Will MP suck?

[Dale]

Originally posted by Ellestar

First you state i can't know that it will suck because i wasn't in beta and then you state the core reasons why it will suck, and everyone knows these reasons. How much sense does it make? As i said, you just prove my point by your self-contraditing posts. Yes, they're SP games first, and once again company didn't try to make a good MP game from it (i pointed at the clues that prove it), hence my conclusion that MP will not be any better than in previous games.

How do you know it'll be crap before you even tried it?

However, if you play a couple of games of MP and then come here and say "0h nO!!111! th1s gAm3 b10Ws cuZ MP 1s cArp11!!1" well then someone may listen.

But saying something is crap before you even played it is just stupid.

Personally I could care less if MP works or not. I don't play it anymore.

[conmcb25]

Ya agreed with Dale lets try it out before we say it sucks. CIV IV was by far the best implementation of MP in a CIV game, but there were still problems with it. I tried playing with the ladder guys several times and concluded that anything I needed a masters in networking for to connect probably wasn't for me (OK, I am exagerating but staying connected in CIV IV was no easy task).

Hoipefully those issues have been worked out. My kids and I plan on playing some LAN games so we will see how well it works.

[CanuckSoldier]

Well I won't weigh in on whether MP will suck or be decent in Col2, however I will make one comment about MP being only 1% of the market. If Firaxis wanted MP in the Civ franchise to be more than that they could have made it that way, there is no reason Civ4 could not have been the WoW of the TBS world. But when you are hamstrung by decisions like using a P2P model and using Gamespy, instead of a server based model with a real human managed MP league, they were ensuring that they could continue to quote the 1% figure, it was a self fulfilling prophecy Dale.

And yes I do know that "some" players were testing the MP, however from what I saw they were Civ3 players not even Civ4 MPers and definitely no MP tester that was evolved with C3C or Civ4 testing was invited to test Col2, not that I am suggesting that they are bad people, but definitely not competitive MP players and therefore Col2 is certainly not going to be designed/balanced for competitive MP and more likely just for the Casual MP player, and possibility the demo gamer etc.

Maybe we will be proven wrong but time will tell. But then what do I know...guess I was turned down to test Col2 for a reason

And Civilization Players will be supporting Col2 MP none the less here. Just a fourm for now, and if there is a demand for a league we will provide that as well.

http://col2.civplayers.com/forum/index.php

CS

[Dale]

If you feel that MP was hamstrung from the beginning of Civ4 development, you would have to look to the actions and recommendations of Friedrich. He did shape early Civ4 MP development in late 2004 / early 2005. Instead of blaming Firaxis for not making a good MP system, and then not totally re-writing MP (which you have to admit is not a task that can be done lightly, and probably would have delayed Warlords 6-12 months, you know how integrated Friedrich's MP system was with the engine) why not look to the person who pushed for that design.

Who if I'm not mistaken used to be one of yours right?

[conmcb25]

You can play whose fault it is all day. The bottomline is MP is the best in CIV IV but its not where it could have been.

And thats not any one persons fault.

[snoopy369]

I think the P2P method was the right choice, frankly, because it's the sort of game that makes sense for it - groups of people playing games together. Ladders and such are interesting for some (and you all do a great job of that), but I'd suggest that for the majority of the market that would not be the right call - the casual MP players (like myself) are happier with P2P MP. Gamespy not so much, but Firaxis had to offer something like that for the novice player, and there aren't all that many good ones out there sadly...

So, anyone want to try some MP Col?

[N35t0r]

As soon as I can get a boxed game over here, of course.

[CanuckSoldier]

Originally posted by Dale
If you feel that MP was hamstrung from the beginning of Civ4 development, you would have to look to the actions and recommendations of Friedrich. He did shape early Civ4 MP development in late 2004 / early 2005. Instead of blaming Firaxis for not making a good MP system, and then not totally re-writing MP (which you have to admit is not a task that can be done lightly, and probably would have delayed Warlords 6-12 months, you know how integrated Friedrich's MP system was with the engine) why not look to the person who pushed for that design.

Who if I'm not mistaken used to be one of yours right?

Dale, I'm well aware of exactly the role F-P played and I am very happy with what he accomplished. But F-P did not make the design decisions that turned Civ4 into a P2P, using the same broken match making system that was a problem with PTW and C3C. I was involved with the entire Civ4 development too remember. And the problem was not that we didn't think MP would be better, in fact the "new" GS NAT system was suppose to make MP several levels better than C3C was. But it was never stress tested prior to release, for various reason that we both know about and I won't go into here, but the fact is that it, in the end, was a failure because of this, and after the fact(and two XP's later) it still has not been fixed. And that is what has lost my respect for Firaxis, not what we did during the development. Which I had high hopes for and the MP programmer even thought it would work much better that it did.

