Hybrid Multiplayer

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Enough about trolling and the like. Back to the topic please.

 

[Tasonne]

Moderator Action: Enough about trolling and the like. Back to the topic please.

Thank you.

 

[ajar1189]

Yes to be honest in a game like this sequential turns would probably be better than hybrid imo. In a 1v1 scenario there is probably going to be perma-war so it wouldn't make a difference, but in a game length of days or weeks the difference between sequential and hybrid is inconsequential. That being said it would probably be an interesting game to play, but I imagine that syncing up with your opponent(s) on a regular basis would be fairly difficult as everyone has their own schedule, etc.

 

[LordBalkoth]

Those who complain about simultaneous turns simply haven't gotten used to it.

I'm used to it and I still think simultaneous is idiotic -- a significant reason being that you can't select multiple units and have them do an action simultaneously...unlike *every* RTS game I have ever played. It also leads to people delaying their moves until the last few seconds of a turn in attempt to prevent the other playing from being able to react. And so on. Civ V is simply not designed for simultaneous turns.

It's still a turn based game where you get to take your time making decisions. In an FFA combat is a very small portion of the game unless you're playing with complete idiots who like to go to war in an FFA.

If it's such a small part of the game, then what's the problem with Hybrid? I mean, if maybe 15 minutes out of 5 hours (or give me numbers more related to what you're saying) are spent in combat, then even a six person FFA game where *everyone* DoWs on everyone else at that point (just to trigger the worst case scenario) it only changes the game from 300 minutes to 375 minutes. If you're already investing 5 hours into a game does making sure the "climax/pay-off/etc" is as fair as can be by investing another hour *really* make that big of a difference? Hell, in most games people seem to concede if it's clear someone gets a massive edge anyway.

And that's actually pessimistic: because people don't feel the need to troll the turn timer then each turn will go by faster than it otherwise would.

In a duel or teamer it is mainly a war game.

You keep trying to enforce this on everyone like it's some sort of rule

Get this through your head: many people like to play Civ V in multiplayer (including on teams) very similarly to how they play Civ V in single player (except with people as the other Civs rather than AIs). You can argue that it's non-optimal all you want and insist that they should instantly be declaring war and doing everything they can to sabotage the other team and so on...but that doesn't change the fact many people have no desire to play that way.

You take one game out of context and assume I play the same way all the time.

No, I just assume you're a jerk in general given your behavior in that game.

Let's imagine things had gone differently. Pretend you hadn't switched the teams at the last second and once we loaded you said in team chat "Okay, let's spam out cities and try to win an early game war." I would have said "Eh, whatever, I can roll with that."

But you did switch the teams.

Now let's pretend that when I pointed this out you had said "Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to surprise you -- we messed up and didn't have the teams right at the start." I would have said "Eh, whatever, it's fine."

But instead you insulted me and said I was an idiot.

Now let's pretend you had moved in that army near my southern city and then waited a few seconds to hit turn. Things would have been fine -- I'd have fired a city shot, archer shot, switched production on some stuff, etc.

But you instantly ended your turn (when you could see both my teammate and I had done so as well) and tried to take advantage of the turn timer to get in a "free" move.

So no, I don't assume that in a 6-8 person FFA on Pangaea/Continents that you try to mass expand and early war with Liberty. But I do assume that your personal behavior/attitude would be constant, even if your playstyle isn't.

There is no reason why the simultaneous players would have to wait for all the sequential players to finish their turns before starting their own, and only having turns last two turn timers' worth of time instead of three is huge for people who want to finish games the day they are started.

This is true. That said, you're also making the mistake of assuming everyone is trying to finish the games the day they are started. I often have several games running with multiple combinations of friends that we play an hour or two of when we can.

Why don't you play sequential then?

a lot of peacetime clickspamming can still take place: founding pantheons, founding religions, getting first or second ideology, sending up spaceship parts, grabbing an ancient ruins before someone else, blocking someone's units with your scouts, etc.

Well, to point out the obvious, on sequential the "tie" would *always* go to the host (or lowest numbered player among the people getting the tie). Worst case scenario the non-host players at least have a *chance* at this stuff. So it's actually fairer in that sense.

