Hybrid Multiplayer
- Thread starter Tasonne
- Start date
I don't have the energy to argue with you, but, whatever
LordBalkoth
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2014
- Messages
- 525
I'd be willing to do some games like that, I'm also fine with larger games on Hybrid. Used to playing games over multiple sessions with people and I have books to read during other people's turns during war.
Yeah, see, hybrid is really bad because you don't actually have the attention span to finish reading this one sentence.
Yeah, see, hybrid is really bad because you don't actually have the attention span to finish reading this one sentence.
LOL.... Thank you, my man.. Yeah, that all sounds great, you can add me on steam or skype, just send me your details and we'll get started
In a normal duel it is war on sight so the game will literally take twice as long as normal. Why would you want to spend twice as long to accomplish the same game?
In an FFA matters get even worse once multiple people are at war. This can make turns take 3 - 8 times longer than normal. And for what? Just to avoid simu turns war?
A good FFA already lasts 4 - 8 hours with simultaneous turns on quick speed.
Alright, since you asked, somewhat nicely.
Listen to me, padawan: I come from back in the day, you understand that? I'm old school, now hear this. Basically, for the last ~15 years civ fans been playing this series and for 15 years it has always been: I go, and then you go. Okay? Do you feel that at all? That's the game, that's how the game is meant to be.
When you're playing your simultaneous turn deathmatch on quick mode and a skirmish map, you are not playing the same game that real, old school, true civ fans play. Alright? What you, and a lot of people it seems, are playing is what (now, there are exceptions) casual gamers / kids who are used to playing starcraft / insert generic game title here type gamers want to play, a quick little match that you can play as if it were a round of Call of Duty.
Now, I'm not sure if this is clear but basically the point is this: When you have two players playing both their turns at the same time, how can I put this, there is absolutely no order. Instead of being, the way a civilization game has always been, I move my guys, and then, you move your guys, you know? Order! A sequence of events.
I don't have time for this. I'm pretty sure he's trolling me.
Well he not trolling lol
. Simultaneous turns are, more or less, the normal now. I started playing civ at civ rev, so no idea how things were in past civ. But there is some very valid reason in how much longer sequential turns would take. In a duel alone, that doubles the time. And in a ffa, that could take forever.Obviously, hybrid speeds this up a little, but some of us often don't even have 6-8 hours to play all that often. Which is about how long a simultaneous ffa can last, if it is a competitive game. I've had months gone by where I can't play a ffa, and that really sucks lol.
I do play teamers and stuff though, and really saying the simultaneous turns bring zero order is kind of a shame. I mean do fast clickers have some advantage? Sure they do. But will they always win the game? Not if you know what you're doing and have better hammers, food, army, ect.
LordBalkoth
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2014
- Messages
- 525
I'm Balkoth on Steam, the one with Civ V, Mass Effect (2), Half Life (2), TF2, L4D2, and some other stuff. Skype is balkothwarcraft, though I'm rarely on it (so let me know if you do add me).
Not in my experience. You keep taking this ultra-competitive-skirmish-map-must-rush-military-units idea into "normal" games where it doesn't apply.
Why would you ever take a side road rather than the highway? It takes twice as long to get someplace!
...except, y'know, sometimes you're actually trying to enjoy the overall experience. I'd rather play one game on Hybrid than two games trying to pretend Civ V is some sort of really crappy RTS.
Hey now, I like Starcraft 2! It's an excellent RTS -- which also means it's designed from the ground up to be played "simultaneously" and the units/control scheme/etc all reflect that (including crazy things such as being able to select multiple units and give all of them an order at the same time).
Y'know, unlike Civ.
Sadly, I doubt he is. His train of thought seems to be "the combat in Civ V is so broken that usually the optimal tactic is to spam Chariot Archers/Composite Bowmen/Crossbowmen and try to overwhelm the other guy before we hit the Renaissance Era...and therefore Civ is *supposed* to be all about combat and played like a really bad RTS."
