 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Atahualpa
|
 |
Hawthrone
Mar 1999
time: 06:37
|
|
Ok, I made some thoughts about a MMOCiv.
Let's completely forget the concrete implementations of settler, cities, nations, units thing for a while. Let's just say that you are thrown in a world that lives on its own. The world is populated by people who gather in settlements, organize their lifes and do their work. At first every settlement is there for its own and they are completely autarchic.
Among all those people, it happens from time to time that a leader is born. This leader is you. You reign and you use your resources to conquer neighboring settlements and include them in an ever growing empire.
Your lifespan is limited though and as such you have to manage to create heirs... there's also a lot of trait specific stuff. When you don't get a heir and you die, or through other circumstances, your empire may collapse and every settlement fights for its own again.
Okay so much for the start of a game. Now, what in a developed world with empires everywhere. A player starts in a settlement already in an empire. The ruler of this empire can then assign this player specific tasks, like military campaigns or assigns him to govern a province or various settlements. In case of the ruler dying without appointing a follower (using one of the players or his heir) and the empire crumbeling, these people are then immediately be able to reconstruct the empire, effectively quarreling for their heritage.
Ok, this is the rough and basic idea, that I think something like this could work. A players life should not be more than ~2 hours, forcing people to play it through as they cannot logout and come back later. An advantage of this is that you can say you've finished a game, while the game lives on, plus _is_ online at the same time (server-stress...) so you can somehow make it turn based, although I don't think that'll work out. Maybe a combination of TBS/RTS on various levels of the game.
Every heir that you create is another possible login in this world, with more advantages than a newly registered player and which you can use later on (so to say it doesn't age and will show up when you first login with it).
Ofc, we could see lots of empires crumbeling during the night-time and building up day time again when people play. That's probably why it requires a ton of players from all over the globe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lemmy
|
 |
Bubblewrap
Dec 2000
time: 06:37
|
|
Heh, good points by Jon, i didn't think about the money-making aspect yet, as said, that was mostly what i had in mind for a C4 mod, not a stand-alone game...let alone making money with it.
But i think Ozzy's ideas adresses some of these issues though. Basically give everyone a bit of control ingame.
I think overall, the game itself would have to be a lot more detailed at the lower levels. Having hundreds of civs on a single map, run the same way as in the SP game doesn't sound fun to me. But having 10 people control a civ and only have a dozen civs, each run the same way as in the SP game probably isn't the most fun approach either as pointed out earlier. So i'd add detail to city management and unit/army management, make it so detailed that any decent sized civ can't be run effectively by a single player, and that players with partial control of a civilization will have their hands full with it and don't get bored too soon.
Perhaps instead of only having civilizations, you could also have corporations, similar to SimCountry, or completely different non-civ factions, like running your own church, earn your income/power by converting cities with your missionaries and defame other churches till it's clear that yours is the only true religion  
quote:
I Think forcing people to guild from the get go won't be very popular... |
But that is the nature of basically any MMOG out there. You have to be in a clan/alliance/guild to have any kind of success.
LDiCesare also sums up my thoughts about persistency and game pace. 1 turn/day, one game lasting up to a year.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:37
|
|
If it was 1 turn a day, what would players be doing that would retain their interest in it?
With one turn a day it sounds almost like a PBEM, where they spend 5-10 minutes to place their commands for that turn, and then come back and do it again the next day. No one is gonna pay $10 a month so they can get 10 minutes of gameplay a day. PBEM's (in my opinion) are incredibly dull.
Just putting people in established nations could work. They could still pick their role in that world (priest, shopkeeper, soldier, etc). But then if we are doing individual characters, this sounds like Ultima Online and a drastic change to the game.
Also, in UO or others you spend your time fighting monsters mostly, if it were civ you'd spend most of your time fighting other players, via war. This changes the dynamic. In most games if you die, you get resurrected and keep playing. What would that do to a sim like this if everyone's army just got resurrected? That'd totally foul things up. But if you had a character that you put in time developing and your first battle you die and have to start over, that'd just piss people off. I think a 2 hour lifespan wouldn't attract people either.
As for Lemmy's suggestions, lets say you are science minister of your civ. What options could be added to make that post interesting? Right now of course science is just picking a tech and waiting to invent it. How could that become an active process? And something involving enough that would allow people to play for several hours each day?
