Play balance in multi-player - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  Play balance in multi-player

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Play balance in multi-player

Octopus posted 12-01-98 02:00 AM ET
Let me start off by stating my premise. Each of the factions have different strengths and weaknesses which suggest a particularly good strategy for them. For example:
Spartans and Believers will be strong in the early game, when their military bonuses will allow them to outfight the other factions, but will be weak late in the game, because they will be held back by their slow economy and weak science, respectively.
The Hive has free defenses, so it will be in a reasonable position in the early game, and its production bonuses should make it very strong in the middle of the game.
The PKs and Gaians are sort of middle of the road factions, so they'll probably never have a significant advantage or disadvantage.
The UoP will be virtually unstoppable in the end because of their superior tech, but they'll probably be extremely weak in the beginning. The same with Morgan, except substitute economic infrastructure for tech.

OK, now to the point: In multi-player games, I think things will be tilted toward a short game (e.g. small maps, etc.) since it is going to be tough to get people together to play a long drawn out game. So, doesn't that mean that the play balancing for a single player game (where you'll be playing through the entire game) might be different than for a multi-player game (more likely to be fast and furious)? How can Firaxis make both of these balanced at the same time, with the same Faction advantages and disadvantages?

Brother Greg posted 12-01-98 02:11 AM ET
That's why I wanna see MP before I commit to joining Leagues or anything. In the end though, I suppose that if there are 1000 turns in a drawn out game, with 30 secs per turn max, that's 500 minutes, or a little over 8 hours.
Somehow I don't think many games will go that long.
I dunno, maybe they have accelerated start options for MP. Maybe they score it in such a way that the end score is balanced, no matter how long you play.
Either that, or they'll have to allow saves, and we can play a game over 2-3 days...
I think it comes down to balancing the scores, which in the end is what will be the defining result of MP.
Brother Greg.
Octopus posted 12-01-98 02:44 AM ET
I've been skeptical about multi-player myself, but all of the anti-Hive hysteria and subsequent alliance forming has me tempted to actually give it a shot.
Hothram Upravda posted 12-01-98 03:00 AM ET
Saves are deffenitly something that they have to have in this game to make it possible to play realisticly multiplayer.
Balance is a very hard problem...
I'll have to think about that one for a while. Or better yet wait till the demo and play around with it...

