Would you play a Civ 4 MMO?
- Thread starter mike_cf
- Start date
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
Evony does not have a good reputation, but it is probably the most prominent 4X MMO on the market right now. Its prominence makes it useful as a point of reference, but I wouldn’t suggest using it as a model. Then again, I’ve never played it, so all my statements about it are hearsay.
As a sidebar, I think Evony is an interesting look at micro transactions gone awry. When I first heard about the possibility of micro transactions, probably from Scott McCloud’s Reinventing Comics, I thought it was a pretty cool idea with a lot of potential. Fast forward some ten years and I still think there’s some potential, but the ideal has lost some of its luster for me. The dichotomy between Evony and Kingdom of Loathing, both browser-based games supported by voluntary micro transactions, illustrates this. In Evony, as I understand it, the rewards from voluntary donations so significantly enhance game play that donations are nearly obligatory if you want to play the full game. Contrast this with Kingdom of Loathing where donators receive optional items that do not, generally, affect one’s ability to play the full game.
Then there’s DLC, which sort of grew out of the idea of micro transactions. Again, I thought this had a lot of promise from the start, but the manner in which game producers have implemented DLC in the past few years have certainly soured my feelings for the delivery device. In particular, games that offer DLC with game play “enhancements” which really should have been part of the whole game itself really get me in a twist. Dragon Age I, which I have never played, has DLC that allows storage of items outside of characters’ immediate limited inventory; I think this probably should have been in the game from the start, particularly for a genre that places importance on inventory management.
As a sidebar, I think Evony is an interesting look at micro transactions gone awry. When I first heard about the possibility of micro transactions, probably from Scott McCloud’s Reinventing Comics, I thought it was a pretty cool idea with a lot of potential. Fast forward some ten years and I still think there’s some potential, but the ideal has lost some of its luster for me. The dichotomy between Evony and Kingdom of Loathing, both browser-based games supported by voluntary micro transactions, illustrates this. In Evony, as I understand it, the rewards from voluntary donations so significantly enhance game play that donations are nearly obligatory if you want to play the full game. Contrast this with Kingdom of Loathing where donators receive optional items that do not, generally, affect one’s ability to play the full game.
Then there’s DLC, which sort of grew out of the idea of micro transactions. Again, I thought this had a lot of promise from the start, but the manner in which game producers have implemented DLC in the past few years have certainly soured my feelings for the delivery device. In particular, games that offer DLC with game play “enhancements” which really should have been part of the whole game itself really get me in a twist. Dragon Age I, which I have never played, has DLC that allows storage of items outside of characters’ immediate limited inventory; I think this probably should have been in the game from the start, particularly for a genre that places importance on inventory management.
Pest138
Chieftain
Would definitely check it out although I am having trouble visualizing what the game would even be like.
So right, at any one time there is just one big Civ 4 game going on in the whole world. But for massive amounts of people to play it, each one has to take a tiny part. That will work as follows.
Each battle in the huge game takes days and days of real world time - it's a huge game so it's going to take huge amounts of time to complete - maybe a year. But it's still just a regular game of Civ 4 right?
Now each player's contribution to a battle is that they play games of regular, small scale, Civ 4 against 5 AIs and 1 human player who is a player on the team we are at war with in the huge game. Or 3 AIs + 2v2 humans, etc, depending on numbers of available players. The outcome of each small civ game is incorporated into the result of the battle in the huge game in the same place where a dice roll would be normally be used.
So if I win my small game, which say takes a couple of hours, it translates into a successful single fight in the huge game. Or even just a successful strike round within a single fight, it would depend on how many people were playing in the world. Better players would be used for more crucial fights in the huge game, beginner players for clean-up fights with highly favourable odds, or lost causes with very poor odds. A council of the best players would control the grand strategy in the actual huge game.
During times when our civ in the huge game was not at war, our team could still make meaningful effort by playing small games to determine the "dice rolls" in wars between other civs, or where the game would normally roll a dice for other reasons like hut contents or barb spawning. In those cases sometimes we might be deliberately trying to lose, or make someone else in particular win. It would be for the grand strategists on our team to direct shenanigans of that nature.
