My frustration with MP (put on your fireproof suit)

[sanddemon]

Alright, this is the third game to go like this....and I've been trashing my CivPlayers rank because of it. It basically boils down to whose moves register immediately after the turn, and usually favors the host it seems. When did this become a spam click fest?

Horsemen are basically worthless unless you somehow click better because of no defenses. Doing things like waiting to the end of the turn to sneak in a move and then spam the next basically given them no shot to "fight back". Yes war can be cheap and evil but when the game is fighting against you and not the player, WTH.

Seriously, who thought of this ******** mechanic? As laggy as this game is in multiplayer anyways, at least give a grace period after the turn is calculated or give favor to those who pre-emptively put in commands for the next turn. But having the winner to whoever can click faster and has a better ping (which I don't even believe it's ping because I can spam a move of one unit and someone can sometimes fire with 2 before I even get mine in - usually a host).....is just ********.

This is strategy, not clickfest. *ARG*

 

[Biz_]

stop confusing what combat boils down to with what the game boils down to

your horsemen are basically worthless comment shows you have no idea waht is going on
Moderator Action: Flaming is not allowed here.

 

[Sonereal]

Clickfest and the Horsemen are useless comment made me low.

Horsemen are the most devastating early game units available besides the replacement Companion Cavalry.

 

[sanddemon]

There's a big difference when you get attacked by two spearmen and lose compared to attacking one of them and soundly winning...by who "clicks" better.

Horsemen was just an example but getting the first attack is huge, moreso with a unit with no defensive bonus.

 

[Sonereal]

Except the horsemen get no defensive PENALTIES either meaning they're at full strength, always, on open terrain.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Who fastmoves first has much more to do with computer/connection speed than who is hosting. Yes it is not a perfect system but once you adjust your strategy it is something everyone does, and it is a far better solutoin than spending 6 hours on a true turn based MP game were turn order would decide who got trashed first.

CS

 

[Slvynn]

yeah like i said in topic nearby - there 2 types of moves in sim
fastmoves and (one ordered for start of next turn after skipping turn, before last player skipped or timer ends) and endturn moves... (moving in at end of turn so next action will be done from new sudden siutuation made fast at very end of previous turn, which also counters somewhat fastmoves)
it is technique and it works, very rarely things being deicided fast move vs fast move - only in ffa or teamers if both players are not last who press skip turn.
Its just a technique, and if you know laws you can control it.. its not about who clicks 1st, and not about connection.. it about building your tactics knowing 2 those moves techniques, and being carefull where you need to be and make priorities when you need something done before rival

 

[Deussu]

Alright, this is the third game to go like this....and I've been trashing my CivPlayers rank because of it. It basically boils down to whose moves register immediately after the turn, and usually favors the host it seems. When did this become a spam click fest?

Horsemen are basically worthless unless you somehow click better because of no defenses. Doing things like waiting to the end of the turn to sneak in a move and then spam the next basically given them no shot to "fight back". Yes war can be cheap and evil but when the game is fighting against you and not the player, WTH.

Seriously, who thought of this ******** mechanic? As laggy as this game is in multiplayer anyways, at least give a grace period after the turn is calculated or give favor to those who pre-emptively put in commands for the next turn. But having the winner to whoever can click faster and has a better ping (which I don't even believe it's ping because I can spam a move of one unit and someone can sometimes fire with 2 before I even get mine in - usually a host).....is just ********.

This is strategy, not clickfest. *ARG*

Unlike most others, I agree with you. The current solution is way too faulty to apply on a strategic game. You brought up horsemen, which is a good unit, but it's just an example in this. You could easily have any other unit as an example, such as Archer.

In my mind a much better solution would be to create a 'midway turn' in between turns, where all combats are solved. Units would have a different priority depending on movement speed and terrain. A player declares his units' movements and possible attacks, but they don't resolve right away. Similarly if a unit would move out of the way of an attack, it wouldn't do it right away; if the attacking unit's priority is higher, the attacker gets to deal damage to the defender (and vice versa) before the defender moves away.

Might be a bit confusing. I'm forming the idea in my head as I write. Still, I'd consider a lot better solution, and fair to boot. I wonder if the simultaneous combat works better in lag-free environments, such as LAN.

 

[Toady]

I agree with both of you. It's horrible.

Yeah of course you learn to adjust your strategy so that it works even if you move last but that's simply a work around for soddy mechanics.

It was the same in previous versions too... first orders could be very benefitial however in in Civ V the 1UPT simply makes this much worse, SoD combat mechanics were affected much less by it.

 

[LordTC]

"stop confusing what combat boils down to with what the game boils down to"

I found this amusing and reply:

If you think competitive multiplayer does not boil down to combat you probably haven't played it.

