Is Multiplayer neglected?

[Kordanor]

Oh, thank god I was wrong.

 

[alpaca]

Well, the review from http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/65521 states the following:

In general, the simultaneous turns system works well, but as the game progresses it will begin to take longer and longer for each player's computer to process turns. Throw networking into the mix and you're looking at a lot of added time in between turns as the player count increases. If you can deal with that, you'll likely have a good time, but games even on the quickest settings will take many hours to complete.

Which...makes absolutely no sense, if he didnt meant Sequential instead of Simultaneous (you are probably right). Still there is still no official statement about multiplayer modes, is there?

It makes sense but is worded a bit badly. He's talking about player's computers taking a long time to process turns, not the players themselves (in yesterday's live stream, the high-end machine the guys played on took sometimes more than half a minute for AI turns in the medieval era, which is a lot compared to Civ4). I should think, though, that this doesn't scale with the number of players but that it's determined by whoever has the slowest rig. Later in the preview the author clearly describes simultaneous turns, like when he stole a barbarian camp from another player.

Edit: By the way, I completely agree about hot-seat. I remember awesome gaming sessions with some of my friends in older games. Civ3, Alpha Centauri, Heroes of Might and Magic, and some older German games that were never released anywhere else. What's most fun is that you can annoy your opponent during turns and give him "advice"

 

[Schuesseled]

That's exactly what I think.

As anyone played hotseat? was it fun? it is not a bit bothering to have the other player watching your civ on your turn? or does most people organize it so they don't watch the other player?

I'm wondering because one of my friend wich I use to play Civ 4 online with won't have a good enough computer for Civ 5.

I'm pretty sure they said that irregular multiplayer modes like pitboss pbem and hotseat wouldn't be coming till later FYI.

I've played both LAN and hotseat with my brother on civ 4, i can't stand simultaneous turns, especially against AI's, and i don't much like waiting 5 mins at the end of a turn either, so i probably won't be laying much multiplayer in civ 5, except i will play some games by email, because although a five minute wait at the end of a turn is unacceptable, i honestly don't mind waiting a day, i'm used to it after playing browser games long-term.

 

[wapamingo]

Just put the turn time to 2 minutes; that's ok.

 

[Calbrenar]

They need to implement a system similar to Empire:Total War.

Basically if both players in a battle set the game speed to fast or fastest then the game speed goes to fast or fastest. There's an invisible priority tree that works as you'd expect. I.E. If Player 1 sets it to Fastest, and Player 2 sets it to Fast, then the game runs at Fast until someone makes a change. If either of them changed it to Normal it would immediately go normal.

I believe this needs to be implemented for Civ5 Multiplayer. Basically if both players have "Simultaneous" clicked then Simultaneous turns are enabled. Considering that in multiplayer games there may be a long period of time (perhaps hundreds of turns) before players interact on the tactical level with each other in ANY form (except maybe scouts), why would you not want simultaneous turns?

On the other hand when you have battles vs each other I can see a strong argument being made for the capability to click off simultaneous turns and the next turn resumes the default turn list. When both players change it to simultaneous it resumes simultaneous play on the next turn.

 

[alpaca]

They need to implement a system similar to Empire:Total War.

Basically if both players in a battle set the game speed to fast or fastest then the game speed goes to fast or fastest. There's an invisible priority tree that works as you'd expect. I.E. If Player 1 sets it to Fastest, and Player 2 sets it to Fast, then the game runs at Fast until someone makes a change. If either of them changed it to Normal it would immediately go normal.

I believe this needs to be implemented for Civ5 Multiplayer. Basically if both players have "Simultaneous" clicked then Simultaneous turns are enabled. Considering that in multiplayer games there may be a long period of time (perhaps hundreds of turns) before players interact on the tactical level with each other in ANY form (except maybe scouts), why would you not want simultaneous turns?

On the other hand when you have battles vs each other I can see a strong argument being made for the capability to click off simultaneous turns and the next turn resumes the default turn list. When both players change it to simultaneous it resumes simultaneous play on the next turn.

I would go for a system where turn order is only partially enforced, a kind of hybrid of simultaneous and sequential systems. If a unit is within a certain distance of another unit, say 5 tiles, that unit would have to wait for the other player to move his unit or end his turn. This would mean you can still move reinforcements and workers around while keeping the tactical part of the game from being an RTS.

A manual aspect sounds intruiging, too, however. Maybe you could have a screen where you can set for each player whether this rule should be active or not. That way, you could allow allies to move even though you might have priority in that area.

 

[SeismoGraf]

We had a good discussion in the Multiplayer problems thread. There I expressed my serious concerns with simultaneous turn MP. Well, in about a week we will know more.

In this thread, I also mentioned an idea for a hybrid mode, where players get divided into "non-interfering groups" and would ideally also be forced to declare war, 1 turn before they are allowed to attack. If you want, feel free to quote and comment.

 

[Kordanor]

"snipperrabbit!!" mentioned a multiplayer (p)review on another site:
http://www.destructoid.com/civ-v-multiplayer-makes-turn-based-pick-up-the-pace-183931.phtml

This (p)review was pretty clear and also talking about the problems I mentioned earlier:

Players will have the option to choose between solo style turn-based and simultaneous turn-based play for multiplayer, with timer settings just like in Civ IV.

The implications for combat, however, are many. Acting faster and smarter than your opponents should allow you to grab advantageous terrain or choke points more often. Giving priority to moving units that are stronger on offense than defense will probably become standard strategy to maximize combat effectiveness. There may even be occasions where you will want to intentionally act slowly as a lure to draw units within striking distance of your cities or ranged units.

Which is exactly what was mentioned before.

@SeismoGraf
I will keep posting into this thread if it's okay for you.

