SimCity: Multiplayer Discussion

[Vahr 341]

Gonna try and keep most multiplayer discussions here.

So we've seen that the new SimCity has a multiplayer side to it.

What is known/clear (List subject to change, check back every so often!):

• One to sixteen (1-16) player support
• Cities will directly influence neighbors, including pollution

Another thing to point out is that the game does have a single player mode. The Online Only reference on the info page would most likely refer to product activation/registration only - Origin's all caps heavy legal statements seems to indicate this.

EDIT 3/13/12

[guuz 15]

It sounds like the regions from SC4 now have multiplayer options and citytiles will influence each other more than before. Overall they seem good changes/options.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

It sounds like the regions from SC4 now have multi-player options and city-tiles will influence each other more than before. Overall they seem good changes/options.

There is, perhaps, some hope that it will be possible to have a town/city that has an international airport that can be used by Sims in other cities. The person in a multi-player situation who has control over this kind of town will have a lot of influence on the way others play. Hope they have a means of constructing "Airport expressways" among the using cities.

[Craig-Abcvs 1,595]

One to sixteen... well yes that indicates multiplayer, but that is certainly not free for all MMO (Massive Multiplayer Online) stuff...

...that sounds more like a group of friends of your own choosing can get together and play together, presuming that you can choose who you play with. We kind of do this already with the City Journal Unions... OK the players are not directly playing on each others regions, but the pattern for a group of players to cooperate together is already there.

[KeanoManu 42]

It sounds like the regions from SC4 now have multiplayer options and citytiles will influence each other more than before. Overall they seem good changes/options.

We have to make sure they don't remove regions from single player though. Like Cities XL did.

[Cob92 360]

It sounds like the regions from SC4 now have multi-player options and city-tiles will influence each other more than before. Overall they seem good changes/options.

There is, perhaps, some hope that it will be possible to have a town/city that has an international airport that can be used by Sims in other cities. The person in a multi-player situation who has control over this kind of town will have a lot of influence on the way others play. Hope they have a means of constructing "Airport expressways" among the using cities.

I think that having regional effects from airports and seaports will be standard in SC5. Maxis clearly intends for regions to be far more of an integrated system than they were in SC4. Of course, this means that using the edge of the city as a dump for all your undesirable stuff will no longer be a workable strategy.

[CWLGAMER01 39]

I will control the International Airport and you will cave to my demands! I demand Wren Insurance Buildings on every corner of your city! + now now now!*

++ Sorry Blue..... just got a little evil feeling in me on that one!!...

  Edited March 7, 2012 by CWLGAMER01  
Trimmed the bush

[CWLGAMER01 39]

It sounds like the regions from SC4 now have multi-player options and city-tiles will influence each other more than before. Overall they seem good changes/options.

There is, perhaps, some hope that it will be possible to have a town/city that has an international airport that can be used by Sims in other cities. The person in a multi-player situation who has control over this kind of town will have a lot of influence on the way others play. Hope they have a means of constructing "Airport expressways" among the using cities.

I think that having regional effects from airports and seaports will be standard in SC5. Maxis clearly intends for regions to be far more of an integrated system than they were in SC4. Of course, this means that using the edge of the city as a dump for all your undesirable stuff will no longer be a workable strategy.

On a serious note however. This can not be stressed enough. The prospects of helping or "hindering" another players ability to build or destory what they want -- this is pure fun!! You can really begin to see the interactions between two cities in the region and how they will suffer together or prospure....

Its similar to a city that needs water - look at LA for example. The water comes from far north of the city. They have even had attacks that have blown up part of the water infustructure.... Can you imagine a player "blocking" off water and demanding something from you in order to get water.... This is gonna be interesting!!

[Cockatoo 2,256]

BL, could we make / pick another thread to keep all the modding discussion in one place too? Multiplayer and modding seem to be the two biggest things at the moment...

Anyway, after seeing what happened to the CXL planet offer, I'm a bit suspicious of this sort of thing. Of course we don't have the full details yet, but I really hope we won't be disadvantaged by choosing to play a region solo i.e. the traditional way.

[Asheroo 53]

To those worried because of the original CXL and the Planet Offer, I'd forget about it. Monte Cristo were already quite MMO focused with their games (except City Life - which seemed like an experiment for their first on city building games) and they didn't quite understand (or listen to) the city building community. Maxis very well know the city building community, they're the ones that developed SC4, and that was the last main SC they developed for the PC. They very well know the city building community and have been visiting Simtropolis. By the sounds of it, they also seem well aware of Cities XL since they have implemented some similar sounding features (with resource trade, multiplayer etc.) so they would be well aware of MC's failure. They wouldn't want a backlash at all and they understand very well the city building community. They have my complete trust for not making big mistakes with this.

