New Developer Interview SA-Games

[CraigMak]

Yeah, and how often does that happen? Finding 4 Pregenitor ruins AND having an Affinity Uprade in all of them? Once in... 2 Million games? I'm sorry, but picking such an unlikely example doesn't make a point. The only thing you'll get somewhat regularly - and by that I mean something around once or twice in a hundred games - are 2 Affinity upgrades.


That's still the difference between PvE and PvP-Games. People who enjoy Civ5-PvE obviously prefer it over PvP. Or at least enjoy it enough to not feel compelled to try PvP. So these people are not looking for the same thing that you, as someone who prefers PvP, is looking for.

This scenario is very easy to come by. I find at least 2 in over half my games and they pretty much always give me an affinity point. Some people get none at all so they are what, ~25 turns behind in affinity? GG This example is common not to mention getting free affinity from skeletons as well.

I think most people play SP over MP simply out of necessity. They can't play an entire game in 1 sitting or have zero tolerance for trolls/leavers. I honestly see no other reasons since humans are far more entertaining to play against and even interact with. Beating up on the severely stupid AI is just boring in comparison.

 

[Ryika]

Alien Ruins have a 50% Chance of giving Affinity Level, they do not "pretty much always" give you an affinity point. The average normal sized map spawns about 4-5 Progenitor Ruins and is designed for 8 players, so on average you should get around 0.5 Ruins per game in a Multiplayer Game (if thar op resource loadout is locked and you play with people who scout about as efficiently as you do).

And Alien Skeletons have a chance of 33% to give random Affinity, so your chance of getting the Affinity you want (if it's not the first ruin you find) is about 11%. Alien Skeletons spawn about the same as Alien Ruins do, about 5 on average. And after Level 2 they don't even give a full level anymore.

So... I'm sorry, but again... what your saying is totally unrealistic. Your numbers don't add up and if you really think what you're reporting is realistic, then you should take a look at the game files and see the numbers for yourself.

As for your assumption regarding single player vs multiplayer: That seems way too generalized in my opinion. I personally just don't like PvP (although I had a phase back in WC3 where I did) and whenever "competition" is not the driving factor that makes me play a game I will always pick the Singleplayer-Experience over playing multiplayer. As I already said: People are not the same. You shouldn't assume everyone has the same preferences that you have.

 

[CraigMak]

Alien Ruins have a 50% Chance of giving Affinity Level, they do not "pretty much always" give you an affinity point. The average normal sized map spawns about 4-5 Progenitor Ruins and is designed for 8 players, so on average you should get around 0.5 Ruins per game in a Multiplayer Game (if thar op resource loadout is locked and you play with people who scout about as efficiently as you do).

And Alien Skeletons have a chance of 33% to give random Affinity, so your chance of getting the Affinity you want (if it's not the first ruin you find) is about 11%. Alien Skeletons spawn about the same as Alien Ruins do, about 5 on average. And after Level 2 they don't even give a full level anymore.

So... I'm sorry, but again... what your saying is totally unrealistic. Your numbers don't add up and if you really think what you're reporting is realistic, then you should take a look at the game files and see the numbers for yourself.

As for your assumption regarding single player vs multiplayer: That seems way too generalized in my opinion. I personally just don't like PvP (although I had a phase back in WC3 where I did) and whenever "competition" is not the driving factor that makes me play a game I will always pick the Singleplayer-Experience over playing multiplayer. As I already said: People are not the same. You shouldn't assume everyone has the same preferences that you have.

I don't know about the game files but my experience is that 3 progenitor ruins = 3 free affinity points. I don't even know what it does when it doesn't give affinity. That's how often I get affinity from them. I have played a game of BE every night for the past 3 nights so those are some crazy odds if I haven't seen a dud progenitor ruin this entire week. Maybe it's my game??

I would like to know your point of view. Can you please tell me why you would rather play against an AI than a human? I honestly don't understand this view point. The reason being that the AI is very dumb and you can't really interact with it.

A human will try to do clever things and you can say things to them. When you poke them they get mad. you can't predict what they will do. You can actually chat with them and beating them is fun. Especially when you see the same person again and they give you props for your victory. The AI doesn't think, doesn't feel and doesn't communicate anything tangible. IMO it's like using a blow up doll compared to a real woman. The analogy is a bit raunchy but I think it's fitting.

