Open invitation to civ5 multiplayer

[Tabarnak]

Never played MP Civ, but I'm curious- why couldn't they just keep it turn-based, where you make your move, then the other player makes theirs? Do you think it would have been a better experience if they had? It would seem a whole lot more fair and sensible, to me.

Theorically yes, but in practice simultaneous is better(by experience).

Edit : I have read the locked thread about tommynt.

I'm not sure if it's really the case KM. I have once been #1 player for 2 years for a pc golf game(Tiger Woods PGA Tour from 2005 to 2007) and i had to fight top 200 players(from over 4000 regulary online) that really wanted my precious spot. Tommynt has acquired something ''special'' with this game through years. This ''special'' ability is the same i got during that time.

In rare occasion, you can see a top player doing so good in his profession/sport/game/hobby that he can beat everyone on earth and always get the most wins from them. Think about all great leaders in sports in history, but also politicians, scientist, etc.

 

[KM]

Theorically yes, but in practice simultaneous is better(by experience).
Edit : I have read the locked thread about tommynt.
I'm not sure if it's really the case KM. I have once been #1 player for 2 years for a pc golf game(Tiger Woods PGA Tour from 2005 to 2007) and i had to fight top 200 players(from over 4000 regulary online) that really wanted my precious spot. Tommynt has acquired something ''special'' with this game through years. This ''special'' ability is the same i got during that time.
In rare occasion, you can see a top player doing so good in his profession/sport/game/hobby that he can beat everyone on earth and always get the most wins from them. Think about all great leaders in sports in history, but also politicians, scientist, etc.

I don t want this thread locked too and its not really about that matter so I ll keep the reply short 
I did not want to diminish his accomplishment. He s good and deserves credit for it. What I wanted to point out was the reason for the lack of competition. The civ MP player base is a bunch of (mainly males) who are mostly grownups, who enjoy the game and try to cram it in between work and other real life matters. Just like any other type of hobby or amateur sport. When we lose we don’t throw the computer out the window we rather say; this was a great game, great action and a lot of fun, we lost at the end, bummer, but man this as some great action. (Same as when we go down to the pub with some friends and play a game of pool) In general we are more of a friendly type of game community then a real competitive one. If you want competitive gaming and a high level of competition with a large number of players who dedicate hour after hour to become the best of the best civ MP is not the game for you.
But this is also a good thing in my opinion. Because once u get past the dumb civ5 lobby and get to know the MP community in CP and NQ you will easily find very good and challenging games that are not just about winning but about having a good time too.

MP is a different game. I don't see any reason to learn a new game while I still have lot of fun playing the old one. When I get bored with SP probably I'll start playing MP, like it was with Civ4. I'm not there yet.

Try out MP at least once, and with that I mean not one with random people from civ lobby because then u wont fancy MP at all but with players from the MP groups. U might find it an even better experience then SP …or not, but you never know until you tried.

because I haven't found any good recordings of civ V MP on youtube

I do t know if u were serious or joking with this reply but I ll answer as if it was serious anyway. There is something better then watching MP vids on youtube (who get a bit booring anyway since games last so very long). Team up and play a 2vs2 with some of the MP players. You don t only watch what your teammate is doing, you can ask him about advice and why he does what he does aswell. You will learn a lot more from that then from a video.

 

[wannabewarlord]

KM: I appreciate this thread and your lobbying for MP. In fact, reading your opening and your replies wet my appetite a bit. But then again, as many posters before me, I do have my reservations. Time is a huge issue. I already have trouble finishing a 4h SP game in one setting, so how the hell will I do MP?

So you say therer's short, 2h-ish games which sounds enticing. But now the problem is - and I didn't even know that - simultaneous turns. I understand that this is necessary, otherwise one or more players would always be staring at the screen with nothing to do when it's not their turn (well, that's not different from SP actually...). But this is exactly why I play Civ and used to play Battle Isle (all of the series) for hours on end: turn based. I love strategy games, but I like to sit back, analyse the playing field and then make decisions. I don't like being forced to make quick moves and react in real-time. That's why the shift to RTS made me really sad. Commad & Conquer type games are just not for me.

I am not sure how much of a RTS feeling simultaneous turns give (and how does battle work? is attacking a clickfest once two armies meet?) but I am afraid it's not my cup of tea.

Edit: I am also more of a builder. To an extent where I neglect my defenses gravely. While in SP you can get away with it, I am sure in MP you cannot. So I would really need to get used to domination type games first (which I am doing lately), before I would even consider facing a human opponent.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Try out MP at least once, and with that I mean not one with random people from civ lobby because then u wont fancy MP at all but with players from the MP groups. U might find it an even better experience then SP …or not, but you never know until you tried.

