quote: I think one big reason I wouldnt switch from IP games to PBEM game sis lack of Diplomacy. In my opinion that is what makes MP far more fun than playing AI. I would love to see more diplomacy allowed not less.

Huh? This is wacky-wrong. PBEM games allow more diplomacy than IP games, not less. I've had SMAC PBEM turns where the email and instant messaging and chat room meetings (and even telephone calls) have been fast and furious. IP games have less diplomatic capabilities, not more.

The only problem with PBEM diplomacy in previous Civ and SMAC game systems was poorly designed multiplayer diplomacy tools grafted onto the game engines as afterthoughts. Since Firaxis is designing multiplayer from the start and building a more robust diplomatic system, this won't be an issue in Civ3.

quote: By all means maintain a good PBEM system I know lots of people tha tuse it, but the IP version is still far and away the most popular as it allows human interaction.

As for your comments re PBEM SMAC being more popular, you will notice I was referring to Civ 2 MP not SMAC, for any one itnerested goto Civ 2 Multipalyer threads to see number of games organissed for IP versus PBEM...

Not all Civ 2 players have migrated to SMAC as it doesnt reaaly interest us. WE are awaiting a Civ 3 not a SMAC 2 !!

For the interests of MP this thread should be moved to Civ2 MP threads as that is where the majority of MP people on APolyton hang out having a good time discussing the games we play.

I agree.

Also agree with options for city OR/and Unit bribing.

Good Idea XIN for customizing while waiting for all to join.

PLEASE CONTINUE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO HOST>

KICK option good, to avoid having to restart game.

I really like all the connection/speed monitor ideas. It's always nice to know if you're having problems, where the likely cause is. Even though some people with consistent lousy connections might find themselves discriminated against by people that aren't patient.

BUT THE BIGGEST THING>>>>>>> MAKE SURE IT IS PLAYTESTED BY REAL PLAYERS>
unlike, CPT2, nough said..

RAH
Sorry, not a lot of new ideas, but I got here late

quote: How do you do Diplomacy with another civ in Email games, the AI takes over all contacts while you load as SP virtually in PBEM game. You cant call up another human and do tech trading form alliance or swap citys etc.... This needs to be done live !!!!!

Did you even read my message? I said that the diplomacy model in the old Civ2 and SMAC multiplayer PBEM systems had very bad tools. There is no way that Firaxis is going to be stupid enough to hand diplomacy over to the AI in PBEM or turn-based simultaneous-execution games.

quote: As for your comments re PBEM SMAC being more popular, you will notice I was referring to Civ 2 MP not SMAC, for any one itnerested goto Civ 2 Multipalyer threads to see number of games organissed for IP versus PBEM...

We're referring to Civ3. All of its predecessors are applicable examples. In fact, Civ2 basically doesn't support PBEM except in very hacked, cheatable ways. So using the number of Civ2 IP vs. PBEM games as the sole measurement of the popularity of one system over the other is basically unfair. It's about the same as saying "nobody plays Civ1 multiplayer, so multiplayer must not be very popular, so there's no need for multiplayer in Civ3."

quote: We MP people havent asked for SP to be altered to suit us and make it better for us to try , so please dont mess with our MP version let us MP people decide what will work better for us.....

I'm an MP person, just like you. All the people asking for changes to the MP system want to play MP. Why do you assume we aren't MP people?

quote: I just want to say that ip games are the only way I'd ever play. PBEM is way too slow.

That's the whole point of turn-based simultaneous-execution, which would solve the problems of slow PBEM games.

quote: The whole idea behind PBEM is that its played at peoples leisure. If you're running a continuous loop, talking with everyone while you wait for the game to arrive, you might as well play ip.

Did you even read what we wrote? There are serious significant problems with IP play. All players have to be online at the same time. Players must play for hours at a stretch. Taking a break kills the game for the other players. Players are rushed to finish their turns so that other players won't have to wait. Do you really want to play an IP game with someone who wants to spend and hour fine tuning a single turn? Does IP play allow me to stop for 20 minutes because my daughter needs attention right now? I didn't think so. IP isn't for everyone. We're not saying that we want IP eliminated, just that we want other options!

quote: Besides, getting hundreds of saved games in my email is not my idea of a good time.............

Again, you're using the example of the really sucking implementation of PBEM as the only yardstick to judge PBEM. The whole point of the turn-based simultaneous-execution model is that you don't have to send or receive games by email. In the best of all possible worlds, I'd go to the game webpage, click on the link for the particular game, and Civ3 would fire up and let me take my turn and would automatically upload my orderset when I was done.