Will also update the starting post (if possible)

 

[KMRblue1027]

Man you people are so impatient. I had Civ2 multiplayer game with my dad that I had an over 30 minute turn by late game and my dad's was over an hour, how do you think I feel?

 

[Kordanor]

Man you people are so impatient. I had Civ2 multiplayer game with my dad that I had an over 30 minute turn by late game and my dad's was over an hour, how do you think I feel?

Hehe, well...from Civ2 to Civ4 they already improved some stuff, like inventing simultaneous moves at all.

So why not improving it even further from Civ4 to Civ5?

 

[PawelS]

Simultaneous moves are bad, they make the game half-RTS (it's important who moves first).

I'm looking forward to hotseat/pbem/pitboss with sequential turns modes, maybe they won't be available from the start but I hope they will be implemented someday.

 

[jagdtigerciv]

You're right, we are all really dumb for being interested in Civ V multiplayer and in particular, trying to have a discussion about it was the pinnacle of stupidity. I don't know what I was thinking.

Hahaha, I loved this. Yes, multiplayer for civ is fantastic in my opinion. I have fond memories of mass civ4 games among good friends in my university pub via laptop prior to my graduation.

Civ is particularly fun to do with friends, especially when you get to know their play styles.

 

[Kordanor]

And there are some updates:

From http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=379928&page=2

2K Greg stated that:
-Saving will only be possible automatically (not big of a deal if saving times are as fast as in Civ4, as you can chose to have an autosave for every turn), no manual Save possible
-MP mode does not have animations
-There is NO Turn-based play which "might come" in the future

In addition Brian Leahy who reviewed Civ5 at http://www.shacknews.com/laryn.x?story=65623
provided following information:
- Games can be reloaded and continued. Players can be replaced by AI or different players.
- Crashed/disconnected players can be re-invited/re-join through Steam interface without having to rollback (they will be played by an AI until they return).

whic is nothing special looking back at Civ4 but as Civ5 has a different MP platform I guess it's worth mentioning it.

Will update initial posting.

 

[Tridus]

Not sure why so many people dislike simultaneous turns. I can't stand playing without them. As you scale up the number of players, the "doing nothing" part with sequential turns scales up VERY quickly to the point where you spend most of your time waiting and comparatively little time actually playing.

Course, I mostly play coop against the AI. It could be different in a competitive game, but for me simultaneous turns are the only usable mode.

No animations sucks though, hope that comes back.

 

[Kordanor]

I agree, I'd also play simultaneous turns if I had the choice. But then again I am playing with friends and we can say "Player A always makes the first move if we have war". Which you probably won't do when playing against a random player.

In this case, the game indeed uses hand-eye coordination. People laughed about MrGameTheory when he said that, but thats the truth: Imagine you having 5 units, and the enemy has 5 units at a small distance. Now the new turn starts. No animations, meaning if one of these player knows what he is doing, is very fast in clicking and making decisions he will have destroyed your 5 units with a minimum of losses because he was faster than you and therefore could do the better moves.
Simu turns + 1 unit per tile + no animations -> almost RTS like combat in multiplayer. At least nothing for people who want to take a minute to think about what to do.

Of course for coop it won't be a big deal, as for you the game basically IS turn based. You just "share" the same turn with your friend.

 

[King Jason]

Imagine you having 5 units, and the enemy has 5 units at a small distance. Now the new turn starts. No animations, meaning if one of these player knows what he is doing, is very fast in clicking and making decisions he will have destroyed your 5 units with a minimum of losses because he was faster than you and therefore could do the better moves.

Which is asinine.

I've played with Simulturns before, and It didn't hamper me because I'm a quick player... but Getting a goody hut because I clicked my unit quicker is idiotic. Being able to retreat and not suffer a loss from an incoming arrow shot because I clicked my unit quicker is moronic. Waiting to see if all unit moves are completed before you can check other important aspects of your empire such as build ques and other info is plain stupidity.

Simultaneous turns as the sole standard for MP changes the gameplay completely... especially with 1upt hex-based gameplay. This is the first thing I've seen come from civ5 that I find to be legitimately ass-backwards on the part of the devs.

 

[Tridus]

It's one of those things that hopefully becomes an option later. Some of us only want simultaneous, and some others only want the other way. There's no real right or wrong answer on it.

So, option for that, and option to turn animations back on.

 

[MadmanAtW]

And there are some updates:
2K Greg stated that:
-Saving will only be possible automatically (not big of a deal if saving times are as fast as in Civ4, as you can chose to have an autosave for every turn), no manual Save possible
-MP mode does not have animations
-There is NO Turn-based play which "might come" in the future

That last piece of information came not from 2k Greg but someone claiming they were copy/pasting an email from 2k Greg. And it contradicts information from some of the previews. So I wouldn't list it as something that officially came from 2K until we see someone with a 2K name actually post it here.

 

[Kordanor]

Which is asinine.

I've played with Simulturns before, and It didn't hamper me because I'm a quick player... but Getting a goody hut because I clicked my unit quicker is idiotic. Being able to retreat and not suffer a loss from an incoming arrow shot because I clicked my unit quicker is moronic. Waiting to see if all unit moves are completed before you can check other important aspects of your empire such as build ques and other info is plain stupidity.

Simultaneous turns as the sole standard for MP changes the gameplay completely... especially with 1upt hex-based gameplay. This is the first thing I've seen come from civ5 that I find to be legitimately ass-backwards on the part of the devs.

True, I didn't want to give the hut/ruins example as this could already been done in Civ4 Simulturns. But with the one unit per tile combat the whole thing get's a much bigger dimension. There are much better choices to "fix" that. But this was already discussed in other threads.

 

[Krill]

The destructoid review says that there is a maximum of 6 players in FFA. That has to be wrong, that isn;t even enough for a standard size map.