I did try it. I played Civ4 for about 2 years, at some point almost exclusively. Was member of a clan with all well established strong SP players, who slowly shifted towards MP due to SP's potential exhaustion. I don't shoot in the dark and don't talk about lobby.
MP, however, is more complex from every single point of view. Time consuming issues as well as time matching (different time zones, long lists of personal commitments we all have, necessity to accommodate new strategies etc) don't favor those who have only few hours per weak to play spread over several days. From my experience saved games are rarely continued unless they're duels between two guys with relatively much spare time on their hands. Usually the next time you manage to gather the same folks you all forgot what was the previous game about and it's just easier to start a new one.

Besides, Tabarnak is very accurate in his assessment. It takes a certain type of personality to be a 'full time' mutiplayer gamer. Like in sports one needs to be a very competitive and ego driven fellow to be able to compete on daily basis and always stay hungry for more. That's why MP will never be my primary mode. I don't get the same adrenaline rush playing it as you probably do. Maybe it's because of my athletics background but lazy button clicking while chilling on the couch with my beer and my 5 y.o. jumping all over me doesn't scream fierce competition to me. Civ isn't a sport, it's a leisure and doesn't wake up an adrenaline junkie I was 10 years ago. I still find SP to be enjoyable enough so I don't need bother with anything else.

 

[The Pilgrim]

I am not sure how much of a RTS feeling simultaneous turns give (and how does battle work? is attacking a clickfest once two armies meet?) but I am afraid it's not my cup of tea.

It's not as bad as you think. At least it wasn't in Civ4. Civ5 took another step towards RTS style and it saddens me too. Also I don't know how 1UPT feels compared to SoD's. I don't believe the difference is too big. There is a learning curve, of course, but as long as you're more or less on the same page with all your opponents you'll be surprised how relatively easy the transition is. For purely learning purposes the best thing is probably to start with bunch of players you're familiar with. My friends and I we all started taking shots at MP together, none of us had any massive experience, so it was comfy and gentle. Being a total fish in a tank full of sharks obviously can be somewhat discouraging. But it didn't take very long until we've got a lot better.

 

[KM]

KM: I appreciate this thread and your lobbying for MP. In fact, reading your opening and your replies wet my appetite a bit. But then again, as many posters before me, I do have my reservations. Time is a huge issue. I already have trouble finishing a 4h SP game in one setting, so how the hell will I do MP?
So you say therer's short, 2h-ish games which sounds enticing. But now the problem is - and I didn't even know that - simultaneous turns. I understand that this is necessary, otherwise one or more players would always be staring at the screen with nothing to do when it's not their turn (well, that's not different from SP actually...). But this is exactly why I play Civ and used to play Battle Isle (all of the series) for hours on end: turn based. I love strategy games, but I like to sit back, analyse the playing field and then make decisions. I don't like being forced to make quick moves and react in real-time. That's why the shift to RTS made me really sad. Commad & Conquer type games are just not for me.
I am not sure how much of a RTS feeling simultaneous turns give (and how does battle work? is attacking a clickfest once two armies meet?) but I am afraid it's not my cup of tea.
Edit: I am also more of a builder. To an extent where I neglect my defenses gravely. While in SP you can get away with it, I am sure in MP you cannot. So I would really need to get used to domination type games first (which I am doing lately), before I would even consider facing a human opponent.

I appreciate that you appreciate the thread. You say you are a builder. Well there is room for that as well, however, usually the shorter games favors a more aggressive approach while the longer ones give room for less battle and more buildup. I wrote a post a while ago that was meant as a brief guide to civ5 MP where I also describe common game types in MP.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=441979
If you like to buildup, Use diplomacy, trade with players, form alliances etc I recommend a game with the NQ group. The games they play is probably the MP game form most similar to the SP experience just with smarter opponents, real humans that you form alliances and trade with and where your actions (breaking a deal, backstabbing someone etc) will have consequences not just in the current game but with the reputation you will carry in games to come with the same people. This type of game is however quite time craving and you will need maybe 4-6 hours.
If you like buildup but still having a quite short game I recommend a turn limited CTON. A CTON is a free for all game but it is forbidden to make alliances or trade. If the game is turn limited the winner is decided by score at the end. Usually this result in a game where people try to figure out a way to maximize growth in the pre determined number of turns. Usually keeping a tight defense watching the army size of opponents and just have enough to make it too costly to attack. Maximizing army when the game draws closer to the final turns resulting in a huge clash of armies the last 10-15 turns when player try to alter the score of themselves and opponents by taking one or two cities. Since the game is turn limited and have simultaneous moves (for better or worse) it will only take so long to finish.
Simultaneous moves is another matter. It doesn’t turn CIV into an RTS game. The turns are long enough to have plenty of time to make strategic decisions. In battle however it is a factor that make the MP experience different from SP. But battle is first of all just a part of the game. Also like I think Tommynt pointed out. Since people are well aware of the implications of simultaneous moves they act according to it. They prepare for the next move. Fortifying units that are possible to attack, having backup units to strike back with etc. In the long run it comes down to strategic decisions.

