![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Emperor
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,946
|
![]()
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.
![]() 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 !!!!! ![]()
__________________
Sent from my Debian |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
King
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,214
|
![]()
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?
![]() 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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
c00l b33r
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Beat 'm up Scotty!. Lives in the Lands that are Nether.
Posts: 5,094
|
![]()
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.
__________________
That was a pretty good gamble. -- Scotty, The Galileo Seven, stardate 2821.5, Episode 14
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Emperor
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,946
|
![]()
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 ![]() ![]() 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. ![]() More feedback about my initial post or about what was said then welcome.
__________________
Sent from my Debian |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Netherlands.
Posts: 3,108
|
![]()
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.
__________________
<b>\"In the Game of Thrones, you win or you die\" </b> |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
King
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,214
|
![]()
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 ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Nebuchadnezzar II
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Glover Park
Posts: 4,459
|
![]() Quote:
![]() 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.
__________________
Cujusvis hominis est errare; nullius, nisi insipientis in errore perseverare Ciceron (Marcus Tullius) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
anarchist butcher
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States of Whatever.
Posts: 4,677
|
![]()
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?
__________________
<b>Calculate the probability of culture flips: Flip Calc</b> |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Nebuchadnezzar II
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Glover Park
Posts: 4,459
|
![]() Quote:
![]()
__________________
Cujusvis hominis est errare; nullius, nisi insipientis in errore perseverare Ciceron (Marcus Tullius) |
|
![]() |
![]() |