How important is for you a decent multiplayer mode

[bossconian]

It is obvious not only for me that the current implementation of multiplayer mode is as bad as a spit into your face. What they basically did was copying and pasting the civ IV code with very poor result. The game is much less stable / prone to crash and lags / unbearably slow. They decided to stick to the p2p way of communication - the main source of all problems during the game. Also not only haven't they added any game admin functionality but streamlined the product to the extent you no longer are able to see who is lagging, chat in the lobby or see what the map of a new game is.

I tend to compare the multiplayer mode to the one implemented in the already 4 years old game "World in Conflict" . It is a RTS game with a great lobby, ranking system, centralized and manageable serves, in game voting functionality, voice chat... Just perfect and everything out of the box! Not a NASA technology - just a decent multiplayer.


In my opinion they did very little to attract people to even try this mode. Poor interface , laggy and prone to crashes games, hassle it is to join / reload the game, no ranking system and absolute lack of game manageability sum up into a very bad "first game" experience.

However this is the only mode where AI flaws never matter (unless somebody quits). It is totally different game in areas of diplomacy and strategy. You play against human ! It's been never so great fun to conquer a civ opponent and it's been never so deeply upsetting when you get defeated. The constant flow of adrenaline throughout the game makes you sweat swear and shout.

Surly, during one of strategic meetings at firaxis/2k they decided to not waste any time, resources and money on creation of a decent multiplayer mode in civ V. They designated only one guy (you can see his name in credits) to do the job. I think they made the decision basing on the civ IV multiplayer statistics where you can find in the best case 200-300 users at the time. That's nothing comparing to the millions of sold copies. So who cares ?

So say now how important, or not, it is to have a decent multiplayer mode for you?

edit:

Just one more word about the very last choice u see in the pool. I only play multiplayer mode. It turns that it takes me on average 10-20 hours a week of which at least half of the time is wasted due game crashes, lags, reloads, idiots you can't kick etc. So I'm ready to spend $40/month to save half the time or to have twice as long fun when playing civ IV multiplayer. Yes I'm ready to pay $40/month for civ IV. Civ V multi is unplayable at all imho.

 

[Ivan Groznyi]

I've never played a multiplayer Civilization game, so not at all. I don't think that multiplayer has ever been a high priority for Civilization, but I'm sure they'll fix it eventually. It probably would have been better to just leave it out for the time being if it's so disfunctional.

 

[CV-110]

I'd be interested in PBEM. I'm not a good player, and play too slowly for real-time multi.

 

[Beef Hammer]

I really don't see how multiplayer works for TBS games, never tried it and never really want to.

 

[noncognosco]

I've never played a multiplayer Civilization game, so not at all. I don't think that multiplayer has ever been a high priority for Civilization, but I'm sure they'll fix it eventually. It probably would have been better to just leave it out for the time being if it's so disfunctional.

I agree with all of this

 

[sharkles]

Doesn't seem very popular, and even though I only play about one multiplayer game for every ten single player ones, I agree the lag is too widespread not to address.
I've never really liked the gamespy service either.

 

[Oerdin]

The AI will never be as good as a human and the current AI is atrociously bad so the only way to make the game enjoyable and have high replay value would be to have a good MP set up. Unfortunately, Civ5 MP is so bad there literally are hardly any players. Even Civ4 vanilla had active ladders and clans right from day 1 and most of those players bought Civ5 hoping they could do the same thing with that game but unfortunately Civ5 MP is barely functional. As a result there are no Civ5 active ladders or clans. It's just a dead game as far as MP goes.

 

[McLMan]

While I consider myself a solo player, I did enjoy a regular Saturday night BTS MP game (via direct ip) for a while. I wouldn't mind doing something like that now. I haven't tried playing Civ V MP yet because of all the issues I heard of.

 

[Tabarnak]

They need to fix it. If few people play multiplayer, it's probably because it doesn't run fine, and bring frustration. But multi addicts like me can lose hours of play just to hit some good games occasionnally. These games are priceless compared to singleplayer.

 

[Truthy]

Your poll options didn't meet my feelings on multi player. I wouldn't say that I absolutely don't care, but I don't think it is absolutely necessary. If there were a good multi player, then I would use it. Although, I am happy with single player.

 

[code9]

I played a few Civ4 games with friends on LAN, and simultaneous turn games were awesome. I wish that were possible now.

 

[lordsurya08]

If the AI was better I wouldn't care for MP. As Firaxis is unlikely to ever create a good AI, I want them to fix multi so that we have something to play.

 

[swordspider]

I actually am the swing side of things, I almost ONLY play multiplayer.

In the beginning it was pretty bad. Nowadays they have it where it is relatively playable without huge issues. Granted, there are still problems, but you can start and complete a full game now.

I just don't find playing the AI rewarding at all and I simply don't understand the appeal of giving yourself a handicap (aka raising the difficulty level) to try and make the AI somehow better. Playing a human is just so much more interesting and rewarding. The little things that human players do that an AI will never even think of are what makes multiplayer much more appealing.

When you lose to the AI, you are mad because the computer cheats. When you lose to a human, you get better.

 

[Luckystrike77]

I only play mp too. havent played single since Civ3. For a veteran like me, it's boring to play single, but pure fantastic to play mp. Civ5 is brilliant for mp gameplay, just a shame it is so damn unstable. It's in multiplayer all Civ games really has shined. I even played Civ 1 in hotseat mp. A mod made it possible.

I'm so addicted to Civ mp that i voted the last option, 40 bucks a month easely!

 

[He-Who-Hunts]

yah MP is a riot, the best games of my civ career have been online, I really wish this version was half as good as what they had for civ 4

 

[Sir Sir]

I bought CIV 5 to play turn based multiplayer LAN fun with my friends. And second to play it single player so I could beat my friends in it. The fact that MP CIV5 is not turn based and that feature is not in game has ment that we still havent played and that makes me a sad panda And even more now that ive more or less given up on the AI with regards to diplomacy and war (which wouldnt mean anything if I could play it MP)...Sad indeed as I speak for 5 people not on the boards :/ They don´t even play CIV5 anymore and we have all played since the first one and multi from the second one :/

 

[JoeBas]

No hotseat at all? WTH?...

 

[Deussu]

Despite me liking multiplayer a lot, I find it has a lot of things to be fixed. Right now the Civ5 multiplayer section is practically dominated by me, Tabarnak, Smote, swordspider, and MasterMishi. Really, 5 people on these boards actively post in that section ... :/

 

[Horizons]

Multiplayer in Civ5 is blatantly shoddy and we all know why, it's because Meier was too busy sitting on Facebook and conducting diplomacy via Twitter.

 

[Biz_]

i'm actually competent at these type of games

single player against dumbass computers who can't beat me after getting things like 1300% advantages just aren't entertaining