Why Civ Multiplayer is a fail and my hopes about Civ on Facebook...

[Naokaukodem]

Imagine a persistent universe where you have a true big map like the Earth one, if not the Earth one, with hundreds of countries in it. I mean, in multiplayer... a system that makes battles and everything automated when your not online, so that there is definitely a lot of players/civs allowed to play a single game.

Because I always thought that diplomacy was the Achilles' heel of Civ games, particularly because AIs do not play to win, and in multiplayer, because there is not enough civs to make it interesting.

In multiplayer FFAs, usually 2 or 3 players gang up on the big dude, ruining the game (because when the big dude is gone, players quit the game) or the choices made by some players aren't valid (because they are running for a long term development, neglecting early army) , so that other players can take their capital pretty quickly and unbalance the game, thus the aforementionned gang up that ruin games. Or, some players continue to play against their old allies after having ganged up against another one, but this is pretty rare, anyway most players won't want to continue because they feel too inferior, and sometimes are.

Not to mention the fact that players quit because they engaged themselves in a blood thirsty war with a random neighbour and fell backward without noticing it.

I believe that Civ diplomacy and game system are such made that it can't be dealed without the "play again & fail" experience, so that there is a huge difference between noobs and experienced players. And that ruins most of the games, in the sense that there is a little number of games that unfold continously until the effective victory of one player.

That, I believe is due to the open gameplay that allows many things and ways of developement. I mean, that is to the player to find in his head what is the best route, and that is achieved outside the game, with more or less success. For example, if you choose to build a worker first, what would probably be the best choice in order to develop faster, you will die quickly IF an enemy warrior comes to your capital and see it unprotected, or is rather mad and attack you without having even see it unprotected. you will have to take a breath and imagine your next game, when you will start to build a warrior. I mean, There should be hints all over the place in order you not to do silly things like build a worker first in FFA, especially if your capital in on a hill and so can be viewed by anyone. But the hints aren't there. Another possibility is to make the game so that hints are useless. For example, you can't build a worker first. You have to build a warrior first in order to build a worker*. Things that prevent you to play stupidly. So that, you will end up to develop carefully in all cases, even if you are a noob. Because, in FFA, the best tactic is to develop cautiously without entering war, or only defensive ones, because there is a map where South leads to North, and East leads to West, so that you are never protected by ocean and have limited front. That's it, you have only one tactic in order to develop and live in all circumtances. You have to build warrior first, protect your settlers, workers and new cities, etc... that seems obvious, but it is only an example to try to represent how the game is tempting regardful of luck tricks. Indeed, you can deliberately choose to build a worker first, but if you are not attacked, it would be luck only, so what is the point to win with luck? That, also, would be abolished with a directed developement.

*= or, if you have to build a warrior first all time, then make it "automatic", like having a default warrior in capital, just like the ability of Civ5 cities to defend themselves without a unit. Streamline all the game like that, to prevent "exploits"/luck tricks/ability to play based on fails.

That way, games will more look like games played between experienced players, it is to say interesting, impossible-to-guess-the-outcome, perfectly BALANCED games.

More, it will make games, if we are basing ourselves on Civ4, feel more like true civilization, with persistant countries, fighting for some land, and not annihilating themselves by a finger snap. I do not mean, annihilating is fun, and should remain, but should not that obvious and unbalancing. (like playing versus noobs/luck tempters)

Also, there is this problem of alliances that can ruin games so easily, as explained before. Maybe, forbid to enter war with a nation already at war? No. I don't think it would be good. Alliances should be the sap of diplomacy, and be enjoyed if finally, with a directed gameplay, we succeed in conquering another civ. (it would mean a lot of -rewarded- efforts)

Last but not least, I will say that there are so few civs in Civ4 multiplayer, separated by so little land structure, that taking a decision is not easy (and most of the time stupid). I believe that making a game with a whole lot more civs, with their geography, ressources, and particularly respective differenciated lands (like peninsulas, ithmus, etc... you get the picture), would make decisions (or un-decisions) more clear and enjoyable.

 

[troytheface]

not sure anything will make people quit

they quit on the drop of a dime or a phone call or a lost worker

in the land of multiplayer i play to make them quit

i taunt- i attack - when they say "we will both lose" i quip - that is correct - but you will lose first
then i will build on a one tile ilse and watch the rest quit as well

the evidence is clear

 

[Naokaukodem]

not sure anything will make people quit

they quit on the drop of a dime or a phone call

Here, a persistent universe would make the deal (see below)

or a lost worker

That's because there is the possibility, first, to lose workers, when it is pretty easy to protect them (but require more micromanagement).

That why workers should but automatically protected, with hitpoints and force, even if it is not realistic, and it would eliminate in the same move micromanagement.

in the land of multiplayer i play to make them quit

i taunt- i attack - when they say "we will both lose" i quip - that is correct - but you will lose first
then i will build on a one tile ilse and watch the rest quit as well

the evidence is clear

LOL. Seems you don't play the game fairly because you are too lazy to enter to a diplomatic game. Why? Because the game asks too much investment, like being too long to play in one go. Myself, quit often when i'm winning because the time i win too many turns will unfold.

Here comes the usefulness of a persistent universe. You don't have anymore to play 3 hours (or more!) without a break, just to give some quick orders and the game plays alone when you are offline.

 

[Skipr]

perhaps in a persistant world if risk was higher less people would be inclined to just goon the rampage.

and organized military is stronger than a barbarian horde.

early game tactics seem to make it so you have totake asmuch land as possible. I never build settlers becuase with AI eventually they willgo to war with you. so why not just build warriors andtaka there cities

it seems with humna players, probablya lot lesslikely to blindly declare war. because bothside realize that while they are at war the other guys are funding research.

 

[Naokaukodem]

perhaps in a persistant world if risk was higher less people would be inclined to just goon the rampage.

and organized military is stronger than a barbarian horde.

I fail to see what to want to say with that.

early game tactics seem to make it so you have totake asmuch land as possible. I never build settlers becuase with AI eventually they willgo to war with you. so why not just build warriors andtaka there cities

it seems with humna players, probablya lot lesslikely to blindly declare war. because bothside realize that while they are at war the other guys are funding research.

No offense, but did you actually play Civ4? AIs NEVER attack you early, that's for sure. There is a time threshold below which AIs NEVER attack you. So you can, in single player or multiplayer against one or more AIs, develop comfortably without producing any military units against them.

Now it is precisely with human player that it changes. Human players will attack very early when they see no warrior in your capital, or only sometimes when they see an unprotected worker working your land.