In a surprise plot twist, in many games Hybrid can be *faster* than simultaneous because people don't declare war unless they're actually initiating an attack and people don't try to game the turn timer (so you avoid that whole thing where people wait out the turn timer as long as possible and THEN attack to try to avoid the opponent being able to respond). It makes open warfare a big deal...y'know, kind of like how it's supposed to be in Civ and how it is in real life.
Let's examine your reasoning here...
1, if you're significantly better than your opponent then you'll still win in simultaneous OR hybrid.
2, if you're significantly worse than your opponent than you'll still lose in simultaneous OR hybrid.
3, if you're roughly the same skill level as your opponent then you could lose wars in simultaneous that you'd win in hybrid (or vice versa).
...do you realize how backwards that is? Situation 3 is supposed to be the situation that we're MOST concerned with since the outcome is actually in doubt (whereas it isn't in the other two cases).
And this is coming from a person who always plays FPS games and RTS games on the hardest difficulty. Black Mesa on NORMAL mode was like Half Life on HARD mode...and I loved every second of Black Mesa on HARD. Ditto other things like Someplace Else and Minerva where the player is explicitly warned that if they're used to playing on "Hard" that they should choose "Normal" because those mods/campaigns are ramped up in difficulty. So, of course, I played on "Hard" and loved it (even when I died a few times in some of the hardest parts).
Hell, even in games like World of Warcraft I participate in the hardest PvE combat that often requires fast reaction times and a level head during a chaotic mess. Here's a video of one of the zanier single person bosses (oh, and if you're not familiar with WoW then no, you don't simply have to dodge all those beams...you have to do it while still using your main 6-8 abilities reasonably well, which is *significantly* harder...which resulted in people sometimes literally resorting to asking a real life friend to help in the sense of one person controls the abilities (with the keyboard) and other does nothing but dodge the beams).
So I have no objection to games that require high APM or twitch-like reflexes or whatever -- but only when they're DESIGNED to be played that way (and Civ V was not).
Seriously, Hybrid is the domain of only the newest players who haven't yet realized how bad it is. Those who complain about simultaneous turns simply haven't gotten used to it. It's still a turn based game where you get to take your time making decisions. In an FFA combat is a very small portion of the game unless you're playing with complete idiots who like to go to war in an FFA.
In a duel or teamer it is mainly a war game. Skirmish is the standard for duels and teamers and optimal play on that standard map is making cities and units. I actually often do duels on shuffle and tiny size rather than duel size. Those obviously don't turn out as liberty games or unit spam.
FFA is a completely different animal. In an FFA your goal is to simcity as much as possible and delay war as long as possible. You take one game out of context and assume I play the same way all the time. If you want to be a good player you have to be good at duels, teamers and FFA all of which have completely different play styles. This is what keeps the game interesting.
If you play a FFA like a teamer you will fail miserably after killing only one or two people. If you try to play a teamer or duel like an FFA you will get crushed by an early war while attempting to go simcity mode.
You have to understand the environment you're in and play for it. Watch soldier count, keep your terrain in mind etc..
Hybrid is not a flawed idea per-se however the massive time sink just isn't worth it. It's best to just suck it up and learn how to play simu turns and get much faster games. The more you play the more you learn. If you finish a game in 10 hours you are going to learn a lot less than finishing 3 games in 10 hours. Because as human we all learn everything through trial and error or observation + mimicking.
Trial and error dictates that you need a lot of trials to learn, understand and get better. That's why there is such a huge skill gap in this game.
In a duel or teamer it is mainly a war game. Skirmish is the standard for duels and teamers and optimal play on that standard map is making cities and units. I actually often do duels on shuffle and tiny size rather than duel size. Those obviously don't turn out as liberty games or unit spam.
FFA is a completely different animal. In an FFA your goal is to simcity as much as possible and delay war as long as possible. You take one game out of context and assume I play the same way all the time. If you want to be a good player you have to be good at duels, teamers and FFA all of which have completely different play styles. This is what keeps the game interesting.
If you play a FFA like a teamer you will fail miserably after killing only one or two people. If you try to play a teamer or duel like an FFA you will get crushed by an early war while attempting to go simcity mode.
