21-09-2005 03:45									#61
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by ChrisiusMaximus Firaxis should remake Colonization instaed of this project. A new colonization would be a lovely addition to my games collection

yes man

I've been waiting for Colonization II for 10 years.

	21-09-2005 03:54									#62
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by ruby_maser The very idea behind the Civ series is putting the control over the destiny of a nation in the hands of the individual, the player. How do you go about restructuring that framework to include so many people that you invariably must take power out of the hands of most all and place it in the hands of a select few? (...) What does everyone else pay to do in the meantime, subject themselves to that? And how is that satisfying?

Good analysis.
I'm thinking about a shift of perspective, here: if Civ single player is about a single demi-god governing the whole civilization for 6000 years, in a massive multiplayer should we come back to shorter period of government?
Tell me what you think about this: the game is played by "teams" of players that join a civilization of their choice.

Every player can chose few traits and a name to customize itself (Role Play Game touch).

The first bunch of players (one for every Civ) will found every Civ capitals and gain the first Civ command for some turn. It only need few players to start: anyone will join the game after that will start as a unit leader.

The Civ leader can give general rule command, like "explore", "escort", "defend city or area", etc. and general building order (like we can give today to automated governor in Civ III).

After some (enough) turns the unit leader players could be promoted to city governor (if any city is available), then Advisor (science, military, etc), while the Civ leader keep the Capital and general leadership.

We can reward units achievement (resource discovery, first contact with another civ, victory in battle, etc.) raising player ranking - useful to rate promotion to governor, advisor, etc.

Given the civ IV condition we don't know in details right today a player could become a great person, and switch itself on that special path. The chosen starting trait and game achievement will guide the game engine to assign the new role (general, artist, merchant, prophet, etc.).

Please note player ranking is vital to keep high the interest into the game: after a given period or a special events (i.e. citizen revolt) the current leader will "die" and be replaced from and advisor or a succesful city governor - based on ranking.

Of course this need that unit leaders and governors have some freedom of command while respecting general order by the civ leader. Once every (simultaneous) turn the civ leader can give an exact order that the receiving player can't refuse if not revolting.

That could be a fair mix between strategic role of the Civ leader and his/her focus on a single event.

Every "defeated/died" player will be put back (resurrected) leading a new unit or put on a wait list for a new opportunity.

Units without human leader available will be left on AI control (always guided by general command of Civ Leader), until a new human player join the game or someone need to "resurrect".

I think it could be a game design choice to let the resurrected player to chose again its trait or to keep the old "charma" and restart with the same trait as modified by previus turns history.

Newly founded city should have enough available human player to have a defined governor from start; otherwise the Civ leader can fully manage the city until a governor is available.

Of course the government / civics active on a Civilization could limit the power of the civ leader (a dictatorship or a monarchy feudalism should have a different leader power than a democracy).

Here we are: the higher the rule (civ leader) the shorter the turns period the player can enjoy the power and try to leave a memory of him/herself. A less key player can have more time to improve his/her career.
If you can't grab the throne, you should have enough reward to enjoy the game nevertless. Old unit leader player can be "promoted" leader on a new, powerful unit or "updated". Army leader could be another opportunity.

A player missing a turn can be substituted by a related advisor (militar for combat decision, etc.) or the civ leader him/herself.
The missing Civ leader could be substituted by one of the advisor: in war time by the military advisor, in peace time by...
If nothing else works, we can live with an AI help here and there. "Show must go on" theater mantra.

Yes, the Massive game will become a bit more complex of plain Civ as a whole, but every player will manage only a piece small enough, IMHO.
The turnover of command and the team (clan, civilization) pride should work well enough to keep the game running.

Anyone will be so kind to correct and improve my proposal?
I'm open to your help (a better massive Civ is better for any of us, isn't it?). Sorry for the long (massive) post.

	22-09-2005 02:48									#63
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Humm...

So, he wants to compete with Star Dock's Society?

That's the only way I can think of making Civ into a MMO offhand. Otherwise, he needs to make a large MP player hosted matching service. You'd pay a small monthly fee to have an account and play as many games as you want against other members.

	23-09-2005 02:30									#64
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Darkstar So, he wants to compete with Stardock's Society?

Isn't Society a Real Time Massive Multiplayer? I don't think anything more revolutionary than a simultaneous turn can be accepted from players *and* can fit into the Civ game model...