One tribe has 4 or 5 cities and 20 units; another has 40 or 50 cities and 200 units. While AIs will play on stoically when their tribe is pathetic; real people cannot be expected to wait 15 minutes for an ICS leader and then play for 30 seconds in a hopeless situation. There is nothing worse than being a host on the defensive and being asked to give me another
10 minutes [so I do not risk hurrying my 50 unit assault on you.]

I would therefore suggest for Civ3 three new multi-player parameters:

(a) maximum number of cities each tribe could build

(b) maximum number of units each tribe could build

(c) maximum number of units each tribe could move each turn.

I believe that this could dramatically improve multi-play quality.

1.)Lessening the disparity these key variables can produce in the game program itself.
2.)Keep it the way it is in civ2, but offer more options on these variables when setting up a multiplayer game. ie.)
-Huts on/off
-Hut consistencies
-Extra settlers on/off
-Extra tech on/off
-Each civ starts with * resources in view (or) Start resources random
-Intelligent default for equal surrounding land on/off

Many would argue that this adds to an already complicated list of game options, so you could group them all off to the side in a "variable options" table that most advanced players would choose to use. Those that enjoy unequal game situations with difference and "character" (including myself on many occasions) can choose not to tweak these variable settings. If the game becomes too asymmetrical from there then too bad, either one player is better than the other, or you should have chosen to equalize the variables.

If Firaxis are reaaly serious about getting our opinions why wasnt this thread ever posted to Civ 2 MP section. Most MPers dont come over here to check on threads as there has always been an overabundance of SP issues and our MP issues were seemingly lost early on.

I for one wont buy Civ3 if it doesnt have an adequate MP playabilty including IP games. Whilst modern technology may allow so much more to be added to Civ 3 compared to Civ 2 I hope most of the changes are reaaly only the bug fixes we always wanted but never got.. Thats jsut my opinion..

quote: Originally posted by Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS on 03-21-2000 10:57 AM 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

I'd really like a minimum of setup dialog boxes. I hate selecting one option at a time and pressing OK forever when setting up or joing games.
I'd rather have one 'form' where ALL the choices for SP or MP are available as pulldown menus/radio buttons etc.

I like the idea of a server that hosts hundreds of MP games.
It could build up your reliability rating as a player and display it as some have suggested; buld up your game skill profile so you can find players of similar skill levels; links to the ancilliary game setup thread and a separate 'story' thread; your 'character' profiles for different games would be available to choose from in the setup screen; plus all the fine-tunings we like to use like no-city bribe, degrees of simul play etc.

You must NOT display the number of units available to each civ when re-starting a session! It gives away too much in MP

We must however retain the ability to host the games independently and be able to minimise the game to run other programs in the b/g.

Having more than seven civs is a basic expectation IMHO

quote: Originally posted by EvilProphet on 04-27-2001 02:44 PM Why the hell are the programmers asking for the opinion of players on something as technical as this? I've never heard of something like this on another game. All the while all of you bicker and go over what you feel is the correct way to set all of this up. This is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever seen. From what I've seen of Civ3 so far, I'm not impressed. And I'm especially not impressed with this constant ask the players what they want strategy. It sounds more to me like this game is going to be a "give them what they want so they'll shut up" game.

ahhhh, civ3 will do away with successful strategies based on unrealistic 'features'..... the sour grapes are starting already!

I think a new breed of TOP PLAYERS may emerege with civ3 -
Players who rely on real strategies and not bugs in the civ program.

quote: Originally posted by deity on 04-28-2001 11:35 PM I like the idea of a server that hosts hundreds of MP games.

NO NO NO DEITY! We don't like this. Players must be able to host IP games. Think about it - what if the server is down, slow, whatever. How is it going to perform if the server is in the States and we're playing in Australia????? What if Macs can't use it?

I know you just want to show off by building up a player profile but THAT is just a stupid suggestion!

quote: Originally posted by Russian King on 04-29-2001 12:34 AM NO NO NO NO NO That would spoil the game completely! The game is designed to recreate future. It even says on the box that you are not given a predefined future. IE: You let the coarse of the game take you! Slingshot: no offence but you should play Age of Empires

YOU can get the hell out this thread too Russian King - you obviously don't multiplay

Carry on Slingshot

I dont want Special servers. We need to keep the ability to host ip and lan games. Special servers leads to lobbies where kids that hav no intention of playing hang out. There they practice hiding behind there anonimitty, with things like filling my screen with the repeat function.

"I think a new breed of TOP PLAYERS may emerege with civ3 -
Players who rely on real strategies and not bugs in the civ program."

