Multiplayer importance feedback

Which of these best describe me? (vote for 3 choices please)

  • I have never played Civ4 multiplayer

    Votes: 66 54.5%
  • I spend <25% of my Civ4 time playing multiplayer

    Votes: 34 28.1%
  • I spend 25-75% of my Civ4 time playing multiplayer

    Votes: 6 5.0%
  • I spend 75%+ of my Civ4 time playing multiplayer.

    Votes: 3 2.5%
  • When looking for Civ4 mods, I am looking for: Primarily a single player experience

    Votes: 93 76.9%
  • When looking for Civ4 mods, I am looking for: Primarily a multiplayer experience

    Votes: 6 5.0%
  • When looking for Civ4 mods, I am looking for: A mix of single player/multiplayer

    Votes: 17 14.0%
  • I would rather play a mod that: Has significant faction differentiation, so civs play differently

    Votes: 100 82.6%
  • I would rather play a mod that: Has similar factions, balanced for multiplayer

    Votes: 3 2.5%

  • Total voters
    121
Do hotseat games count as multiplayer? If not, I've never played multiplayer Civ IV. (Most of the times I've played hotseat games I was either just playing against myself from the start or ended up doing so when my sister lost interest and quit after a couple turns.)
 
I would say, hotseat counts as multiplayer if you're playing with another human. Not if you're playing yourself.

The point of the poll is to try to get some data about peoples' preferences; my suspicion is that most Civ4 players are single-player oriented, and prefer mods where there is significant faction differentiation, even if that means that multiplayer is somewhat unbalanced.
 
I do like my multiplayer ... but I certainly like faction differentiation vs everyone is the same ... otherwise I would be alot more interested in Halo and Supreme Commander xD
 
I just very rarely have the time

Yeah, single player suits my "hmm, got a free half hour now" schedule. I played a small bit of RTS multi-player in 90s, but got turned off by all the cheating and general messing. How is CIV MP in that regard?
 
I have very lil time for MP games. They're fun. But I'm a student, meaning I have no time.
 
Yeah, single player suits my "hmm, got a free half hour now" schedule. I played a small bit of RTS multi-player in 90s, but got turned off by all the cheating and general messing. How is CIV MP in that regard?

It didn't seem that anyone was cheating. When a couple of people's early attempts at a rush failed the game just settled into a long, long, grind. I tried MP three times and each of the games was pretty long.
 
I play sinngle player. I am trying a PBEM game, but it moves at one turn per week. I tried a real-time lobby ty[e game but could never get into the game for real. I hage done a couple LAN games here at home.

Mostly I play late at night when insomnia/pain keep me up, so my scheduling is unpredicitable.

As to balance versus differentation, I didn't have an opinion strong enough to vote. As I type, I realize that I prefer balance, even in an SP environment, so that I can play different civs with similar levels of inovlvement and challenge.
 
Multiplayer games can be pretty long ... its best to play on Quick with normal or fast turn timer, and even then a really good game can take 4-6 hours ... or longer.

There is, to my knowledge, absolutely no cheating in multiplayer games. One thing similar, however, that I can think of, is during the "non ffa" sessions of multiplayer ... two or more players can have disagreements on the "psuedo rules" we seek to establish, as well as the over-all gaming atmosphere. In this case, a sneak attack, or razing a city, can be considered a "cheap shot" .... but absolutely no cheating, and its a much MUCH friendlier atmosphere than those RTS games. (or ladder games in BTS :p)
 
Thanks everyone, results from the voting are pretty clear. I'll contine to advocate for mod design that is primarily aimed at making single player more fun, with interesting mechanics that lead to faction variation, even if those are harder to balance.
 
Back
Top Bottom