 

[Ryika]

I don't know about the game files but my experience is that 3 progenitor ruins = 3 free affinity points. I don't even know what it does when it doesn't give affinity. That's how often I get affinity from them. I have played a game of BE every night for the past 3 nights so those are some crazy odds if I haven't seen a dud progenitor ruin this entire week. Maybe it's my game??

Well, unless you have altered game files it's more likely that Selective Perception is the reason why you're misremembering things.

I would like to know your point of view. Can you please tell me why you would rather play against an AI than a human? I honestly don't understand this view point. The reason being that the AI is very dumb and you can't really interact with it.

Why do people enjoy puzzles? Overcoming problems is fun and doing so in a non-competitive environment is a very different experience. Becoming better at understanding the puzzle, solving it faster and more efficient - even if just solving the puzzle has already become easy a long time ago - can be very enjoyable to people.

And that's only for the people who really want to be challenged in some way. there are a lot of players who aren't even looking for that. Singleplayer-Content always has the possibility to learn and get better as fast or as slow as you want (or just don't learn at all and just enjoy doing random stuff), because the opponents will play by your strength. Multiplayer always forces you to become better, fast, or else you'll just lag behind and no longer really have fun playing.

A human will try to do clever things and you can say things to them. When you poke them they get mad. you can't predict what they will do. You can actually chat with them and beating them is fun. Especially when you see the same person again and they give you props for your victory. The AI doesn't think, doesn't feel and doesn't communicate anything tangible. IMO it's like using a blow up doll compared to a real woman. The analogy is a bit raunchy but I think it's fitting.

Well, I enjoyed that kind of competition for years. Some people seem to enjoy it for all their life, but if you really think competition is all video games have to offer, then... well, that's rather short-sighted in my opinion. I think I already mentioned them above... roleplaying, playing Civ as an Empire Simulator etc. do not rely on an opponent that is on equal footing, does not require an opponent that tries to trick and overcome you.

 

[CraigMak]

Well, unless you have altered game files it's more likely that Selective Perception is the reason why you're misremembering things.


Why do people enjoy puzzles? Overcoming problems is fun and doing so in a non-competitive environment is a very different experience. Becoming better at understanding the puzzle, solving it faster and more efficient - even if just solving the puzzle has already become easy a long time ago - can be very enjoyable to people.

And that's only for the people who really want to be challenged in some way. there are a lot of players who aren't even looking for that. Singleplayer-Content always has the possibility to learn and get better as fast or as slow as you want (or just don't learn at all and just enjoy doing random stuff), because the opponents will play by your strength. Multiplayer always forces you to become better, fast, or else you'll just lag behind and no longer really have fun playing.


Well, I enjoyed that kind of competition for years. Some people seem to enjoy it for all their life, but if you really think competition is all video games have to offer, then... well, that's rather short-sighted in my opinion. I think I already mentioned them above... roleplaying, playing Civ as an Empire Simulator etc. do not rely on an opponent that is on equal footing, does not require an opponent that tries to trick and overcome you.

It's not selective perception or misremembering since I know for a fact that I had to select which free affinity I get each time. I am not sure what happens when you don't get a free affinity point. Maybe it's bugged in MP?? I know I got the affinity points because those are huge deals. You end up having more than you're supposed to at certain points in the game.

So what you are saying on the SP stuff is that you don't really enjoy competition. Where the main focus in MP is to compete and improve yourself continually. I can see that because my main focus for playing any game whether it be a video game or sport is to improve and defeat stronger opponents. I used to be a bit OCD in basketball and shot hoops almost every night because I wanted a better shot. I feel the same way in Civ and BE and I felt like that in Starcraft. To me improving and increasing my game knowledge/skill is tantamount.

If I don't do that I fail to see the point and fail to have enjoyment.

BUT, human interaction is a big part of it as well. When some one gets mad at you for attacking them that's pretty fun. Or when they see you and recognize you, it's fun to forge new acquaintances.

