Game is pretty meh..

repeatoffender · Jul 17, 2011

Had fun for the first 3 or so eras of my first game.. now a week later I've logged in maybe every other day to use my harvests and just kinda shake my head at what could have been.. A civ game with potentially millions of players online.. if only it could have been.

Does anybody else feel zero incentive to play this? What draw is there? Watching a leaderboard? Watching your citizens walk back and forth day after day in a city with just a handful of buildings? There's just nothing to it. I dare say Evony had more going on than this 'game' does.

Oh well..

eewallace · Jul 17, 2011

It is worth playing if you get to be Defense Minister of your civ. Then you actually have something to do in battles. The other ministries don't seem as much fun.

Tatran · Jul 17, 2011

CivWorld is a bad game.
One of the basics of a game : you need ACTIVE players
And when a game uses real-time features those players need to be there at the same time.

repeatoffender · Jul 17, 2011

Imagine how fun it would be if it were anything at all like civ1-5... you know.. making units, improving tiles, fighting barbs, working with other civs..

Nope.. : \

Glinda · Jul 17, 2011

It's clearly not for you. If you aren't interested in working with other people to get era victories, then yep, it's just harvesting and making units. Go play something else.

mattavich · Jul 17, 2011

That's sad. Well hope you find something that suits you.

Countmonte8242 · Jul 17, 2011

I think the builder aspect of it is pretty fun. The tech aspect is actually pretty fun as well imo cause mazes are the one mini game that are consistently fun for me.

The battle aspect is where it comes up short. I can understand there not being a cohesive world with players dotting the map cause that'd be too much to expect for a web-browser game. But if they could just have randomly-generated, small maps you could drop your troops on for battles, that would make it 5x more fun imo.

Maybe someday they'll be able to give us a more Civ-like browser experience with seamless planetary maps, but I wasn't expecting that myself.

repeatoffender · Jul 17, 2011

Glinda said:
It's clearly not for you. If you aren't interested in working with other people to get era victories, then yep, it's just harvesting and making units. Go play something else.

Games have like 4 active players.. it wouldn't even be fun if that were it's only problem, either, but combined with the fact that there's nothing fun to do.. man..

Sir_Mang · Jul 18, 2011

This game is AWESOME if...you get a civ where most of the people are active and you can actually get stuff done as a team. Usually a smaller civ of around 8-10 players can tear through almost anything.

The game is outright BORING if...you go on a large civ with hardly any active players because then you get absolutely nothing done.

This game is all about teamwork, without teamwork, you don't get far.

avien · Jul 18, 2011

Sir_Mang said:
This game is AWESOME if...you get a civ where most of the people are active and you can actually get stuff done as a team. Usually a smaller civ of around 8-10 players can tear through almost anything.

The game is outright BORING if...you go on a large civ with hardly any active players because then you get absolutely nothing done.

This game is all about teamwork, without teamwork, you don't get far.

This is very true. I spent this weekend playing it, so it clearly appeals to me. It was nothing like I expected, but I think it shows great potential.

Largest problem right now is that you can't vote to kick people out of the civ. Also, there should be a voting if people should be allowed to join your civ.

Glinda · Jul 18, 2011

Yes, the closed border mechanic needs work. In a lot of games civs have effectively closed borders if they are max players (especially with the joining bug).

Countmonte8242 · Jul 18, 2011

Another big problem right now is that since open beta started there are too many casuals paying so the competition is terrible. A lot of people that are just checking out the game never log in after the first time, and many of those that do keep playing some are pretty clueless.

Creepy Old Man · Jul 18, 2011

That problem won't go away. If you've ever played games like Evony, even still 95% of the players start their kingdom and never play again. 4% continue playing, but are clueless about what they do, and refuse to interact with others. The remaining 1% actually play the game.

So, for CivWorld, that means two real players per game.

Sir_Mang · Jul 18, 2011

Creepy Old Man said:
That problem won't go away. If you've ever played games like Evony, even still 95% of the players start their kingdom and never play again. 4% continue playing, but are clueless about what they do, and refuse to interact with others. The remaining 1% actually play the game.

So, for CivWorld, that means two real players per game.

And if you put those two people in the same civ the rest of the world has no chance at winning either singularly or collectively.

avien said:
This is very true. I spent this weekend playing it, so it clearly appeals to me. It was nothing like I expected, but I think it shows great potential.

Largest problem right now is that you can't vote to kick people out of the civ. Also, there should be a voting if people should be allowed to join your civ.

Agreed, there should be a better way than Meritocracy to get rid of people from your civ. Voting people in would be helpful when you get to the closed borders stage of the game, maybe instead of closed borders it should be invite only instead?

M_Sparkle · Jul 19, 2011

Play ciV everyday, play cityville everyday. My dream come true the two combined... yet what a disappointment. It's a Facebook. Verson of Civcity Rome but with a terrible UI. Gave up on it after 15mins. If u like it go play civcity Rome (under £5 on steam) I'm going back to ciV and cityville.

Xinhuan · Jul 20, 2011

What they need is for every 20 civ games, put the top 10 of those 20 games into a single game.

Countmonte8242 · Jul 21, 2011

Eh. Thing is, the top 10 are often just from the top civ. It doesn't necessarily mean they're good or even play a lot. I've happen people join my civs that never ever log on again but they were in the top 10 still near the end because they racked up so many points from era victories before meritocracy booted them.

If they could just figure a way to just filter the more hard core players by time played into upper tier games that'd be fine imo. As long as most of the people in a game were people that played quite a bit, you'd have enough good players that it'd work out well I think.

deviant devin · Jul 22, 2011

Countmonte8242 said:
Eh. Thing is, the top 10 are often just from the top civ. It doesn't necessarily mean they're good or even play a lot. I've happen people join my civs that never ever log on again but they were in the top 10 still near the end because they racked up so many points from era victories before meritocracy booted them.

If they could just figure a way to just filter the more hard core players by time played into upper tier games that'd be fine imo. As long as most of the people in a game were people that played quite a bit, you'd have enough good players that it'd work out well I think.

thats a really good point. there are 2 or 3 really active players on our team, and of course the inactives benefit from the boosts in fame from winning an era.

Game is pretty meh..

repeatoffender

Chieftain

eewallace

King

Tatran

Deity

repeatoffender

Chieftain

Glinda

Warlord

mattavich

Civ5 Fanatic

Countmonte8242

Warlord

repeatoffender

Chieftain

Sir_Mang

Chieftain

avien

Chieftain

Glinda

Warlord

Countmonte8242

Warlord

Creepy Old Man

Warlord

Sir_Mang

Chieftain

M_Sparkle

Chieftain

Xinhuan

Chieftain

Countmonte8242

Warlord

deviant devin

Chieftain

Similar threads