I think a year long game would be appropriate, and then reset the world at the end of that. Or have a couple different "shards" running that start out staggered, so people can join different on-going games at different points of progression (ancient, middle ages, etc). One day turns.... i'm just not seeing it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
yeah, in civ MP it is mostly PvP
most people want PvE for MMOs... (although a decent number like the possibility of PvP)
so I was thinking something maybe MOM like instead of Civ (would still be a 'Civ' style game)
I still want to know where to send all my ideas, I Think I have a working bit
maybe I Should just post them all in one huge post
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Nikolai
|
 |
Bergen, Norway
Oct 2000
time: 06:37
|
|
I found this in the List (for Civ3) 2.0:
quote:
10.1) Massive Multiplayer Online Civ - Bloodlines
In the context of Civ 2: The game would be played on an earth world that is much larger in size than any civ. You would build cities and civilizations to actual scale, and some players would play regions within civs, and can rebel and try to start their own civ, etc.
New benefits: Fun.
Discussion: You would play a bloodline that could marry with others and have children. If your bloodline dies out you have to restart the game.
Marrying would be the equivalent of making an alliance. Each member of your familly would be listed. Government would be such that you can tell different players, if you have completely captured their bloodline, to control a region for you, which they would do under the threat of eradication. The converse is of course also possible, and rebellion remains a possibility.
In a republic, the players in that civ would control different factions in the senate and would have to do actions to get them more popular so that they got more power. In general, play could move as in SMC’s simultaneous mode. New players would start along the edges of civilization and in historical areas. In the game you could “launch huge realistic campaigns against others, or manage a real looking and acting civ…”
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
that looks familiar...
JM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
it was the list that originally led me to apolyton (after coming for scenarios when it was the Ultimate site)
I mostly just read, talked a bit..
JM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I was sorta involved in the List 1 and 2, but the discussion
when it was actually being compiled, I was not arround
JM
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
my idea over 6 years ago
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...30&pagenumber=4
Hi all
I have a really radical idea (have had it for a while, didn't think this forum was the place to post it but here it is)
my idea is massive multiplayer online civ
what made me post it was sovereign
my idea was that on an earth world that is much larger in size than any civ one (maybe real size with real size cities) you would build cities and civilizations
the management would be such that you can have people under you (and that they can rebel and try to start their own civ)
the game would start as all civ games do at 4000 bc
you would control a bloodline that could marry with others have children ect
if your bloodline dies out you have to restart the game
if another player captures all your blood line you then play under them in the management role they set you too
marrying out your bloodline would than be advantageous and would mean that you too would be allied
each member of your familly would be listed and you would have very complete government
government would be such that you can set different players, if you have completely captured their bloodline, to control a region for you
they would do this under the threat of eradication
you would of course have to watch them to keep them from rebelling against you
in a republic the players in that civ would control different factions in the senate and would have to do actions to get them more popular so that they get more power
early on you can be let men or women rule or both
if you have men only than you are introuble if you have only female members and you lose control of the city
besides the stuff to make this good for massive online most rules could be found in these forums
play could move like in smac simultaneous mode
play would go on over like 3 years to take the world to 2000 ad (turns would of course be less time as would tech learning)
new players would start along the edges of civilization and in historical areas
if there are no more places for cities of a bloodline to start one would start in the freeist, largest nation with the fewest bloodlines in it (a new family moving up in the world) or maybe after a certain time you can choose what to do
governments will be extremely customizable so that you can mske all sorts of ones even like the US or Rome
this is a crazy idea but I had it a while ago and I want it
humans are funner to play against then AI
I think this would be cool
I lied, many things would have to be changed because of the scale change (and many things would/could grow more realistic)
maybe we could even make it real time (but with speeded up time
maybe we could even make it play to two turns and die of old age
time could be linear in it in any case
wouldn't it be fun to launch huge realist campaigns against others, or manage a real looking and acting civ
maybe even we could make squares much much smaller and have it so that cities can spread and become larger
I'm being taken to the asylum now
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
my current idea is a bit different, maybe not as crazy..
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Nikolai
|
|
Bergen, Norway
Oct 2000
time: 06:37
|
|
I imagine something along these lines:
A game where you start as one among many small kingdoms/tribes around the world. The world should be big, so that a huge empire would be like the Caliphate in the real world was. In the start, all players get their own little kingdom, but as time passes, your empire might grow on the expense of the neightbouring civs/cities. All civs wouldn't be player controlled, but rather be controlled by the AI until a player logs in, and when the player is away.
Now, as time goes by, and your empire grows, there will be harder and harder to rule it all by yourself. And then other players can be placed as vassals/governors of you, so that even though there becomes less independent kingdoms in the world, noone is forced completely out of the game, but rather takes over a small position somewhere in the world when they are conquered, and begins from scratch there.