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 04-29-2001 02:04 AM NO NO NO DEITY! We don't like this. Players must be able to host IP games. Think about it - what if the server is down, slow, whatever. How is it going to perform if the server is in the States and we're playing in Australia????? What if Macs can't use it? I know you just want to show off by building up a player profile but THAT is just a stupid suggestion!

No, no, WE don't want servers, sorry

What I want is everything we got now PLUS the option of servers.
No problems with that?

What doth the Aussie mafia think?

Servers will be more reliable than the current options and less cheat prone too.

quote: Originally posted by EvilProphet on 04-29-2001 01:17 PM always I will arise as the greatest player.

Sean, change the record man. We all know a. you cheat and b. you only ever win when you get the game settings you want i.e. refer to a.

I am worried this game is to geared towards single players, and because playing civ can be turned into a art form i highly doubt that they will catch all the bugs when play testing it for multiplayer. Me eyes and arri are some of those few players that can take this game to the extremes.

eyes = knows all the cheats and loopholes
arri = Can launch a spaceship at 700 ad on diety and grow faast
me = Tremendous growth and power & understanding of trade... Deity i am sure you remember those 7 player games i won

I hope they get some really SKILLED people to play test civ3 otherwise it will be as unbalanced as civ2.

quote: Originally posted by markusf on 04-30-2001 06:20 PM edit... eyes = knows all the cheats and loopholes arri = Can launch a spaceship at 700 ad on diety and grow faast me = Tremendous growth and power & understanding of trade... Deity i am sure you remember those 7 player games i won I hope they get some really SKILLED people to play test civ3 otherwise it will be as unbalanced as civ2.

I haven't a clue what you are referring to?
You and I have yet to complete a game. We have 4 I think that need to be completed - you only significantly lead one of the pg's - the arii/Crusty/finbar game.

OR, are you talking about games you've TOLD me about LOL!

quote: Servers i think would be pretty useless... ie you can't play with modified rules.txt MDL rules, or curumbers....

Um, no. Nothing about servers automatically means you can't play with modified configuration files. This is 2001, not 1996. Don't base everything on your experiences with Civ2.

quote: Originally posted by ChrisShaffer on 05-02-2001 07:20 AM If Firaxis owns and hosts the servers, they could still allow upload of modified rules files. And if they allow anyone who wants to host games, then the possibilities abound.

Well i am a programmer, and trust me this wouldn't be on the list of firixas list of things to do... They would have to maintain the servers, get good bandwidth, manage/build a system to allow you to have your own config files etc. And for what end? So that some remote machine hosts the game instead of yours? What happens if the game crashes? etc etc Nearly ever game that has gone this route has turned into pay/per use

quote: Originally posted by EdwardTKing on 04-26-2001 03:56 PM A major problem with Civ2 is that it can become very asymmetrical. One tribe has 4 or 5 cities and 20 units; another has 40 or 50 cities and 200 units. While AIs will play on stoically when their tribe is pathetic; real people cannot be expected to wait 15 minutes for an ICS leader and then play for 30 seconds in a hopeless situation. There is nothing worse than being a host on the defensive and being asked to give me another 10 minutes [so I do not risk hurrying my 50 unit assault on you.] I would therefore suggest for Civ3 three new multi-player parameters: (a) maximum number of cities each tribe could build (b) maximum number of units each tribe could build (c) maximum number of units each tribe could move each turn. I believe that this could dramatically improve multi-play quality.

Good point! I have never played any Civ MP-game, but what you are describing above is the very reason that I often been so reluctant to even try. I would really hate it if I found out late in the game that I wasted time on playing against ICS-type of players, with tiresome quantity-before-quality approaches.

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 04-16-2001 11:50 AM 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.

I agree with this wholey, maybe even make it so that you can convert to either one at any time so that if all players have some time alloted the game can go from a PBEM to a LAN game for a while, then back to PBEM, when time constraints become a factor.

quote: Originally posted by markusf on 05-02-2001 10:22 AM That 7 player game with your map... ahem 8 wonders at 100 ad 7 players... everyone else has what, 3 wonders combined?

Ahhh, we are talking about ONE game are we now
The one where you are at the top of the pg with me closely behind...........LOL!

I don't need Wonders! Hardly ever build them. Maybe Leo and Hoover.

quote: Originally posted by Deity Dude on 05-10-2001 05:11 PM If there are unique civ attributes or other elements that give certain civs advantages over others there should be a way to turn them off. We spend alot of time restarting games now just because someone gets extra techs. In multiplayer, players want things to be as equal as possible so that outcomes are determined by player ability and not luck.

Oh come on, i play red alert, i play starcraft etc. most games have different factions with unique units. One guy gets a cool tank another guy an airplane and another guy gets a science bonus etc. Those games wouldn't be so successful if it didn't work