[guuz 15]

It sounds like the regions from SC4 now have multiplayer options and citytiles will influence each other more than before. Overall they seem good changes/options.

We have to make sure they don't remove regions from single player though. Like Cities XL did.

The 1-16 multiplayer suggests that you can share something like a region with up to 16 players to build cities with. This system would allow multiplayer city building without changing the core of simcity. It also is an easy way to incorporate multiplayer without having to create a whole new game mode.

[Pandemic 32]

I like the idea about your decisions having effects on other players, sounds fun. I know you can help other cities in positive ways such as sending firetrucks to a fire, and stuff.

---

Sorry for the double post, but you can ask questions like whether or not it'll be focused on multiplayer tomorrow,

''Facebook SimCity: Join the Maxis development team on Reddit tomorrow from 12:00 – 3:00 PM as Ocean, Dan and Kip answer your questions on SimCity and the revolutionary GlassBox engine!''

  Edited March 7, 2012 by Blue Lightning  
Merged two posts - please use the Edit button next time

[squeaky024 14]

I am already excited about all of this, I just told two of my friends at school and they reacted "What? A new simcity!? It's been like what... a decade?"

Must be fun to have a lot more interaction between cities, and maybe we can move on from the PEG garbage chute/ docks

[jacksunny 741]

Must be fun to have a lot more interaction between cities, and maybe we can move on from the PEG garbage chute/ docks

Well now you can dump your garbage into your friends' cities using the garbage chute and cause mass pollution. I'm not moving on

[squeaky024 14]

Must be fun to have a lot more interaction between cities, and maybe we can move on from the PEG garbage chute/ docks

Well now you can dump your garbage into your friends' cities using the garbage chute and cause mass pollution. I'm not moving on

I foresee a game of "no you deal with the trash"

As for the resources thing I hope there is a way to set how much is in what region/ entire planet. If we want true customizability then this should be in there.

[hamsterTK 93]

I am curious about the maps themselves.

Will one player "host" a game and upload a region map to played? Will we have to choose from a ready made map like in CXL?

[Spinmaster 75]

To those worried because of the original CXL and the Planet Offer, I'd forget about it. Monte Cristo were already quite MMO focused with their games (except City Life - which seemed like an experiment for their first on city building games) and they didn't quite understand (or listen to) the city building community. Maxis very well know the city building community, they're the ones that developed SC4, and that was the last main SC they developed for the PC. They very well know the city building community and have been visiting Simtropolis. By the sounds of it, they also seem well aware of Cities XL since they have implemented some similar sounding features (with resource trade, multiplayer etc.) so they would be well aware of MC's failure. They wouldn't want a backlash at all and they understand very well the city building community. They have my complete trust for not making big mistakes with this.

I soooooooooooo wish I could agree with this. But I can't buy that last sentence yet - I'll maintain some skepticism until it's confirmed. I know this is Maxis, I know it's not Monte Cristo, but... I'm still traumatized. And I never did end up buying CXL for that very reason - so until EA actually says "it's just a quick anti-piracy check, the game still runs locally, no forced multiplayer" (similar to Steam games, which do allow playing offline for a limited time in case you lose internet)... I'm not planning to buy SC until everyone is raving mad about how awesome it is (which never happened for CXL, hence why I still haven't bought it even after MC spit out a solo-play option).

Now, if EA actually does confirm that it's only an anti-piracy check... well, we have a long way to see where this all goes, but at least the online-only "requirement" won't be what stops me from buying on release-day.

[Asheroo 53]

To those worried because of the original CXL and the Planet Offer, I'd forget about it. Monte Cristo were already quite MMO focused with their games (except City Life - which seemed like an experiment for their first on city building games) and they didn't quite understand (or listen to) the city building community. Maxis very well know the city building community, they're the ones that developed SC4, and that was the last main SC they developed for the PC. They very well know the city building community and have been visiting Simtropolis. By the sounds of it, they also seem well aware of Cities XL since they have implemented some similar sounding features (with resource trade, multiplayer etc.) so they would be well aware of MC's failure. They wouldn't want a backlash at all and they understand very well the city building community. They have my complete trust for not making big mistakes with this.