 

[Lord Tirian]

Can you please tell me why you would rather play against an AI than a human? I honestly don't understand this view point. The reason being that the AI is very dumb and you can't really interact with it.

In addition to what Ryaika already said: some people don't care about being competitive or the "winning" against real people. Playing Civ is, to some extent, also a power fantasy about conquering the world. In that context, the AI isn't trying to beat the player, it's supposed the environment of a PvE game. Or are you exclusively playing video games that involve human opponents?

In that context, a lot of things look different if you look at the AI as PvE "background" (and in that context, AI cheating becomes different as well - it's not cheating, it's higher difficulty to hit your personal "sweet spot").

Even if it's not your preferred playstyle, it's certainly a valid one and one is probably not uncommon looking at the stats from Civ5 achievements (not that many people won Deity or play that much multiplayer).

 

[Galgus]

I view it as less of a power fantasy and more as role playing.

If I want to, say, fill my city tiles with Domes because I like the idea of a Purity civ building and living in them, I'd like to do so and not be crushed because I didn't spam academies.

Mods and making more playstyles viable can help this, but ultimately multiplayer forces optimal tactics.

 

[CraigMak]

So basically those who play SP want to be able to use terrible tactics and don't want to ever improve at the game. Immersion/role playing is more important than strategy and skill.

Very Interesting. Although I can't say that I will ever share that view point. I see the AI as the opponent and not as the environment in which to "play".

I think you guys view this game more like Simcity where I view it as turn based Starcraft.

 

[Ryika]

Which, going back to where this whole thing began, is why your view on what singleplayer should be like doesn't really matter too much. But I have to say, if you were looking for a "turn based Starcraft", then you've ended up in a really weird place. Civ-Games aren't exactly known for their insane strategical depth and not a single game in the series was designed with Multiplayer as the primary audience.

 

[CraigMak]

Which, going back to where this whole thing began, is why your view on what singleplayer should be like doesn't really matter too much. But I have to say, if you were looking for a "turn based Starcraft", then you've ended up in a really weird place. Civ-Games aren't exactly known for their insane strategical depth and not a single game in the series was designed with Multiplayer as the primary audience.

I know plenty of people who play BNW and BE primarily in MP and primarily to improve and defeat skilled/clever players only. It is a good game for such play. I moved from Starcraft to Civ 5 because Civ 5 has a lot more in depth play and strategy.

You have a lot to manage, balance and finesse. Where in your typical RTS it's mainly just figure out how to spam the most effective units as quickly as possible.

Civ requires you to juggle science, culture, military, gold, workers, happiness/health wonders, religion and other factors. Your prioritization is important and there are many things you must keep in mind. In comparison Starcraft and Red Alert etc.. are 1 dimensional IMO.

However BE is very 1 dimensional in comparison to BNW in it's current state.

 

[Galgus]

So basically those who play SP want to be able to use terrible tactics and don't want to ever improve at the game. Immersion/role playing is more important than strategy and skill.

Very Interesting. Although I can't say that I will ever share that view point. I see the AI as the opponent and not as the environment in which to "play".

I think you guys view this game more like Simcity where I view it as turn based Starcraft.

Another way to look at it is that I want to play SP so I'm not pigeonholed into a narrow optimal path.

Ideally there would be more viable options - in which case I would take MP more seriously.

I used to play a lot of Red Alert 3 before 2v2 matches got hard to find, and in ways it is the opposite of Civ.

Civ is typically a relaxing game at a slow pace - especially for marathon players like me.

Red Alert 3 can be extremely nerve wracking, with games that just leave you salty and frustrated. And moments of glory that make it all worth it.

 

[Ryika]

I know plenty of people who play BNW and BE primarily in MP and primarily to improve and defeat skilled/clever players only. It is a good game for such play. I moved from Starcraft to Civ 5 because Civ 5 has a lot more in depth play and strategy.

You have a lot to manage, balance and finesse. Where in your typical RTS it's mainly just figure out how to spam the most effective units as quickly as possible.

Civ requires you to juggle science, culture, military, gold, workers, happiness/health wonders, religion and other factors. Your prioritization is important and there are many things you must keep in mind. In comparison Starcraft and Red Alert etc.. are 1 dimensional IMO.