The times where you actually get a tie like that also only happen a few times a game at most and sometimes never happen. It doesn't doesn't fundamentally change how you play the religion aspect, ideology aspect, science victory aspect, etc -- while simultaneous warfare completely changes several things.

The main problem with hybrid mode is that it does not work properly for its intended audience: turn times simply take too long with the current hybrid mode for the simultaneous mode players who it was meant for.

*shrug*

I know many people who are perfectly happy with Hybrid but who don't want purely Sequential and hate Simultaneous. People who never posted on this forum, mind you.

This is also why I believe that Hybrid mode's "fix" lies in fiddling with turn timers: if you can get game lengths down to a reasonable time, it will be worth it for simultaneous players.

How do turn timers matter here? There's no advantage to waiting out the turn timer on Hybrid, might as well get everything done as fast as possible.

Likewise, if all possible issues of peacetime clickspam advantage are fixed (very easy for things like first religion, very difficult for things like stealing ruins), it will be worth it for sequential players.

How would you fix that without making people very, very concerned with lobby position or whatever? Internally flip a coin on a given turn "sequence" to determine who is allowed to pick the pantheon or whatever in case of a tie? How would that work for ideologies given that you can still pick them on the same turn (unlike a pantheon)?

I just don't know if that's reasonably fixable without doing something like allowing multiple people to have the same pantheon/religious beliefs (potentially only if chosen on the same turn) or same number of bonus of ideology beliefs (if chosen on the same turn).

Yes to be honest in a game like this sequential turns would probably be better than hybrid imo. In a 1v1 scenario there is probably going to be perma-war so it wouldn't make a difference

If I thought the games would be perma-war (or if they wound up purely being that) then I would just start using simultaneous. However, games with my friends haven't turned out to be perma-war and we'll see how these games go.

 

[Delnar_Ersike]

This is true. That said, you're also making the mistake of assuming everyone is trying to finish the games the day they are started. I often have several games running with multiple combinations of friends that we play an hour or two of when we can.

Shorter turns are shorter turns: it doesn't matter if you want to finish a game in a day or over the course of a week, shorter turns mean you get to fit more turns into whatever fixed timeframe you have.

Well, to point out the obvious, on sequential the "tie" would *always* go to the host (or lowest numbered player among the people getting the tie). Worst case scenario the non-host players at least have a *chance* at this stuff. So it's actually fairer in that sense.

Yes, sequential definitely could be fairer if turn order was not constant (eg. via randomization or a round robin system).
The system might not be as fair in sequential, but it's predictable. If you know someone is going to get first ideology with Oxford Radio on the same turn as you would, you'll know ahead of time which of you will have the advantage, so you don't have to worry about clicking the "Choose Ideology" notification as quickly as possible when it eventually happens. Even if slot 1 always has the advantage and slot 6 or 8 is always at a disadvantage, no player has to worry about having to click fast to get what they want.

The times where you actually get a tie like that also only happen a few times a game at most and sometimes never happen. It doesn't doesn't fundamentally change how you play the religion aspect, ideology aspect, science victory aspect, etc -- while simultaneous warfare completely changes several things.

I'd argue it does fundamentally change both the religion aspect and the ideology aspect.
Thanks to the incredibly powerful Tithe, Pagodas, Mosques, and Religious Community, first religion is massively better than second religion, second religion is a lot better than third religion. If you are not guaranteed first religion when you generate a prophet when no religions are founded, people are almost required to click through their religion selection popup as fast as they can to make sure nobody beats them to same-turning first religion. In particular, Byzantines, a civ that often relies on a good religion, is much slower at clicking through the popup dialog because they need to select a bonus belief as well. I've had many cases where I, as Byzantines, would have gotten first religion if I did not need to click through bonus beliefs in addition to Tithe + Pagodas (the other player's religion was founded while I was scrolling through Bonus Beliefs). Having to rush through belief choices means you have less time to think about those choices.
The effect is much smaller for ideologies because you only need 3 clicks instead of 9 clicks with a bit of scrolling, but it's still there: players must be ready to pounce at the Choose Ideology button the turn it goes up if they want their free.
Being forced to speed through your religion and ideology decisions changes the way those decisions are made, therefore they fundamentally change how you play those aspects. For example, a player doesn't have time to think through whether Tithe is really worth it to them more than Church Property or Initiation Rites, both in terms of gold and in terms denying opponents Tithe.

