The Cities Unlimited Archives: Multiplayer

I've been holding off on editorializing these posts too much, since they're mainly presented for historical interest, but upon more consideration I think I should also throw in my two cents on them, lest people think I'm proposing that we adopt these ideas wholesale for Metropolis (which I'm emphatically not). Let me just state generally that while there are scores of good ideas in these articles, I'm also not convinced that some things are practical or necessary; In other places I support the general concept but have a very different idea about how to execute it (like today's article.) So, check the comments section (the new one, that is,) if you'd care to hear my personal critique.

Multiplayer & Online Play

a Conceptual article by tr0ub1es0me

#11586 tr0ub1e

(author & contributors: DHamp, djvandrake, MrGSCoTTc, tr0ub1es0me)

Links to relevant CitiesXL.com discussion threads:

• The Next Level?
• Surrounding Cities
• Official Site Poll: Visiting Other Players' Cities?
• Does Monte Cristo Intend to Allow Multiplayer in CITIES XL?

There are probably countless things that haven't been thought of which should be a part of the "planet" idea for CITIES XL (see the Concepts article Planetary Idea). Take internet multi-player gaming, for instance: wouldn't it be cool to build cities on a virtual planet with friends from online communities? I would want the new "planets" feature especially for the multiplayer possibilities.

Well, one idea would be to have a server site set up to do not much else than store planets for online play. The player would need to be connected to the internet to play an "online planet", and the game will automatically upload to the "online planet" after each time the player saves and exits a city. If a player lost their connection during play, then the game will simply mark that city for instantly uploading the next time the player is connected and loads up the region or game. All players would benefit from the planet server through global trade, but also have the risk of losing trade or utility deals from changing characteristics of other local or global regions and nations under the control of other players.

Rather than just mixing the cities of all the various players together in one single region (like Online Play for SimCity 4), the same "planet" concept will be used; meaning players will always have full control of each one of their own entire regions. The multiplayer aspect would be that each of the regions are within a country made up of several regions, either entirely under the player's own control, or a shared country with some regions under the control of AI or human opponents. The country would be within a planet made up of lots of other countries using the same system.

In the same vein as AI regions, this would re-introduce the competitive element which neighbouring AI cities provided in SimCity 2000 and SimCity 3000. At any time, players would be able to view and compare stats of other cities, regions and nations - whether they are their own regions, the regions of other players, or AI regions! The extra feature for areas on a planet controlled by another player (as opposed to areas controlled by the AI) would be that you can zoom right into region and city level. The full region view would need to be downloaded from the server though, as well as downloading any city views when you zoom into a city from region view.

Online/Multiplayer planets should be a feature available for any planet. You should simply be able to select an activation option on the game's user interface when you decide to make any planet into an "online" planet. However, it should be advised to do it with a fresh planet rather than with one you've already started working on and developing - because all the necessary data of any existing cities and developments would need to be uploaded to the server before the planet would become available for other players to join. The initial upload time would increase dramatically in proportion to the level of existing developments.

Contacting Other Players

This would be a highly crucial function needed for online multiplayer planets. You should be able to, at any time, send a message to another "Mayor" who has control of areas on your planet. It may be necessary if you wish to discuss making a new interacting deal with them. It would also be crucial for making neighbouring region connections - if the neighbour is controlled by another player. These things can be discussed before a player commits to buildings the connection and any new infrastructure associated with it. It would be highly frustrating if a player made a new neighbour connection to another region, before building an extensive transport network leading to that connection - only to find that the other player doesn't want the connection at all and refuses to have one at any location along the border, and demolishes it. The player who made the connection and associated infrastructure would have wasted so much time and city funds.

By being able to select from a list of "Mayors" on your planet, and sending them a message (which can also include a picture from the city - or a joint picture across the border of both cities, if it is regarding transport connections to the neighbour), it would eliminate any problems because players can come to an agreement rather than just making assumptions about what the other player's intentions are.

It's better to have this built-in than to expect players to run an instant messaging program in the background, in Windows or other PC operating system, and keep switching between that and CITIES XL. When a player is online and playing, and they receive a message from another Mayor, it would appear in their Inbox as well as in a pop-up window in the corner of their screen which will remain there until closed. The message would also remain in the Inbox after being read, for future reference. Players would be able to delete messages from their Inbox if they wish.

If a player is not online when they are sent a message by another player, it will simply appear in the popup and Inbox as soon as they next play CITIES XL online.

External Sources
Article contains ideas and segments from:

Post any other comments, suggestions, additions, or adjustments here too.

#11599 Joe2102001

1- Not really into multiple player games.

#11637 MrCinatit

1 - It is not something I would be interested.

However, if the feature can be added to the game as an option only, then it would be acceptable. But, looking at the colossal failure of the SC4 online play and other attempts I have seen on Simtropolis and other sites, I have a feeling it would not be used all that often.

#11646 ckwong

I am not sure about Multiplayer. Usually one would only be interested in Multiplayer only if there are significant multiplayer interaction, usually in the form of competition (racing, shooting or slashing each other up). City simulation - I don't see many interaction points. I would recommend that a website (either fansite or MC) be dedicated to players to upload his/her cities for others to download for viewing or for (scenario)playing (there used to be this great www.sc4ever.com, now discontinued, where fans upload their nice and not so nice cities).

