Potential Design Flaw: PK in Multiplayer

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  Potential Design Flaw: PK in Multiplayer

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Potential Design Flaw: PK in Multiplayer

Rang posted 11-23-98 04:43 PM ET
In multiplayer, all the factions will retain their respective advantages...except for Peacekeepers. The Peacekeepers get better diplomatic relations from AI's in singleplayer. But in multiplayer, those advantages dissipate. AI's might be willing to cut Peacekeepers a better deal in negotiations, because they're programmed to. But in multiplayer, enemy players might not be so sanguine.
Thus, in multiplayer, the factions are not balanced. PK's lose their advantages, while the other factions don't.
CClark posted 11-23-98 04:48 PM ET
You may have a point there. Firaxis may have planned around this though by doing something like the Senate (Republic government in Civ) which disallows you from breaking treaties and stuff.
They could also kludge it a bit by giving the PK's the frequencies for all otehr players so that the PK's can communicate with everyone from the outset whereas everyone else would have to wait until they encountered the other players.
(As an aside: I thought the title meant Flaw: Player-killing in Multiplayer. I was all ready to say "But that's the point ofthe game!" Hee hee, glad I was wrong.)
Rang posted 11-23-98 05:28 PM ET
The treaty enforcement sounds a bit like limiting player autonomy. But the comm freq thing sounds workable. I hope Firaxis realizes this potential flaw. Otherwise, no one would want to be the PK.
SnowFire posted 11-23-98 05:34 PM ET
Yes, and anyone remember the diplomat card in Castle Risk? The PK's may be able to temporarily stop wars against a human player's will, but eventually the human will triumph over the artificial restrictions placed on them to keep the PK's powerful.
Gord McLeod posted 11-23-98 05:36 PM ET
They've been playing the game for several years now, including multiplayer mode... I'm sure something so blatantly obvious wouldn't have slipped past them. Not to mention the beta-testers.
Aga1 posted 11-23-98 05:40 PM ET
Did we just find a beta tester ? (Rang)
Rang posted 11-23-98 06:19 PM ET
I'm afraid not. If I was, I'd be posting in the secret Beta Tester Forum.
As for slipping past the beta testers...that would depend on whether they're playing in multiplayer mode.
Old_Guy posted 11-24-98 02:34 AM ET
I think I remember reading somewhere that the Peacekeepers have less population constraints than other factions. That is one nice little advantage.
I was thinking that maybe the PKs have the 'Great Wall' effect from Civ2, but that would be pretty powerful. Just a thought though.
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: Potential Design Flaw: PK in Multiplayer
Rang	posted 11-23-98 04:43 PM ET In multiplayer, all the factions will retain their respective advantages...except for Peacekeepers. The Peacekeepers get better diplomatic relations from AI's in singleplayer. But in multiplayer, those advantages dissipate. AI's might be willing to cut Peacekeepers a better deal in negotiations, because they're programmed to. But in multiplayer, enemy players might not be so sanguine. Thus, in multiplayer, the factions are not balanced. PK's lose their advantages, while the other factions don't.
CClark	posted 11-23-98 04:48 PM ET You may have a point there. Firaxis may have planned around this though by doing something like the Senate (Republic government in Civ) which disallows you from breaking treaties and stuff. They could also kludge it a bit by giving the PK's the frequencies for all otehr players so that the PK's can communicate with everyone from the outset whereas everyone else would have to wait until they encountered the other players. (As an aside: I thought the title meant Flaw: Player-killing in Multiplayer. I was all ready to say "But that's the point ofthe game!" Hee hee, glad I was wrong.)
Rang	posted 11-23-98 05:28 PM ET The treaty enforcement sounds a bit like limiting player autonomy. But the comm freq thing sounds workable. I hope Firaxis realizes this potential flaw. Otherwise, no one would want to be the PK.
SnowFire	posted 11-23-98 05:34 PM ET Yes, and anyone remember the diplomat card in Castle Risk? The PK's may be able to temporarily stop wars against a human player's will, but eventually the human will triumph over the artificial restrictions placed on them to keep the PK's powerful.
Gord McLeod	posted 11-23-98 05:36 PM ET They've been playing the game for several years now, including multiplayer mode... I'm sure something so blatantly obvious wouldn't have slipped past them. Not to mention the beta-testers.
Aga1	posted 11-23-98 05:40 PM ET Did we just find a beta tester ? (Rang)
Rang	posted 11-23-98 06:19 PM ET I'm afraid not. If I was, I'd be posting in the secret Beta Tester Forum. As for slipping past the beta testers...that would depend on whether they're playing in multiplayer mode.
Old_Guy	posted 11-24-98 02:34 AM ET I think I remember reading somewhere that the Peacekeepers have less population constraints than other factions. That is one nice little advantage. I was thinking that maybe the PKs have the 'Great Wall' effect from Civ2, but that would be pretty powerful. Just a thought though.