I soooooooooooo wish I could agree with this. But I can't buy that last sentence yet - I'll maintain some skepticism until it's confirmed. I know this is Maxis, I know it's not Monte Cristo, but... I'm still traumatized. And I never did end up buying CXL for that very reason - so until EA actually says "it's just a quick anti-piracy check, the game still runs locally, no forced multiplayer" (similar to Steam games, which do allow playing offline for a limited time in case you lose internet)... I'm not planning to buy SC until everyone is raving mad about how awesome it is (which never happened for CXL, hence why I still haven't bought it even after MC spit out a solo-play option).

Now, if EA actually does confirm that it's only an anti-piracy check... well, we have a long way to see where this all goes, but at least the online-only "requirement" won't be what stops me from buying on release-day.

Well, maybe I was a little over the top saying "complete trust" but it was for big mistakes.

But from the information we have, you have the "option" of working with others in a region and globally, so that most likely means that you can have regions for yourself, unsure about the "global" though (and that I would personally mind a little, but I'll still play it). Otherwise, I'm fine with always being connected online while playing with myself.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Now let's see what I would do if I were writing this as a multi-player game.

1. A group of like-minded players has to agree to work together.
2. One of them has to upload the region or choose from an agreed canned region.
3. Each player can work on a city, but only one player per city.
4. Co-operative deals are possible, and can be refused/withheld subject to some kind of chat negotiation visible to all players.
5. You can only UDI by downloading your copy of the the city. This is a personal option, and you would be suspended while doing this.
6. If custom content is allowed, the plugins file will have to be central to all members. No individual plugins not available to everyone. New ones may be added by agreement. This includes tile sets.
7. A player can drop out at any time and has the option to download the region and continue on his own.
8. A player can be invited to join a group in progress.
9. A player who has opted out can opt back in, but must choose a new city.
10. All members of a group need not be on-line simultaneously, but this is allowed (limit 16 players total in the group).
11. Since the server must be run by someone, it will probably be Origin.

As the game expands internationally, servers may be set up in various spots around the world to cut down international traffic and be convenient in various time zones.

A player may be a member of more than one group. No reason not to have several open in tabs.

Question: Would a browser version be feasible? If so, then only one version would be needed if written properly with an XML/XHTML base. This makes it available to all web users who can log in. The base programming language could easily be Java. Glassbox would have to be a plugin.

  Edited March 8, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[jacksunny 741]

Perhaps give the creator of a city the option to allow others in multiplayer to edit it if they want. If they don't want people messing around with it, they can set it only to themselves. Also give people the option to go and view other cities.

With multiplayer comes the potential of changing the way we play the game completely. Players all around the world will be connected like never before. (I'm sounding like a commercial )

The more I think about multiplayer, the more I like it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Perhaps give the creator of a city the option to allow others in multi-player to edit it if they want. If they don't want people messing around with it, they can set it only to themselves. Also give people the option to go and view other cities.

With multi-player comes the potential of changing the way we play the game completely. Players all around the world will be connected like never before. (I'm sounding like a commercial )

The more I think about multi-player, the more I like it.

I think allowing more than one writer into a city file will open a can of worms that will require more than we can ever get out of a PC-based server. We are talking about deadly embraces, rollbacks, transaction refusals, notifications, commitments, and commit points. Guess why this stuff needs a mainframe? Let's not get carried away, we are not talking about a commercial transaction processor here, just a game. I don't think Origin wants to be in the banking machine business.

Also, don't be selfish. How many simultaneous sessions of 16 players each are you expecting to support? It is starting to sound like a serious capital investment for EA/Origin. It also has to be totally reliable and stay up 24/7 because the community is world wide. This means the servers may well be mainframes or hypercubes.

[jacksunny 741]

Good points. Do you think EA will make us pay for multiplayer to be able to keep these servers up and running? Or perhaps the game cost is as high as it is so they won't have to, although that doesn't seem fair to the people that aren't going to use multiplayer.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Good points. Do you think EA will make us pay for multiplayer to be able to keep these servers up and running? Or perhaps the game cost is as high as it is so they won't have to, although that doesn't seem fair to the people that aren't going to use multiplayer.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

I'd expect the initial license will include some server time, say three months. After that a monthly, quarterly or annual fee could be levied. EA/Origin is not a charitable organization and servers and staff are expensive.

