Multiplayer Solution Ideas?

from GalCiv2 Forums

I am fairly certain that we have all read the pros and cons of the theoratical presence of multiplayer in Galactic Civilizations 2, and so I won't try to revisit that here. Instead I would to pose the question of, if one were to implement multiplayer, how would one implement it so as to maintain basic gameplay as much as possible without simplifying or "dumbing-down" the gameplay.

Diplomacy is a problem, especially the diplomacy skill stat. Players are not bound to make friends or enemies based on a diplomacy stat, and an attempt to do so would be highly limiting of strategy and diplomacy. As an alternative, prehaps a population could approve or disapprove of policies, and a player would incur certain penalties(perhaps morale penalties, perhaps political penalties) for acting against their population's wishes (especially in cases as declaring war or accepting or rejecting trade proposals). While a player could exploit this by making seemingly reasonable proposals that a player, for reasons evident to a human player, must reject, so as to cause that player to incur the political penalty. However, this would require the political ability to communicate with someone frequently (if diplomatic skill rating does no currently affect this as the super diplomat ability does then it could be changed to do so for the purposes of multiplayer) and would lose the valuable ability to communicate to a given player at a moment's notice. This solution is far from ideal, but way work.

Many other areas of gameplay would perhaps need to be changed or tweaked, from combat to victory conditions to turn order. Please volunteer your suggestions and comment on/adapt other people's suggestions, or at least point out areas that would need change that have yet to be covered.

Also, if this thread has been done before, please inform me of that. A quick check did not reveal any, but it was only a quick check.

18,928 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I would like to inquire as to the purpose of this discussion. Such knowledge would make it much easier to be productive. Since multiplayer is pretty much never going to be added to GC2, what is the purpose? Ideas for possible uses in GC3? A general 4X MP system? Something else? Thanks for the clarification.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
As a simple answer, it is just an interesting and difficult problem for a game that I enjoy. Although I did not have it in mind, any ideas with broader application to 4X games would be even more interesting.
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Ah. I see. Thanks for clearing it up for me. Now that I know the topic at hand...

It is always best to clearly identify the problem before trying to solve it, no? I see this as a temporal problem. The main issue is that not all players are online for the full game time span. To broad... simplify. Ok, the issue is that the game must still be fun to play when not all players are online. The age old question. If someone can state it better (as I'm sure they can) please do.

I have some ideas on that area, but first lets get an idea of what exactly we are trying to solve, shall we?
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Some problems, then:

The length of a game of galactic civilizations is prohibitive for a multiplayer session.

If one were to have multiple sessions, then organizing and reuniting players would be difficult to, for ten player maps, almost impossible.

The length of a turn is prohibitive, as a large amount of the time, up to nine tenths of the time, that one is playing is spent waiting for other players turns. This is even more of an issue when combined with very lengthy turns in the later game.

Diplomacy is an issue when human players do not follow rules of diplomacy points or other traditional AI checks such as ethical alignment.

Communication is an issue when players ideally can communicate for banter or game discussion or any such thing, yet would not become a source of alliances. On second thought, perhaps the communication system could be integrated with an altered version of the current diplomatic system into a new diplomatic system emphasizing deal-making and deal-breaking.

The current diplomatic and cultural victory conditions would be unattainable , as the last player to take their turn before a player claims victory would be forced to delare war on the player who would claim victory. Victories could only result from conquest, ascension, or research.

Human players would handle technology trading differently. While not necessarily a problem, it is possible that this could lead to gameplay imbalances in favor of diplomatic or research-oriented playstyles. It is certainly worthy or consideration.

The role of customized races, building, or tech trees, and what is allowed in multiplayer, or how what is allowed is determined.

The role of random events in a suddenly increasingly competitive environment. Random events usually do not go over well in an environment where balance is practically the one and only commandment(second if one includes Thou Shalt not Mod, which is really just an extension of the former).

How an empire is managed after a player quits, whether if is abandoned and the planets made empty, the empire becomes ruled by an AI replacement, it is divided among the remaining players, etc.

These are only the potential issues that I can think of off of the top of my head, certainly there are others.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Here are all answers on your problems :)

Diplomacy is a problem, especially the diplomacy skill stat. Players are not bound to make friends or enemies based on a diplomacy stat, and an attempt to do so would be highly limiting of strategy and diplomacy. As an alternative, prehaps a population could approve or disapprove of policies, and a player would incur certain penalties(perhaps morale penalties, perhaps political penalties) for acting against their population's wishes (especially in cases as declaring war or accepting or rejecting trade proposals). While a player could exploit this by making seemingly reasonable proposals that a player, for reasons evident to a human player, must reject, so as to cause that player to incur the political penalty. However, this would require the political ability to communicate with someone frequently (if diplomatic skill rating does no currently affect this as the super diplomat ability does then it could be changed to do so for the purposes of multiplayer) and would lose the valuable ability to communicate to a given player at a moment's notice. This solution is far from ideal, but way work.
End of quote