Hothram Upravda
TB
DJ RRebel posted 12-01-98 04:36 AM ET
hmmm ,, I don't think the game will have 1000 turns ... although it would be nice !!!
I'm guessing between 500 & 700 .. but even then, by the end of the game, there is no way you'll be able to do all your moves in 30 secs !!!
As it was pointed out, we'll just have to wait and see ... anyone know if there will any kind of multi in the demo ???
Gord McLeod posted 12-01-98 05:22 AM ET
Multiplayer demos have been pretty common lately, you could even call them an industry standard. We'll just have to hope.
Golf posted 12-01-98 07:40 PM ET
The multiplayer will more than likely be like in Civ2 where you could have an advanced start of say 10 or so civ advances and about 5 cities and 30 or so troops. The game would move quickly and you would have to use the advantage of your faction to make your score the best not necessarily thrashing with physical might but maybe advancing your faction in science and humanitarianism so fast as to make your score high. Like when you look at some of the screen shots it has the faction name of who is highest in tech and military and overall and such and that would be the winner after a set number of turns. Most games i surmise will not last 3 hrs at most.
What do you think.
Old_Guy posted 12-01-98 08:34 PM ET
I was saying in an earlier multi-player related post today that multiplayer SMAC will probably depend heavily on automation. City governors, production queues, unit orders, will all play a part in speeding up the game.
I could think you could easily see the positives or negatives with this. I'm sure some people won't like things to get too automated and may even go so far as to say that multiplayer is too much of a 'twitch-fest'. Some people will actually prefer to have long, drawn-out games. Firaxis obviously won't be able to please everyone.
I think automation poses interesting and fun challenges in multiplayer. If time limits are set for each turn then you are constantly faced with real-life management decisions. When and where do I defer management to someone else and when and where do I get personally involved?
All in all, multiplayer should be a completely different kind of game from single-player. I think we're all in agreement that there are a lot of multiplayer issues and at this point we don't how SMAC will handle them. As usual, we just have to keep the faith.
Octopus posted 12-01-98 10:49 PM ET
"an advanced start of say 10 or so civ advances and about 5 cities and 30 or so troops."
That would suck! I'd be constantly annoyed that the center of my empire (i.e. the starting cities) were not arranged in the "right" way.
DJ RRebel posted 12-02-98 04:32 AM ET
I couldn't agree with you more Octopus !!!
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Play balance in multi-player
Octopus	posted 12-01-98 02:00 AM ET Let me start off by stating my premise. Each of the factions have different strengths and weaknesses which suggest a particularly good strategy for them. For example: Spartans and Believers will be strong in the early game, when their military bonuses will allow them to outfight the other factions, but will be weak late in the game, because they will be held back by their slow economy and weak science, respectively. The Hive has free defenses, so it will be in a reasonable position in the early game, and its production bonuses should make it very strong in the middle of the game. The PKs and Gaians are sort of middle of the road factions, so they'll probably never have a significant advantage or disadvantage. The UoP will be virtually unstoppable in the end because of their superior tech, but they'll probably be extremely weak in the beginning. The same with Morgan, except substitute economic infrastructure for tech. OK, now to the point: In multi-player games, I think things will be tilted toward a short game (e.g. small maps, etc.) since it is going to be tough to get people together to play a long drawn out game. So, doesn't that mean that the play balancing for a single player game (where you'll be playing through the entire game) might be different than for a multi-player game (more likely to be fast and furious)? How can Firaxis make both of these balanced at the same time, with the same Faction advantages and disadvantages?
Brother Greg	posted 12-01-98 02:11 AM ET That's why I wanna see MP before I commit to joining Leagues or anything. In the end though, I suppose that if there are 1000 turns in a drawn out game, with 30 secs per turn max, that's 500 minutes, or a little over 8 hours. Somehow I don't think many games will go that long. I dunno, maybe they have accelerated start options for MP. Maybe they score it in such a way that the end score is balanced, no matter how long you play. Either that, or they'll have to allow saves, and we can play a game over 2-3 days... I think it comes down to balancing the scores, which in the end is what will be the defining result of MP. Brother Greg.
Octopus	posted 12-01-98 02:44 AM ET I've been skeptical about multi-player myself, but all of the anti-Hive hysteria and subsequent alliance forming has me tempted to actually give it a shot.
Hothram Upravda	posted 12-01-98 03:00 AM ET Saves are deffenitly something that they have to have in this game to make it possible to play realisticly multiplayer. Balance is a very hard problem... I'll have to think about that one for a while. Or better yet wait till the demo and play around with it... Hothram Upravda TB
DJ RRebel	posted 12-01-98 04:36 AM ET hmmm ,, I don't think the game will have 1000 turns ... although it would be nice !!! I'm guessing between 500 & 700 .. but even then, by the end of the game, there is no way you'll be able to do all your moves in 30 secs !!! As it was pointed out, we'll just have to wait and see ... anyone know if there will any kind of multi in the demo ???
Gord McLeod	posted 12-01-98 05:22 AM ET Multiplayer demos have been pretty common lately, you could even call them an industry standard. We'll just have to hope.
Golf	posted 12-01-98 07:40 PM ET The multiplayer will more than likely be like in Civ2 where you could have an advanced start of say 10 or so civ advances and about 5 cities and 30 or so troops. The game would move quickly and you would have to use the advantage of your faction to make your score the best not necessarily thrashing with physical might but maybe advancing your faction in science and humanitarianism so fast as to make your score high. Like when you look at some of the screen shots it has the faction name of who is highest in tech and military and overall and such and that would be the winner after a set number of turns. Most games i surmise will not last 3 hrs at most. What do you think.
Old_Guy	posted 12-01-98 08:34 PM ET I was saying in an earlier multi-player related post today that multiplayer SMAC will probably depend heavily on automation. City governors, production queues, unit orders, will all play a part in speeding up the game. I could think you could easily see the positives or negatives with this. I'm sure some people won't like things to get too automated and may even go so far as to say that multiplayer is too much of a 'twitch-fest'. Some people will actually prefer to have long, drawn-out games. Firaxis obviously won't be able to please everyone. I think automation poses interesting and fun challenges in multiplayer. If time limits are set for each turn then you are constantly faced with real-life management decisions. When and where do I defer management to someone else and when and where do I get personally involved? All in all, multiplayer should be a completely different kind of game from single-player. I think we're all in agreement that there are a lot of multiplayer issues and at this point we don't how SMAC will handle them. As usual, we just have to keep the faith.
Octopus	posted 12-01-98 10:49 PM ET "an advanced start of say 10 or so civ advances and about 5 cities and 30 or so troops." That would suck! I'd be constantly annoyed that the center of my empire (i.e. the starting cities) were not arranged in the "right" way.
DJ RRebel	posted 12-02-98 04:32 AM ET I couldn't agree with you more Octopus !!!