[LivingInThePast 364]

Unlike in online games, usually (and I'm not an expert on this), players drop out, the playing area disappears. What I'd like to see is that the city (your city) is, first off, not stored on their servers and on your computer. That was one of the problems of Planet Offer, with even the Planet Offer ending it was a complex process to get your city off. With dropping in/out players, this means that the connections to your city could go to a different place entirely. Although then your connections don't match up: you could have three railroads, a highway, and a few small roads connecting your city, "Livinginthepastia", to a neighbor's city ("Lovingthefutureopolis"), but when Lovinginthefutureopolis drops out for whatever reason, the new city, "Harsh", doesn't want all those connections. That could be problematic. This may force Maxis to have roads and highways go "off the map" and not to a specific destination.

Second problem: griefers. Like I mentioned in another thread, there could be cities that are set up to just make others miserable. When Joe Trollface decides to place his city, "Butthole" in the map, he sets it up so that pollution is spread everywhere, he manipulates players to get natural resources and generally cheats them out of their Simoleans and leaves the map before anyone has a chance to retaliate.

The drop in/out system is necessary, otherwise, poorly-developed cities will lock in and people may not enough interest to constantly maintain a city dealing with 15 of the same players, every time. Therefore, it would be a lonely place when they simply decide to no longer show up.

  Edited March 8, 2012 by LivingInThePast  

[jacksunny 741]

Good points. Do you think EA will make us pay for multiplayer to be able to keep these servers up and running? Or perhaps the game cost is as high as it is so they won't have to, although that doesn't seem fair to the people that aren't going to use multiplayer.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

I'd expect the initial license will include some server time, say three months. After that a monthly, quarterly or annual fee could be levied. EA/Origin is not a charitable organization and servers and staff are expensive.

What do you think is a reasonable price? How about $5 for 1 month, $15 for 1 quarter and $40 for 1 year, or is that not enough?

[pottebaum 0]

^That first issue is what I've been worrying about, as well. I think multiplayer could be really cool, but I think any of the possible solutions to that problem really take away from the coolness of it all.

[jacksunny 741]

How about the implementation of some sort of vote-kick system. If the players in a region don't like one of the other players because they are purposely ruining their cities, they could vote on kicking him out.

[pottebaum 0]

Unlike in online games, usually (and I'm not an expert on this), players drop out, the playing area disappears. What I'd like to see is that the city (your city) is, first off, not stored on their servers and on your computer. That was one of the problems of Planet Offer, with even the Planet Offer ending it was a complex process to get your city off. With dropping in/out players, this means that the connections to your city could go to a different place entirely. Although then your connections don't match up: you could have three railroads, a highway, and a few small roads connecting your city, "Livinginthepastia", to a neighbor's city ("Lovingthefutureopolis"), but when Lovinginthefutureopolis drops out for whatever reason, the new city, "Harsh", doesn't want all those connections. That could be problematic. This may force Maxis to have roads and highways go "off the map" and not to a specific destination.

Also, imagine if your city was largely industry, and the neighboring city housed many of the factories' workers. What would happen if all of those workers were no longer there? As a fix, I'm a little worried that the multiplayer aspect of the game will include trading, pollution spill-over, and emergency assistance, but will not include something as simple as inter-city commuting.

  Edited March 8, 2012 by pottebaum  

[Ocram's Razr 964]

What if CEO of MezaCorp decides to build Industrial Complex 8 in a wealthy region? He plays fairly and provides many needed resources but polluted heavily.

[Craig-Abcvs 1,595]

Second problem: griefers. Like I mentioned in another thread, there could be cities that are set up to just make others miserable. When Joe Trollface decides to place his city, "Butthole" in the map, he sets it up so that pollution is spread everywhere, he manipulates players to get natural resources and generally cheats them out of their Simoleans and leaves the map before anyone has a chance to retaliate.

The key here is that you would only want to play multi-player with your friends.. ok 'friends' can be a loose term on the internet, but generally that means that not just anyone can 'butt' into a group of players map, without agreement.

For example I might decide to play on a map with 3 or 4 other people that I know, and are of like mind, as a group we choose who joins. I think that it would be helpful, if there was something like a Map-Master... one person who is the leader of the map, and is able to invite or remove people as necessary.

If you choose to play with totally unknowns or strangers, well then the old adage of 'buyer beware' should apply... that is don't be surprised if Joe Trollface decides to build Butthole on your map... and hopefully you will know not to play with him again.

I suspect this is how things work on XBox live... you choose who to play with, (RL friends) or if you play with 'randoms' then if you don't like the way they play then don't play with them again.

As for the cost of multiplayer... yes servers do cost money and we should not expect to get the service for free. I think something similar to an X-Box live subscription would be about right.