We've been assigned to discuss MMO

I've always thought a CIV based MMO would be fun. My thoughts:

Many MMO's base their gameplay around clans, guilds, player associations, etc. CIVMMO would be interesting if your clan could found a city, put down houses, and put down civic improvements as well. Overtime members of your clan would have access to tools, weapons, armor, technology, buildings, etc which would make them better. The clan could choose a Monarchy, Republic, Democracy, or Council of Elders for government and certain things would be available. I think Star Wars Galaxies has an excellent approach to crafting, worker tasks, and player city building placement.

As with any clan, it may dissappear overtime and those members left would only have rights of a pure generic citizen/basic warrior until they joined another civilization and trained in their barracks.

I'd worry that the rules for taking over rival cities be carefully thought out so that it would be fun and not alienate non-powergamers.

I also think that the game should be limited to one or two or maybe three time periods (IE caveman, bronze, iron age or bronze, iron, mideval)

Watcha think?
 
Again: how do you prevent people from dismantling your empire when you're not logged-in? That's really the core "problem" w/ most MMOs... success or failure is generally a function of "time played" as opposed to skill.
 
Volstag said:
Again: how do you prevent people from dismantling your empire when you're not logged-in? That's really the core "problem" w/ most MMOs... success or failure is generally a function of "time played" as opposed to skill.
What about automating construction and have some kind of defensive-mode enabled when logged-out? Would that be an appropriate solution?
Or maybe doubling the strength of your empire while not logged-in? (i.e. unit stats, city defenses, etc.)
I'm tempted to say "remove" the empire when logged-off but that would be an ugly solution to the problem.

-Pacifist-
"Impossible only means that you haven't found the solution yet" -?
 
I log on a game, I have my settler and my worker, ok, build a warrior, turn one ok, turn two, a panzer from a player connected the last 6 hours passing near my city decides to take it, i've lost my first game...

As it's an evolution game, you will have trouble on a persistant game since there will be vets and newbie. in others games, there are some way to prevent this, like you can kill only 5 level down and up. what about civ? the number of city? ther will be players with a few city but very advanced and with a lot of units killing newbs. the science level? there will be people putting 0 in science but with a lot of cities and warriors killing newb with one city.
Imagine, you build your empire, it tooks you effort and during the night, because you sleep like everyone else, a group of players destroy your civ... pretty nasty! so when you are offline, your civ is locked, undestroyable... imagine you're from Europe and your neighbours from australia. you never attack!!! even in the same GMT, you can have different period of play!!!

Persistant will be very difficult to develop, there are so much problem i can imagine!!!
 
Volstag said:
Again: how do you prevent people from dismantling your empire when you're not logged-in? That's really the core "problem" w/ most MMOs... success or failure is generally a function of "time played" as opposed to skill.
Thats easy you would just get a phone call from your Civ. informing you that there is a problem and you must hurry back immediately, after all a leader job is never done!....... :mischief:
 
I'm convinced that Sid reads these forums because when Civ 4 was announced, in the suggestions thread I suggested a persistent online universe with multiple planets and the ability to contact other planets in the modern era.

It would be awesome to see a Civ MMOG where all the civilizations were completely managed by the players. In other words, there is a player who is the head of the government with other players as their ministers then more players as the legislative (if democracy or republic) then others acting as city government, then many players acting as civilians, and finally players as soldiers.
 
MaXXXXXuM said:
Well, if it goes MMO, obviously that means we are gonna have to lose the turn based part of it right?
I don't like to promote anything here, but I suppose none of you has played Ferion (in my sig:D). It's a proof that you can make a good MMO TBS, so you can make it just like Civ too.
 
To avoid starting a game and being destroyed a few turns later by a Panzer, allow technology to spread like religion will in Civ4. It spreads on it's own accord and by missionaries (in this case, advanced units). This way when you start the game, you begin with "Craytonic Mechanized Transport" which came from that big empire of "Crayton" that you are starting near.

Again, to avoid dismantaling of your empire you should allow other users to control it while you are not away, signing a certain alliance to allow this. Your empire could also be "automated" if you have none of these alliances. This will facilitate the creation of "clans" as noted above. Like the Holy Roman Empire, there may only be one Emperor (user currently playing) but thousands of smaller kingdoms (users not playing).

