 |
|  |
 |
|
art_vandelai
|
|
I am very close to just throwing in the towel and deciding to give up on the CIV III MP option as a viable option for play. I have on ocassion been successful in getting games up and running, but the games that have worked have for the most part been far less enjoyable than the single player version. I think that the MP product needs a lot more features in order to be really usable and to allow a strong community to develop around the game.
Some of the things I can think of:
- balanced starting positions option.
- recording of statistics by screen name (i.e. wins, losses, civs played, incomplete games, score, number of leaders produced, cities built, number of cities conquered/lost, kings taken/lost, civs eliminated, average power/score/culture, etc.) that are visible on a website.
- proper recording of scores (e.g. domination victory when everyone else quits should not be worth 17,000 points- maybe your ending score + a few additional points for the victory.
- automatic organizing of games including people of reasonably close skill levels, forced patching to play MP.
- stability (there's no reason why a turn-based game should not run absolutely smoothly with only 8 players on broadband).
- save games on a central server (to avoid edits or cheats)
- ability to see who's in the lobby, store buddy lists, etc. without having to use Gamespy.
Has anyone out there been successful in getting a game started with more than 4 people (even with the 1.14 patch)?
There seems to be very few people in the community that are willing to play MP games, and actually have reasonably good pings. When proceeding to the game lobby, half of the players usually don' t end up making it.
The requirement to ask people to leave when their connection is not up to speed really makes it a lot more effort than its worth. Crashing is still an issue, although less than previously.
Players who join a game, if they are lucky enough not to be disconnected, quit the game as soon as things aren't going their way. Instead of allowing an AI to take them over, the entire civ gets destroyed. Persuading people to continue investing time in a game when they are less developed or less powerful in the beginning is too difficult - it's human nature not to want to invest more time in a losing situation.
When a game actually works, usually its only 2 or 3 players. With so few players, it's not really Civilization, it just becomes a glorified wargame, as someone mentioned on another thread.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
delmar
|
|
I went to Gamespy once, spent there ~3 hours, and I am never going back. However, multiplayer is not only Gamespy. You can find opponents outside of Gamespy (e.g. on this forum) and play Direct IP. PBEM is also a very good alternative (maybe the best, not sure yet). If you survive the first 4000 years without dying of boredom, that is. 
As for the features you requested:
- balanced starting positions: would really help, but how do you evaluate the strength of a starting position?
- recording statistics: Would be interesting but not sure how important it is. I think I don't understand what you would do with this information. Could you elaborate?
- proper recording of scores: It would be good to get a better indicator about the strength of a Civ within a particular game, that's for sure. I am not sure though that I could come up with a good formula. Maybe there shouldn't be a single "score" at all, rather a set of statistics (maybe that's what you mean with the above?). However, you are talking about the end score, I believe. I never played for scores. Maybe just because the scoring system is weak. I suspect though that people playing for scores are missing out on the spirit of Civ (though it's always possible that I am missing something )
- automatic organizing of games including people of reasonably close skill levels: how would you know automatically who is reasonably close? IMHO the only way to decide this is to play it out. And even if you kick someone's ass in one game, how do you know it's not because you were lucky and he was not?
-stability: Well, what can I say. Maybe that this is not a feature at all, this is a must. I've had pretty good experience with 3 humans + 4 AI though. And I would really like to try with 4 or more humans.
- save games on a central server (to avoid edits or cheats): I am somewhat surprised that so many people are concerned about this but I guess I must be naive since, ... well, so many people are concerned about this. Maybe you should check out this thread:
http://www.apolyton.com/forums/show...&threadid=68730
and the CivII thread referenced there. Apparently the CivII folks came up with some method to catch and ban cheaters, I guess we could do the same or similar with Civ3.
- ability to see who's in the lobby, store buddy lists, etc. without having to use Gamespy: Which lobby? Gamespy is a (the?) lobby, nothing more, isn't it? I decided not to use Gamespy because I realized that I don't care who is in the lobby. You can't play Civ3 in a reasonable way with random people, as you point out very accurately. This forum seems to be a good place to find "good" people, whatever "good" means to you. You can also have a buddy list here, if I remember correctly, although I have never used it. My buddy list is in my head. 
As for Civ3 MP becoming a glorified war game, yes, that's definitely a risk. Although I think it depends greatly on the personality and the skill level of the people who are playing and the game settings. I don't think you can win by war mongering against people who are at the same level as you, or on a continents or archipelago map, or if there are 4 AIs on Emperor level next to you.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000 time: 07:24
|
|
I've given up. Well, it never worked for me in the first place anyway.
As Diss said, at least the PBEM option is working fine.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
canadianbacon
|
 |
British Columbia
Nov 2002 time: 21:24
|
|
I've about given up on multiplayer, i can't even get past the 1st page once the host launches into the game from the setup, with out crashes.
And it seems lately that even getting a connection is difficult (any realtion to Gamespy 1.2 release, i'd like to know).
Also have tried different video card (nvideo from ati), borrowed some memory (tought maybe had a bad stick), uninstalled, reinstalled on other drive ,but still have crash after crash after crash.
One thing I have heard is that Windows XP SP1 really does a number on DirectPlay for some other games, so maybe its screwing up the connectivity for Civ3 too?
Also DirectX9 is out, i tried that and suspect there may be some problems with Civ3 compatibility.
Meanwhile I did a test at work, and viola, go into and played a game on my 1st try.
All I know is that all my other games (and some are Directplay too) play fine, and CIV3 does not. Im not in the mood to spend a few hunder $$$ to get a $30 game to play.
PS
I have a pretty standard pc,
K7S5A (athalon thunderbird 1.2ghz)
640K Mem (and tried 256k of DDR too)
Ati Radeon 7200 (and tried Nvideo mx400)
SoundBlaster Card
Virus Scanner off
No Router/Gateway
No Firewall Software
Nothing Extraordinary.
If anybody else is on same Motherboard, and working let me know, I'd be interested.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
King_Of_Taiwan
|
|
Im About to give up because it just takes so long to play. Im Not really willing to play 3 hours. I could play a Single Player game in half that for the double the fun. Its just that playing Actual Humans draws me toward it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Franses
|
|
I expect it all depends on the upcoming (???) patch. If it does not solve the lagginess and some other major issues MP may die (or perhaps more accurate, never be born).
For the time being I have lots of fun with one to one games but even those are getting laggy sometimes and I am not sure if I can keep motivation up if there will be no new patch soon solving the major issues.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DrFell
|
|
I've pretty much given up on MP. I have a cable connection, and the fastest game I ever managed still lagged nearly a second every time I moved a unit. We started about 8 squares apart and I warrior rushed the other guy, but it took about half an hour to get to 2500BC...
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24. Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|