Anybody else think two different gamespeeds could make this more fun?

[Countmonte8242]

The current speed seems ok for facebook gaming, I guess (first I've played), however I do find it a little annoying that you completely miss eras of a game when you go to sleep and such.

With a little work, how fun do you think this game could be if they had a fast-paced version that was I dunno, 20 times faster which you could play in a single 3-5 hour sitting? This game lacks the exploration and unit troop movement of Civ, but I love the builder aspect of it. Only there isn't a lot for one to do playing at this speed. I think if there were an option for a much speeded version, it would make the game more fun for some in two regards - lets you play a whole game from start to finish without missing any eras, and crunches down the dead time so that it'd be more of a constant struggle to try to be as efficient as possible.

 

[Morningcalm]

Absolutely agreed. The game is currently too slow, and I miss too much when I do sleep. They should allow you to choose between games of different speeds from several hours to several days. :O

 

[GambleFish]

IIRC, they are planning to have 3 game speeds, of which the current is actually the fastest. The little rabbit icon next to a game on the "my games" screen shows all the beta games are set to fast.

 

[mitsho]

The problem of jumping eras might also be a little less when there are more people playing meaning more people from your own timezone. I just hope nobody is crazy enough to play the game at 3 AM ;-)

Otherwise yes, different gamespeeds are ok. But I rather have slower ones so that I don't jump the eras. That I can jump in once a day and I see the whole picture...

 

[Bibor]

Hmm, game speed discussion.

What takes 3 minutes in Starcraft 2 takes 30 hours in Civ World.

 

[GambleFish]

Hmm, game speed discussion.

What takes 3 minutes in Starcraft 2 takes 30 hours in Civ World.

That's a good point.

....

....

 

[civ_king]

IMO the game is too fast and 2k knows this