I know many people who are perfectly happy with Hybrid but who don't want purely Sequential and hate Simultaneous. People who never posted on this forum, mind you.

I can see that, Hybrid is serviceable, after all. It definitely is not as good as it should be, though, and I wager that there are a lot more people who prefer simultaneous over hybrid or sequential over hybrid than there are people who prefer hybrid the most.

How do turn timers matter here? There's no advantage to waiting out the turn timer on Hybrid, might as well get everything done as fast as possible.

Turn timers are a rough representation of how long turns take. What I meant to say was that having one extra person take their turn sequentially when they could be taking it simultaneously with other players increases the time between turns unnecessarily, so getting turn times, "turn timers", down is the way to improve Hybrid for what I perceive as the intended audience of players who would play simultaneous over sequential.

How would you fix that without making people very, very concerned with lobby position or whatever? Internally flip a coin on a given turn "sequence" to determine who is allowed to pick the pantheon or whatever in case of a tie? How would that work for ideologies given that you can still pick them on the same turn (unlike a pantheon)?

I just don't know if that's reasonably fixable without doing something like allowing multiple people to have the same pantheon/religious beliefs (potentially only if chosen on the same turn) or same number of bonus of ideology beliefs (if chosen on the same turn).

Randomizer works, but is unpredictable and gives players the chance to double move over others. Round robin would also work, doesn't allow for double moves, and is predictable, but is a bit harder to program and lengthens game turns: turn order shifts after each turn, with the first move player getting a chance to move their units after everyone else to make sure nobody gets to double move on him when he shifts to last move the next turn (movement points don't regenerate, they just get a chance to move units who still have movement points when the turn was ended).

Ideologies, pantheons, and religions would all work by only triggering for the next player in the turn order. To make sure people don't abuse first religion by choosing it at the last second with a turn timer, the turn timer would be pushed back by the time it took the previous player to found religion/pantheon/ideology each time the next player is given the chance to found their religion/pantheon/ideology.

 

[ajar1189]

The overarching problem here is how hybrid and simultaneous modes are executed.

If hybrid was done so that exclusive war parties took turns simultaneously, it would significantly cut down on individual "downtime" during games. So instead of there being a turn for non-warring parties, then one for each individual warring party, you're looking at essentially just two turns (non-warring + Party A on one turn, and Party B on another). This would be expanded to additional turns only in cases where there are 3 or more people all at war with each other (or 2v1v1, 2v1v2, etc). Optimizations like this would make hybrid more enticing and would personally make me want to play it.

In terms of simultaneous game-play, see the following excerpt from Galactic Civilizations 3 FAQ:

Q: Do you have anything to speed up multiplayer play? Turn-based games can take forever.

A: We use what we call "simultaneous planning, sequential execution." So you can queue up all your orders, from colony management to research direction, ideological choices to fleet movement, and they'll execute as soon as your turn comes up and you hit the button. Crucially, you always have a chance to re-evaluate the situation before any of your orders are carried out.
You can also set options when you create a game to have research, production, etc. happen at a faster pace.

Granted, I haven't played Galactic Civilizations 3, but ff something like this were implemented properly in Civ's simultaneous multiplayer mode then simultaneous mode would be a whole lot better and there would be more people willing to play it.

 

[Delnar_Ersike]

GalCiv3 does not have 1UPT or ZOC, which is why it can do this. In Civ5, a single enemy unit moving one tile to the left might completely screw up your units' pathing.

notque has said that he's started working on making Hybrid mode work a bit better:

I've started work on improving Hybrid mode. It currently works like this.

player 1, and 2 not at war, player 3 and player 4 at war, player 5 and player 6 at war.

Player 1 and 2 play simel turn. Then player 3 sequential, player 4 seq, player 5 seq, player 6 seq.

Instead I am trying to make it go..

Player 1, 2, 3, and 5 Simel
Player 4 and player 6 Simel.

 

[ajar1189]

GalCiv3 does not have 1UPT or ZOC, which is why it can do this. In Civ5, a single enemy unit moving one tile to the left might completely screw up your units' pathing.

