Comprehensive MP crash course

[Norzin]

Seriously in most MP games of the Blazing turn timer variety, it is usually one of the two or three best players who win each game. Further, not everyone plays for sheep stations. The game can still be fun when you lose (In other words, if one can't stand to lose, SP is more one's style). Purely identical starts are more likely to be boring. If you're going to go for sameyness, you might as well have everyone play as the same leader and civ as well.

The biggest problem with MP (in gamespy) is the noobs who choose Rome in every game. That and the dropping like flies whenever people get the first excuse while they're not winning. No joke, a guy once said his dog had run away and up and left the game (It was just a coincidence it was on the turn he was about to get brutally attacked )

/rant.

I find this pretty far off base. What about so many other RTS games that fit into the example crusher has given? If piece of mind has his way football players would be playing with different size, shape, and weighted balls. Cyclist would have be running different road course and the guy who had more up hills would be screwed. Baseball players would find themselves using metal bats, some wood bats, baseballs, maybe even some softballs. I dont see any problem with wanting both sides to have the same equipment and same course to play on. Definitely the fair and smart way to go.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I think it is pretty obvious that in a sport the rules are supposed to be as close to balanced as possible. Therefore games that simulate sports are obviously going to have a level playing field (getting dangerously close to the meaning of the cliche there) or else they will fail to simulate the sport.

Role-playing games are not the same ball-park. Going by your logic, everyone who plays World of Warcraft should have exactly the same character with exactly the same equipment, exactly the same level, exactly the same everything.

Civ is not a sports game so the idea of strictly equal conditions for all players most people would find boring. Even most RTS games allow for competitors to use different factions or whatever. Games like Supreme Commander Forged Alliance have MP maps that are pretty much all symmetrical, but the factions are not. That RTS would be pretty boring if everyone had to play the same faction. Half the strategy in the game is learning how to best use each faction against the other factions. But I suppose you think that is absurd for a strategy game and everyone should have to play the same faction.

By the way, I didn't mention it earlier but sports games are not RTS, at least not in the traditional sense.

 

[Norzin]

That RTS would be pretty boring if everyone had to play the same faction.

Further off base. Factions or races are personal choices that people need to make work within a balanced and set construct. Nice try but not working.

 

[Th3 PuNiSh3R]

Although I agree with Norzin this is getting off base. I'd would be curious how many people actually play MP though.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Further off base. Factions or races are personal choices that people need to make work within a balanced and set construct. Nice try but not working.

Further off base? So you think that in MP choosing Julias Caesar gives you no advantage over a player who chooses Brennus? (assume equal skill)



In MP it is true that if 2 players are equal in skill then whoever has the best start and/or best leader/civ will win. But in general that's not really applicable because players are not equal in skill. You can argue all you like as to how much starting location can substitute for skill, but pretty much every game you can expect one of the better players to win. Have you never played FFA in MP before?

By the way, it would be nice if you actually supported your statements with at least anecdotal evidence rather than just saying I'm wrong because you can pick out a small technicality from one of my statements. What's more, the part you quoted me on is pretty reasonable. SCFA would be pretty boring if everyone played the same faction. You don't dispute that (other than just saying "further off base"), so maybe you intended to quote something else. Factions in SCFA are reasonably balanced on average, but when you focus on particular maps there is often a stronger faction.

Your argument earlier doesn't hold because you tried to lump sports games into RTS. As I said earlier, civ is not a sports game. I don't remember reading in the manual or anywhere else that MP is supposed to give everyone identical chance to win the game. Just as civ is not a sports game, it is also not chess. Each side of the board does not need to be identical.

A good civ player always adapts. If you get dealt a difficult start, tough luck. Try to make the best of it, and if you can win then it's all the more rewarding. If you win from an excellent start, then don't go bragging to all the other players that you are better. Obsession with winning is probably what keeps many people away from MP. And obsession with winning is probably why a lot of gamespy MP players quit when they're losing.

 

[Th3 PuNiSh3R]

Still off topic but I'll still throw in my 2 cents. Every game has different civilizations or races or factions to pick from. That's just a normal starting variety. What throws stuff out of whack is when one faction has a clear advantage over another faction because the availability of resources or land are different.

You see, game developers do their best to adequately balance separate factions in relations to unit counters, strengths, buildings, and other measured components, power yield to power yield if you will. But in most RTS they make a deliberate effort to maintain map, land, and resource balance. And rightfully so. Games, such as civilization, which have random maps for everyone have a huge element of luck and go lucky rolls of the dice.

Trying to dismiss someones arguments based on skill vs skill of relative players is a weak strawman at best. Honestly, if you pair up similar skill levels in civilization the person with the better spawning position is gonna win. So yea, Norzin is right on cue for sure.

But once again, most reasonable people already know this. But thats also why so many people prefer civilization. Its not just some click fest where we all start with the same stuff. A lot of us enjoy game variety and luck comes with the territory.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Still off topic but I'll still throw in my 2 cents. Every game has different civilizations or races or factions to pick from. That's just a normal starting variety. What throws stuff out of whack is when one faction has a clear advantage over another faction because the availability of resources or land are different.

