|
Post by Ellestar on May 6, 2006 15:03:13 GMT -5
I added more resources to Fantasy and removed all tundra/ice (there is grass or plain instead). So we can try it in a near future.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 6, 2006 6:09:23 GMT -5
i want maps where everyone is decent close zo opponent - i m not sure how to do that but it suckz to be ages away Well, when map wraps on all sides opponents are around everyone Say, if opponents are placed that way: 12563478Then with world wrap it's effectively looks like that: 834783612561834783612561So everyone has 2 enemies nearby. I don't think that there is any other way to increase a number of opponents near you other than to have a map with a world wrap. But i think we never even tried a Fantasy/Logical in a serious teamer.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 6, 2006 5:49:06 GMT -5
Mods are nice, but it looks like we have some problems with them. Also, to chage the general pace of the game different maps may be as good as mods. I think at this moment we need new maps more than new mods (maybe there will be some useable multiplayer maps in an expansion?). We can also try to change an existing ones to make them useable. AFAIK there is only one map script that may be useful to us. It's a Smart Map forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=154989It supposed to be better balanced than a default pangea or continents map. However, it generates map relatively slow and when we tried ot use it once we weren't able to launch game. By the way, we can try to copy it to a downloaded maps directory so to avoid downloading. I can try to make a minor changes to other maps (more/less resources, change all desert/tundra to plains/grassland or something like that). Maybe that will make some of them playable. For example, Fantasy map with Logical placement of resources may be fun because it wraps on all sides and so provides an unique gameplay (however, orientation is difficult on that map). If we'll change it a little it may be suitable for multiplayer. Any other ideas?
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 7, 2006 10:21:04 GMT -5
Host whatever you want
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 7, 2006 2:17:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 6, 2006 14:55:20 GMT -5
I'm not sure what I did wrong. I did what you said and even loaded the new mode but there were no changes to the starts. For me this is more for latter eras, Fried. I think the ancient should start warrior/scout over worker. Hmm, i tested it and it worked. Just say what you did It should be unzipped in either Mods directory so CIV4EraInfos.xml will be in \Mods\Settler Worker\Assets\XML\GameInfo
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 6, 2006 11:05:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 6, 2006 8:23:45 GMT -5
Well, for teamers it may be actually good because civs share starting techs after 1.61. So, worker has something to do from the start.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 6, 2006 4:11:10 GMT -5
Ok i'll make it this evening. I have Civ 4 XML files on work but i don't remember exact paths.
P.S. By the way, today is a workday in Russia. However, we don't work 7-9 May.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 6, 2006 0:45:52 GMT -5
Actually, you can make this mod himself Make a copy of CIV4EraInfos.xml, open it with any text editor (say, Notepad) and change iStartingUnitMultiplier to 1, iStartingDefenseUnits to 0, iStartingWorkerUnits to 1 and iStartingExploreUnits to 0 for all eras. Put it in Civ4/mods/SettlerWorker/assets/xml/GameInfo folder (if i recall correctly) and you're set. Load it just like any other mod (Main Menu->Advanced->Load a Mod)
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 6, 2006 2:36:39 GMT -5
Playing an inland sea ren teamer with ranked ladder players shows this phenomina as everyone always follows the standard build and tech formula (gun->nat->mil trad). I think it makes the game more fun that everyone knows more or less what they are doing. The game now comes down to on the spot thinking rather than playing out a pre-game formula. Well, that happens because game is not balanced for that kind of multiplayer we're playing. There aren't a lot of effective options to pick from. Also, i guess tech choices should have been different if teching was faster in Ren.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 6, 2006 1:04:51 GMT -5
Well, there were about the same questions asked about Starcraft when replays were added in one of the patches. If everyone can copy gosu's tactics then game will die becuase everyone will play the same way? Actually, no. Better players do the same things better because they understand it better etc. A simple copying doesn't make a new player as strong as a veteran. That is, simple things are easy to copy, but it's just basics everyone should know anyway. Will you want to play a teamer with someone who'll start to make a library from turn 1 in capital while on front? I guess no. Now, how you play in a hard situations where you need to make a strategic choices is what makes a better player actually better than others. Some "secret knowledge" doesn't define a better player, it's how you use that knowledge.
