What's the biggest problem with MultiPlayer Civ?

[dh_epic]

If you've read Soren's presentation, you know that (quote) they "have a working mp system already and have been playing 4+ hour games after work" and have been "coding from scratch" -- whatever that means. Point being that multiplayer is a focus that the makers of Civ 4 have wanted to include in the fundamental design, instead of adding it after they've made a great single player game.

My question to the hardcore civ fans is what you feel the biggest barrier to a good multiplayer experience is?

To rephrase the question multiple ways:

- when playing multiplayer, what annoys you or makes it suck?
- if you've never played multiplayer, why not?
- what element is great in single player, but sucks in multiplayer?
- are you worried about them adding/removing something that will make multiplayer suck?

 

[dh_epic]

I have a few things...

1. I think that even 4+ hour games are too long. A game of starcraft, 3 hours is a long-ish game but tolerable. Most sports are a couple hours, but certainly not 4. It's hard to find someone who can commit more than 4 hours in a day to play a game, unless they're a hardcore player. This has been a huge barrier to success for MMOG's.

2. Starting location, and getting a strong start is too important to winning. If you start near a desert or on a small island, forget about it. If you even trip ONCE in the first half hour, that will mean your opponent's empire will be twice as large as yours by the second or third hour.

...

And I know it's actually beside the point... but one thing that actually sucks in single player and translates well to multiplayer:

Bad AI.

Bad AI sucks in single player. But in multiplayer, it becomes a few smart people (humans) with huge ambitions, fighting through a simulation of the world where the other people are pretty complacent (AI) and don't seem to care about winning. The AI is more likely to get weeded out, in my experience, leaving the players to face off. This is actually more fun, IMO.

 

[TGNLPp]

If you've read Soren's presentation, you know that (quote) they "have a working mp system already and have been playing 4+ hour games after work" and have been "coding from scratch" -- whatever that means. Point being that multiplayer is a focus that the makers of Civ 4 have wanted to include in the fundamental design, instead of adding it after they've made a great single player game.

My question to the hardcore civ fans is what you feel the biggest barrier to a good multiplayer experience is?

To rephrase the question multiple ways:

- when playing multiplayer, what annoys you or makes it suck?
- if you've never played multiplayer, why not?
- what element is great in single player, but sucks in multiplayer?
- are you worried about them adding/removing something that will make multiplayer suck?

what annoys me the most, waiting.
the standard turn based mode in single player just doesnt cut it, especially towards the late game, too much waiting for the other guy to finish is boring and prolongues the game too much.

The simultaneous turn mode(offered in conquest only i believe) was a mixed bag, since it basicly translated to AI goes first, and the game chokes too bad for anyone else to move during this phase, or atleast move the way they intended. I personally think it should have been done where moves are ordered, but not executed, until everyone ends their turn, but thats a whole 'nother discussion

way too much micromanaging to really be a good multiplayer game. atleast give us tools like the ability to build a railroad without a road already in place, i don't care if it takes the same length of time as if i built the road and then built the railroad,dont care if the worker actually builds the road first then the railroad, but having these kinds of ridiculously unneccessary steps really strains the multiplayer, single player too. Let me be able to specify to build a sewer system without an aquaduct already built and then make the game smart enough to manage building the aqueduct first on its own.

and ofcourse, Bad AI(i disagree with you there) and frequency of poor starting locations.

incidently, i think the whole thing is a load of P.R. crap. i've heard that whole "we're playing the game for hours after work" line too many times, and seen the result, to ever take it seriously.

 

[Dr. Broom]

I have to agree that the worst part of multiplayer is the waiting. Even if the turn speed is on fast it is such a pain to wait 50 or 60 seconds every time you want to move. All your workers are busy and your cities are building stuff so you can't do anything and end your turn right away while other players are at war and moving units all over, taking forever. It is the one reason I almost never play online. Last full game I played took over 8 hours that is just sick and ridiculous.

Second thing is the start locations, they just aren't balanced enough but I think in Civilization IV they will change that aspect.

 

[ManOfMiracles]

I don't play multiplayer. I don't consider myself a good enough player to play against someone who might spend 20 hours a day playing CivIII. I also have other responsibilities in life and can't commit to a large enough time block to play a full game. Then there is my spouse who would also like to use the computer from time to time...

 

[dh_epic]

A few reoccuring themes here...

- waiting
- game time length too long
- too much emphasis on starting locations / early game

And, to some extent maybe, (?)
- learning curve

Anybody else? I'm curious about specific anecdotes.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Personally, the thing I dislike most about MP is the focus on ancient warfare. Sure, you can try starts that are later, but then that changes the game since you start with a Settler and can build Knights/Rifles/TOWs right off the bat, ignoring the impact of RRs and other things of that nature.

