Civ5 MP games take too long - ideas?

[douglas125]

Hello everyone;

BNW multiplayer is the best way to experience the game imo. The problem is that ffa games take 4-6 straight hours. This is too much compared to the usual 30-60min most RTS/MOBA take.

Sometimes we have only 1h to spare, but mostly the fact that the 4h are continuous is extremely taxing. I myself may play 5-6 games of dota2 which take roughly 5h but I do other things between games.

That said, I would like to know opinions about how to make the game faster; ideally, a 6-player FFA that takes 1-2h and doesn't exclude any elements (religion, trade, diplomacy, culture).

I was discussing in the NQ chat about the topic. Some ideas came to mind (criticismo included):

1 - Play CTON. -> That excludes trade. With BNW lack of gold and trade routes that may make games last even longer....

2 - Play duel. Again, no trade routes, but this mode could be interesting... world congress would create a race to get printing press... Maybe culture victory is viable? I'm quite curious to know how to handle BNW duels.

3 - A mode in which all yields are doubled. -> Free pantheon to first to discover a religious CS, quite imba. Go 4...

4 - A mode in which all city yields are doubled (or more generally, multiplied by X). This would render early game UUs quite useless but civs are far from being balanced anyways (Babylon anyone?). Maybe this could be accompanied by a % increase in unit move speed and worker improvement rate.
Now should every resource be doubled or only, say, food and production?
On a side note, is it possible to implemente a custom map or something with this yield change?

Any thoughts? I would be able to play MP way more if the 6ppl FFA game lasted 1-2h.

 

[Altisma]

Hello everyone;

BNW multiplayer is the best way to experience the game imo. The problem is that ffa games take 4-6 straight hours. This is too much compared to the usual 30-60min most RTS/MOBA take.

Sometimes we have only 1h to spare, but mostly the fact that the 4h are continuous is extremely taxing. I myself may play 5-6 games of dota2 which take roughly 5h but I do other things between games.

That said, I would like to know opinions about how to make the game faster; ideally, a 6-player FFA that takes 1-2h and doesn't exclude any elements (religion, trade, diplomacy, culture).

I was discussing in the NQ chat about the topic. Some ideas came to mind (criticismo included):

1 - Play CTON. -> That excludes trade. With BNW lack of gold and trade routes that may make games last even longer....

2 - Play duel. Again, no trade routes, but this mode could be interesting... world congress would create a race to get printing press... Maybe culture victory is viable? I'm quite curious to know how to handle BNW duels.

3 - A mode in which all yields are doubled. -> Free pantheon to first to discover a religious CS, quite imba. Go 4...

4 - A mode in which all city yields are doubled (or more generally, multiplied by X). This would render early game UUs quite useless but civs are far from being balanced anyways (Babylon anyone?). Maybe this could be accompanied by a % increase in unit move speed and worker improvement rate.
Now should every resource be doubled or only, say, food and production?
On a side note, is it possible to implemente a custom map or something with this yield change?

Any thoughts? I would be able to play MP way more if the 6ppl FFA game lasted 1-2h.

Need server based games for one. However games would still take 3-5 hours with a server. Civilization is not a quick game and it won't ever be. I'm afraid you probably should just look towards AoE or Company of Heroes for a better strategy game.

 

[Catan_Settler]

I think another possible solution would be breaks, or votes to allow breaks. You know, every 2 hours everyone can afk for 10 or 15 minutes. Or what if the system would detect AFKs (your computer can do this.. if you haven't moved your mouse or touched a key for over a minute, you are AFK) and automatically end their turn. Just a few tweaks around AFKs would probably be plenty. Personally I don't think they can really speed up a game of this scope, and even quick speed feels like you pass through the ages way to fast as it is. So, rather I'd see some tweaks to the game accepting of the fact that ROBOTS aren't the one playing it but HUMANS who need to go to the bathroom, get a snack, go for a smoke, etc once in a while. What makes it tedious is there is no concept of this reality in the game, so people just ninja AFK all the time and everyone is stuck waiting and waiting for them to end turn. It's just silly, if you think about it.

 

[Amivit]

Yeah "Vote for break", or being able to set predetermined 20 minute break every 2 hours, which players can vote to skip, or AI taking over AFK. Lots of things could be done! But I'm personally really new to Civilization, so I'm not how it would be best implemented.

 

[douglas125]

Need server based games for one. However games would still take 3-5 hours with a server. Civilization is not a quick game and it won't ever be. I'm afraid you probably should just look towards AoE or Company of Heroes for a better strategy game.

Well, I'm a fan of the Civ series and BNW in particular is quite amazing.

I still think that superquick speeds are viable in MP... at least it is better than not being able to play MP at all. As everyone else mentioned, humans need a break every so often.

It seems that the multiplayer possibility is just a side feature to the game, which is a shame... I want to lose to a AI that plays by the same rules and wins with strategy. It's not going to be perfect, but how many times have you seen the AI suicide a great general? All the time....

Anyways, at this point, it appears to me that the 2 most viable options are

1 - Superquick speed;

2 - Late era start.

I'm not switching games, I love BNW =]

All ideas welcome.....

 

[Luckystrike77]

If you have only one hour to spend you play another game then Civ, simple as that. Nothing is more irritating then players that has to leave during game, People that show little respect for others by joining a game they have no time to finish.