But as we all know, no empire lasts forever. An empire can fall in so many ways: There can be military conquest, but let's face it, in the world the danger can also come from inside. The leader might have become weak, and if his position is weakened, some of the other dynasties/vassals could try to exploit it. It can be explited through assassinations or coups, or perhaps more subtle by marrying into the king's dynasty and take over with royal blood line as the claim.
So, if there is a coup, different things can happen from there. If one is lucky, will no external force meddle in the affair. Of course, the meddling doesn't have to be direct by military force, but perhaps through support of one of the sides in exchange for influence, land or something along those lines. Anyway, if the king is strong enough, there might come a civil war where either one side wins it all, or the empire gets divided.
I'm not sure what would be the ideal way to make this game in turn based vs. real time respect. Any ideas? And btw, this is of course only dreaming and brainstorming, but dreams can sometimes give something valuable, so who knows?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DRoseDARs
|
 |
"My god, it's full of peas..."
Jul 2002
time: 21:37
|
|
My thoughts on scientific advancement in such a game:
Obviously, new players would be at a distinction disadvantage to more established players if everyone played the same game. You'd never get new blood in numbers to support such an online environment for long. Instead, establish different worlds that have a set time limit before closing off to new players. The admitted players would start fresh together and there wouldn't be any of that "restart eliminated players" crap. If you wished to even the playfield further, research could be twofold: First, the standard form of private research would allow players to discover new things themselves; second, the research of all admitted players in the locked world would collectively add to the progress of said players, ensuring no one is left completely in the dust, even if they conduct no research. If the players are a well-connected group, this would be a good way of slowing the pace of the game; it could be a pre-game agreement to tailor that world to their playing style. This is what we do now in multiplayer civ games, there's no reason it can't be translated into an MMO version.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:37
|
|
You pony up the $, go through basic training, get assigned to a unit as a soldier, fight in a war, get promoted, and rise through the ranks commanding those who join after you as you fight troops from other civilizations in a regular civ game in which all civs start out commanded by the AI in 4000BC.
Nah, never mind.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
|
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DRoseDARs
My thoughts on scientific advancement in such a game:
Obviously, new players would be at a distinction disadvantage to more established players if everyone played the same game. You'd never get new blood in numbers to support such an online environment for long. Instead, establish different worlds that have a set time limit before closing off to new players. The admitted players would start fresh together and there wouldn't be any of that "restart eliminated players" crap. If you wished to even the playfield further, research could be twofold: First, the standard form of private research would allow players to discover new things themselves; second, the research of all admitted players in the locked world would collectively add to the progress of said players, ensuring no one is left completely in the dust, even if they conduct no research. If the players are a well-connected group, this would be a good way of slowing the pace of the game; it could be a pre-game agreement to tailor that world to their playing style. This is what we do now in multiplayer civ games, there's no reason it can't be translated into an MMO version. |
One way to do it potentially would be to build outwards from certain points. Lets say the first player starts roughly at the spot of Babylon. Then when each new player is created, they are placed near that city, expanding ever outwards. Pack the cities relitively close to each other. Keep adding on new people at the fringe of the settled area.
What would happen then is players would start in areas roughly the same as themselves. If one of the first 20 players gobbles up his neighbors and forms a good sized empire, a new player wouldn't be placed right next to it, because there would be rows and rows of other moderate players between you and he. You'd be placed with other new players.
I'm not being clear, but do y'all understand my point?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I have been writing up my current ideas
will post them soon
JM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lemmy
|
|
Bubblewrap
Dec 2000
time: 06:37
|
|
Power is relative. Sure, you might have full control over your civ, but with hundreds of other civs on the same map, how much power do you really have? All you can do is influence your little corner of the globe, but in the grand scheme of things you're no more powerfull than someone who runs a city in a demo game. But in the demogame, if you take the numbers i've mentioned, you'd have an influence on the entire Civ, it wouldn't be complete control, but it would be some influence on 1/16th of the game. While if you were just 1 Civ out of 1024 on a large map, i doubt you'd be able to affect 1/16th of the game, or 64 Civs...simply too many to keep track of, let alone influence consciously.
You say the idea is to control the destiny of a nation, i say the idea is to control the destiny of the world. But if you want to do that in any MMOG, then cooperation is required. The Demogame approach (with the necessary modifications to keep it interesting for all participants) is then a very interesting way to do it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
but that is not what people want for a MMO
at least, that hasn't been what has been successful
JM
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-09-2005 13:40
)
But Atahualpa didn't mention the republic thing, did he?
Asylum, eh? When did you escape?
|