Toward the Promised Land: longer term Civ games

[Dogberry_Old]

What has gone before( that I know of )

This is the somewhat elusive goal of many, if not most Multiplayer Civ gamers & a valid critique by the SP people. Games just do not get to the later and for some, more interesting stages.

Some try to overcome this by gathering a small devoted group of people to play. This works .. after a fashion, but schedules are difficult & many games go on for six months or more. This also tends to be exclusive & does not build the player base.

Others try a more sophisticated approach often involving web-sites , availibity charts, etc. They find that it involves more work than they had bargained for... & sometimes a rapidly changing target.. that is what you planned for today.. no longer looks appropriate in 2 or 3 weeks.

Is this a "hard" problem involving things such as people's available time & their schedules as opposed to how the game plays ? or is this one of those "between-the-ears" problems that is really all about perceptions & attitudes ?

<u>Observation</u>

Recently, I hosted a game that was at most times, 5 player ( King, normal map, 1x1 ). It went to 1000 AD after 5 or 6 hours of play. I define this as well into the midgame. This tells me that a game can be "completed" in 4 or 5 long sessions, or 6 to 8 shorter more reasonable ones.
Conclusion: Longer term games are by no means an insoluble problem.

<u>Problem: Scheduling</u>

<u>Observation</u>: Tens of millions are going to sports events all over the world this very weekend. what is more, they drive or commute many miles to get there. Frequently they take as least six, and often many more hours of their precious freetime to do this. Moreover, they do this with great regularity. It is silly to imagine that we cannot get a few thousand Civ gamers to do the same..& they don't even have to leave the sanctity of their homes !

<u>Solution 1:</u> the Host owns the game. If the host can get a majority, or even a plurality ( say 2 out of the original 4 ) PLUS some stand-in players.. the game goes forward !

<u>Solution 2:</u>Try the "pass-along" concept.. especially if the host has some stamina. If a player needs to go.. use ICQ to find a stand-in. This can even go so far as trading hosts at a certain point. Ironically, people are so busy playing nowadays.. this is not as easy as it once was.. but it still works. Being known as a "good" host helps.

<u>Solution 3:</u>Players need to be willing to jump in.. either taking over from an AI early.. or from another player later. This builds the player base, broadens your circle of Civ acquintances, and gives you ever more Multiplayer Experiencein a wide variety of situations. It is a game unto itself. If you do this.. don't worry.. more & better solutions will be on the horizon.

<u>Note:</u>When changing hosts in a "pass-along" game.. my experience is that it works smoother overall for the original host to zip the game file & transfer it via ICQ rather than use the game function to do this.. as the game function will frequently hang. Choose the host with the most potential stamina & encourage them to use the "pass-along" technique.

<u>Problem: Games tend to evolve into Duels as one or two players take a commanding lead:</u>

<u>Solution 1:</u>Everybody needs to play harder & better.. that is what this forum is for.. that is what this site is for. Experience will eventually get you away from this situation.

<u>Solution 2:</u>Don't go into to a Multiplayer Game with a Single Player Attitude.. Diplomacy is supposed to be the great equaliser.. use it !

<u>Solution 3:</u>Take a task-by-task & goal-by-goal approach to the game. You can still have fun.. sometimes even if it just amounts to tripping the big guy up. Be a Player ! If you can't be King, be the Kingmaker !

<u>Solution 4: </u>the two major contenders might consider taking the game to the ladder .. if it is not already there.. & if they find the situation interesting enough.

<u>Problem: I have started so damn many games that I can't remember them all.. who I was .. etc.</u>

<u>Observation:</u>Yeah.. me too !

<u>Solution ( maybe ):</u>I intend to start a thread with the very next game that I host that will give an outline of the game. I will encourage others to do the same in this thread. Just maybe .. in this fashion I will keep things straight & not let potentially good games.. go a glimmering into the darkness. If I were more organised.. I would do it on my own.. but I am like everybody else.. & would rather play than clean off my desk.

<u>Problem:"Significant Others"</u>

<u>Observation:</u>This is a little bit like the Crazy Aunt who lives in the Attic.. everybody knows about it, but it is not often discussed. In a way you cannot blame them.. as we live in a society by & large where it is ok to buy games.. but frequently considered weird & immature to play them. Also the line is not always drawn between deep thoughtful games like Civ & lesser fare.
Sometimes these feelings arise out of a deep concern over what you do with your time.. at other times they are irrational, emotional & jealous.

<u>Solution: </u>You need to explain that this is something that you do.. that it is a valid hobby.. like bowling.. golf.. fishing, etc. If you get an understanding.. stick to it.. do not go overboard & do make time for other things in your life.. especially your children & spouse. If you make an agreement...Stick to it ! If that does not work..give them everything that they want.. & in double measure.. don't worry, they will soon get bored with you & go back to their lovers.. leaving you to do more important things like playing MP Civ... failing that..if a shooting, divorce or suicide occurs & if you survive .. contact me & I will take up a collection for condolences & flowers.

