Civ exec decision team is old and out of touch with it's players

[lunaprey]

Civilization is a great digital board game that does a great job of giving me the feeling of leading a nation through many eras, but I think we can all agree that the AI in all CIV games are nowhere near realistic, and it takes Multiplayer to fix that.

I'm really disappointed in the CIV development team for not making the multiplayer more enjoyable. They have known about the problem of leavers in multiplayer games for a decade now, and they have made zero efforts to stop it.

I think it would be easy to discourage people from leaving games by introducing a ranking system, considering people who leave as a loss, and awarding people who complete the game wins. This would also separate out players who take the game seriously as they would win more often, gain elo, and be matched with each-other.

Such a simple system could be made within a month by a single modder, so why does the Civilization dev team not do this themselves? It's because their executive decision making team is old, and out of touch with the user base. They likely do not even play this game for enjoyment themselves. It's tragic no real competition has shown up to show Fireaxis how a game like this could really be done.

I really like Civ because it's the best Humanity can offer in this kinda turn based strategy game, but I really resent the dev team for not having the foresight to make multiplayer what it could have been after 6 versions in a row.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

2K is to cheap for that sadly, we have been asking for that since I was part of the Civ3 Conquests internal test team. It is up to the community to provide this function and I don't see that changing. You are welcome to come join the oldest Civ Community league, Civplayers, for all the reasons you stated above. Our discord is https://discord.gg/uBEpu3u And any of our Moderators will be glad to help anyone get setup to play great games.

CS

 

[king of nowhere]

I don't know how much that would help. playing when you're horribly outmatched is boring to most players. I think many would not care that much about ranking that they would keep playing when two eras behind. especially considering that they are going to lose anyway, so it won't change the ranking. And really, forfeiting the game is a right of every player (or by team vote in case of a team game; consider league of legends with their surrender vote). it would not be right to force people to slough through a lost game to the painful end, especially since some people take pleasure in delaying the victory as long as possible.
Finally, consider how many people are disconnected against their will and can't get back. i only tried once to play multiplayer, but in half an hour i could never go more than five turns without half the people disconnecting. if that has improved in the meanwhile, i may give mutliplayer another go.

 

[GunslingerCiv]

I can't agree with the above statement. People like to player against people, not the crappy AI. Yes, some games you get a bad start and are really only a city state watching someone else win, but you'd be surprised how much fun you can have even with such a start or circumstance. Players also rapidly get better if they want to be competitive, all it takes is watching one of the top streamers we have at CPL and trying to learn a thing or two about playing each start out perfectly. There are at least 40 players on the top of the ladder that could potentially win a game at any time due to skill from playing against each other and continually rising in skill. Players who are new, yea it takes time for them to make a dent but we allow everyone a one time reset of their stats. Come play, get your ass kicked and then in a couple months you'll be kicking ass yourself. Unfortunately this is not LoL or Dota and the player base is too small for proper tiered out ladders. However, considering we have over 360 active players any given week competing in 10+ full games a day, there has to be some draw to it?