1v1 PBEMs : interaction between humans

[Socrates]

This just crossed my mind a few minutes ago, but I think it's worth a topic. I've know started to play a few PBEMs, and what I'm surprised of is the almost non-interaction between both humans ingame. [eek] I had thought there would plenty to discuss, trade, ally, etc... But obviously my worthy opponents try to win (of course, just like me), and find it their best not to do much in that area. Though I think they are right, I find it a little disappointing. I would have asked for more, but oh well. I think this is due to how Civ3 is played ; the poor AI seems to come to my mind as the biggest factor here : since the AI shouldn't be a problem, each human player just has to catch them up before his opponent, and then overrun him.

In an ideal Civ game, a 1v1 PBEM may feature worthy AI tribes that would be not far from competing with experienced human players (of course there is a game level...). That would lead to more interaction between human players, me thinks. And the developpers can still find a way to create a Civ game where human players would benefit more from interacting. But I think that once again, the poor AI is the one thing to blame. Quite weird for a PBEM, uh ?

So. That was just to share a point of view with you ; other than that, I think it's just another topic that will prove a waste of time. I don't know if developpers really want to hear us for a Civ4. I really hope this game will play very differently, because... Civ 1 2 & 3 are based on the same engine, and are very similar to play, and I think it's time to move onto another level.

We want a lot, lot, lot better AI !!!!! [}:)]

[anarres]

Well, if you play me I will make demands of your techs and gold very often. [evil]

[Plux]

I agree with you to some extent, but I think your complaint is just inherent to the format of the most popular form of PBEM-play, namely 1-1's. It is a fact that the AI is weak and so not more than only an easy prey to grow stronger in the game. But, especially because of the added concept of ladder competition, a human player is of course only focused on beating one specific civ in the game, the human. Then it should be obvious not to provide him (btw, why not her? [hmm]) with too much information about your side of the game, which results in your feeling of a lack of interaction. Maybe if you would try a more leisurely Civ3 multiplayer style, just an AI-beat-'m-up for instance, you might find that there's more human interaction going on. And I think that the best games for interaction are of course PBEM's with more than two players, but unfortunately these are very hard to keep going at a decent rate.

It might be nice to implement KR's idea (I think it was) to come up with some special assignments in 1-1 or multiplayer PBEM's (you know, like Risk), in order to get the focus off elimination as the only way to win. I mean, granted there are things like cultural victories and space race, but those take way too long to influence your short term or mid term strategy and game play.

PS: I would also expect that Diplomacy is a good interaction strategy game. I've never played it though, and haven't taken a look at the Diplomacy threads here on CDZ, so I might be wrong.

[Beam]

I agree with your observation krys, although there might be another solution.

I've completed 3 games vs. Erikk now and just 2 human vs human battles have happened in those 3 games (with battles I mean stacks attacking, not the odd wandering scout being killed).

Imo one of the reasons is the way PBEM's are currently set up, i.e. both humans well seperated by AI and running some sort of tech / expansion race until one is confident enough to attack the other one. Quite often however the stats make it quite clear who is most likely going to win before that battle really starts.

A way around this is to prepare maps where most if not all of the expansion phase is over and both humans are similar in stats and potential. So something like early Medieval Age and some 10-15 cities with defensive units in place.

It means more work for the mapmakers (80-120 cities will have to be build manually) but some time can be gained because the labor intensive work of mapbalancing is a little less important.

Just my thoughts, feel free to comment and if 2 experienced players are interested in the experiment I am volunteering to try and make such a map.

[Socrates]

Thanks for the quick feedback.

Beam, I think the part I like most is the expansion phase, so... maybe I don't have the right profile for your experiment. ;)

I've read what Kingreno proposed for new competitions, basically an assignment a la Risk. Maybe Plux is right : why not a 1v1 PBEM where both human players would have an assignment (either the same (the exact same, or a symetric one) or different ones in nature). That could be funny, but then the mapmaker (well... the gamemaker ;) ) would have to balance assignments, or assignments with starting positions (we could imagine a poorer starting position for player2, but an easier assignment). Hehe, thanks, a worthy idea. [goodjob]

About Diplomacy, you're welcome to take part in the (hopefully) next game, Plux. The human interaction is indeed a lot stronger (the game is almost entirely based on that), though chatting is hard to do these days. [ponder] I hope it will be better then. And don't be afraid : ERIKK knew nothing about the game 2 months ago, and now he is game master of game #2, and was promoted co-moderator of the sub-forum !!

More feedback about my initial post or about what was said then welcome.

[Kemal]

Have to agree with Plux, it's definitely a 1x1 thing IMO. Due to the fact that there's really only one goal in 1x1, which is beating your opponent, any action that might lead to that opponent reaching a better position in the game (i.e. a trade with that opponent) is only rarely considered (by both humans), especially since most of the time trades can also be made a lot cheaper with the ai opponents.

However, having been playing the 2x2 as well as the ddpp for quite some time, I can tell you that in those multi-human games, the type of diplomacy and interaction between humans increases and shifts substantially. However, that also makes these games a lot slower, especially once they've been running for some time, and the interaction becomes more and more complex.

[Plux]

To elaborate a bit on my point..

Consider just any multiplayer FPS. If you ever played with headset and communication, you can imagine that the moments when most dialogue and interaction comes up are either when people need to work together to achieve a common goal (eg, CTF) or when they are fighting each other. The rest of the time they are just running around waiting for something to happen. Or in the case of Civ, just building their empire. In regular 1-1 PBEM's both of these moments of communication do not happen very often. Most of the FPS games are well-balanced and exciting in MP-mode. Civ3 isn't, as it is a builder's game (that's what we like about it :)). So, in order to spice things up a bit throughout the game, you want to set some intermediate goals as well, to make sure that players stay awake and ready for battle in stead of just building their empire and confidence to strike first. But if you do appreciate the expansion phase of the game (as do I) and don't want to play ready-made scenario's you'll have to think indeed about Risk-type assignments (could be laborous to achieve though) or formats such as 1x1 or 2x2 CTF which are standard in-game, I believe. I'm willing to try something out if you want.

[akots]

quote:Originally posted by anarres Well, if you play me I will make demands of your techs and gold very often.

Well, not very often indeed, about 2 times a week. ... Apparently these demands suck up too much of your energy so that you feel tired and cannot play more often. [lol]

IMHO, Always war between human players might be a good idea:

1) No city investigation.
2) No tech stealing.
3) No RoP rape.
4) No treachery, backstabbing and breaking peace treaties.
5) Always ready for action.

BTW, trying some maps without AI and with just 2 human players might be of great interest on a symmetrical map. Prior map knowledge in this case is OK.

Also, playing some of the Conquests is a great fun. Some are poorly balanced but others are OK. For example, Rise of Rome is more or less balanced as well as Mesoamerica.

[anarres]

Not that I care too much about your unprovoked attack akots, but to challenge your perceptions of AW:

1) So what? Like it ever makes a real difference.
2) Like I need to steal...
3) Like I would EVER give an RoP to a human in a 1-on-1!
4) Check my record!!
5) Umm, HOW?

[akots]

quote:Originally posted by anarresNot that I care too much about your unprovoked attack akots...

I'm just struggling to figure out the most interesting and efficient way to play. Always War between human players might be good or not. I also decided it makes little difference. Then, why not giving it a try ... [lol]