CIV IV Multiplayer?

[ThePersian]

Correct me if i am wrong but i heard that this game was made for the multiplayer and addapted to the 1 player, which is reversed from all the other CIVs.

I still wonder how civ could be an efficiant online game. I mean sure us CIv fanatics would give up 6-9 hs of one day to play the game along side oneanother but for the practical populations.

Sure they have the new time concept. I am just wondering it is unlikely for the Civ server to be as busy as say Americas Army (i HOPE WITH ALL MY HEART I AM WRONG), but its just a feeling.

i had a few questions to. The CIV IV online will it be suppoorted by private survers or by the producers them self?

How is your identity kept track of in the game?

lol, anyone plan to play against me the first day it comes out?

 

[apatheist]

It doesn't have to be rapid. Each game can proceed at its own pace as long as the players are happy with it. That's the benefit of turn-based strategy. The time between turns could be 5 seconds or 5 years; as long as the players are ok with it, it's all the same. I believe there's also a play-by-email feature.

The Civ server would probably be less busy because all it would do would coordinate (I'm guessing). The players' machines would handle all of the calculations. That's different from an FPS where all game state and calculations are on the server.

I think Firaxis/Take2 will have their own server to coordinate games, but I hope they don't limit you to that.

Maybe they'll do a unique CD key. Or some kind of registration. The former seems better to me.

 

[Wolfwood]

As far as I understand, not many of the multiplayer games in Civ3 were ever finished. You always get those players who quit the moment they realise that they are not in the lead, not to mention the fact that people have lives and the game requires you to stay put for several hours at a time...

 

[Leprechaune]

Yeah, well I suppose there'd be some groups that set up some rules where you play the entire game or you're not welcome in anymore of that groups games...

Additionally it's been clearly pointed out that team play will GREATLY help that "I quit" attitude. Personally I like the challenge of seeing where I can get my Civ with what I'm dealt regardless of winning or not. (Yeah I want to win, BUT...)

 

[BobTheTerrible]

What they ought to do is have a game where the host sets up/people join/whatever. If a person leaves in midgame the AI takes control of his civ, and new players are welcome to join while the game is in progress, taking control of an AI civ (that either started the gane as an AI or the remnants of a previous player who left). That would make things interesting, especially if it was a dedicated server, that would just keep restarting once games were over. Another cool feature would be to let people join just to watch, and then if someone leaves they can jump right in the place.

 

[Leprechaune]

100% agree!

 

[vbraun]

As far as I understand, not many of the multiplayer games in Civ3 were ever finished. You always get those players who quit the moment they realise that they are not in the lead, not to mention the fact that people have lives and the game requires you to stay put for several hours at a time...

Back when I played multiplayer a few years ago during PTW times, a 1v1 game usually didn't last more then 2 hours, and people would usually put a time limit of an hour and a half. That was of course becasue all games were played on a tiny map with Elimination on. It made for an intresting game.

And lots of Civ3 MP games have been finished, Go check out the Civ3Players Ladder, and then theres also PBEM games.

 

[searcheagle]

What they ought to do is have a game where the host sets up/people join/whatever. If a person leaves in midgame the AI takes control of his civ, and new players are welcome to join while the game is in progress, taking control of an AI civ (that either started the gane as an AI or the remnants of a previous player who left). That would make things interesting, especially if it was a dedicated server, that would just keep restarting once games were over. Another cool feature would be to let people join just to watch, and then if someone leaves they can jump right in the place.

I think that the "Pit Boss" system that they were talking about.

 

[searcheagle]

It doesn't have to be rapid. Each game can proceed at its own pace as long as the players are happy with it. That's the benefit of turn-based strategy. The time between turns could be 5 seconds or 5 years; as long as the players are ok with it, it's all the same. I believe there's also a play-by-email feature.

The Civ server would probably be less busy because all it would do would coordinate (I'm guessing). The players' machines would handle all of the calculations. That's different from an FPS where all game state and calculations are on the server.

