Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Civilization Online: It's Real, and It's HappeningFollow

#1 Aug 07 2013 at 1:04 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
1,975 posts
I don't know what to think.

I love Civ, but this all sounds like a couple of college kids passing a bong back and forth and one-upping each other.

____________________________
One of my opinions is worth three of your facts.

#2 Aug 07 2013 at 1:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,253 posts
It's all fun and games until Gandhi starts WWIII with China. Smiley: oyvey

It honestly sounds a lot like EVE Online.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#3 Aug 07 2013 at 1:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,753 posts
I'm kind of confused about what you'll actually be doing in the game. Like what parts are broken up into these sessions and what remains afterwards? Is it like a persistent map RTS kind of game? It made it sounds like that from saying

Quote:
If you are not online 24 hours a day to lead your city, you can delegate orders to other players and have them carried out.


Are you all members of a civilization, like different city-states? Does everyone run a civilization, or only the popular/best players?

I have a confused. Smiley: frown
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4 Aug 07 2013 at 1:23 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,797 posts
The whole "Someone wins and we start over" thing sounds... worrisome.

One of civ's major features is the technological advances over time. But if I'm using assault rifles in an ancient civilization, it pretty much defeats the purpose.

And I don't love the idea of a brand new map each time. I like the world evolving. I like there being new things to explore and find. I don't like the idea of the past having no influence on the present geography.

IDK, I'll try and wait to judge it until we learn anything concrete about it. They're making it clear, from that info, that it's very early in development.

[EDIT]

Also, how the **** are you supposed to compete if you come into a session late? How long do these sessions last? These are important questions. If each session is going to be 6 months, you have no chance of winning if you join the game 3 months in.

Also, if you keep your personal progression, what are you progressing in? Players with a bunch of sessions under their belt are going to either have a huge advantage, or progression won't mean much. In EVE, you can become competitive fast by spending your first month or so in specialized training. But EVE doesn't have victory conditions to rate those against. Just survival, profit, etc.

Edited, Aug 7th 2013 3:27pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#5 Aug 07 2013 at 1:26 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,253 posts
Sounds like the objective modes from FPS games: get objective, first team to meet objective wins, game restarts with new objective, repeat.

The maps will probably be the game zones, and you'll get different objectives based on to which zone you travel.

Edited, Aug 7th 2013 3:27pm by Shaowstrike
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#6 Aug 07 2013 at 1:29 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,797 posts
I like the idea of an evolving, but persistent, world with objectives. I don't think I like the idea of a MMO that hits reset on the world every so often.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#7 Aug 07 2013 at 2:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,753 posts
I think that was kinda my question too, like what all resets? The whole game? Do you get some kind of persistent character across several scenarios in that case? Like even a screen that displays like a record/scorecard detailing past glories and failures? Are you actually in the world you build at all? Like having an avatar, or is it just you watching from above? Kinda looks like the second one, but I see peoples! I want to click on them!
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#8 Aug 07 2013 at 4:20 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
1,975 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Like even a screen that displays like a record/scorecard detailing past glories and failures?
Oh I hope not. The last thing I need is a record of my past failures. I don't think I have enough past glories to officially qualify as a record. Maybe a footnote.

____________________________
One of my opinions is worth three of your facts.

#9 Aug 07 2013 at 5:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I like the idea of an evolving, but persistent, world with objectives. I don't think I like the idea of a MMO that hits reset on the world every so often.


I'd think of it more like a set of servers, each with its own progression/game going on. Each game starts in the ancient age, and players are assigned to one of four civilizations (or maybe they can pick, no way to know, but you'd have to have some sort of balance in terms of players or it wont work). Each player is part of a larger team (really large, it sounds like). Depending on the stage a given civilization is in, it'll have certain broad goals to reach. Each player does their small part in working towards that goal. That could be running around scouting in the early game. Building structures, farms, mines, etc, and of course fighting with barbarians or other civilizations.