I did try it. I played Civ4 for about 2 years, at some point almost exclusively. Was member of a clan with all well established strong SP players, who slowly shifted towards MP due to SP's potential exhaustion. I don't shoot in the dark and don't talk about lobby.
MP, however, is more complex from every single point of view. Time consuming issues as well as time matching (different time zones, long lists of personal commitments we all have, necessity to accommodate new strategies etc) don't favor those who have only few hours per weak to play spread over several days. From my experience saved games are rarely continued unless they're duels between two guys with relatively much spare time on their hands. Usually the next time you manage to gather the same folks you all forgot what was the previous game about and it's just easier to start a new one.
Besides, Tabarnak is very accurate in his assessment. It takes a certain type of personality to be a 'full time' mutiplayer gamer. Like in sports one needs to be a very competitive and ego driven fellow to be able to compete on daily basis and always stay hungry for more. That's why MP will never be my primary mode. I don't get the same adrenaline rush playing it as you probably do. Maybe it's because of my athletics background but lazy button clicking while chilling on the couch with my beer and my 5 y.o. jumping all over me doesn't scream fierce competition to me. Civ isn't a sport, it's a leisure and doesn't wake up an adrenaline junkie I was 10 years ago. I still find SP to be enjoyable enough so I don't need bother with anything else.

I respectfully disagree about one thing in your post. Sure there are some players who are playing MP really competitively. But there are also a large number of us who play it, just as you do with SP, as leisure. Not for the adrenaline but for the fun. You do not in any way need to be very competitive or ego driven to play civ5 MP. Well you will have to be that if you want to become the top player at the scoreboard but that is in no way a necessity.

Actually since a lot of the MP players are not ego driven or very competitive the case is rather that some that are indeed the competetive type might feel a lack of competition rather then the other way around.

 

[Camikaze]

I don t want this thread locked too and its not really about that matter

Moderator Action: Yeah, so best to keep well clear of it.

 

[The Pilgrim]

I respectfully disagree about one thing in your post. Sure there are some players who are playing MP really competitively. But there are also a large number of us who play it, just as you do with SP, as leisure. Not for the adrenaline but for the fun. You do not in any way need to be very competitive or ego driven to play civ5 MP. Well you will have to be that if you want to become the top player at the scoreboard but that is in no way a necessity.

Actually since a lot of the MP players are not ego driven or very competitive the case is rather that some that are indeed the competetive type might feel a lack of competition rather then the other way around.

Competition is THE fun part in MP. And to have a clear preference of MP over SP you need to feel competitive about this game. Otherwise why to bother in the first place if you can have a very similar experience in SP without all the logistics complexity MP brings to the table? Smarter opponents? Well, I still find deity and even immortal sometimes maybe not smart but definitely challenging enough. And since I don't feel very competitive about Civ in general the time and the effort required for diving into MP currently don't seem worthwhile. SP satisfies all my gaming needs. As I said, when it changes, I'll probably switch. No need to convince me.

 

[Shylock76]

Just some feed back....i put aside a few hours last night and joined civplayers, went to the chat and decided to play an mp

The first game froze immediatley on start up and nobody could move, people thought that this was a known issue

The second game lasted about 3 turns and was laggy and froze as well, none of the players seemed surprised although they werent happy

I spent about an hour finding a game, getting enough players and then having to go back out again and do the same thing all over again. I eventually gave up and loaded my sp game.

I'm not posting this to knock the original poster, as its well intentioned, and it did get me to register and try mp but I cant see myself doing this again until mp is at least stable. On the positive side there seemed to be a few keen souls that wanted to play but were unable to do so because of the above problems.

Kudos though for at least getting me to try.......

 

[Silverfuturist]

Just some feed back....i put aside a few hours last night and joined civplayers, went to the chat and decided to play an mp

The first game froze immediatley on start up and nobody could move, people thought that this was a known issue

The second game lasted about 3 turns and was laggy and froze as well, none of the players seemed surprised although they werent happy

I spent about an hour finding a game, getting enough players and then having to go back out again and do the same thing all over again. I eventually gave up and loaded my sp game.

