another disappointing multiplayer game?

[CanuckSoldier]

The problem is that reviewers wont care about MP at all, probably wont even try or understand it.

I doubt for the civilization title mp performance is that important, cause it is something not many players want and try, and in general it take some time to notice all the problems.

Yes most magazine reviews won't touch MP much, but Ed Beach is much more pro MP than John Schafer was. So I'm hoping that Firaxis will show off MP in August or Sept at a live show or something.

CS

 

[Biz_]

idk where this 'ed beach loves MP' stuff comes from

if he was the one in charge of civ5 patches and expansions, he completely failed to understand the basics of what made civ5 work, what kind of game it was, and what the balance was even about

maybe the engine and netcode wasn't his fault personally, but every balance update to the game after its initial launch was basically ignorant of what was actually happening in MP

 

[Jon Shafer]

Yes most magazine reviews won't touch MP much, but Ed Beach is much more pro MP than John Schafer was. So I'm hoping that Firaxis will show off MP in August or Sept at a live show or something.

CS

Come on CS, that's more than a little unfair - as you know I was a fairly active member of Civ3Players back in the day. There's just only so much one can do when a project has zero networking programmer support until 12 months out from release.

- Jon

 

[CanuckSoldier]

idk where this 'ed beach loves MP' stuff comes from

if he was the one in charge of civ5 patches and expansions, he completely failed to understand the basics of what made civ5 work, what kind of game it was, and what the balance was even about

maybe the engine and netcode wasn't his fault personally, but every balance update to the game after its initial launch was basically ignorant of what was actually happening in MP

There was no failing to understand anything. It would have taken a major recode to fix MP after Civ5 was released. And 2K would never have spend that much money when XP's don't make that much profit like a new game does. You can take my word for it or not, we shall all see when Civ6 is released I guess.

CS

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Come on CS, that's more than a little unfair - as you know I was a fairly active member of Civ3Players back in the day. There's just only so much one can do when a project has zero networking programmer support until 12 months out from release.

- Jon

Ok maybe that was a little harsh Jon. But I watched Civ5 kill the MP community, so I maybe a tad bitter about that. I do hope 2K learned to put the proper resources in place this time....

CS

 

[Hail]

Ok maybe that was a little harsh Jon. But I watched Civ5 kill the MP community, so I maybe a tad bitter about that. I do hope 2K learned to put the proper resources in place this time....

CS

civ5 killed the MP community because 2K/Firaxis chose to ignore MP.

civ5 has "incomplete" MP support & is a massive success. you hope they will put more resources into MP.

personally, I am more worried about the late game. it usually gets the least attention.

 

[Iceciro]

I never could get into Civ 5 at all, but I had hopes that mods would save it.

Then you couldn't play mods in mutliplayer.

That's about when I uninstalled Civ 5. I don't have higher hopes for Civ6 on this front. I'll just keep playing Civ IV and Paradox games.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

civ5 killed the MP community because 2K/Firaxis chose to ignore MP.

civ5 has "incomplete" MP support & is a massive success. you hope they will put more resources into MP.

personally, I am more worried about the late game. it usually gets the least attention.

V's expansions made late game decent there, better than IV in that regard. Late game in both though you could basically end it with nukes, pretty good way to break a stalemate.

IV and V were both pretty bad on release for MP, V is still bad now (going over 4 players in a game asks for de-sync + serious issues on re-host). This is not due to Steam, as I have a decent library of titles where the only disconnects/issues come from someone having a bad connection. VI can use Steam and have it still work, if there's any serious resources put into MP networking.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

V's expansions made late game decent there, better than IV in that regard. Late game in both though you could basically end it with nukes, pretty good way to break a stalemate.

IV and V were both pretty bad on release for MP, V is still bad now (going over 4 players in a game asks for de-sync + serious issues on re-host). This is not due to Steam, as I have a decent library of titles where the only disconnects/issues come from someone having a bad connection. VI can use Steam and have it still work, if there's any serious resources put into MP networking.