I think the point is clickfests can be especially devastating because you can get sneak attacked by double moves and get attacked by 2 units at a square where only one unit was in range to attack you (EOT move +Move at start of next turn). This has the worst impact on units whose speed advantage can be heavily negated by this, hence yes.. horsemen are even better in turn-based games (although they are still quite powerful in simultaneous play).

Double moves are without a doubt a huge exploit that ruin multiplayer for many players. If I want multiplayer for a Civ-style game I boot up EU2 FtG because they at least make an attempt to do simultaneous turns properly (pseudo-real time to fix unit move exploits).

Also turn order is almost never an issue in head-to-head, it can be a problem with allies though.. if player A and player B are allies and are fighting player C and player D, there are big differences between orders that alternate and orders that don't.

On the whole though turn-order is a relatively tiny issue compared to double move exploits.

 

[Biz_]

"stop confusing what combat boils down to with what the game boils down to"

I found this amusing and reply:

If you think competitive multiplayer does not boil down to combat you probably haven't played it.

I think the point is clickfests can be especially devastating because you can get sneak attacked by double moves and get attacked by 2 units at a square where only one unit was in range to attack you (EOT move +Move at start of next turn). This has the worst impact on units whose speed advantage can be heavily negated by this, hence yes.. horsemen are even better in turn-based games (although they are still quite powerful in simultaneous play).

Double moves are without a doubt a huge exploit that ruin multiplayer for many players. If I want multiplayer for a Civ-style game I boot up EU2 FtG because they at least make an attempt to do simultaneous turns properly (pseudo-real time to fix unit move exploits).

Also turn order is almost never an issue in head-to-head, it can be a problem with allies though.. if player A and player B are allies and are fighting player C and player D, there are big differences between orders that alternate and orders that don't.

On the whole though turn-order is a relatively tiny issue compared to double move exploits.

civ5 combat is trash, but the rest of the game and where the actual strategy in civ titles has always resided is much deeper

yes, the game will have war, but the combat was never the strategic part

 

[LordTC]

The combat strategy in Civ5 is actually deeper than any previous version of Civ due to the unstacking and the improvements to ranged attacks. Unfortunately ranged attacks aggrevate the click fest problem.

A lot of the strategy lies outside of combat.

I think we're basically in agreement I just mistook your statement as implying that multiplayer is about being a builder rather than a destroyer/warmonger, which I strongly disagree with.

 

[Meateater]

I agree you better build military, and pay attention to your advisors in MP, because many good players will try and just kill you. Ask Biz, I have played against, and can say had it handed to me, thanks Biz for the lessons Vr_Hyper

Bottom line don't make yourself a target and be prepared for an attack!

 

[wastecan]

My 2c... All I play is multiplayer and in a LAN setting...

First few times of play we had serious rage-quitting as the Civ 5 handling of multiplayer combat is severly lacking.

Observations:

1) In multiplayer, when End of Turn is selected, it needs to be tentative. If another player waits for everyone to end their turns and then declares war... Simply messy. Once bitten by this, nobody ends their turns with enemies at their doorsteps.

2) Once war has started, it *IS* a clickfest as to who gets the most favorable outcomes. In a LAN, it is processor speed that determines who wins. Many times some people get 30 seconds to move before others in the room even get to see their screens. This way too often determines the outcomes in a battle.

3) Units need an attack and not move option- rather than to occupy the opponents location. This would solve one of the significant defense issues we have seen; a next to dead attacker is at your doorstep and the non-ranged garrison has to sacrifice itself to kill that attacker. Not right.

LAN Rules we have implemented:

Due to observation 3, attacking from a city to repel an attack shouldn't penalize the defender. Therefore, once player moves begin in a turn, this LAN group allows a noncombat phase - aka - retreat back into the city or retreat anywhere if you will. Everyone can make all non-combat moves.

Due to observation 2, once the non-combat phase is completed we see if anyone is doing PvP combat. If so, a turn order is decided and then moves/attacks follow a round-robin.

Due to observation 1, once combat is completed, all turns are ended simultaneously.

--

Seems like Civ V could implement something to address a few of these issues...

 

[CurseUppl]

Yeah, the end-turn-and-can't-do-anything feature is horse sh**. In Civ4 you could still do stuff after the turn had ended, but in Civ5? No. Let's remove a perfectly nice feature and reinstate an inferior one instead.

This would go a long way to solving the 'wait till everyone has ended turn and then declare war' because if you play like I do, you'll have units fortified and ready to counter attack when an invasion is declared. But no, you can't, because a magical entity has decided you can't do anything and instead you can watch enemy units march into city bombardment range, slaughter a couple of guys, and then march out again before you can attack (if you were to select your guys in the new turn).