Even with 1UPT and ZoC you can still have this method in place. Players just have to be aware of ZoC and path appropriately, effectively anticipating their opponents moves. If they do not anticipate correctly, their unit will not end where they wanted and instead end where ZoC dictates. There are other workarounds as well that could be implemented, but it would still result in an overall positive change for the game if it could be done.

 

[Gort]

Yeah, hybrid mode sounded good to me until I found out that it turned sequential when humans went to war with AIs, and that you couldn't do ANYTHING when it wasn't your turn, even benign stuff like changing your research.

Now I just play simultaneous with a gentleman's agreement that the aggressor moves all their military units first, says "done" and then the defender moves theirs. All the advantages of simultaneous and sequential at the same time.

 

[LordBalkoth]

I'd argue it does fundamentally change both the religion aspect and the ideology aspect.

No, it doesn't. You still try to get faith in the same manner you would otherwise. You still try for Ideologies in the same manner you would otherwise. And in most games you'll never have a tie anyway (pantheon is the only case that I've seen happen a few times).

Being forced to speed through your religion and ideology decisions changes the way those decisions are made, therefore they fundamentally change how you play those aspects. For example, a player doesn't have time to think through whether Tithe is really worth it to them more than Church Property or Initiation Rites, both in terms of gold and in terms denying opponents Tithe.

Yes, they do have time on the turn(s) before. You can see which religious beliefs have been chosen (if any). You can see who's picked what Ideology (if any). You don't need time to ponder these decisions on the turn they pop up. If you didn't have access to this information then I'd agree with you but you should know BEFORE the turn starts what beliefs you want or what Ideology you want to pick.

I can see that, Hybrid is serviceable, after all. It definitely is not as good as it should be, though, and I wager that there are a lot more people who prefer simultaneous over hybrid or sequential over hybrid than there are people who prefer hybrid the most.

I have never met anyone who wanted to do Sequential over Hybrid except possibly you. Though I would definitely expect that among people who usually try to do one session games that they'd strongly prefer Simultaneous over Hybrid, for understandable reasons.

I also expect that people who generally war less are more open for Hybrid -- personally I'm already sick of Crossbowman and Frigate Spam in multiplayer games. Combat just isn't interesting pre-Modern Era when you literally just spam the best unit.

At least once you hit Modern Era you have Battleships, Submarines, and Carriers on the ocean and Infantry, Artillery, AA, Paratroopers, and Tanks on land (plus Fighters/Bombers in both environments). You actually need a mix of units and need to figure out what your opponent is trying to do.

What I meant to say was that having one extra person take their turn sequentially when they could be taking it simultaneously with other players increases the time between turns unnecessarily, so getting turn times, "turn timers", down is the way to improve Hybrid for what I perceive as the intended audience of players who would play simultaneous over sequential.

Sure. And I absolutely agree that the system could be improved in that way.

Ideologies, pantheons, and religions would all work by only triggering for the next player in the turn order. To make sure people don't abuse first religion by choosing it at the last second with a turn timer, the turn timer would be pushed back by the time it took the previous player to found religion/pantheon/ideology each time the next player is given the chance to found their religion/pantheon/ideology.

That could work. Obviously a significant change that probably won't ever happen, though. I do wonder whether the benefit is worth the ensuing lobby wars, though. Maybe if later places in the lobby gave some kind of minor bonus to compensate to "losing" on stuff like this? Again, won't ever happen but would be nice.

Now I just play simultaneous with a gentleman's agreement that the aggressor moves all their military units first, says "done" and then the defender moves theirs. All the advantages of simultaneous and sequential at the same time.

Well, you still have the spam click for pantheon/religion/ideology problem

But yes, that kind of agreement would basically nullify the desire for hybrid. Problem is that most (or at least many) people in public lobbies wouldn't abide by that, so adapting it to a larger scale wouldn't really work, I think.

 

[TheSaxonPrince]

Hey guys, very interested in getting some MP action in there if people are interested. Would like to only play hybrid.

Cheers,

Saxon

 

[Delnar_Ersike]

You can anticipate ideologies the turn before, but you given the random nature of prophet spawns, you cannot really anticipate whether you'll get a prophet the next turn. The ties I've had are usually first, second pantheon, first religion, and second religion. Let's not forget ruins steals, either.