I'm not posting this to knock the original poster, as its well intentioned, and it did get me to register and try mp but I cant see myself doing this again until mp is at least stable. On the positive side there seemed to be a few keen souls that wanted to play but were unable to do so because of the above problems.

Kudos though for at least getting me to try.......

I have never gotten an 8 person multiplayer game to work past move 50 - the 4 person games are usually robust. For 6 people look at the pings in the lobby, if they are lower than 150ms that is good, sometimes it works with higher pings.

The moving-all-at-once does require adjustment. In the first few eras strategic positioning your units will make you safe from the fast-click-spazzes, but if you have only played single player you probably don't know when your units are safe or when they are vulnerable.

Combat vs the AI teaches flawed lessons about combat... after giving up on Deity because it was getting boring, I got destroyed in single player combat until I figured out how tactics in this game work against an intelligent opponent. Now... it is like playing chess against living room players who think they are pros, yet lose in 12 moves to a gambit. There are less than 5 players I have come across with "chess master" tactics when it comes to using melee/ranged/mounted/seige units in concert, and they do it like maestros; it is about "weak"/"strong" tiles, zones of control, sacrifices, tempo, etc.

 

[KM]

Just some feed back....i put aside a few hours last night and joined civplayers, went to the chat and decided to play an mp

The first game froze immediatley on start up and nobody could move, people thought that this was a known issue

The second game lasted about 3 turns and was laggy and froze as well, none of the players seemed surprised although they werent happy

I spent about an hour finding a game, getting enough players and then having to go back out again and do the same thing all over again. I eventually gave up and loaded my sp game.

I'm not posting this to knock the original poster, as its well intentioned, and it did get me to register and try mp but I cant see myself doing this again until mp is at least stable. On the positive side there seemed to be a few keen souls that wanted to play but were unable to do so because of the above problems.

Kudos though for at least getting me to try.......

Hi, first of all thanks for trying. I am sorry that it turned out the way you described. Yes civ MP is a bit buggy but you must really have had a streak of bad luck. Usually the game works fine at least with up to 4 players. Sometimes it freezes but that is more an exception than a rule.

Another tip is to join both the NQ group and the CP group and enter both chatrooms. the CP group got a bit more players from overseas while the Nq group got a bit more european players. This means that depending on your timezone you might find more players online in one of the rooms some hours whle in the other other hours. By entering both rooms you will cut the time to find enough players for a game.

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

Take it for what it is worth... just my honest feedback:
I checked out the NQ site a few weeks back and it seemed they had a lot of preestablished rules setup for a small dedicated clique. I could not find a list of those rules I would be faced with or any help on actually joining in on the "fun".

Also after looking into the bugginess of MP I decided to pass on what seems to be a headache in the making with the gameplay, bugs and personalities in play.

 

[Tabarnak]

Interesting posts.

I think that players actually having fun at playing singleplayer and seriously think they will always have more than mp will almost automatically wait for a more stable mp platform.

To counsider mp as an option, it needs to be at least solid, easy of finding game and not too much time consuming. But from my experience, many of them just don't know what they really need to obtain these kind of games(because they really exist).

-Try to play with local players(low ping)
-Play under dx9(not dx11)
-Stuck with small map(6 players) or below

If you have a chance to play with all known buddies, you can save games and play under many sessions

 

[chazzycat]

ON higher lvl play civ mp it REALLY isnt a clickfest anymore, both players will move their units clever so they cant be killed by some fast/doublemove there will allways be backup units so u can exchange units 1 by 1 each. Turn timers are long (bit too long), so enough time to think in between for both.

Bascially games come down to who can get more science/production ... stronger units or well sometimes attacks more clever (usually with ranged units positioned well). Well to just - who - is the better civplayer.

And why not play starcraft instead civ mp? As other have mentioned - those games got bad community, and also BIG communities, I like the smaller ones where players know each other. Also even when firaxis did bring a pretty unfinished producut I dont want support blizzard even more.

I played a bit sp today (GOTM 22) and in evening some duels (few short, 1 longer which had to be saved) and the fun, the "thrill" of mp is just something totaly different - its now a real GAME - in singleplayer u cant really loose - u just click some stuff - playing singleplayer feels more like watching tv, and actually more like a bad movie not like the newest blockbuster. People REALLY like watching bad movies?

Thanks. I still might give it a try at some point, I'm not ruling it out. The idea of a small well-knit community is a good selling point. I disagree with you regarding the single-player game, as I find it quite enjoyable. But we don't have to get into that.

 

[tommynt]

as soon as I get fraps to work (need full version - maybe some can help me out *cough*) I ll post some mp learning videos