Civ is more long term strategy then a thypical RTS. RTS isn't very strategical at all by the way, more a tactical game representing just one big battle, and that's it.

Duels and teamer games are more like the RTS-kind of game, and alot faster. That's of course an alternative for few hours games.

 

[tommynt]

Civ is more long term strategy then a thypical RTS. RTS isn't very strategical at all by the way, more a tactical game representing just one big battle, and that's it.

Duels and teamer games are more like the RTS-kind of game, and alot faster. That's of course an alternative for few hours games.

now come on this is getting pathetic.

game goes from strategic into tactical if there are ingame alliances instead pregames ones? REALLY?
So all strategy u can think off is making alliances?
I can tell you - there is more to civ as that - but maybe u have to start play better players to recognise ...

@Douglas:
u dont need other players to "trade" you can send caravans also to CS, and get lux from them. So just add few CS if u want duel or play teamers

 

[whiplash27]

Just play only with people you know. Problem solved .

 

[CanuckSoldier]

It is not that hard to keep game times to 4 hours or less. It is all in the settings. Just chose smaller map sizes, play only Humans. Use quick speed. Simultaneous turns so everyone plays at the same time. etc. Yes if you don't taylor your games like this then yes Civ can be very long games, but MP is not like SP, other players are generally not going to sit down for 8 hours at a time, definitely not random internet players. So to play MP like you do SP you are definitely going to have to gather friends and other dedicated players into long weekend games.

CS

 

[CraigMak]

I would suggest setting the turn timer to 1 minute maximum. It makes the turns go by much faster and all players must become accustomed to thinking on their feet as opposed to mulling over every decision they make. It's a lot like playing speed chess.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

You can also play later era starts too, that would take away from the slow ancient starts and the changes to lux/money in BNW.

CS

 

[BuilderFTW]

You can also play later era starts too, that would take away from the slow ancient starts and the changes to lux/money in BNW.

CS

Yea deffinately give a later era start a try. I am a fan of industrial because that is when tourism, ideologies and the world congress really start to kick in.


Alternatively, you could play Civilization Revolution

 

[Vathris]

I've played legendary amounts of MP in this game, so I know how you feel.

IMHO, Civilization 5 is an incredible multiplayer experience, exactly BECAUSE it requires that kind of investment. The old adage of "you get back what you put in" describes how Civ 5 is so rewarding as well as demanding. Games that require little investment yield little satisfaction.

You may think Starcraft 2 is low-investment compared to Civ 5, and in terms of match length it's true, but think about the herculean effort needed to just attain basic competence at that game. The very high investment level is what makes it an amazing game to play and even watch OTHERS play. Conversely, I doubt the existence of a thriving "tic-tac-toe" scene.

I've never had real complaints about the length of NQ matches as long as you're clear about what you want. 6 players, 6 hours, or one afternoon. Often the games are closer to 4 which is the time it takes for dinner and a movie on Friday night.

There are various ways to make the length easier on yourself.

IDEAS

1. Get more involved in the game.

Counter-intuitively, the hardest games to sit through are the ones where you are just clicking the "next turn" button. To make it easier on yourself, spend the countdowns looking at the wealth of info panels this game has, planning out strategy on paper, micromanaging your citizens and giving the game more of your attention in general. Treat lag or long turns as planning time instead of downtime, have your next moves in mind when the turn starts.

2. Read a book.

If you don't want to take the first approach, Civ 5 games offer an excellent opportunity to get reading in. Sometimes your civilization isn't growing, it's dying, and losing in Civilization can feel like dying of tuberculosis compared to the neck-snapping speed of defeat in games like Starcraft. I use such times to read library books on world history. Right now I've been working through "The Aztecs" by Richard F. Townsend, and got good reading in as I was fighting a losing war as Assyria. The new "turn alert" sound alerts you when it's a new turn, making it simple and easy to read between turns.

3. Save the game.

There are NQ groups that split games over 2 or 3 days through saving and reloading. It's up to you whether making appointments for a video game beats just finishing the game in one go. If you were to choose this option I recommend you do it with people you know and can trust to be there.

4. Pick your games.

This ties into the first rule. If it's not a game you are excited about playing, it's not going to feel worth the effort 300 turns in. Making sure you are playing with competent players, not randoms, taking the time to find a good host and ping times. If you're not choosy about which games you play and when, you're going to have to sit through a few games with incompetent players, turn lag, needlessly long countdowns and inefficient reloads, all which can make a normal game feel LONG.

5. Don't make it about winning.

Out of 6 civilizations, one is going to win a given game. When it's clear that's not going to be you, make like Italy and just back stronger powers. If I can't win the game, I'm going to help the player I most want to win. The player power blocs that form after World Congress are the single greatest equalizing factor against a runaway civ. Any tiny nation can help in a war effort by managing a small, elite navy or air force, or funneling resources to an ally that needs it. Remember, if you establish communication and trust with other civs, you can be spared the painful boredom of everyone losing alone because no-one bothered to strike up talks between the weaker empires. If everyone tries to scramble to the top on their own steam, even when it's clear it's not happening for everyone, the Modern era is going to go by at a glacial pace.

That said, the single greatest practical factor in the game length itself is how fast everyone clicks "next turn." If someone (and you KNOW who you are) is letting the timer run on and on over dozens of turns without needing to, it can easily add hours to the game. Play with people that finish their turns promptly, and plan your actions ahead of time. Hope that helped.