Firaxis never focus on multiplayer - get used to it

[CanuckSoldier]

I went back to cIV and the crashes and quitters are just as bad as V
V only needs to allow move after end turn and it is all good. Without this ladder games run the timer down every turn. 4 hours for a 90turn cton is gruelling at best. Ive had fun with it, but I will wait for this fix before returning to the league regularly. Open games are more fun for me, despite the noobs and quits, with earlier ending of turns and greater variety of games.

Yes people do tend to run the timer down, but if Firaxis allowed units to be moved after the " end turn" people would be less likely to do this.

MM, what do you mean that cooperation is CivPlayers is difficult? We are very easy to get along with, I seem to recall that I advertised your tournaments on CivPlayers with no problems, so I'm not sure were your coming from now......

CS

 

[ERNIBERT]

Forgive me my bad english. I speak of the FFA is not available in your league but in ours. If you always speak of a community but not a word from user FFA league. I'm going to do anything more for the community.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Nop roblem MM, people can play FFA's on CivPlayers, but unfortunately most people prefer not to get double teamed, which always seems to happen in full diplomancy FFAs. But I do miss FFA Epics that we had in the Civ3 days, but you do need players you can trust to not bring out of game friendships into the game.....

CS

 

[Smote]

Theres nothing wrong with double teaming. Good job to your opponent for good diplomacy.

 

[d3vil_b3rt]

I get what Canuck is saying.

My friend hosted a game and invited me in it. From the "get go" we decided to team up until it was just the 2 of us. We open borders, defended each other, gave reources free of charge to each other, and even made gold loans to each other. We didn't excercise good diplomacy to make it happen, we brought our "game friendships into the game" as Canuck has said.

It's really an unfair advantage to do what we did. So we decided to play it fair for the sake of FFA. If I remember correctly, our capitals were 10 hexes away from each other in the next game, and I sword rushed him. He didn't take it nicely, but in the end he was a good sport about it.

 

[Avs]

Civ5 MP is better than SP if it wasnt laggy and broken. Get used to hearing MP people want it fixed.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Theres nothing wrong with double teaming. Good job to your opponent for good diplomacy.

I have no problem with ingame diplomacy, but it should be based 100% on ingame geo-politics, not out of game friendships as Devil has stated happens alot. But that is the problem, unless you know the players you are playing with well and know they are honourable and won't make alliances based on out of game friendships, you are bound to get double or triple teamed by players for no good reason in the game. So basically you lost the game before it even started and your skill at in game diplomacy was totally useless.

So that is why most FFA on the league are Always War(Ctons, Cton being the lady that invented this style way back in the early Civ3 days), it's not a perfect solution of course and I would certainly enough using diplomacy once in a while but human nature being what it is in a competitive environment Always war games are likely going to remain the standard.

CS

 

[Smote]

Always war does not prevent two-teaming. It merely prevents trading luxuries. Even if two players decide before the game starts to ally with eachother, thats going to happen anyways, and in fact, its totally fine. Even if every other player allies vs me, thats ok too. Yes, I'm probably going to lose. Yes, I'm going to claim that the match was not a fair representation of skill. However, my opponents would by following this strategy have a higher chance of winning, and if one of them does a meta-strategy and backstabs his teammates, then he might have the highest chance of winning.

I guess the worst option would be if a bunch of players decide to kill one player, then all quit, because they don't care about individually winning, they just want that player to lose.

However, as long as a winner is recorded somewhere, I don't see this happening, because I think players will in fact want to win.

Free for alls are supposed to be cutthroat and devious. There is no "fair" in a massive brawl.

Also, when you consider all the other things that make a civ match unfair (start quality, map location (isolated vs not), ancient ruin quality, ancient ruin number, barbarian count), there is not much point trying to make a civ match perfectly fair. Its inherently unfair, and should be embraced as so!

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Always war does not prevent two-teaming. It merely prevents trading luxuries. Even if two players decide before the game starts to ally with eachother, thats going to happen anyways, and in fact, its totally fine. Even if every other player allies vs me, thats ok too. Yes, I'm probably going to lose. Yes, I'm going to claim that the match was not a fair representation of skill. However, my opponents would by following this strategy have a higher chance of winning, and if one of them does a meta-strategy and backstabs his teammates, then he might have the highest chance of winning.

I guess the worst option would be if a bunch of players decide to kill one player, then all quit, because they don't care about individually winning, they just want that player to lose.

However, as long as a winner is recorded somewhere, I don't see this happening, because I think players will in fact want to win.

Free for alls are supposed to be cutthroat and devious. There is no "fair" in a massive brawl.

Also, when you consider all the other things that make a civ match unfair (start quality, map location (isolated vs not), ancient ruin quality, ancient ruin number, barbarian count), there is not much point trying to make a civ match perfectly fair. Its inherently unfair, and should be embraced as so!

Your technically right, the games "Always War" hardcoded settings do not prevent double teaming. But CivPlayers has a set off rules on top off that that make any in game private communication and co-operation of any kind illegal, and that is the Always War style of play that Muffin Man and myself are talking about.

CS

 

[Colonel Bogey]

There's problems with both ffa and teams. Certainly outsside of a league double teaming happens as mentioned in ffa but equally annoying is setting up a team game only for someone to drop out really early on because of lag or their mum demanding they leave the pc for dinner.

As for MP in V, I haven't completed a game yet. I've had no success in launching any game above small map and when in game it is slooooow; not just people running down the timer but the game engine making between turn decisions and the communicating information between PCs I guess.

This invariably leads to at least one person leaving and AI takes over and from thereon in it goes even sloooooooooower until everyone has left and I'm playing SP against the AI sans animations.