Largest Multiplayer Issue & How It Can Be Fixed

[Rebel Fighter]

The Largest Multiplayer Issue & How It Can Be Fixed

If you've played Gods & Kings online, or just vanilla Civilization 5 online, you'll notice there is one drastic difference between the singleplayer aspect and the multiplayer aspect: turns are simultaneous in multiplayer, rather than consecutive like in singleplayer.

In a TBS like Civilization 5 that relies heavily on unit placement, this is simply unacceptable. Some people think that the worst multiplayer problems with Civilization 5 are the crashes, but I disagree. Crashes only happen once in awhile. These simultaneous turns, on the other hand, are built into the online component permanently.

How can this be corrected? Simple.



The developers should add an option that allows players to "Enable Consecutive Turns". As the name states, this option would convert the simultaneous turns into consecutive turns so each player can make their moves with strategic logic, rather than whoever has the better connection.

Or the quick of the click.



"But consecutive turns would make matches last much longer," you say with a roll of your eyes, "Wouldn't this just create another problem?

Also, stop using cat memes you unoriginal piece of - "



*AHEM* I get your point. Let me explain.

There are several factors that make simultaneous turns actually take longer than consecutive ones. Such as:

- Considerable lag generated by multiple players making moves simultaneously
- Competitive players at war waiting out turns in case their opponent makes a move then clicks "Next Turn" before they can respond themselves
- [insert other reasons to convince you of my point here]

Imagine a world with no cheating or unfairness! Where everything happens fast and not a single moment is wasted. Isn't it just so... *sniff* ...beautiful? *wipes away tear*



"OK, I see what you mean!" you remark with an overwhelming smile,"You have totally persuaded me into thinking this is a great idea. Thank you so much for posting this! I'll spread the word!"

Awww, you're so sweet!



Well then, thanks for reading! Have a nice day! ^_^



"Also, I like cat memes now, too!"

O_O








"Hahahahahahahahahaha -

 

[Foffaren]

Can I pick both yes and a cookie?

And dafuq did I just read?

 

[Atlas627]

Can I pick both yes and a cookie?

And dafuq did I just read?

^This.

But yes, I hate simultaneous turns. Hate it. Still play multiplayer though. And I can do PBEM, but games are stretching a little long for me.

 

[Rebel Fighter]

Can I pick both yes and a cookie?

And dafuq did I just read?

Lol, unfortunately I forgot to put multiple choice options in the poll, but here's a cookie anyway! *hands cookie*

Also, I was really tired when I wrote the original post so pardon the craziness. XD

 

[Teleon22]

I like that you added it as optional. I happen to like the same-time turn setup.

 

[Wyrda Edocsil]

While some players like simultaneous turns, it's excessive to make it a requirement to play games online, as the game does work better with "consecutive" turns. I accidentally voted for the wrong option, but I believe this should be implemented. If anything, consecutive turns should be the default, and simultaneous turns the optional way to play.

 

[Rebel Fighter]

If anything, consecutive turns should be the default, and simultaneous turns the optional way to play.

 

[Yalish]

While I can understand people's desires for sequential turns, simultaneous turns are hardly new. They were in Alpha Centauri and Civ IV -- unfortunately for a game the scale of the Civ/AC series, simultaneous turns are a necessary option, and should remain the default as it has been.

That said, there's no reason it couldn't be an option to have your 18+ hour sequential games. Should be a setting.

 

[Gort]

The ideal has to be simultaneous turns when at peace, moving to consecutive turns when at war, but ONLY for warring players.

That way you still get fast gameplay when you're having those first turns where all you're doing is exploring, or in situations where the world is at peace, but you don't get exploitation going on in warfare.

By the way, there's a mod called MPMod that works in multiplayer that implements consecutive turns in multi. It works by tacking onto the Mongol DLC everyone has.

 

[Rebel Fighter]

By the way, there's a mod called MPMod that works in multiplayer that implements consecutive turns in multi. It works by tacking onto the Mongol DLC everyone has.

Really? O_O I have to check this out!

 

[Gort]

I see it more as a proof of concept than a usable mod.

 

[Rebel Fighter]

I see it more as a proof of concept than a usable mod.

You don't think it's usable?

 

[CanuckSoldier]

There are many many more important technical issues that Firaxis has to solve with MP than the fact that there is no sequential turns as an option. Saying that I would personally never use ST's but am fine with it as an option for players that like it.

CS

 

[Rebel Fighter]

There are many many more important technical issues that Firaxis has to solve with MP than the fact that there is no sequential turns as an option. Saying that I would personally never use ST's but am fine with it as an option for players that like it.