However BE is very 1 dimensional in comparison to BNW in it's current state.

Well, you just have to compare BNWs multiplayer forums with its singleplayer forums, youtube videos on singleplayer content vs. youtube videos on multiplayer content, look at the numbers of people actually in multiplayer groups vs. the people who are online overall and with that zoomed-out perspective it should be rather obvious, that the multiplayer-component of Civ5 is a rather small one.

And of course RTS look "one-dimensional" when compared to TBS, the reason why that has to be is in the names of the genres. Claiming that Civ 5 takes more skill than SC2 sounds hilarious to me though. Split-Second decisions while multitasking at 200+ apm vs having all time in the world to find a somewhat efficient solution doesn't sound comparable to me. Sure, becoming really good in Civ also requires a lot, lot, lot of work, but that's nothing compared to getting competitive in a game like SC2.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

I would play more Starcraft but I feel like it have to have every possible decision for all situation already made in my head before I even start. You don't have time to think in-game so most of the time I'm just watching myself lose while realizing what I should have done ten seconds ago.

 

[CraigMak]

Well, you just have to compare BNWs multiplayer forums with its singleplayer forums, youtube videos on singleplayer content vs. youtube videos on multiplayer content, look at the numbers of people actually in multiplayer groups vs. the people who are online overall and with that zoomed-out perspective it should be rather obvious, that the multiplayer-component of Civ5 is a rather small one.

And of course RTS look "one-dimensional" when compared to TBS, the reason why that has to be is in the names of the genres. Claiming that Civ 5 takes more skill than SC2 sounds hilarious to me though. Split-Second decisions while multitasking at 200+ apm vs having all time in the world to find a somewhat efficient solution doesn't sound comparable to me. Sure, becoming really good in Civ also requires a lot, lot, lot of work, but that's nothing compared to getting competitive in a game like SC2.

I wouldn't say that one game requires more skill than another. They are quite different games. There are a lot of overlapping skill sets and concepts but fast twitch movement and the ability to think on your feet are very important in SC2. I came from that game being masterleague so I was no slouch there. I didn't switch over due to lack of success. I just found civ to be far more involving and rewarding. Although definitely more time consuming.

The multplayer player base in civ is not very vocal. I know most of the top 50 players and most don't frequent forums and are not conspicuous like the droves of SP people spamming nonsense in every thread. They just play each other and talk in TS or vent with each other. The skill gap between this group and your average player is incredibly massive. They are competitive players and they play to win.

 

[Ryika]

Well, overall I guess it really depends a lot on the definition of "skill". I personally think Speedchess is a lot more "skillful" than normal Chess, a lot of people disagree. Both certainly have a lot of opportunities to allow people who want to become better to improve their play over time - let's just leave it at that.

Your description of the multiplayer-base however sounds exactly like a rather small playerpool to me. I'm certainly not claiming it's "tiny" or something like that, but if the amount of multiplayer-focues people was substantial, then we'd see more organized stuff on a bigger scale.

 

[CraigMak]

There is a substantial number of MP focused people. I have a friend list full of them. I see a lot of people who play every day and games launch every 10 minutes or so online.

You don't see most of the MP people on forums being vocal because the forums are largely full of nonsense. MP people talk amongst themselves on steam.

If you go check out the MP list of games there's usually a bunch to choose from. It's nothing like an RTS but it's definitely there. If the Devs would make the game more stable in MP and balance it more I am willing to bet that MP would explode.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

I wouldn't say that one game requires more skill than another. They are quite different games..

You actually did say that.

You have a lot to manage, balance and finesse. Where in your typical RTS it's mainly just figure out how to spam the most effective units as quickly as possible.

:\

The argument I am witnessing does not appear constructive. The claim that Civ exists for MP cannot follow from statements about the existence of good MP players. The claim that Civ exists for SP cannot coexist with the fact of the existence of competitive MP players.

Civ has no feature in it that is 'for' SP, it is clear that every AI is functioning like a player, which leads to the generalisation that it is a contest of multiple players. But it's also clear that Civ's developers definitely did not give two horsehockys about a multiplayer connectivity or accommodating any actual form of netplay until they wrote in the Hotseat PBEM format. My personal bias is to say Civ was not designed for SP nor for MP, because I love dumping on it like that, but my actual point here is to say there isn't an argument about what matters going on right now.

