"Cooking" multiplayer matches

[Silverfuturist]

I have recently transitioned over to MP, and I find matching wits against humans so much more fun and rewarding than getting victories over a moronic AI by exploiting game mechanics and relying on AI that can't wage war.

I like the multiplayer matches - adds another level to the free-for-all, which is also good. I saw one 3vs3 where the first team had already picked their civs: Egypt, England and France on an East vs West match. Nothing against them, who were smart enough to pick a team that could wonder spam, rule the water way, and quickly expand their half of the map. But on that map it seems no matter what the other team picked, they would be at a disadvantage. I can see why some hosts request "random civs," I like that idea.

I am also thinking that barbs and CS are turned off team matches because there are "exploits" like barb farming and using the CSs to get highly trained units?

How do people get into the groups where people don't quit? I lost my first MP, but stayed on until the end. I won a 6 player free for all, but 2 players left so it felt hollow because I got to take 2 "free" civs.

MP handle: eml-joe

 

[Luckystrike77]

I have recently transitioned over to MP, and I find matching wits against humans so much more fun and rewarding than getting victories over a moronic AI by exploiting game mechanics and relying on AI that can't wage war.

I like the multiplayer matches - adds another level to the free-for-all, which is also good. I saw one 3vs3 where the first team had already picked their civs: Egypt, England and France on an East vs West match. Nothing against them, who were smart enough to pick a team that could wonder spam, rule the water way, and quickly expand their half of the map. But on that map it seems no matter what the other team picked, they would be at a disadvantage. I can see why some hosts request "random civs," I like that idea.

I am also thinking that barbs and CS are turned off team matches because there are "exploits" like barb farming and using the CSs to get highly trained units?

How do people get into the groups where people don't quit? I lost my first MP, but stayed on until the end. I won a 6 player free for all, but 2 players left so it felt hollow because I got to take 2 "free" civs.

MP handle: eml-joe

Send me your steam name, and you'll be given a chance in the non quitter group. We have members both prefering teamer and ffa.

 

[Kyp Durron]

Send me a link to the group also (secondsaber87)

There's prolly someone in their who will vouch for Kyp Durron.

 

[MasterMishi]

the barbs cs on/ off debate divides many civers.
I agree that barbs and cs can be imbalanced due to their location as both sides can exploit them equally. However it is part of the game and exploiting them is too. And the randomness of map incorporates this element (east vs west prob the most balanced map for barbs cs on). However a quick free worker early from a cs and relatively few barbs can really give one team a game breaking advantage all other things being equal. This is why the league on civplayers always set barbs and cs off. Also the game runs quicker with them off, as less ai moves.
Also you can choose the same civs to even it up if you want to.

 

[Silverfuturist]

"Also you can choose the same civs to even it up if you want to."
Yea, you are right, I was new to multiplayer at the time. I also feel that the Egypt/England/France combo isn't all-powerful now either.

A problem I am seeing with random civs is that often is somebody who doesn't like what they rolled, so they quit right away.

Multiplayer is so much freaking fun, I can't believe I waited so long to try it out. It is like discovering the game all over again, without moronic AI. Those players who whine about stupid AI, research agreements, etc, need to take the plunge. Teams even better, sharing/planning adds another level of skill.

 

[Tabarnak]

A problem I am seeing with random civs is that often is somebody who doesn't like what they rolled, so they quit right away.

Multiplayer is so much freaking fun, I can't believe I waited so long to try it out. It is like discovering the game all over again, without moronic AI.

I do make games with random civs only. That way, nobody can complains.

I play only a few sp games and it's for GOTM and HoF competitions only. Again, i like to compare myself to humans. These games give passive competitions, but are still enough fun to play. At other times i never play a game in sp mode alone by myself. Too boring.

I do not play some game settings i don't like in mp like duels. I prefer longer games where you need to build something for long term decisions instead of the usual Liberty--->IW rush spamming we retrieve in duels. I like games with city states and barbs too. It forces players to not expand too fast and to think a bit more before moving troops away.

 

[Silverfuturist]

Good points, Tabarnak. The team games I have been joining are EastvsWest map, where IW rushing doesn't appear to work. From my limited experience, these games last at least until the industrial age.

 

[ddd123]

random civ makes no sense half the civs are total in multiplayer while 4 5 are good/op and the rest just playable

while make a strategic game based on brain a random roll game?

 

[Tabarnak]

random civ makes no sense half the civs are total in multiplayer while 4 5 are good/op and the rest just playable

while make a strategic game based on brain a random roll game?

It's just to add fun and try to win with what you get. Every civ has their advantages somewhere. The civs you talk about are the strongest early on. With some settings, games can take longer and propose some advantageous paths to sub-par civs.

Every civ can build archers and spearmen.

Well, you like or don't like. Same for everything else.

 

[ShahJahanII]

I have recently transitioned over to MP, and I find matching wits against humans so much more fun and rewarding than getting victories over a moronic AI by exploiting game mechanics and relying on AI that can't wage war.

I like the multiplayer matches - adds another level to the free-for-all, which is also good. I saw one 3vs3 where the first team had already picked their civs: Egypt, England and France on an East vs West match. Nothing against them, who were smart enough to pick a team that could wonder spam, rule the water way, and quickly expand their half of the map. But on that map it seems no matter what the other team picked, they would be at a disadvantage. I can see why some hosts request "random civs," I like that idea.

I am also thinking that barbs and CS are turned off team matches because there are "exploits" like barb farming and using the CSs to get highly trained units?

How do people get into the groups where people don't quit? I lost my first MP, but stayed on until the end. I won a 6 player free for all, but 2 players left so it felt hollow because I got to take 2 "free" civs.

MP handle: eml-joe

Count me in. My steam name is KingPtolemyIII. I usually play the game on Prince difficulty against the AI.

 

[ShahJahanII]

Send me your steam name, and you'll be given a chance in the non quitter group. We have members both prefering teamer and ffa.

Count me in. My Steam username is KingPtolemyIII and I usually play on Prince difficulty against the AI.

 

[tommynt]

I do make games with random civs only. That way, nobody can complains.

now that makes -1 sense, actually its other way round.

Also I wonder where u guys take time to do 3-3 games which end in indu age regularly and even with ais in (which lags game lot more).

A good/fun duel (with even players) can take up to 4 hours allready, thinking about a even longer game ...
no thx I got some life aswell

I do not play some game settings i don't like in mp like duels. I prefer longer games where you need to build something for long term decisions instead of the usual Liberty--->IW rush spamming we retrieve in duels.

If players are even skilled IW doesnt mean end of game - in fact its more like start of game.
Just cause u cant sit back on your ass like in sp, doesnt mean u cant play with medium/long term decisions, its more like that 98% of players just aint able to wage war/science/buildup and therefore complain if they put 100% into science and get killed.

Civ is about balancing.