So in summary everyone is playing regular small scale games of Civ 4, satisfying the OP requirement of "civ 4 like gameplay". All are contributing to single worldwide game-world events MMO style, in the huge Civ 4 game. And there is opportunity for all players to contribute according to their skill in fights where they'll usually be up against others of the same skill.
Each battle in the huge game takes days and days of real world time - it's a huge game so it's going to take huge amounts of time to complete - maybe a year. But it's still just a regular game of Civ 4 right?
Now each player's contribution to a battle is that they play games of regular, small scale, Civ 4 against 5 AIs and 1 human player who is a player on the team we are at war with in the huge game. Or 3 AIs + 2v2 humans, etc, depending on numbers of available players. The outcome of each small civ game is incorporated into the result of the battle in the huge game in the same place where a dice roll would be normally be used.
So if I win my small game, which say takes a couple of hours, it translates into a successful single fight in the huge game. Or even just a successful strike round within a single fight, it would depend on how many people were playing in the world. Better players would be used for more crucial fights in the huge game, beginner players for clean-up fights with highly favourable odds, or lost causes with very poor odds. A council of the best players would control the grand strategy in the actual huge game.
During times when our civ in the huge game was not at war, our team could still make meaningful effort by playing small games to determine the "dice rolls" in wars between other civs, or where the game would normally roll a dice for other reasons like hut contents or barb spawning. In those cases sometimes we might be deliberately trying to lose, or make someone else in particular win. It would be for the grand strategists on our team to direct shenanigans of that nature.
So in summary everyone is playing regular small scale games of Civ 4, satisfying the OP requirement of "civ 4 like gameplay". All are contributing to single worldwide game-world events MMO style, in the huge Civ 4 game. And there is opportunity for all players to contribute according to their skill in fights where they'll usually be up against others of the same skill.
Reg Pither
Warlord
A Civ MMO?
I'll hang on and wait for the Civ FPS, now that I'd play!
I'll hang on and wait for the Civ FPS, now that I'd play!
civvver
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,855
Civ is a finite game. MMOs are not, it won't work. What happens when you advance to the modern age? You're done researching techs forever?
I suppose MMO doesn't have to mean rpg, but in that case I think you'd basically end up with simply bigger multiplayer civ games.
I suppose MMO doesn't have to mean rpg, but in that case I think you'd basically end up with simply bigger multiplayer civ games.
jonny5300394
Chieftain
I don't really think Civ would work as an MMO without losing the whole command a civilization through time and watch them become dominant.
Even so, I would play it once or twice. I don't really like MMO's, I get bored.
Even so, I would play it once or twice. I don't really like MMO's, I get bored.
awesome
Meme Lord
the warcraft games were finite, too
Psyringe
Scout
I wouldn't play Civ4 like an MMO, mainly because inter-player coordination couldn't work satisfactorily, especially not for the playing style that I prefer.
When I play a game (including, but not limited to Civ games), I usually play them excessively for some weeks, but then put them aside for months while I enjoy other things. Also, my preferred Civ playstyle entails playing very slow games on super-huge maps, with time spent to create an immersive atmosphere (like naming landmarks, or units that performed admirably, etc.). This playstyle is extremely unsuited for an MMO. I'd have to find a community of players who'd enjoy putting a lot of time into a very slow game during my "bouts", but for which a month-long absence wouldn't be a problem either. Furthermore, the activity of the participants would have to miraculously match. That's simply impossible.
I don't think there's a good solution for these coordination problems. Most strategy MMO games require continuous input over long periods of time, which I wouldn't enjoy (it would feel like a chore quickly). Some offer to have the AI play your faction during times when you aren't active, but that would take control of my faction away from me, disrupting my immersion. A more radical approach is to make players largely independent from another (example: each player only plays against AIs, but player factions can help and/or trade with each other), but that wouldn't be much of an MMO.
So I'll keep playing Civ against AIs who have no problem being neglected for four months, and then suddenly awakened for a bout of 16-hours-per-day sessions over the course of two weeks.