Craig, you want people to acknowledge Civ competitive exists? It does. Playing games to go against rivals and develop skills, to play to win, that is not the only legitimate pastime or only legitimate game. Which one is Civ actually? Depends on how people choose to use it.
Ryika, this conversation made the most sense when you said "People who enjoy Civ5-PvE obviously prefer it over PvP. Or at least enjoy it enough to not feel compelled to try PvP. So these people are not looking for the same thing that you, as someone who prefers PvP, is looking for." But if you think randomness a là triple progenitor ruin does not severely curtail if not demolish the existence of the competitive subcommunity, you're wrong. And you appear to be measuring subgroups by size, which is really devastating to the universalism of your standpoint, which looks to be the only thing that could be going for it.

The competitive group is a subcommunity - Craig, there may be some people who put up with an AI merely because they can't do MP for external reasons, but you are underestimating the variety of experience one can have through a Civ session. Using YouTube or Achievement-statistics is not going to be proof of the whole picture, but there are more things we don't need to go far to see. [AAR] games in our very own Stories forum. All the people who talk about going up against AIs with their friend(s) - can you account for their existence, there's a lot of them. I don't even know how to explain them, but I'm not going to do it saying they are self-denying unfortunates who pine for a functioning MP to free them from SP purgatory.

And, most centrally to what I think you two are arguing about, the people playing Civ like a puzzle, exist. Yeah it's a given the AI is a dunce, and that's kind of lame, but that doesn't diminish the people hunting that turn time or making spreadsheets. I play Civ to enjoy it against rivals, with a competitive spirit, exclusively, but I can't deny the other forms of the game exist.

--
The difficulty is when one has to trade off appeasing the subcommunities. You ought to make everyone maximally pleased as far as you can, sure, but a hard split can come up. Jon Shafer has claimed it is logically possible to avert that split with designer skill, but, since he's making a SP game we'll just put him in a cushioned room for now (sorry Jon). Then you have a question about Design itself, who do you make happy? I happen to think a game should strike a high note with somebody , and compromises all around only lower that high note, and my view is echoed by at least one multimillion dollar developer.

If you build a game for challenging contest between multiple (Human) rivals, can you not then write in what you have to (i.e. an AI), to still afford the SP experiences people want from the game? It's plausible, the spreadsheeters and puzzle-solvers can be pointed at any puzzle. Well, that's a conversation, and the affirmative form of it would serve all for-competitive players' interests, since they get everything they want (unless they want other people not to play, but there are no such fiends). If we get past arguing our existence to each other we could look at common goals and the creation of insight from understanding the real differentiation of the subgroups.

 

[Galgus]

The big balance between multiplayer and single player fans is, in my opinion, one of perfect balance vs immersion and fun mechanics that make things more interesting.

Inevitably I think any design has to choose to favor one or the other, though both are good goals.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Reminds me of an argument I had with a friend of mine back in college. He said that there were only kinds of students in the school: engineering students, and kids that want to be engineers but are way too stupid to get the degree.

 

[CraigMak]

Reminds me of an argument I had with a friend of mine back in college. He said that there were only kinds of students in the school: engineering students, and kids that want to be engineers but are way too stupid to get the degree.

That argument is a bit ridiculous since people have different interests, skills and abilities. I don't think any pre-med students, business students or art history students for that matter wish to be engineers.

However the general attitude of the MP community is that most of the SP players are not exactly firing on all cylinders since they find the extremely inept AI to be fun, fulfilling and some how challenging. That or they simply don't have the experience or time to realize how bad the AI is.

Then there's the case when some one says hey guys I have 2000+ hours in SP I'm good, and then proceeds to play abysmally and get curb stomped by below average MP players.

The MP players ask themselves, how is it possible for the SP players to be so horrible with so much experience. Apparently SP either teaches you nothing about the game or the individual in question has a learning disability.

This actually happens quite often in MP games.

If you take the opposite scenario where a 2000+ hour MP player is thrust into a SP game which they never play they will in fact do well still.