Will they release a fix for MP anytime soon?

[Knut_Are_M]

There is a temporary fix. do not make any commands during turn prosessing.
this was a problem With the previus patch as well, but it was a bit harder to pull off since it had to cause an incompatible move betwean 2 players moveing at the same time betwean turns.
It is easy to reproduse even in the last patch if you want the game to be scrapped.

 

[tschukki]

There is a temporary fix. do not make any commands during turn prosessing.
this was a problem With the previus patch as well, but it was a bit harder to pull off since it had to cause an incompatible move betwean 2 players moveing at the same time betwean turns.
It is easy to reproduse even in the last patch if you want the game to be scrapped.

Sorry Knut, this is at least incomplete information. Yes, it appears that clicking stuff during turn processing appears to make the game go into resynch. But this is only one of many factors. When every player does not do it, there will still be problems. What you suggest helps to play a game, but it is far from being a fix.

The only current fix is rolling back the patch.

 

[tzaari]

Sorry Knut, this is at least incomplete information. Yes, it appears that clicking stuff during turn processing appears to make the game go into resynch. But this is only one of many factors. When every player does not do it, there will still be problems. What you suggest helps to play a game, but it is far from being a fix.

The only current fix is rolling back the patch.

Too bad the last patch was not very great in stability either. It's like claiming out of the fire, into the frying pan.

Civ5 multiplayer has been more or less unstable from the start, so the really big problem is somewhere in the original design of the way the game handles human and ai-player turns in multiplayer. They are not going to go trough the whole game to fix multiplayer once and for all, so they just patch the most obvious things that cause instability. It's a game designed to be single player first and multiplayer is just add on.

 

[tschukki]

Too bad the last patch was not very great in stability either. It's like claiming out of the fire, into the frying pan.

Thats not really true. Compared to other games civ multiplayer stability was poor, but it was playable. It was even fine with only guys with stable connections in there. From there it went to unplayable for everyone. Pre patch there were several dozen guys streaming civ multiplayer each day. Their number has gone to zero.

It's a game designed to be single player first and multiplayer is just add on.

If that were true the single player guys should feel offended. They are supposed to deal with an opponent who cannot even move and shoot in one turn for hundreds of hours?

To me it would make much more sense if the idea of the game was to have a single player modus where you can get a feel for some basic concepts, and then you go online to look for real opponents and real games.

 

[tzaari]

Thats not really true. Compared to other games civ multiplayer stability was poor, but it was playable. It was even fine with only guys with stable connections in there. From there it went to unplayable for everyone. Pre patch there were several dozen guys streaming civ multiplayer each day. Their number has gone to zero.

Only barely. My group played 4-8 player games mostly in G&K and later in BNW. We ditched AI civs after G&K. I don't keep a record but even if I put in a conservative estimate, we started 3-4 times as many games as we managed to actually play to the end.

Most of the civ5 multiplayer LP:s I have watched had quite a small number of players and they were played in smaller maps. So yes, Civ5 was "playable" if you had not more than handful of players with top of the line internet connections.

If that were true the single player guys should feel offended. They are supposed to deal with an opponent who cannot even move and shoot in one turn for hundreds of hours?

What can I say? Yes they should. However, most of the players probably don't play the game long enough or are content enough for the immersive aspects of the game so that AI:s behavior never becomes a issue. They are happy to keep on winning the game.

To me it would make much more sense if the idea of the game was to have a single player modus where you can get a feel for some basic concepts, and then you go online to look for real opponents and real games.

I agree (although I would not mind if you have a good single player AI for major civilizations as well). In my opinion you could also leave the major AI civs away from multiplayer since they only become luck based unbalancing factor. City States and barbarians don't need a very enhanced AI mechanics to work since they don't use most of the game mechanics anyway.

 

[tschukki]

Only barely. My group played 4-8 player games mostly in G&K and later in BNW. We ditched AI civs after G&K. I don't keep a record but even if I put in a conservative estimate, we started 3-4 times as many games as we managed to actually play to the end.

Most of the civ5 multiplayer LP:s I have watched had quite a small number of players and they were played in smaller maps. So yes, Civ5 was "playable" if you had not more than handful of players with top of the line internet connections.

ok, some concession there. I was talking nq games only like most or even all the LPs you have seen. Those are played on small pangeas with 6 guys who each have a good ping to each other. After a while you know the guys who you will always have smooth games with. As soon as there is an unknown in the game the likelihood of experiencing problems rises dramatically.

 

[joncnunn]

Moderator Action: A new patch was released today. Thread closed