CS

Issues such as?

Also, why wouldn't you use "ST's"?

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Issues such as?

Also, why wouldn't you use "ST's"?

Well there are long lists of what Civ5 needs fixing here on CFC and many other fan sites. But biggest in my mind is that Civ5 MP needs to just work, it's pathetic right now with only 4 player games being a sure thing and 6 player being a maybe and anything bigger than that virtually impossible. Civ3 a decade old game does better than this.

As to sequential vs simultaneous moves, I have played MP for a long time and sequential turns are just too slow and to me offer no advantage, yes simu turns can be a bit of a mouse click race at times, but to me the time savings are well worth it. Yes there is no mouse click races in seq turns, but instead you get to sit their and watch your army get destroyed by all the players that have turns ahead of you. Just my opinion but I prefer Simu turns, but I'm certainly not against Seq turns as an option that can be turned on or off.

CS

 

[Silverfuturist]

I think simultaneous can be playable if several tweaks are added, such as the closer to the end of the turn you move a unit, the more time you have to wait to move that unit next turn. Also, because ranged units and naval units being able to shoot first is so OP, some control so that if 2 players are in a battle, the faster player does not get to shoot many times before the other opponent can react.

The problem with turn-based combat is that in situations such as England with Great Lighthouse, your ships will simply dissapear and you will have no chance to react! With simultaneous turns, the moment the first strike happens you can start responding with other ships.

 

[Rebel Fighter]

The problem with turn-based combat is that in situations such as England with Great Lighthouse, your ships will simply dissapear and you will have no chance to react! With simultaneous turns, the moment the first strike happens you can start responding with other ships.

But that's the point of strategy, so that your units don't "disappear". You will have plenty of time to react when its your turn again.

For example, say you have a Horsemen and I have an Archer (that is injured). On the previous turn, I move my Archer on top of a hill for a better view of the battlefield to fire at. But I knew that when I did this, my Archer could possibly die from another unit that was waiting for me to move their. It's a risk you have to make.

Then it's the next turn and you rush in your Horsemen and kill the Archer. Was it fair? Completely. When I moved that Archer on the hill, I knew (or at least should of known) the possible consequences of that move before I made it. When it would roll around to my turn again, I would accept my tactical mistake and move another unit instead.

That's what TBS games are about: not who can click first, but who can make the best move, like in Chess.

Just because White always moves first, certainly doesn't mean they always win.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Yes but comparing Civ to Chess is like comparing Chess to checkers, it is not even the same level. Yes I understand why you like turns, but honestly you can not be prepared for any attack ahead of time, like you can in chess. If your the last player in a 6 player FFA, you are always going to be getting screwed over. Unlike most players here I have actually played the last true TBS Civ game, Civ2 before simu turns was patched in half way threw. And I will tell you it sucks watching your army getting trashed as you watch and can do nothing, and you can't be prepared for everything, fast units like tanks and ships can be out of your visual range and you don't even know about them the turn before and can't prepare for them etc :-/

Not to mention that in MP true TBS makes the game 2-3 times longer, and few players have that long on an average night to dedicate to one game. That is just human nature.

CS

 

[Ianwill93]

Yes but comparing Civ to Chess is like comparing Chess to checkers, it is not even the same level. Yes I understand why you like turns, but honestly you can not be prepared for any attack ahead of time, like you can in chess. If your the last player in a 6 player FFA, you are always going to be getting screwed over. Unlike most players here I have actually played the last true TBS Civ game, Civ2 before simu turns was patched in half way threw. And I will tell you it sucks watching your army getting trashed as you watch and can do nothing, and you can't be prepared for everything, fast units like tanks and ships can be out of your visual range and you don't even know about them the turn before and can't prepare for them etc :-/

Not to mention that in MP true TBS makes the game 2-3 times longer, and few players have that long on an average night to dedicate to one game. That is just human nature.

CS

Yeah but shouldnt an average game be 1v1? Humans i mean.
FFA is never going to represent true strategy in any kind of game, TBS or not. And simultaneous turns in a turn based game messes with most gamers perception of multiplayer. It almost seems gimmicky.
The time investment is a bit excessive, but shouldnt a league focus on duels more anyway? And those shouldnt be long at all.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

It is not for any of us to tell others what to play, or what makes for "real civ strategy", if the game allows it then it is civ. Duels are popular yes, but so are ffa/ctons, and team games. And actually on the league, teamers are the most enjoyed games FYI.

Yes for SP players playing MP for the first time, simu turns may seem odd, but most MP players quickly adjust and many, like myself,would not play anything else.

CS