 

[hr_oskar]

I agree with TGNLPp here: the game as it is has too much micromanagement to be worth playing turn-based. Since the simultaneous turns mode simply isn't the same game (totally screws up military strategy and ruins the fun since it's normally all about the order of the attacks), I'm not really interested in that alternative.

To be a great MP game Civ4 will have to "lose unfun elements" like Soren is saying; minimize the micromanagement, streamline the interface, find a way to shorten the turns. In single-player I'm spending at least 10 minutes on my late-game turns (partially because by then my empire is normally huge, which would admittedly not always be true in MP games), yet I think 1 minute should be the absolute maximum for an entertaining MP game (that way you might still have to wait a couple of minutes per turn in a large game!).

And yeah, given the range of starting locations I've seen in single-player games, I'd imagine that causes a fair bit of whining and frustration in MP...

 

[dh_epic]

There ought to be a five or ten turn free reign on starting locations or something. Walk around a bit, to a degree, and then let the game start. Kind of like a "pre-game".

But I'm also really big on reducing the importance of early expansionism.

I think the problem is that a lot of people LIKE the single player game the way it is and LIKE ten minute turns (which I, for one, cannot stand). But if you keep the game the same as it is now, then multiplayer won't be any good, which is a HUGE selling point for any game nowadays.

Having two different versions of the same game, I don't know how compelling it would be. You'd have this really emersive intricate Civ game in single player, and then speed civ with less control over everything for multiplayer. Would people go for it?

 

[Bibor]

CIV is simply not a game designed for multiplayer.

if... IF... the next civ would be MP-friendly it would not be civ anymore (because of 2 much changes).

 

[troytheface]

Multiplayer made single player obsolete. Battling against another human is much more fun- alliances and strategy ect. However, in Elimination, there is a tendency to wait and to build a stack and then try to knock out someone in the last minute or so.
However, the worst part of MP is getting a game started.

 

[deeno]

Worst about MP is that the games arn't so cool for the builder types. I am a builder type. And when playing everyone is just trying to destroy the other and nothing else. Where is the fun in creating a nation, where is the fun of tedious planning :S.

 

[dh_epic]

I think this is all interesting stuff that should be noted, perhaps expanded on. Whatever the case, you can't just add stuff to the game to make multiplayer better. It seems as though you may have to take a lot away, too.

 

[masterofdragons]

Two problems. War and waiting. Waiting is too long. Civilization can be made into a real time game with worker actions, unit travel, research, and build times taking a stated amount of time - with future modifications based on new technology. With real time, no waiting. But I play simultaneous random world with my wife and the waiting is just too long.
The second, war. I love strategy and war, but whether in single or multiplayer, a war lasting longer than 10 turns becomes combersome to the nation (in keeping up technologically). Which is actually contrary to reality, more discoveries come from and during war times than any other periods in history. Defense and desperation drive imagination. So, in general mechanics of game and multiplayer, war should not hinder quite as much and should not benefit non-participants to such a degree. If that makes any sense.

 

[masterofdragons]

Yes, hooking up with other players online. I am behind a firewalled router and can play most games online, and when I can't initially I DMZ and everything is fine. Yet, Civ III is nuts to try to connect. The only CIV MP games I get to play are within my own network.

 

[capslock]

I play almost exclusivley multiplayer. The main problem is lag. For long time fans like us, playing long games that last two-three weeks is not a problem. We play simultaneous moves, standard size random map and the pace of the game is quite good, unless there is bad lag. We play 2-3 days a week for several hours each day (3-4 of us with max. ais). Also, the game slows down during wars. Better troop controls (stacking, battle groups, selecting proper troops, etc) will definately improve the game. With stacks of 40-50 troops, trying to select the one you want is tedious with the current cycle system. Also, grouping of artillery and bombers so that I don't have to hit bombard 50 times a turn would be nice. Grouping of other troops would be nice so I don't have to attack 50 times a turn, too. I think these grouping controls would improve single player, too.

 

[socralynnek]

A few reoccuring themes here...


- game time length too long


Anybody else? I'm curious about specific anecdotes.

I am not your opinion here. There are enough MP games out there that last about an hour or so.
Civ is one of the not many MP games that can have really long games, so don't make every computergame be the same way in MP terms.
If you want a shorter MP Civ game, play a scenario and play with accelerated production.
I haven't played much Civ MP becuase I have a slow Internet connection and so I only play when we make a network with friends (but yeah, it's sometimes hard to find real opponents because Civ is too complex)

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, I don't think the shortened games are that bad. But they're already distinctly different from Civ's focus. It's a matter of killing a king, so give up on that cultural victory (if there was ever hope already).

Sped-up production helps a little, though. I guess a good scenario is like a good multiplayer level -- you don't see people trying to play multiplayer halflife on a huge single player world.