The diplomacy is in fact the key-problem. The points system will be the best:
If you disagree for proposal (and for AI this is great proposal fe. selling technology, planets, make peace treaty) look to your diplomacy ability. If your partner have grater than you, then:
a) your morale grow down - more, if the partner's diplomacy ability is higher
b) your senate can disagree with you, and agree with the partner requests (even if your party controls senate)


Many other areas of gameplay would perhaps need to be changed or tweaked, from combat to victory conditions to turn order. Please volunteer your suggestions and comment on/adapt other people's suggestions, or at least point out areas that would need change that have yet to be covered.
End of quote


Original victory conditions:
-Influence: The best influence after X years (proposal)
-Ascending (ok)
-Technology victory (ok)
-Conquest victory (ok)
-Alliance - ok, but winner player with best influence
Proposals:
-Owns X percent influence in galaxy
-Has the highest score/rating after X years
-Exceeds second place total score/rating by X percent
-Ethical victory (as alliance)
-Alliance victory - this is big problem, because many players build "secret" alliance with advanced tech trading and destroy other players one by one. I cannot how solve it...


The length of a game of galactic civilizations is prohibitive for a multiplayer session.
End of quote


Why?
The game can be ended after X turns (X years) and the winner is with the best influence or the best score/rating.
It is better solution than "conquest victory".


If one were to have multiple sessions, then organizing and reuniting players would be difficult to, for ten player maps, almost impossible.
End of quote


If that is turn game, use PBEM mode: all players give orders (sent file to host) and receive solution. It works for SE-IV PBEM game.
All moving orders will be generate automatically (the player should see only the way), auto attack (when this same grid field or next), invade is special order (not only move)


The length of a turn is prohibitive, as a large amount of the time, up to nine tenths of the time, that one is playing is spent waiting for other players turns. This is even more of an issue when combined with very lengthy turns in the later game.
End of quote


The PBEM system solves it. The new turn is ready when the host wants :)


Diplomacy is an issue when human players do not follow rules of diplomacy points or other traditional AI checks such as ethical alignment.
End of quote


If the difference between diplomacy skills will be higher then:
a) the senate should have more chance to not allow this proposal (if player disagree)
b) the morale grow down

Ethical alignment: if alliance and different ethics
b) the morale grow down
b) the tourism grow down


Communication is an issue when players ideally can communicate for banter or game discussion or any such thing, yet would not become a source of alliances. On second thought, perhaps the communication system could be integrated with an altered version of the current diplomatic system into a new diplomatic system emphasizing deal-making and deal-breaking.
End of quote


Communication is OK. Please add "see to all".
First turn: request
Second: the answer


The current diplomatic and cultural victory conditions would be unattainable , as the last player to take their turn before a player claims victory would be forced to delare war on the player who would claim victory. Victories could only result from conquest, ascension, or research.
End of quote


The PBEM system solves all these issues: all playes have in this same turn this same information about "victory in X turns".


Human players would handle technology trading differently. While not necessarily a problem, it is possible that this could lead to gameplay imbalances in favor of diplomatic or research-oriented playstyles. It is certainly worthy or consideration.
End of quote


And where is the problem? The human player will trade techs, or trade fazor-VII ships to other player per 1bc/ship :)
If the rating/score is calculated as sum of techs, influence, ships... that you helps your opponent.
Solutions:
a) use one tech tree for all races
b) use different tech tree for all, but race don't understand special techs for other race form other tech tree (cannot use improvements etc etc)

All techs, economy & researches treaties, bonuses (ships, bc), anomalies, different quality planets, events and megaevents can imbalance the game :)


The role of customized races, building, or tech trees, and what is allowed in multiplayer, or how what is allowed is determined.
End of quote


a) standard rules for all
b) this same tech tree or different techs tree (without using abilities from other tech trees)


The role of random events in a suddenly increasingly competitive environment. Random events usually do not go over well in an environment where balance is practically the one and only commandment(second if one includes Thou Shalt not Mod, which is really just an extension of the former).
End of quote


Options:
enable/disable all events
enable/disable special event
(I know that some events can strong imbalance game, but other are better for game f.e. comet give resources - asteroids.)


How an empire is managed after a player quits, whether if is abandoned and the planets made empty, the empire becomes ruled by an AI replacement, it is divided among the remaining players, etc.
End of quote

a) no orders (players gives any orders)
b) race by controlled by high-level AI
c) race is surrendered (emperor left his kingdom) and after X turns (game option = 3, 5, more?) UP votes who can take surrendered empire.



Do you think about UP vote system in multiplayer?

1) To UP belongs all races which have "universal translator" technology (when trade and communication is possible)

2) First discoverer "universal translator" technology is president of UP* (if in this same turns, look to higher influence, if this same, look on the higher rating/score)

a) standard rule (AI decide about law proposition)
b) host decide about queue of law proposition (pre-game option)
c) president of UP*: all UP races votes who is president of UP for X years, and after that is re-election of president - president decides, which law is voted - new one or break existing (but cannot choose one, that were voted less than three meetings ago)
... or can build proposal of new law (but other type than three meetings ago


I hope that I helped you,
Greetings


+1 Loading…
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Sorry if I respond to these in no particuar order.

