Multiplayer?

[Uatch-Khepheru]

I don't really know if any multiplayer system is being planned for cotn, but I would really like to see this feature implemented in the game, either during release or after it. All to often, we see games that have limitless potential, but are struck down because of a lack of multiplayer capabilites. I'm not really sure how the devs would go about this, but I think the outcome would be worthwhile. Here is a system that I have been pondering;

Each server is divided up to 8 cities (more perhaps, provided the server can handle it without crashing). There is no Pharaoh at the start of the match, instead such leadership will have to be gained through diplomacy or war. Another method of victory would be to be the first leader to build a monument proclaiming his divinity, i.e. a pyramid. Or maybe even a popularity rating that spans these cities (don't really know how this would be accomplished). Anyway, thats my half-formulated idea, maybe you all can expand on it.

[EmperorJay]

A few ideas somewhat similar to yours have been posted in this thread: http://www.tiltedmill.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52

The system you propose sounds good, but I probably wouldn't play MP anyway. Not that I don't like it, I just can't see it happen.

[vovan]

Multiplayer...

I, personally, would love to have multiplayer, but the problem is I'm afraid it's hard to get right in an essentially single-player oriented game such as a citybuilder is.

Take multiplayer in the last citybuilder - Emperor, for example. Every player picks a city, and whoever completes the goals first - wins. Now, that's nice and all, but the problem is it's not really multiplayer. The only interaction with other players you have is chat and some trade. Take away the chat, and there is no way for you to tell if you are playing with computer, or real players. Hence, the whole idea of multiplayer - human interaction - is missing. As a result, the lobby of the Emperor MP is almost always empty.

[Elvenwarrior2001]

Good point Vovan. Plus...even though I have two lines and could stay online all day, I have dial-up and can't get anything better. So my connection is crappy. :\ (I'm out in country. Closest city...five miles...as the crow flies.)

Elven

[Uatch-Khepheru]

Originally Posted by vovan

Multiplayer...

Take multiplayer in the last citybuilder - Emperor, for example. Every player picks a city, and whoever completes the goals first - wins. Now, that's nice and all, but the problem is it's not really multiplayer. The only interaction with other players you have is chat and some trade. Take away the chat, and there is no way for you to tell if you are playing with computer, or real players. Hence, the whole idea of multiplayer - human interaction - is missing. As a result, the lobby of the Emperor MP is almost always empty.

I think we can have an MP part of the game, it just has to be executed as a separate design area for the devs. I would really like to see multiplayer in this game, it just needs to change from previous city-builders. If the devs were to implement MP into cotn, they would need to create conflict and alot of cooperation, as those are the staples for any MP game. Maybe creating certain "game modes" would let players of all gaming preferences participate in MP, to make creating that particulare feature of the game worthwhile.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Uatch-Khepheru

I think we can have an MP part of the game, it just has to be executed as a separate design area for the devs. I would really like to see multiplayer in this game, it just needs to change from previous city-builders. If the devs were to implement MP into cotn, they would need to create conflict and alot of cooperation, as those are the staples for any MP game. Maybe creating certain "game modes" would let players of all gaming preferences participate in MP, to make creating that particulare feature of the game worthwhile.

I just don't see MP as viable in a citybuilder for the same reasons Vovan pointed out above. The game design is inherently single-player. You can't go by what games like Age of Empires or Civ might have, for example, since they are not true citybuilders but rather a wargame, IMHO. Emperor has MP and it's barely used with people begging for online players to show up. I see MP as a waste of development time for these games.

Keith Heitmann

dheitm8612@aol.com
Pharaoh Music Jukebox

[EmperorJay]

I don't agree with you here Keith, multiplayer can be a nice addition to citybuilders if there's enough interaction between players Emperor just had too little interaction.

I don't have a whole MP design ready, so don't ask me about details, but the following would sound appealing to me if done right:

On each server there's room for, say, 25 cities. Each player starts with only 1 city and destroying other cities cannot be done, the defeated city will just become a vassel. Each player gets a vote for every city he controls. Candidates need a majority of the votes to become Pharaoh. The Pharaoh then reigns for 4 years. Players can make alliances against the ruling Pharaoh and take him down by force. OTOH, players can just swear loyalty to the Pharaoh chosen. Also, players can agree privately on prices etc etc.

Of course, this is a very basic idea, but AI can never replace humans and if there is enough interaction between humans, it would make MP in my eyes worthwhile (as playing with humans is always more unpredictable than playing with AI is).

Edit: This is based on various other ideas posted on this board.

[Sinuhe]

Originally Posted by EmperorJay

Each player gets a vote for every city he controls. Candidates need a majority of the votes to become Pharaoh. The Pharaoh then reigns for 4 years.