You see, game developers do their best to adequately balance separate factions in relations to unit counters, strengths, buildings, and other measured components, power yield to power yield if you will. But in most RTS they make a deliberate effort to maintain map, land, and resource balance. And rightfully so. Games, such as civilization, which have random maps for everyone have a huge element of luck and go lucky rolls of the dice.

Trying to dismiss someones arguments based on skill vs skill of relative players is a weak strawman at best. Honestly, if you pair up similar skill levels in civilization the person with the better spawning position is gonna win. So yea, Norzin is right on cue for sure.

But once again, most reasonable people already know this. But thats also why so many people prefer civilization. Its not just some click fest where we all start with the same stuff. A lot of us enjoy game variety and luck comes with the territory.

Absolutely agree.

It's just the assumption that players are equal skill I often find to be a bit silly. Rarely are 2 players equal skill, and more than 50% of the time the better player will win. The better player will sometimes get shafted by the map RNG or whatever, but in the long run will win more than his equal share of games. Playing a seven player map, equal skill players would expect to lose 86% of the time.

I agree that part of the reason Civ is different from most games is that not every game is so samey. You have to adapt to the game environment each new game. Knowing in advance that your enemy has the same land as you would kill half the fun of exploring the world map and so forth.

 

[obsolete]

And obsession with winning is probably why a lot of gamespy MP players quit when they're losing.

This is one reason I took a vow to never play MP (vs humans)again. Game always dies up, or finds a reason to never get continued when someone is losing, or people just drop and run right away.

Even the ladder clubs were filled with nothing but disputes/fights, and arguements over who technically won or lost, all over fictional points. And then there were the people who would do anything and everything, including cheating, lying, etc. to win.

Well, NEVER AGAIN!

I'm sticking to just gangbanging vs deity AIs, I can at least trust none of this . .. .. .. . happens with them. Perhaps it's a good thing the AI is too stupid to know how to do any of the human characteristics.

 

[slobberinbear]

I have played MP on and off. I have had many of the same experiences. There is a wide variety of skill levels on gamespy.

Probably the most amusing MP moment for me was when (as Toku) I showed up at my neighbor's border with my Elepult stack, and the fellow accused me of cheating. As a non-programmer (heck, I don't even look at the xml files), I befuddled.

I will also say that the competitive spirit of Multiplayer sometimes is a bit much, and there is a ton of flaming in the lobby. I suppose I am spoiled by the civility of the CFC forums.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I have played MP on and off. I have had many of the same experiences. There is a wide variety of skill levels on gamespy.

Probably the most amusing MP moment for me was when (as Toku) I showed up at my neighbor's border with my Elepult stack, and the fellow accused me of cheating. As a non-programmer (heck, I don't even look at the xml files), I befuddled.

I will also say that the competitive spirit of Multiplayer sometimes is a bit much, and there is a ton of flaming in the lobby. I suppose I am spoiled by the civility of the CFC forums.

I have "map hacked" in so many different games in so many situations, consistently beating all anti-cheating attempts, that it isn't funny. At least, if you listen to opponents who are losing.

I think the biggest problem in human vs human gamespy MP is skill disparity. Weaker players die or leave very quickly and whoever drew them as neighbors is now looking at extra room or a NOBLE AI to beat for extra room...not exactly murderer's row...especially compared to what someone else might have to put up with.

For example players like obs, crusher, davemcw, ABCF, U Sun, Oyzar, (I could go on for a while here) who are better than me would all struggle like hell to beat me, if I spawned next to "noob8453098" who quits 10 turns in and they spawned next to "asinine native american choker" over on the other continent. Without horse or copper.

IMO you can't pull luck out of these games...the biggest chance factor is not what's in your spawn, but where you spawned relative to others, and there's no true way to balance that without making maps extremely stale or playing straight up teamers x vs x.

Of course there's always the pause-lockers too .

 

[pi-r8]

The thing that always jumps out at me about MP is how difficult offensive war is. Of course you can chariot rush someone early on, or sail few transports in to an undefended inner city later on. But mounting a major land operation in the face of a competant player who's got roads, seige, and cleared forest is almost impossible. You'll be creeping along, 1 square at a time, almost blind, while he can see exactly where you are and move 2 or 3 times faster. Whenever he wants, he can rough you up with seige, and then finish you off with whatever. All of that in an instant! (if he has stack attack turned on, which you really should). Then you're stuck with war weariness for the rest of the game, because humans won't make peace like the AI will (I quite like the statue of Zeus in MP games). It seems like it's usually best to just play defensively, build up your cities while everyone else is warring, and don't invade until you've got an overwhelming advantage.

Oh, and if you must attack, use mounted units almost always. That way they at least won't have such a massive speed advantage over you (if it's early, you'll both be moving at speed 2). Of course you have to hide your invasion force, but as long as you can do that, hardly anyone will build a large force of spearmen/pikemen to defend. While attacking, you can move/pillage, or threaten multiple cities all at once.

 

[noto2]

to the OP - you say that philosophical is stronger on a larger map...I completely disagree with this. The philosophical trait is relatively more powerful on a smaller map. Think about it.