Your U.P. idea is quite good, and would almost make it more like Civ 4. Universal Translators would be too early in the game for a major "first to find" event, and it may even matter in that case who goes first as an imbalance. Actually, isn't it possible to start with Universal Translators? In any case, I would recommend Interstellar Governments as an alternative technology, perhaps removing the diplomacy bonus as entry into the U.P. is a farily large bonus in itself. This may limit the scope of the U.P. if only players with I.G. can vote. Perhaps a tiered system with those players with U.T. as second-class citizens with fewer rights, voting power, ability to reccomend motions, or some other such qualifications. Players with I.G. would act as players normally do now in single-player, and the U.P. leader would have great (but not total) control over which resolution are accepted for voting and would have some bonus to voting power. To justify this newfound complexity the U.P. would have to have a larger role in the game, but I see this as no particular evil.

I am interested and confused by "Ethical Victory (as Alliance)". If this is a replacement for an Alliance victory then it may not be needed (all players in the alliance score some degree of victory points, player who started the alliances scores full points), although an Ethical Victory is an interesting prospect. Perhaps "all players of an ethical alignment claim Ethical Victory if 1) all players surviving are declared(having researched Xeno Ethics) toward the alignment in question 2) no player has died while being declared that Alignment (surrenders accepted so long as the player surrendered to is still alive".

I agree with the idea of the scoring system as a solution to many problems with victory conditions. I would probably be better if score victory also cannot be attained before a certain year, to prevent the possibility of rush colonization and immediately making all possible trades to put one into first. That would be a type of rush much different from the traditional zerglings, but perhaps even more threatening.

I am counfused by the PBEM mode. Would this mean players take turns simultaneously? Would ships auto-act uless otherwise ordered? How would simultaneous turns work with the (always problematic) diplomacy system? I am sorry, but I do not understand. Could you please explain the system in greater detail?
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
"Ethical Victory (as Alliance)" - to win you must declare (only declare) your ethical.
Its mean that after the game, players can declare which ethical will be in use, like team-games. Now, the team (not player) is winner if have most influence points or summary rank/score after X turns.
In "standard" games, the teams only declare side " f.e. blue and red", so this is only declaration to be a team member. Here in GC2 you have special bonuses from alignments, so the better way is if you choose the alignment, but it is not necessary.

PBEM - you're right, players play one turn simultaneously. This is the best way to keep the game fast. If the turn is generated one per day, that it's mean that all players play 7 turns per week.
If every player has 24 hours to prepare his turn (and send the game to other player, to add his turn (etc, etc), that it's mean, that 10 players need 1.5 week do prepare one turn! Do you want wait one week or more to play one turn? :)
I think not.

With the PBEM mode, the problem is with events between moving from start point to target. So, the contact is when the ships meet in the target point. And now attack can be done (auto-attack) and the players will have info about this event (and replay it). So this is no problem I think.

Diplomacy system in PBEM mode
(...I hope that you know, that almost all players do not use in-built systems, but use mail or other connectors to create a proposals. In-build systems are used only for finishing these proposals...)
I show you it on example:
1st turn: Drengin creates proposal trade to buy "plasma-I" and sell shield-I.
2nd turn: Terran reads this proposal and accept it.
2nd turn: Terran reads this proposal and try to reject it.
* Information, that "reject" will do -2 morale points
* Morale of Terran grow down if Drengin has better diplomacy ability
* Senate can do not accept rejected answer, if Drengin has better diplomacy ability
2nd turn: Terran create proposal trade to sell "plasma-I" for shield-II.
3rd turn: Drengin reads this proposal and accept it.
etc etc

This way is very long, but acceptable (it works in other PBEM games). This is no way for other issues, because to keep on-line communications, all players should be on-line. And this is impossible to do.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
A non-ideal solution to be sure, but I can think of no improvement and it seems that it works for other games.

For player-created or player-customized items it would be great if there could be an "accepted balanced list" for custom races, tech trees, maps, etc. One could submit a customized race to Stardock or a community system for approval or rejection on the balanced list, depending on whether or not it is acceptably balanced against other races (using default races as the standard). Empires or races that many people would be interested in playing (Cylons! Jedi Council! The Sins of a Solar Empire races!) could be standardized in this way. When setting the rules for a game on ecould choose between nonly default races, default or accepted balanced races, or anything goes (although this seems to just be waiting for the race that starts with the ultra-everything no maintenance zero built time ultra build and the ten hojillion attack power ship). The obvious problem with this is who would be willing to provide this reviewing service, who would be trustworthy enough to provide this reviewing service, and how to limit to crazy people who would submit ten overpowered races a day. Ignoring the fact that I would be one of those people, perhaps the service could be offered at a fee. A rather large system for a feature that would be underused, but one can dream.

While this could cause a fundamental shift in gameplay, when a player quits I would recomend that their worlds became uninhabited and their ships roving pirates. It would make for a unique and dangerous late-game colonization rush. The full might of an established civilization put to expansion would be a fearsome sight.