You have to understand the environment you're in and play for it. Watch soldier count, keep your terrain in mind etc..
Hybrid is not a flawed idea per-se however the massive time sink just isn't worth it. It's best to just suck it up and learn how to play simu turns and get much faster games. The more you play the more you learn. If you finish a game in 10 hours you are going to learn a lot less than finishing 3 games in 10 hours. Because as human we all learn everything through trial and error or observation + mimicking.
Trial and error dictates that you need a lot of trials to learn, understand and get better. That's why there is such a huge skill gap in this game.
Delnar_Ersike
Prince
That said, Hybrid can definitely be improved turn-counter wise. There is no reason why the simultaneous players would have to wait for all the sequential players to finish their turns before starting their own, and only having turns last two turn timers' worth of time instead of three is huge for people who want to finish games the day they are started. If someone could determine how the hybrid multiplayer turn activations work (I tried, the code's too convoluted, I'd have to spend a week or a month with it to know how it works) and make a mod that simply lets simultaneous players take their turns at the same time as the last sequential player, I'm sure the mod will become popular incredibly quickly.
Just LOL at this post. With all due respect, you are contributing nothig to my thread. Please go, I'm not here to argue.
Ok, alright, this kid makes a good point here:
Have players who are not at war with people, able to take their turns, during the turns of ANY of the people who are at war, while making the people who are at war wait for each others turns.
And, I guess I'll spell it out for you
This is where all of you have failed to see the points of view of both I and Lord Balkoth. When Lord Balkoth joined the conversation he knew right away. What ever gave you the idea I "want to finish games the day they are started"??
Listen, I know that the only way to get through a game of Civ in one day is, to do something along the lines of what you guys are doing, with your quickciv powermatch.
The thing is, what you're playing isn't really Civilization. I don't know how to describe what it is your playing, Balkoth's description of a bad RTS might do it. But real Civilization, the way it is meant to be, how can I say this, it's a given that it takes long. It's also a given that you're not going to finish a game in one day.
When I play a match, alone, it takes me weeks.
I play campaigns online on marathon, hybrid, large maps, that take weeks and MONTHS.
So, my good man, keep telling me it's just new people who play hybrid and I'll keep playing it and never ever play on simultaneous as long as I live...
That said, good point about the mod, someone should do that, a splendid idea.
Have players who are not at war with people, able to take their turns, during the turns of ANY of the people who are at war, while making the people who are at war wait for each others turns.
And, I guess I'll spell it out for you
This is where all of you have failed to see the points of view of both I and Lord Balkoth. When Lord Balkoth joined the conversation he knew right away. What ever gave you the idea I "want to finish games the day they are started"??
Listen, I know that the only way to get through a game of Civ in one day is, to do something along the lines of what you guys are doing, with your quickciv powermatch.
The thing is, what you're playing isn't really Civilization. I don't know how to describe what it is your playing, Balkoth's description of a bad RTS might do it. But real Civilization, the way it is meant to be, how can I say this, it's a given that it takes long. It's also a given that you're not going to finish a game in one day.
When I play a match, alone, it takes me weeks.
I play campaigns online on marathon, hybrid, large maps, that take weeks and MONTHS.
So, my good man, keep telling me it's just new people who play hybrid and I'll keep playing it and never ever play on simultaneous as long as I live...
That said, good point about the mod, someone should do that, a splendid idea.
Delnar_Ersike
Prince
Why don't you play sequential then?
There are people who play Civ for the month-long games just like there are people who play Civ for games that can be finished in a day; sequential turns cater to the former, simultaneous turns cater to the latter.
Since hybrid mode is only sequential during wars and only between the two players who are at war, a lot of peacetime clickspamming can still take place: founding pantheons, founding religions, getting first or second ideology, sending up spaceship parts, grabbing an ancient ruins before someone else, blocking someone's units with your scouts, etc. The only advantage that hybrid mode has over sequential is that it makes people wait for their turn less when there are less wars... which essentially means it is meant for people who would prefer to play simultaneous over sequential anyway. If you're looking for a long game, you aren't usually worried about playing as many turns as possible in a fixed time frame: sure, it's a nice bonus to get a few more turns in each day than otherwise, but you're still at the mercy of clickspamming during peacetime, so if you're truly looking for the "true" Civ experience as Tasonne described it, Hybrid mode is too much of a compromise.