What you choose to do when you log in would be up to you, but the civilization with more people doing useful things that need to be done will advance faster and gain more advantages over time. Think of it more like a massive minecraft game, but with goals to achieve, and everyone working together to achieve those goals. I imagine each "game" might last months or even years.

Not sure how they'll handle positions and whatnot. I suppose they'll have to do some testing to figure out how constrained or open this system needs to be to work. It does sound pretty ambitious though. If they pull it off, it'll be pretty amazing. If they don't, it'll suck badly and die.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Aug 08 2013 at 6:52 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,797 posts
My problem is ultimately with the resetting world and the idea of the "winner."

Right now, there are 4 civs at launch, and 4 ages. Civs can be absorbed into another civ if they grow too weak, by not working together.

When the world resets, your gold, items, and clothing are lost. There will be some things that carry over, but they haven't decided what exactly.

But, frankly, I'm just not interested in a game that resets. A persistent world that changes forever? I'm 100% on board. A world that's going to have a winner and start over? A world where you probably have no chance of winning if you weren't involved from the start? I'm just not interested.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#12 Aug 08 2013 at 8:38 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
1,975 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I like the idea of an evolving, but persistent, world with objectives. I don't think I like the idea of a MMO that hits reset on the world every so often.


I'd think of it more like a set of servers, each with its own progression/game going on. Each game starts in the ancient age, and players are assigned to one of four civilizations (or maybe they can pick, no way to know, but you'd have to have some sort of balance in terms of players or it wont work). Each player is part of a larger team (really large, it sounds like). Depending on the stage a given civilization is in, it'll have certain broad goals to reach. Each player does their small part in working towards that goal. That could be running around scouting in the early game. Building structures, farms, mines, etc, and of course fighting with barbarians or other civilizations.

What you choose to do when you log in would be up to you, but the civilization with more people doing useful things that need to be done will advance faster and gain more advantages over time. Think of it more like a massive minecraft game, but with goals to achieve, and everyone working together to achieve those goals. I imagine each "game" might last months or even years.

Not sure how they'll handle positions and whatnot. I suppose they'll have to do some testing to figure out how constrained or open this system needs to be to work. It does sound pretty ambitious though. If they pull it off, it'll be pretty amazing. If they don't, it'll suck badly and die.
Interesting take. Though it sounds like a development pitch for an mmo based on Age of Empires.

I have to agree with digg that the whole reset concept just gives me pause. Of course, I've been wrong about this type of thing in the past so I guess only time will tell.

I might find it interesting if I could hire companions as time went on. For instance, I build a farm myself until it reaches a point where the income stream lets me hire a companion who then manages the farm to keep things going with just some minor tweaking needed by me, maybe on a daily basis. Then I go off and build something else, or attack something and take it over, or whatever, like a mine, or a barracks . . . or a brothel. Yeah, gotta have brothels as an option . . . I'm going off track here . . .

____________________________
One of my opinions is worth three of your facts.

#13 Aug 08 2013 at 9:24 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,797 posts
Well, they said that right now, anyone can craft any item in the game. But if you spend your skill points in crafting, you'll be better at it, etc.

My impression is that the idea was more about community projects, not individual ones. In that the test of the empire is how well the citizens work together. And it's less about creating your own stuff, but more about creating stuff for the city. They specified it wouldn't be a game about building a player house, but would be about making the city more grandiose. Or something along those lines - I'm honestly too lazy to go get the link from Kotaku.

Little I read really made me love it. It's a little too "GO GO COMMUNITY" and then the idea of just losing all my progress when someone wins wasn't pleasant. And I'm honestly not interested in any game that competitive. Maybe it'll really appeal to classic Civ players? I have difficulty justifying that much time in anything you can actually "win." Idk, I'm just imagining if WoW just reset after downing the Lich King, and it was alternate timeline Cataclysm or something, and you didn't get to keep your gold, or your items, or your levels. And it's just not interesting to me.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#14 Aug 08 2013 at 10:40 AM Rating: Good
It sounds to me a lot like the ladder system in Diablo 2, where every six months a race to see who can level the highest would reset, and you would have to make a new character and start the race again. This strikes me as a more community-oriented version of that. It was phenomenally popular with the players, but not really for me.
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129

#15 Aug 08 2013 at 11:26 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
But, frankly, I'm just not interested in a game that resets. A persistent world that changes forever? I'm 100% on board. A world that's going to have a winner and start over? A world where you probably have no chance of winning if you weren't involved from the start? I'm just not interested.