#11708 jon

1. I'm not into this stuff.

However, If there were a way to interact online as an option (i.e. downloadable, tourable cities) or a world map online that a player claims land, builds a city and interacts, that would be cool. I just want to load this up and build on my own as it is.

#11710 Matt

1. No thanks.

I agree with jon. Multiplayer - no. Online access to more features, buildings, props, etc. - yes.

#11713 wintermute

2 - I do enjoy some multiplayer gaming in FPS, RTS and other competitive games but I don't really expect it in a city builder unless it's only an option and it's done pretty well. The risk is to make it only "one more bullet" on a feature list (EA style).
In short, it's not a priority. Deep and satisfying core gameplay is a much higher one.

#11717 Simon

Matt schrieb:

1. No thanks.

I agree with jon. Multiplayer - no. Online access to more features, buildings, props, etc. - yes.

sign.

#11722 aibo

1 - I don't care for these features at all. it's not a priority.

Online access to more features, Exchange buildings, props, etc. - yes

#11745 Bountytaker

5

As I said in my very first post on these boards, I really do think this is the next innovative step for the city builder genre. After a certain point, adding buildings, or giving more realistic control, simply plateaus. Competition...that's what's the next gen fans will look for. And, think about how it would shake up the mmo world...not skills, loot, quests, zones, etc. True multiplayer competition, on a large scale, without tolkien or DandD mechanics.

The outline you've given is similar to what I've envisioned, with some minor differences, and one major. The major part I think you're missing is "population". To make it a truly competative, online sim, I'd like to see each server "planet" have set population cap. It should be really high, and it could be adjusted up every so often, but still, it would be a cap. Player built cities would NOT have an unlimited supply of citizens. Instead, they would draw citizens from capped world pool, or from each other. This gives the game a high level of competition, and makes your choice that much more important.

One minor piece that I envision, that you didn't mention, would be the opportunity for world events. Monthly competitions between the cities on the servers for special buildins or rewards. Again, I think that's something that a lot of players, new and old, would like to see.

This is the NUMBER ONE feature I'm looking for. If CU has it, I'll buy my copy now. If not, I'm really not sure I'll buy the game at all.

Nice article!

#11752 Jasper

If they decide to integrate an online (multi)player option into CU, i would rather see it as an extra option in addition to the scenario's and free play/sandbox. I do NOT want the game to be online only.

Good ideas though...

#11754 D.R. Munro

I would really like to see this as well. The main problem I ran into in SC4 was that it got so simple and static once you learned the rope. It become all about asthetics, which really had no functionality.

I agree with Bountytaker, a dynamic region involving intelligent, living, humans - instead of AI - is where the progression of this genre lies.

I mean, that would give you a reason to pump 45% of you cash flow into a University system that is second to none, if it beats the competition of neighboring towns, they'll move to yours.

5.

#11791 ckwong

D. R. Munro wrote:

I would really like to see this as well. The main problem I ran into in SC4 was that it got so simple and static once you learned the rope. It become all about asthetics, which really had no functionality.

I agree with Bountytaker, a dynamic region involving intelligent, living, humans - instead of AI - is where the progression of this genre lies.

I mean, that would give you a reason to pump 45% of you cash flow into a University system that is second to none, if it beats the competition of neighboring towns, they'll move to yours.

5.

If any of you guys have played Civilization IV on-line, you will share my views that it is going to be tough. Players generally don't have patience - they would join game but many would leave very quickly as well - as such, an AI system to take over your cities is required. AI for Simcity (scratching head)??

#11802 Bountytaker

ckwong wrote:

If any of you guys have played Civilization IV on-line, you will share my views that it is going to be tough. Players generally don't have patience - they would join game but many would leave very quickly as well - as such, an AI system to take over your cities is required. AI for Simcity (scratching head)??

I would think it could be handled similarly to player housing in most mmos. You can choose to disband what you've built (to move somewhere else, or because you want to give up). Or, if you fail to do disband, but close your subscription or leave your city abandoned for a long time, it is automatically wiped.

As a matter of fact, it might be more realistic in this game to watch as a city works towards getting "wiped". First, it stops attracting new "citizens" because it isn't growing. Then, it starts losing established citizens because of frustration over lack of mayor involvement. Finally, after many of the old citizens die off, the city is disbanded by the server.

Talk about realism :)

#11804 SimDragon

3

I think this has been discussed before here. I posted on another thread about multiplayer. I would like to see multiplayer but not in an online scenario. I would like to have it in Lan play instead. Online playing is meant to be competitive and I can't see a city simulation being competitive.

In Lan play it can be more cooperative. I play games with my wife and my son and I would love if we could all make our own cities but be able to interact with each other. One could have the farming community, one could have the business district, one could have the industry district, one could have an entertainment town, etc... but they all need each other to function. Now that would mean things would have to get more granular like controlling what businesses and industry develop in your community. If one city has a booming business district with an extensive subway system the industry city could have a company that makes subway engines and passenger cars. Thats where I would like to see this go.

One thing I dislike in Civ IV is how fast everything is. Hurry up get the peeps in and get all the industry going as soon as possible because Rome wants 100 Glass. Rush rush rush, not a lot of time for planning. I found myself playing the a city twice so I could work out the lay of the land then come back and get things where I want them while getting my trade and demands going. Online CU would lead to the hurry up and get things done approach that would kill multiplayer for me.

Don't know if the genre is ready for the granular approach yet so we shall see. But I would love to see it.;)