Btw, for the same reasons I'm totally unexcited about the recent facebook game fad and Firaxis' attempts to break into that market.
When I play a game (including, but not limited to Civ games), I usually play them excessively for some weeks, but then put them aside for months while I enjoy other things. Also, my preferred Civ playstyle entails playing very slow games on super-huge maps, with time spent to create an immersive atmosphere (like naming landmarks, or units that performed admirably, etc.). This playstyle is extremely unsuited for an MMO. I'd have to find a community of players who'd enjoy putting a lot of time into a very slow game during my "bouts", but for which a month-long absence wouldn't be a problem either. Furthermore, the activity of the participants would have to miraculously match. That's simply impossible.
I don't think there's a good solution for these coordination problems. Most strategy MMO games require continuous input over long periods of time, which I wouldn't enjoy (it would feel like a chore quickly). Some offer to have the AI play your faction during times when you aren't active, but that would take control of my faction away from me, disrupting my immersion. A more radical approach is to make players largely independent from another (example: each player only plays against AIs, but player factions can help and/or trade with each other), but that wouldn't be much of an MMO.
So I'll keep playing Civ against AIs who have no problem being neglected for four months, and then suddenly awakened for a bout of 16-hours-per-day sessions over the course of two weeks.
Btw, for the same reasons I'm totally unexcited about the recent facebook game fad and Firaxis' attempts to break into that market.
Do you think World of Warcraft has similar gameplay to the Warcraft RTS games?
civvver
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,855
Different scenario. Warcraft 3 already had rpg elements with heroes, they took that and expanded on it for world of warcraft.
To make civ an mmo you'd be taking civ and making it not civ. Sure there could be some rpg mmo where you play darius of persia and have to recruit troops, but how do you advance through history, a crucial element of civ? If history and a timeline are present I don't see how you can make an infinite game. The only timeline in wow is the lore, but you can keep going back and defeating the bosses over and over, it doesn't effect the story.
awesome
Meme Lord
no, but the point was that you can take a finite game and turn it into an infinite game with a little work.
i never said it would be a very good game, i just said that it could be done.
Rusty Edge
Deity
If there were a MMO very close to Civ 4 gameplay (I'm excluding Civ World here) would you play it? If yes why, if no why?
What would be, in your opinion, the ultimate Civ online experience?
Fanatic though I may be, not even knowing what Starcraft and Masters of Orion were a year ago, I had no interest in Civville for facebook when Sid himself posted here.
I just couldn't imagine anything good about it.
Are there any turn-based MMOs out there?
awesome
Meme Lord
so yeah, civ world is pretty much how i expect a civilization mmo would turn out.
Zx Zero Zx
Deity
Uhhhh isn't that just multiplayer?
XRW175P6MQ4
Warlord
Would be an interesting MMO. Fun times trying to explain to the noobs that they actually shouldn't try to be building everything. Hey guais how do I build the pyramids? Actually you don't want to build that until you know what you're doing. Umm when should I build it? Never. So I definitely need to build 1 of every building in my city. Nope don't do that either. Bank? Nope your research is 100% so a bank won't do you any good.
Terrance888
Discord Reigns
Make it like Neptune's Pride, so instead of turn times you just have build times wiht production collected, say, between every hour to every day depending on speed. You would just play it out, route units to certain areas and log in to give seige orders: (bombard, bombard, suicide run, melees attack, mop ups attack,) and stuff like that.
Or you can make it a modern world wide thing, with each server running from some civs finishing galleons to a full victory. You play a colonizer, a military settlement, a nomadic tribe ect and settle areas, build up, get to the next age. Eventually you will get to the modernish ages where you get invasions of different regions of play and modernizing. Leaders of an entire "country" would be elected.
Then, they can write a book on each server game.
Or you can make it a modern world wide thing, with each server running from some civs finishing galleons to a full victory. You play a colonizer, a military settlement, a nomadic tribe ect and settle areas, build up, get to the next age. Eventually you will get to the modernish ages where you get invasions of different regions of play and modernizing. Leaders of an entire "country" would be elected.
Then, they can write a book on each server game.