I think Firaxis/Take2 will have their own server to coordinate games, but I hope they don't limit you to that.

Maybe they'll do a unique CD key. Or some kind of registration. The former seems better to me.

I imagine turn limits will be an option like in Civ 3. The turn lengths vary from turn period in the game.

 

[searcheagle]

not to mention the fact that people have lives and the game requires you to stay put for several hours at a time...

In the prerelease information, we learned that they would have 3 different speeds of games. THe fastest one would take only a few hours and is much more condusive to MP Play and should reduce the number of quitting players due to game time. A ratings system should also reduce quitters, which has already been included.

 

[apatheist]

Presumably, if they track players, they'll also track quitters. Perhaps they'll assign players a reliability rating. Players who quit are marked as less reliable. Players who take over abandoned positions get a reliability boost. When starting a game, you should be able to require a minimum reliability rating for players to join. This would be distinct and separate from the skill ratings, but I'm sure there would be some correlation. This would motivate players to finish out a losing position, while the skill rating system would keep them from losing too quickly just to get out.

 

[vStauffenberg]

Presumably, if they track players, they'll also track quitters. Perhaps they'll assign players a reliability rating. Players who quit are marked as less reliable. Players who take over abandoned positions get a reliability boost. When starting a game, you should be able to require a minimum reliability rating for players to join. This would be distinct and separate from the skill ratings, but I'm sure there would be some correlation. This would motivate players to finish out a losing position, while the skill rating system would keep them from losing too quickly just to get out.

a (really) good idea, the best i've read here for a while.

 

[Himalia]

A reliable player would indeed be a more valuable commodity than a good one that for sure. Does that mean i can trade a reliable player for both your spice and gems ?

 

[777]

Player registration and statistic center would be nifty idea. I would love to dig out all the geek info of other players, all the useless still fun little infos

I'm not sure is this possible in c3c but co-operative option with friend would be also nice. You know, if you win your friend wins too

 

[TheBB]

I'm not sure is this possible in c3c but co-operative option with friend would be also nice. You know, if you win your friend wins too

This is the team victory condition we've heard so much about.

 

[Himalia]

Its a real problem with multiplayer all this dropping out. I end up playing with just about the same players each game simply beacause they dont drop out.

 

[Robi D]

As far as i understand it, the pit boss feature will really help in keeping games going. When you start a game and everyones there it will play as normal then when one or more players can't keep playing because they have to go to work or something, then it reverts to a PBEM game until everyones online again, then it continues as normal. I for one look forward to this as it can be hard to be in one place for 4-5 hours

 

[ComradeDavo]

Presumably, if they track players, they'll also track quitters. Perhaps they'll assign players a reliability rating. Players who quit are marked as less reliable. Players who take over abandoned positions get a reliability boost. When starting a game, you should be able to require a minimum reliability rating for players to join. This would be distinct and separate from the skill ratings, but I'm sure there would be some correlation. This would motivate players to finish out a losing position, while the skill rating system would keep them from losing too quickly just to get out.

I agree with vStauffenberg, that is indeed a good idea.

 

[Janos]

My vote goes to Apatheist's idea too - hopefully something like this can be implemented.

 

[Meshen85]

I'm loving the idea of the "Pit Boss" system. I have a mate who very rarely plays civ with me, it's a struggle to get him to spend that much time on it. The idea of checking in, taking your turn and going back at a future point to see if your opponent has taken his turn is very appealing to me for this reason. He basically has no excuse now It allows a much more casual approach to multiplayer Civ games. You can continue like this at your leisure, and then when you get a chance, you can dive back in for a fully fledged game. It's also really good to hear that Firaxis have been concentrating on the multiplayer aspect. It means they're well aware of the incredibly buggy Civ III muliplayer aspect, and are doing their best to make sure everything's spot on this time around.