For fairer MP game

[KiffeLesBiffles]

Even if you do all you can to remove it (no ruins, no barbs, same civ), luck still have a place in MP game. All MP player have already lose a game due to bad luck. For instance, opponent get great natural wonders (el Dorado, Foutain, Cerro) or just have a better place for his cap.

I know the law of great number smooth the luck curve after a large number of game, but I would like to see some more options to remove this randomess in Civ 5. Some options suggestions :

- Mirror maps for duel and teamers.
- "No natural wonders" maps.

There already exist some maps who remove a part of the luck (Noth vs south, 4 corner, east vs west), they should push this principle further.

Moreover, in MP, we agree sometimes for the "no india" rules while playing random civ: if someone get India, we reload. We should also be able to do something for that.

 

[Tabarnak]

Moreover, in MP, we agree sometimes for the "no india" rules while playing random civ: if someone get India, we reload.

Nobody wants to go tall?

 

[Silverfuturist]

Nobody wants to go tall?

First off... 3x3 teamer combat = amazing. Big armies clashing. Invasion/defense, super fun.

The teamers pick skirmish maps, I think many situations rolling India is losing, like:
Industrial start, 3 settlers + get 4th with Liberty. Roll India, get -7 unhappy right away. Stick with 3 cities and suffer production penalty along with happy struggle, cuz with that start the other team is right there.

I do think if the teamers are rerolling with India, they should reroll if El Dorado or FOY appear... I played a team game where they had both, and our team could really feel the difference (lost that one.) 10 free happy right away is so powerful... doesn't include double healing promotion.

The teamers are rerolling with India... but they don't reroll if one side gets 3 civs that rock on a certain map/setting and the other team gets a "weak" blend for the map/setting.

I played a game where the teamers picked civs, but both teams picked France/Rome for their ancient start, it is kind of bland to have same.

Maybe... when the teams are picked, do a mirror on picking. For a 3x3 the 2 highest "ranked" players are captains, one captian gets first pick of teammate, next captain gets next 2. Maybe pick civs in the same way, allowing no duplicate civs?

 

[Kyp Durron]

Healing powers of the the fountain would only make a difference if it was a front line city I think. In that game, it was as far back as possible almost.

 

[KiffeLesBiffles]

First off... 3x3 teamer combat = amazing. Big armies clashing. Invasion/defense, super fun.

The teamers pick skirmish maps, I think many situations rolling India is losing, like:
Industrial start, 3 settlers + get 4th with Liberty. Roll India, get -7 unhappy right away. Stick with 3 cities and suffer production penalty along with happy struggle, cuz with that start the other team is right there.

I do think if the teamers are rerolling with India, they should reroll if El Dorado or FOY appear... I played a team game where they had both, and our team could really feel the difference (lost that one.) 10 free happy right away is so powerful... doesn't include double healing promotion.

The teamers are rerolling with India... but they don't reroll if one side gets 3 civs that rock on a certain map/setting and the other team gets a "weak" blend for the map/setting.

I played a game where the teamers picked civs, but both teams picked France/Rome for their ancient start, it is kind of bland to have same.

Maybe... when the teams are picked, do a mirror on picking. For a 3x3 the 2 highest "ranked" players are captains, one captian gets first pick of teammate, next captain gets next 2. Maybe pick civs in the same way, allowing no duplicate civs?

Even if you pick civ, or you do mirror civ, it still exist one random factor: the position.
in a 2v2, you have usualy one guy in the front, and another back. if you pick a military oriented civ - Japan for instance - and a devlopment or wonder oriented civ - Egypt for instance, the two configuration are VERY different. Egypt in the front line is weak, Japan is strong, at the contrary, Japan Ability are useless in the back...
And despite civs, players level are also important, the strongest and fastest should be infront.
Maybe they should put a option on that as well.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Being able to pick Civ placements was an idea explored for Civ4 BTS but it never worked out, not sure why maybe the limitations of python. Hasn't been an issue in Civ5 so far because the game has so many bigger problems in MP that the issues of large teamers just has not happened yet. Maybe if they solve the issues with MP and start getting 5v5 teamers, we can get this option in a patch....

CS

 

[Silverfuturist]

Healing powers of the the fountain would only make a difference if it was a front line city I think. In that game, it was as far back as possible almost.

The free +10 happy is key real imbalance - that makes a huge difference, checking the demographics I could see some kind of Frankenstein Civ in first for several categories, way above what the rest of my team's civs stats.

 

[Silverfuturist]

Even if you pick civ, or you do mirror civ, it still exist one random factor: the position.
in a 2v2, you have usualy one guy in the front, and another back. if you pick a military oriented civ - Japan for instance - and a devlopment or wonder oriented civ - Egypt for instance, the two configuration are VERY different. Egypt in the front line is weak, Japan is strong, at the contrary, Japan Ability are useless in the back...
And despite civs, players level are also important, the strongest and fastest should be infront.
Maybe they should put a option on that as well.

You got that right! In the France/Rome vs Rome/France 2x2, I was Rome and in back, and my teammate France was in front... for the other team it was the reverse. We ended up fielding a lot of swords because we didn't have time for France to send warriors backwards for me to upgrade.

 

[tommynt]

It s all about the players, every1 can arrange whatever rules they like.

Usually noobs will favour luck settings - as they know they need luck to win while good players favour settings with less luck involved.

So noobs play with: rnd civs, barbs, ruins, weired maps, CS and big maps (the bigger the map the bigger the chance to survive longer)

Good players will usually prefer a simple setting and the better the players the more they are bored of anc (have played this often enough allready) and will favour playing later era starts.
Same was in civ 3 and civ4 aswell: after game was like 2 years old, very few mp games been anc but more and more later eras or totaly different settings (like occ f.e. or quickciv).

Its just a skill/experience invovement - sure there will allways be new players/noobs favouring the huge earthmap with neverending games, but that like in evolution - some apes did stay apes, while other grow and ended up being humans

 

[Vathris]

I think mirror maps defeat the point of this game but that's just me. Adapting and capitalizing on what you have is a large part of this game.

You can get screwed on iron or expansion prospects, and it's definitely a drag to force yourself to finish a game when you've got yucky land and city placement, but I guess you just have to roll with it.

I find team games are a lot more fun in general. Even if you're scraping for gold and population you can focus on being auxiliary to your more powerful allies and it leads to some fun micromanaging of small armies and economic contributions.

For example, when you have 2 Sipahi as your army, those Sipahi are going to be used to their maximum effectiveness in raiding and surprise attacks in conjunction with the main push, because you have lots of time to focus on their use. Perhaps sailing them around the continent and pillaging the enemy at home?

My two cents...