I concur, Civ5's MP issues are not because of Steam, though I believe the lack of Direct IP in the baseline steam game like Civ4, is because of Steam anti-piracy policies. Hopefully 2K has a plan for that in Civ6.

CS

 

[Hail]

Then you couldn't play mods in mutliplayer.

afaik, mods can be played in MP if they are flagged as DLC.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

afaik, mods can be played in MP if they are flagged as DLC.

While true, it was a pretty limited workaround. Mods in MP need to be easy for end users to run.

CS

 

[bite]

you given the discussions about multiplayer modes that might be shorter, I wonder if they are possibly trying to open up a segway into the competitive gaming market

 

[CanuckSoldier]

you given the discussions about multiplayer modes that might be shorter, I wonder if they are possibly trying to open up a segway into the competitive gaming market

They maybe testing the waters, who knows. But TBS games have always been a small part of the market even when successful like Sids games are, even if Civ6 was the best selling Civ ever and had the most successful MP gameplay ever, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to of MP genres like Age of Empires, etc. Civ is just a complex game and requires time and effort to master it. Which is the way we like it, but it limits it's market.

CS

 

[Hail]

you given the discussions about multiplayer modes that might be shorter, I wonder if they are possibly trying to open up a segway into the competitive gaming market

by competitive gaming you mean cybersport?
highly doubt it. cybersport needs balance and excellent network code. none of this Firaxis is known for.

 

[Oerdin]

It looks like MP will be an after thought in Civ 6 just like it was in Civ 5.

 

[Camikaze]

It looks like MP will be an after thought in Civ 6 just like it was in Civ 5.

Out of curiosity, what are you basing that conclusion on?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

They maybe testing the waters, who knows. But TBS games have always been a small part of the market even when successful like Sids games are, even if Civ6 was the best selling Civ ever and had the most successful MP gameplay ever, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to of MP genres like Age of Empires, etc. Civ is just a complex game and requires time and effort to master it. Which is the way we like it, but it limits it's market.

CS

That sounds more like an excuse than reality to me. MOBAs, especially LoL and DOTA which I know to an extent, have heaps of complexity. In addition to far more rote memory required just to be competent than Civ, these regularly change their balance framework + update the rote memory list while having mechanics that are unique to one out of dozens of hero/champion options and might require specific skillsets.

In essence, memorizing a champion is comparable to memorizing the unique aspects of a civ, and the core gameplay of Civ (unit movement, planning, math) isn't too far past it.

So why can't Civ compete there? It's a mixture of game community's culture, duration of a game, and terrible support for a true competitive scene. The only way to get an equitable start in any civ release to date is to doctor one in advance and hide it from the players. That's a big difference from counterstrike/halo/LoL/StarCraft 2/competitive games in general.

The design of Civ V's ruins, barbarians, city states and even civs that milk these random factors are directly counter to a viable competitive MP experience. It's not in the design scope.

Civ can't balance civs or especially generated starts to save its life, and we haven't had a solid MP connection going since Civ IV, and it took a while for even IV to stop with the de-syncs.

 

[Ronnoc83]

Well when I play MP civ its usually local internet with some friends at someones house, but even that can be hit and miss. I really hope they improve it and I'm confident they will.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well when I play MP civ its usually local internet with some friends at someones house, but even that can be hit and miss. I really hope they improve it and I'm confident they will.

I hope they do too, but confidence is not supported by evidence/track record.

 

[Hail]

Well when I play MP civ its usually local internet with some friends at someones house, but even that can be hit and miss. I really hope they improve it and I'm confident they will.

I have heard different MP game percentiles over the years. they mostly lay in the 5% to 10% range. for mod use the numbers are bigger - 15% to 20%.

I do not know what Ed Beach plans for civ6's MP scene, but I sincerely do not expect MP to be in the top three priorities. in other words, the MP component will ship with issues.

btw, one would then expect for the devs to put time and effort into the AI. no again. no less than 80% of the player base to do not attempt a difficulty higher Prince. afaik Emperor and above is less than 2%.

I hope they do too, but confidence is not supported by evidence/track record.

confidence that is not supported by evidence/track record is not confidence. it's wishful thinking.