Hybrid mode was meant for people who would play simultaneous mode, but are too frustrated with the way wars work in simultaneous mode. It is not meant for sequential players looking for shorter turns, because it still contains enough instances where clickspamming can give you an advantage, thus warping the game the same way that simultaneous turns do. The main problem with hybrid mode is that it does not work properly for its intended audience: turn times simply take too long with the current hybrid mode for the simultaneous mode players who it was meant for. For these people, being able to play a game to finish quickly is more important than addressing frustrations with wartime simultaneous turns behavior.
This is also why I believe that Hybrid mode's "fix" lies in fiddling with turn timers: if you can get game lengths down to a reasonable time, it will be worth it for simultaneous players. Likewise, if all possible issues of peacetime clickspam advantage are fixed (very easy for things like first religion, very difficult for things like stealing ruins), it will be worth it for sequential players.
There are people who play Civ for the month-long games just like there are people who play Civ for games that can be finished in a day; sequential turns cater to the former, simultaneous turns cater to the latter.
Since hybrid mode is only sequential during wars and only between the two players who are at war, a lot of peacetime clickspamming can still take place: founding pantheons, founding religions, getting first or second ideology, sending up spaceship parts, grabbing an ancient ruins before someone else, blocking someone's units with your scouts, etc. The only advantage that hybrid mode has over sequential is that it makes people wait for their turn less when there are less wars... which essentially means it is meant for people who would prefer to play simultaneous over sequential anyway. If you're looking for a long game, you aren't usually worried about playing as many turns as possible in a fixed time frame: sure, it's a nice bonus to get a few more turns in each day than otherwise, but you're still at the mercy of clickspamming during peacetime, so if you're truly looking for the "true" Civ experience as Tasonne described it, Hybrid mode is too much of a compromise.
Hybrid mode was meant for people who would play simultaneous mode, but are too frustrated with the way wars work in simultaneous mode. It is not meant for sequential players looking for shorter turns, because it still contains enough instances where clickspamming can give you an advantage, thus warping the game the same way that simultaneous turns do. The main problem with hybrid mode is that it does not work properly for its intended audience: turn times simply take too long with the current hybrid mode for the simultaneous mode players who it was meant for. For these people, being able to play a game to finish quickly is more important than addressing frustrations with wartime simultaneous turns behavior.
This is also why I believe that Hybrid mode's "fix" lies in fiddling with turn timers: if you can get game lengths down to a reasonable time, it will be worth it for simultaneous players. Likewise, if all possible issues of peacetime clickspam advantage are fixed (very easy for things like first religion, very difficult for things like stealing ruins), it will be worth it for sequential players.
Now, you're quite obviously trolling. I won't waste the time, even though you did writing that essay. Thank you for your healthy contribution.
Moderator Action: Do not accuse others of trolling. If you have a problem with someone's post, please use the report function.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Delnar_Ersike
Prince
I'm being sincere. Hybrid mode still contains a lot of situations where clicking fast gets you the edge, especially if it's 1v1 and both players generate first pantheon's worth of faith on the same turn. If you want to avoid all cases where clicking fast is advantageous, sequential mode is the only way to go. If you do not care for clicking fast, simultaneous mode finishes games a lot faster than hybrid mode.
So if you want to keep with your "true" Civ5 experience, why not stick with sequential?
The previous 3 sentences summarize my essay. The essay goes into a bit more detail, so refer to that if you want to debate anything.
Dismissing valid arguments as "trolling" is no way to advance conversations.
PS. "true" is in quotes because there are so many ways map options (Archipelago vs. Pangea) and game options (Quick vs. Marathon) change how Civ5 is played that no one way could really be described as the "true" experience.
If you say absolutely anything that's contradictory to what his narrow point of view wants to hear it is "trolling" to him....
This guy amazes me....
Similar threads