After a while (maybe, each month) the game should end and scores should be tallied. I don't know if this is conducive to MMO games, but after you research all you can (which, should take about a month if organized succesfully) the game may lose its appeal. Again, I'm for research and construction while you are away from your computer. This would bring new meaning to the "game of the month".
 
Dr. Yoshi said:
I'm convinced that Sid reads these forums because when Civ 4 was announced, in the suggestions thread I suggested a persistent online universe with multiple planets and the ability to contact other planets in the modern era.
I agree.

I'm actually convinced that Aussie Lurker is Sid in disguise.
 
Personally, I don't think that CIV would make a very good or efficient MMORPG.

@ AkA Ace: MMO is sort of an abbreviation of the abriviation MMORPG, which means Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game, Like World of Warcraft, or the .Hack// anime series. :)
 
Ultima Dragoon said:
Personally, I don't think that CIV would make a very good or efficient MMORPG.

@ AkA Ace: MMO is sort of an abbreviation of the abriviation MMORPG, which means Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game, Like World of Warcraft, or the .Hack// anime series. :)

No, a MMO Civ would be a MMOWSG, or Massively Multiplayer Online World Strategy Game

Im not gonna call it a Turn based game, cus that will probably not be the fact, if its MMO, and I wont call it RTS, cus that might not be true either.


MMO doesnt necessarily mean MMORPG, just cus most MMO games are RPG's. Check out Planetside for instance, a FPS in a MMO setting.
 
All I know is, if you are tired of the AI backstabbing you in alliances, you will get a heart attack from anger if you try to make alliances online :D

Crayton said:
Each users should start with a city, on an uber-sized map. I don't know the capacities of servers but an Earth-sized (actual size) map would yield room for a million cities (the Saharra would be nearly uncrossable).

Oh the horror...

*Jali Land constructed in 430 BC*

Me: Oh yay..time to look for resou...oh..wait..I'm in the Saharra...........damn...
 
What if a single turn covered a 12 hour period? Get your moves done in whatever half hour you can spare that day, then check in again the next turn. You could tell the server that if you don't check in by x o'clock the next turn, then it should automate (or AI) the moves for you that turn. If you don't take your turn in a 48 hour period somebody else can choose to adopt your abandoned civ, or start a new one.

With a big map you could allow new civ's to join during the first quarter of the game, start with a the number of cities that the 2nd smallest civ has, and start with the technology that more than half of the civ's already know. The map/server quits accepting new players when the map can't accomodate another civ, or when the game reaches a certain point, like a quarter of the way through.

Declaring war would be interesting, as you never know if the other civ has already taken their turn, or you could possibly get 2 turns in a row if you time it with luck on your side.

I've never joined a MMO so this is just a random thought.
 
Helo.
Ive thought about this concept before..and left it at that. I reacently read allot of filosofical books and ideas about society and such and i remembered the good old Civ Games! :D

Well, the ide for an MMORPG Civ I thought about is a merge beween Civilization and Sims! So you could call it an MMORPS or Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Simulation. It wouldnt be a simple game anymor becaus you couldnt really win, its a simulation, like the real world and you win by playing the game as good as you can, and that is the challenge! :)

Back to the gameidea. The game starts at the ape-stage. The gameworld is the earth and there are small ghaterings of tribes or beginning of societies or very rudimentery civilisations. When the game starts all players lets say 10 000 are all NPC. They are scattered over the world and they have different traits and starting positions. The NPCs or the characters all behave like people and mate and there are new NPCs. They eventualy die and so on.

When a IRL human want to play the game he buys a NPC in the game. He then has control of the character as a "mini-civilisation". When he has a baby with another character he has a claim/family to that person but it is still a NPC. When the main character of the player dies he can choose a new main character from the one in his bloodline..or start a new one. The claim this way is only valid for 2 blood-generations. One can proclaim succesors and such.

If two IRL humans character mate the offspring is ecualy claimable by both.

I think the challenge for this ide is to create the evolutionary world. I would create it so that every player connected share the processing power of the world in an amount relative to the computers capabilities. (Similar to the Human Protein Folding Experiment).