For the record, I would prefer Hybrid over Sequential for non-PBEM-style games. I said that people who play Hybrid would ideally prefer Simultaneous over Sequential. My question was that if people are so concerned about same turning someone in combat that they would never play Simultaneous, would they not be concerned enough about same turning in general to wish to avoid Hybrid as well? Remember, the OP said they never want to play simultaneous, not that they would rather not play it (ie. they are willing to play it if it meant playing with a good group, but would rather play Hybrid when given the possibility).

As for competing over lobby slots, a Round Robin system like the one I mentioned could alleviate that: turn order rotates each turn, with the first player in the turn order getting a chance to move any units with remaining movement after the turn is over but before the next turn begins. This means everyone gets a chance to be the first player, nobody gets the chance to double move against another player (thanks primarily to the ability for the person who will go last next turn to move eligible units before the next turn begins but after everyone else has already moved), and turn order is not randomized, so players can neither be blessed nor screwed over by RNG.

 

[LordBalkoth]

You can anticipate ideologies the turn before, but you given the random nature of prophet spawns, you cannot really anticipate whether you'll get a prophet the next turn.

You know when there's a chance to start spawning it. You know what beliefs have been picked at the end of each turn.

...ergo you can know what beliefs you want in case a prophet spawns next turn.

The ties I've had are usually first, second pantheon, first religion, and second religion. Let's not forget ruins steals, either.

I've honestly never seen anything beyond first/second pantheon and maybe a ruin or two. That doesn't mean the other stuff doesn't happen, just that the actual percentage of times it happens is pretty low.

My question was that if people are so concerned about same turning someone in combat that they would never play Simultaneous, would they not be concerned enough about same turning in general to wish to avoid Hybrid as well?

Except the other same turning stuff is a hell of a lot rarer (don't even see it at all in some games). It's also a few one-off events worst case, not a constant thing like combat.

As for competing over lobby slots, a Round Robin system like the one I mentioned could alleviate that:

Well, if Firaxis decides to implement it then maybe it could be used. I'm not holding my breath, though.

 

[Gort]

I reckon that the military stuff is about a hundred times more important than people grabbing pantheons/ideologies/ruins... but you could easily resolve those with a coin toss. I've done that for ruins before.

 

[Delnar_Ersike]

Well, if Firaxis decides to implement it then maybe it could be used. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Why wait for Firaxis when the game's source code comes with the SDK? A decent programmer familiar with the source code could probably implement this system within 2 weeks. The rotation of slots is actually quite easy, since the game already has something similar for randomizing the slots of the AI players. The harder part would be letting the player in the first slot get another chance to move with their units after everyone else has ended their turn, though I do roughly know of a way to implement that without much fuss (basically just "unend" the first slot player turn after everyone ends their turn and rewind the turn timer).

 

[ajar1189]

I reckon that the military stuff is about a hundred times more important than people grabbing pantheons/ideologies/ruins... but you could easily resolve those with a coin toss. I've done that for ruins before.

I dont think this is true. Getting a strong pantheon can define your game (any of the extra faith generating pantheons spring to mind). Additionally, getting an ideology first can give you a significant advantage, as a free policy (or two) can be huge if you aren't generating much culture or if cultural heritage sites hasn't been passed (or if you don't have many wonders). Finally, ruins usually don't make a huge difference, but they can make a big difference if you get a good ruin early (for example getting writing free and rushing GL, or getting enough free gold to buy a natural wonder, etc).

 

[LordBalkoth]

Why wait for Firaxis when the game's source code comes with the SDK?

It would become a multiplayer mod that would have to be launched with the special launcher at a minimum, no? Plus the whole question of whether the gain is even worth the effort.

I dont think this is true. Getting a strong pantheon can define your game (any of the extra faith generating pantheons spring to mind).

Which is going beyond "tied for pantheon" to "tied for pantheon AND wanted same pantheon"...which is even rarer.

Additionally, getting an ideology first can give you a significant advantage, as a free policy (or two) can be huge if you aren't generating much culture or if cultural heritage sites hasn't been passed (or if you don't have many wonders).

You'd lose exactly one social policy and that's only if you both go the same ideology...and the times that you have "tied" ideologies is already really rare.

Finally, ruins usually don't make a huge difference, but they can make a big difference if you get a good ruin early (for example getting writing free and rushing GL, or getting enough free gold to buy a natural wonder, etc).