Given the type of game they're trying to create, you can't have a persistent world that lasts forever because of the bolded bit. It's not about improving your character, but about collectively building the best civilization. Therefore, there kinda has to be an endpoint for two reasons:

1. Can't just keep inventing more stuff for civilizations to develop. It's not as easy as adding more levels and gear and tougher monsters.

2. As you say, once a civilization gets sufficiently far ahead, the odds of the other civs catching up is nearly zero.

I think it will appeal to folks who like to play games like civilization. It's not like you keep anything from one game to the next, yet amazingly, lots of people play game after game. Because it's not about keeping what you built in the last game. It's about developing better strategies for winning the next one. How this can translate into a massively multiplayer version? No clue. But it is an interesting concept, if for no other reason than it does turn the concept of player reward focus that's common in such games upside down. One can also argue that the less direct player/character rewards the better the game will be. If the only thing you gain from the game is the satisfaction of your civilization winning you'll actually work with everyone on your civ to win. If there are player rewards for doing certain things, or perks you can earn to carry over from game to game, people will do those instead of helping their side win. Which I suppose is interesting from a sociological perspective, but would probably result in a frustrating game that will fail.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Aug 09 2013 at 7:02 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,253 posts
Well we can stop waiting for the game.

Awww: Civilization Online Korea-Only For Now wrote:
Against all odds, Civilization Online – a completely non-turn-based, non-strategy MMO in which you play as a glorified grunt in a grand game of global conquest – sounds super fascinating. Its creators are calling the civ-on-civ sandbox “a big social experiment,” with leaders kicking and fighting their way up the ranks by any means necessary. Meanwhile, players can collectively choose whether to pursue war, peace, technology, or any other number of paths to server-wide victory – at which point everything resets. What a concept, right? Oh, but there’s a catch: for now, XL Games’ bonkers ambitious reimagining of Sid Meier’s legendary brainchild is sticking with an isolationist foreign policy. Yep: it’s a Korea-only release.

PCG skipped up to 2K full of bubbly excitement and giggly, innocent mirth, but the publisher shoved their hopes onto the floor like so much spoiled ice cream:

“Civilization Online is developed by South Korea-based XL Games in partnership with 2K, and will be available first in Korea. No release date has been set. There are no plans for a North American release at this time.”

Admittedly, the UK was not specifically mentioned, so I’ve mailed 2K to see if it has different plans for non-North-American territories. I wouldn’t bet on it, though. It sounds like 2K’s taking it slow with this one, which makes sense given that a) it’s wildly different/risky and b) it’s an MMO being released in or around the year 2013.

I’m very excited to see how Civ Online turns out, so this all makes me a bit sad. That said, maybe this just means non-Korean territories will get a more finely tuned version when the time finally comes. I can live with that. Can you? Or did this news about a videogame just end your life?
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#17 Aug 09 2013 at 7:06 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,797 posts
If it's only being planned for SK...

Then why the **** are there such extensive English interviews on it?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#18 Aug 09 2013 at 7:09 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,253 posts
Because it's Civ, and no one knew that it was for SK only. 2K jumped at the free publicity for the game since the articles will probably be translated into Korean at some point.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#19 Aug 09 2013 at 9:10 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
1,975 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Awww: Civilization Online Korea-Only For Now wrote:
PCG skipped up to 2K full of bubbly excitement and giggly, innocent mirth, but the publisher shoved their hopes onto the floor like so much spoiled ice cream:
I'm saving this quote so I can use it in here at just the right time and place . . .

____________________________
One of my opinions is worth three of your facts.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 53 All times are in CDT
Jophiel, Sandinmygum, TherealLogros, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (49)