Another challenge is the introducing of new game-concepts and new technologies. One solution could be that people playing the game contribute with suggestions and ideas at town meetings or forums or halls of science in ones community. There would still be pre-made technologies and a techtree that will evolve without this. But if someone in a community can invent a new ide that fits the timeline it could be implementet there, If they have all nessesery resources.

Every character in the game has a statusvalue or influense. The chanse of succes in different ontakings in the simulation could be based on this to some degree. The characters statusvalue increases with contributions to the society in this scienceway like in a science way of wonders and in the constructions of material things and concuests and such. Things that will benefit other characters or impress them. (Family size and the status of it).

This way it will be a game/simulation that is about collecting material resources for the character (family and allies/friends), manageging social relations and diplomacy and laying out larger strategies. It will be about what life is about and it will include cool stuff, fighting/action and best of all SEX! :D I suggest it should be able to have adult material to be turned on or of. That was one thing i thought sucked in Fallout 2, they didnt show the sexscene! Maby this could have some fostering ide that i havnt considered thoug.

The gamemakers would get cash for every new started game! And if you play well you dont have to spend any more mony! And if the cashfund would get low for some reason, in consideration to the expense (this would be a moral formulated gameconcept that everyone agrees to so the players dont get cheeted) the gamemakers could cause natural disasters so people die. This could be a random factor based on the world map. Living next to a vulcano has its dangers and they would occur anyways sometimes. On the other hand, you have acess to sulphur.

The startingpoint in a rudimentery world limits the ability to suggest new technologies in a way that is in line with the timeline or you could say in line with the NPCs in the civilisation. Maby there could be formulated different qualificational ideas that must be satisfied for an ide to be included. And a timelimit for the influense of the ide to reach other civilisations, if they are susseptible for it.

Another question would be about the timeflow. How fast should it go? I would say it should flow in normal time. This way it is natural and reallike and it wouldnt be as affected by differences in playing 24/7 and only once in a while. Well, it would almost be constructed to be played only once and a while. Maby later scenarios or whatever could be sett upp to be played as simulations of alternative realities to the original one for more action proned players. The advancement in the simulation would be based on the contribution of the players playing in it.

The real problem then becomes wich possibilities should it have originaly? I leave that up to you because now the time is almos 4 in the morning. :)

I almost forgot. When a player buys a new character in the game he starts randomly on the map. Maby you could choose preferences or something. Maby you could spend extra mony to get a more valuable starting character, atleast to some degree. And you can only have one main character for one licenscode.

One more. When your not playing you could have your character act as a customized NPC or you could have it go on vecation if you dont want it to scew things up when it wakes up on the wrong side of the bed! :D And maby this ability to go on vecation is limited by rescources and the nature of the world. One could spend a week in the desert eating grashoppers or maby in a horehouse retreat or maby wondering in the woods talking to trees, eating mushrooms and baked bread and meditating.

Best regards, Fredrik. (An old fart of 25 years almost "raised" by Civ2 and Master of Orion2).
 
The main problem I see is tech level. Would it be restricted to certain eras? Could you move up or down an era if you wanted to? I dont think it would work well, but I wont put it past Sid to find a way.
 
It would be cool if we could build our own unique units.
 
Hmm, why is everyone here such naysayers about a possible Civ MMO? Personally id think it be a great idea. Ill have to give myself a few days to think of some ideas to post but for all of you that are saying "its to difficult to make a civ mmo"...

Does anyone realize WoW had BIG doubts about how they would convert the game to a mmo. Exactly... Bottom line is that they usually change the game dynamics drastically (warcraft going from RTS to fantasy adventure rpg...big difference), so dont just say it cant happen because it wouldnt work with like this version of civ. Having an open mind is typically a good thing. Try it sometime.

My early take on a possible way to make the game, is what if they made a system where players controlled cities of a civ, so possibly hundreds of players could be on the same civ. As far as the civ leader...thats tough. They could make it so no one person controls the whole of the civ, or they can make something like a leveling system where you start as maybe a mayor or something of a city...then Governor, etc..

Obiviously there are flaws with my idea but like i said, I just heard of this idea so Ill need a few days to marinate the idea. I am graduating in 6 months with a Bach degree in game design (to go with my visual effects/movie director degree), so this will be a nice litte challenge to fine tune my techniques.
 
Back
Top Bottom