This sounds rather like democracy – which would be somewhat out of place historically if so implemented. In addition, power would be a very fickle and elusive concept, which would make governing much more difficult than it should be (although it is not exactly clear to me what the pharaoh's precise function might be at all).

It would be nice to see some sort of multiplayer, yet I find it unlikely that this will happen with Children of the Nile, not least because of Tilted Mill's statements.

[EmperorJay]

Reading it an hour (or two) later, the suggestion sounds a lot less good, indeed, but multiplayer itself is not the problem, the lack of interaction between players that's inherent to the citybuilding genre is the problem.

If one somehow manages to come up with a design that encourages (a lot of) interaction, I believe multiplayer would work. But I also agree that it should be something for the future, not for CotN.

[vovan]

Originally Posted by EmperorJay

If one somehow manages to come up with a design that encourages (a lot of) interaction, I believe multiplayer would work.

What he said.

I disagree with Keith as well there. I mean, to me, it's just one of those "thinking out of the box" things Keith mentioned before. True, with the way citybuilders were in the past, Multiplayer doesn't fit in, however I don't agree that one simply cannot make a citybuilder where mutliplayer would work. Granted, I don't know how to make it work, either.

[Lannes]

I still think the logical way to adapt a city builder to multiplayer would be to have multiple players run a single city.

Lannes

[vovan]

That seems the most logical solution, doesn't it? But there are, of course, lots of implementational problems with it, I think. I mean, it seems they might easily interfere with each other, and cooperation might be hard. Additionally, competition is often what drives multiplayer games (as opposed to cooperation), and so then the problem is: what would provide the source of competitive challenge? After all, it seems when you are trying to fine-tune a city to make it work well, the competition would be destructive rather than... ehh... the other way around, whatever the word is.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Lannes

I still think the logical way to adapt a city builder to multiplayer would be to have multiple players run a single city.

Lannes

That's what you do in Emperor. It's nearly as though you are still playing in the SP mode with little interaction from the other players save for an occasional gift, attack or chat message. If any MP version of the game is going to be like that then I say it's just better to skip it altogether and concentrate on the core game instead.

Keith Heitmann

dheitm8612@aol.com
Pharaoh Music Jukebox

[Bradius]

Of course some of us just got tired of having the Wee Willie Wonkers knocked out of us every time we played online!

[Lannes]

Originally Posted by vovan

That seems the most logical solution, doesn't it? But there are, of course, lots of implementational problems with it, I think. I mean, it seems they might easily interfere with each other, and cooperation might be hard. Additionally, competition is often what drives multiplayer games (as opposed to cooperation), and so then the problem is: what would provide the source of competitive challenge? After all, it seems when you are trying to fine-tune a city to make it work well, the competition would be destructive rather than... ehh... the other way around, whatever the word is.

I agree implementation is far from straightforward. Personally though I don't see the problem of the competitive challenge. It's just a way of looking at it differently. In single play of the CBs I know your city doesn't really compete against other cities. Rather you strive for certain targets. So, IMHO that would be the logical place to look for competition in multiplayer. That is, multiple players would strive to improve personal ratings. These of course would always rely on a mix between cooperation and competition. For sure, it would be a different game alltogether.

Lannes

[Keith]

One idea I just thought of to make the game a little more interactive is that the other players would have to rate your city on a periodic basis. They could somehow view your city from a god's-eye-view or from a first person 3d view while walking the streets.

It would also be a interesting idea that others that are not playing the game in a MP session could visit the cities in either of those modes as well. Something like I used to see in the online game Team Fortress. A guest could view the action from any vantage point but would otherwise not be seen or take part in the action. Sort of a invisible character.

Keith Heitmann

dheitm8612@aol.com
Pharaoh Music Jukebox

[vovan]

Originally Posted by Keith

One idea I just thought of to make the game a little more interactive is that the other players would have to rate your city on a periodic basis. They could somehow view your city from a god's-eye-view or from a first person 3d view while walking the streets.

I don't know... I don't think this would work. Too subjective, and it would soon turn into a "I'll rate yours if you rate mine" kind of thing. IMHO.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by vovan

I don't know... I don't think this would work. Too subjective, and it would soon turn into a "I'll rate yours if you rate mine" kind of thing. IMHO.

It would be just a "fun" sort of thing. Nothing that would influence play for the very reason you state, I'll rate yours if you rate mine. The ratings could be held on the server showing the average overall rating of any one player's city. That alone would probably produce some competition and the urge to cheat the system by repeatedly voting or essentially "low-balling" some player's city that you didn't like, etc.

It would certainly promote interaction!

Keith Heitmann

dheitm8612@aol.com
Pharaoh Music Jukebox