historical ( a Japanese fleet appears off Hawaii in Dec '41).

How about the built-in diplomacy vs. the human player to human player negotiations? Should the built-in stuff be left intact, or should there be an event to prevent negotiation?

BTW, is anyone else having trouble accessing the forums in the last couple of days?

[Exile]

Techumseh,

When I first put together the events file for AoW, it was designed to augment the historical accuracy, yet not "straightjacket" the players. That original file worked ok for SP (to an extent). But the initial comments from the first people playtesting it in MP made me realize that several events were not really needed, and, given the rather wildly ahistorical diplomacy in the MP games, another event file, created specifically for MP, was a good idea. So I simply pared down the original events file and then included it with the scenario, along with instructions for its use. It's what is now used in the AoW PBEM games now.

On another note; In response to Case's comment about slow moving units. I submitted a revised copy of AoW to JayBee and, AFAIK, this new revised version is up and available on his site now. In it, the naval movement rates are very much increased. There are some new graphics as well, and the scenario has been generally "cleaned up."

[techumseh]

Thanks Exile. The files from your games are an invaluable resource. I get the picture. Keep it simple event wise, and let the players make their own history.

[JamesJKirk]

I think it would be a hinderance to take away the traditional system of negotiating. I don't know how many times I've had to trade maps, or techs, or units or whatever w/ a human and that was the best way to do it. As long as there are understood rules that you don't go asking for tech and money every turn, and otherwise screw up the player, it's fine.

[JMarks]

shoot, now I forgot who's question I'm replying to but:

I for one would love to see some ToT multi-player games, and some people to fool around with them. Especially if its done well.

So, are there some? Or is someone going to make them?

[techumseh]

Well....maybe.