Where you start and what terrain is around you (plus your Civ) are all going to massively affect things more than those.

 

[Gort]

I dont think this is true. Getting a strong pantheon can define your game (any of the extra faith generating pantheons spring to mind). Additionally, getting an ideology first can give you a significant advantage, as a free policy (or two) can be huge if you aren't generating much culture or if cultural heritage sites hasn't been passed (or if you don't have many wonders). Finally, ruins usually don't make a huge difference, but they can make a big difference if you get a good ruin early (for example getting writing free and rushing GL, or getting enough free gold to buy a natural wonder, etc).

I accept that pantheons and ideologies are important, but the chances of two players achieving them at the same time are slim, whereas in most multiplayer games it's almost a certainty that the human players will fight each other. That reduces the "peaceful" problems in importance compared to the "warlike" problems.

As I said, though, it'd be very simple to arrange a system whereby you alert your opponents to the fact that you've reached one of these rare events (pantheon, ideology, ruin near another human players units) and toss a coin for it, sidestepping the entire problem.

 

[Delnar_Ersike]

It would become a multiplayer mod that would have to be launched with the special launcher at a minimum, no? Plus the whole question of whether the gain is even worth the effort.

No special launcher is needed, just a special way to package the mod. Currently, multiplayer mods work by disguising themselves as official DLC, so players enable or disable the mod by enabling or disabling it in the DLC menu. The gain for Round Robin is definitely worth the effort for players who want to rely on a fair version of turn orders, be they sequential mode, hybrid mode during war (certain players will always have first move over other players), or simultaneous mode's same-turning of wonders. The gain for the resolving of pantheon, religion, and ideology ties would probably improve the players' mental state more than it would improve the game (the threat of being same-turned on pantheon or religion can be as big of a detriment as an actual same-turning), but it's still something.

Which is going beyond "tied for pantheon" to "tied for pantheon AND wanted same pantheon"...which is even rarer.

No need to go for the same wanted pantheon, just first or second pantheon. You can get enough faith from meeting a religious CS first or from faith ruins to nab first pantheon, but not second pantheon. Getting first pantheon this way also means you don't have to build Shrines, you can get to faith generation immediately without spending 8-10 turns on a shrine. When it comes to faith pantheons, they are more effective when unlocked earlier, so two people don't need to desire the same pantheon for one of them to get screwed by the other one clicking faster.

You'd lose exactly one social policy and that's only if you both go the same ideology...and the times that you have "tied" ideologies is already really rare.

Oxford into Radio begs to differ: in 6-player games on Quick, I've seen plenty of cases where two people got their ideologies on the same turn (roughly one case every 4-5 games). It's definitely not common, but I wouldn't call it rare either. Since there are usually at least two ideologies that are good for a certain endgame strategy though, ideology ties don't sting as much as pantheon or religion ties.

Where you start and what terrain is around you (plus your Civ) are all going to massively affect things more than those.

Stealing a population ruins from under another player's scout saves you about 10 turns of growth. Stealing a tech ruins from under another player's scout can save you about 12 turns of science. Stealing a culture ruins from under another player's scout usually means having a roughly 12 turn lead on culture that they will have to make up with wonders. Stealing a faith ruins usually means you get first or second pantheon instantly while the other player does not. Granted, these are not huge bonuses, but they are still significant bonuses, especially when they start rolling into other bonuses (culture ruins and faith ruins roll into faster policies and faster pantheons/religions respectively). If you're still not convinced, consider meeting a CS on the same turn as same-turning a ruins: the player who clicks first gets the bigger bonus, which can mean the difference between first pantheon without shrines and second pantheon with shrines for religious CS.

 

[ajar1189]

^^Well said Delnar. Those are basically all the points that I wanted to make (and more). One more thing that I wanted to add was that gaining ruins early can really help you snowball from the onset of the match (I'm specifically thinking getting an early tech such as writing or pottery or even archer/animal husbandry). I know alot of people say GL is overrated, but played properly it can really snowball you way ahead (babylon-esque science bonus). Another example is getting a population ruin over someone else and being able to build a settler significantly earlier and consequently being able to settle the better land earlier. These small bonuses early on can make a significant impact down the road.