Dog

 

[Alan_Nicoll]

Before Eyes gets a chance, I'll say it: MORON!!!

Just kidding. Good, thoughtful post, even witty.

I kinda like the idea of players filling in for other players to keep the game going. And I kinda don't like it: players understandably get possessive about their civs, want them to prosper and conquer under THEIR rule.

Anyway, I'll be happy to fill in on a Saturday or Sunday morning (roughly 5:30 AM to 8:30 or 9:00 AM, Pacific time) if you (or anyone) need an experienced player (or just a mouse operator). If we can get others to volunteer as well, and commit to playing a few hours even though they AREN'T WINNING, maybe some games can get past the middle ages. I've got ICQ now: 121787771. Please add me to your list if you want me to fill in.

 

[Dogberry_Old]

Thanks Alan.. coming from you..I would even consider Moron a compliment. I have you on ICQ & will pass along some contacts. My schedule will be whacked out for the next couple of weeks.. but I encourage you to use those contacts that I send to develop more & try the "pass-along" game yourself ( as host ). It works... sometimes amazingly well.

Dog

 

[Flatlander Fox]

I think in order for this to work, the host has to make it clear to the people that are playing that the game will last a certain time period. And when that time is over, the host needs to state what is going to happen with the game. Hopefully they can work out a time when all players can get together again.

But of course you can't please everybody. So, in that case majority rules. Not nice, but in order to play a longer game in the future, I would be willing to lose my Civ that I was playing for the good of the other players now. At least then they could play and the next time I hopefully would be more fortunate and be able to make the time arranged...



------------------
I'm so tired of being tired... Sure as night will follow day... Most things I worry about, never happen anyway...

[This message has been edited by Flatlander Fox (edited July 01, 2001).]

 

[Dogberry_Old]

I have seen a lot of my best starts given over .. to other players .. etc. You just need to have a flexible attitude. This is not a "perfect" solution... & certainly might need modification, but it can get all of us down the road.. til we come up with something better. We should not let perfect be the enemy of good.

Dog

 

[Dogberry_Old]

Going along with the concepts that the host "owns" the game.. & "pass along", a player should not password his side without the host's permission.

Dog

 

[jiml_63]

I am involved with several ongoing games and I enjoy the hell out of it....it' almost like playing 3-D civ...only takes a couple of turns to clear the fog and realize you woke up in another game.

Another enjoyment is while I am waiting for a regularly scheduled game to start...I will advertise that I am available to join a game in porogress, even if for only an hour or so...this does two important things:

1 - I get to meet more players
2 - I get to see a lot of different strategies.

Just like in life, I try to leave the civ in better shape than when I found it.

With a family and a 60 hour work week, this has allowed me to get maximum fun with minimum time in a game that I love.

 

[EntirelyBS]

Need to also focus on getting more players to ONLY move units when its their turn, too...

 

[Dogberry_Old]

Going along with the "pass-along" concept & the idea that the host owns the game.. if the original host passes the game to a new one..the new host should probably own the game at that point. Also the game could bifurcate & split into 2 different versions.

Dog

[This message has been edited by Dogberry (edited July 09, 2001).]

 

[Flatlander Fox]

The hardest part of this method is keeping the player who is behind and has no chance of catching up.
My World Map game has turned into a three horse race, and it is very difficult to find people who want to join a game when they know that they WILL be behind. I think someone who just wants to play like Jiml_63 can swing it, but alot of folks won't even join a game after A.D.

So when someone quits a "three horse race" type game, you are most times left with the option of dueling it out, or quitting...
Then you are back to square one again.

------------------
I'm so tired of being tired... Sure as night will follow day... Most things I worry about, never happen anyway...

 

[Dogberry_Old]

Yep.. this is true. I can think of a number of players.. yourself, myself, Jim_63, Tact & a number of others, that are willing to take a side & participate just for the fun of playing. Many others who are not. In a theoretical WW II game ( say World in Flames) some are willing to take Italy, but most want to play Germany.

When you have 3 close leaders you still have a game going.. if you can get 2 of them & a sub for the disinterested player.

This is a problem that building the player base & experience will help to solve. Also you will find in close to half of the games that you start.. the situation is just not interesting enough to take it forward too far. Many others will be just so-so, but a certain number will be great right down to the finish. Some games will change their "excitement" value during the course of play too. I have played many, many multiplayer games of a wide variety.. & I have never seen this equation altered.

Flatlander.. you, I ..we are also dealing with a younger, more impatient ( & busy ) culture here too.. where there is a lot of crossover from "realtime"..where the virtues of a slow meal, a slow read, & a slow love-making session are poorly understood. This is simply another "between-the-ears" problem that will solve itself over time.

Dog

 

[Alan_Nicoll]

There are few things I like better in Civ2 than taking over a civ in 3rd or 4th or 5th place and pumping it up to number one. Naturally this depends on the quality of the competition.

But I'm not likely to want to play when my phalanx-defended cities are being chewed up by Cannon and Musketeers. AI can handle that much for me, eh?