P.S. Starcraft is still here and it's the oldest cybersport game that is still very popular (especially in Korea).
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jul 20, 2006 1:03:50 GMT -5
Scenarios are nice but if it will take 2 hours to start one (like current mods) then noone will play them for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 2, 2006 12:30:04 GMT -5
Is there a link i can check these stats out? www.npd.com/www.elspa.com/But i don't have an idea where exactly to search it on their sites.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 2, 2006 10:51:57 GMT -5
Now I know Asia is not Europe but is the Asian community included in this poll? It's not a poll, it's NPD (USA) and ELSPA (Europe) data. I guess it's actually Western Europe. Russian game developer's site posts summaries every week or so from a different charts. I have no idea where to find asian PC sales charts.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 2, 2006 5:39:56 GMT -5
It seems that Civ 4 sells much better in USA compared to Europe (say, now it's 8 place vs 15 place in sales charts, and USA leads as long as i remember it, it was 1st vs 4th etc.). Yet i think there are more Euro ladder players than USA ones.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 3, 2006 8:22:44 GMT -5
This is silly. Multiplayer functionality has been around for ten years, and peer-to-peer multiplayer for about as long. Given the sales Firaxis did a piss-poor job of it. Can we do anything about that? Not really. Did they f**k it up on purpose? Almost definitely not. Is it going to be fixed soon? Probably not, and we won't speed it up. So what's the use? Well, to say the truth MUDs appeared in 1978. That's significanly more than 10 years I'm not sure which game was a first PC real-time multiplayer game. Probably it was Doom (1993).
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 3, 2006 4:44:17 GMT -5
I wasn't trying to mislead anyone. Those servers may not charge the customers that does not mean they are not expensive for the company to operate. Expensive is a relative term. If it's possible to host servers for a million customers then it's more than possible to host servers for a smaller playerbase when another company got about the same money from a million of customers. Firaxis has never sold a server based game and has no infrastructure in place to do so. So to build this from scratch is not a cheap undertaking for them, which is why they have gone with GS even though its a far from perfect system. I'm hoping the sales figures of Civ4 and Warlords will make the idea of putting that money into a Server system more likely, but PTW/C3C certainly did not have the critical mass of MP players to make the developers consider a server system for Civ4. As it is Civ4 was the first ever Civ game to have MP from the start, so I guess we should be happy we didn't have to wait for Warlords for MP Everyone started from scratch. And MP become popular AFTER there was a good MP game, not before it. High-quality and easy to use product makes a big difference. Well they don't have to run their own servers they could just include a server aplication with civ 5 and allow users to run their own servers and perhaps include code in the server app to report the game information back to firaxis to list the game on a list. Half life and it's mods allow users to run their own servers and list them so I don't think it's to far fetched for firaxis to come up with a similar method thus considerably lowering any infrastructure costs on there end. just putting in my two cents again Well, half life is too new to be a good example. Quake I has a dedicated server, but IIRC it was released after a game release.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 2, 2006 0:26:03 GMT -5
P2P isnt really that bad. Starcraft was P2P. Starcraft is NOT P2P. All battle.net ladder games are hosted on Blizzard servers. Only UMS maps aren't hosted, but even then, one player acts like a server for all other players so it's not P2P either. In the long run the peer to peer mechanic is showing it's weaknesses, but it also is cheap and requires no expensive servers or monthly fees like some games. Err you said not to accuse you of lying. Ok, please don't try to mislead people by hiding the truth and making statements that may lead people to wrong conclusions ;D Servers for games without a monthly fees do exist. Namely, battle.net exists for 10 years already (it hosts Diablo I, Diablo II and non-UMS maps for Starcraft and Warcraft III). Arena.net hosts servers for Guild Wars. As i already said on this forum, Guild Wars sales are about equal to Civ 4 sales - more than a million. And Arena.net hosts servers for EVERY Guild Wars player, it's impossible to play without connecting to their server. Certainly, it's not as expensive as you want others to think.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 2, 2006 10:55:45 GMT -5
btw, I love checking it and figure out that own power is bigger as power of next 2 combined .. By the way, yesterday my power was bigger than yours ;D
|
|