We can certainly analyze in depth privately the mistakes that were made Dale, since I do still consider myself under the NDA, but in the end the issue is that Firaxis has never admitted to making a mistake let alone doing what it takes to fix it. We who are core MP players would at least regain respect for Firaxis if they at least make a public statement that MP never worked as promised and that they honestly have no intention of fixing it because of the cost of doing so. It may no fix anything in the game, but honestly goes along way with people.

CS

[peege]

I'm not into the politics of the designers or anything. I just played some MP C4C, on a LAN. Works fine..

As did Civ4 BTS. I will say that there were some problems with it, but they were relative to the game. All games have little balance issues and problems that get worked out over time. In the beginning, things are shaky, but they get fixed.


I loved playing CTP2 with the mods from this forum. Sure, not all perfect, but they were fun. CTP2 would crash in MP mode before the game was done in the box version.

Civ4 didn't crash over many games. This one seems stable too.

The point is this, I haven't played a game that didn't have something that needed improving. Except chess. Its still great fun and well worth $26-$30. My wife and I can't go to the movies for that much, and we've already played this game MP for 26 hours this week. We've had a blast even just learning the flaws of the game.


My advice is get some friends who enjoy a REAL game of Civ4 or C4C and play on a LAN or set up a private server. Everyone agrees how long to play, and can be punched (or at least held personally accountable ) if they rush you in the early game. It really makes the game more fun. At least it did for Civ4: BTS

I have played solo over the week after my wife goes to bed. It isn't as fun. I just don't feel the sense of permanence that a MP game offers. Civ4 NEEDS a human counterpart just to be interesting for me now. I won't even play by myself except to just feed the basic urge of needing to get by until the MP game again.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Dale
How do you know it'll be crap before you even tried it?

I explained how i knew it. You decided to ignore it, but that's not my problem. If you can't do the same, sucks to be you, but that doesn't mean that others can't do it.
Say, balance issues in MP should have been obvious to everyone who played in Col1, and these posts prove that my prediction was accurate:

http://col2.civplayers.com/forum/index.php?topic=11.0

Ellestar, September 25, 2008, 04:33:10 AM (before anyone got the game, and i wasn't a beta tester)
I think it's too easy to attack at the start of the game - it's the same issue as on water maps in civ 4.
Also, it requires at least a mod for efficient automatic trade routes if we want it to be playable with several colonies.
I don't think it will be fun unmodded, but it may be interesting with some changes.

Later responces after the release:
Well, just got the game, played it a couple times. Tried to play in online, but never managed to get the game past turn 20. The problem is that you start the game with 1 military unit, your choice with your military unit is to either go expoloring, and meet the natives, or go kill your neighbor, who has probably sent his military unit to go meet the natives. You cannot quickly or easily get more military units, so someone usually ends up with a really lame start.
Not really very good for MP, in my book, though I will give it a few more chances.

Yes, TBS, the option to rush (thanks to the combo soldier+boat) is heavily problematic for MP. That issue was raised during beta-test but was not adressed eventually. For MP "ladder-style", I suggest advanced starts, which add some more soldiers to your party.
A thorough mod will be available soon (if it is not already), which will add a lot to the game.

And of course i was right about the lack of MP playtesting, just look at these stability issues:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=292964

I've tried a few today, most had terrible lags right on the start and 4\5 ppl left, and after founding their first colonies everyone declared war on natives and died, so game was over even before I founded my second colony, what was your MP experience?

We had several good games last night; quitters are unavoidable in online play.
Now, if only Firaxis would fix the various out of sync bugs, bizarre amphibious attack and retire bugs, and re-work the pause feature so as to prevent people from hot-joining games and then constantly hitting the pause button.
And yes, multiplayer is "Powered by GameSpy," but no, GameSpy did not design these features of the game. And yes, these features of the game can be fixed.


Dear Firaxis,
Please fix the random out of sync errors that occur in games.
Please fix the random bug that causes Civ4Col to crash if an out of sync player stays in a game for more than one or two turns.
Please fix the myriad peer connectivity issues.
Please change the pause feature so that people cannot join games and just pause-crash them to death by constantly pausing the game. Don't let a player pause the game but one time every 5 turns or something. If people need pauses more often than that, just have others in the game pause it.

Originally posted by Dale However, if you play a couple of games of MP and then come here and say "0h nO!!111! th1s gAm3 b10Ws cuZ MP 1s cArp11!!1" well then someone may listen.

Topic starter asked the question, i answered that question and you started to flame me (that is, you focused on what i wasn't in beta so i can't know, instead of trying to counter my arguments why it can't be good). Please

Originally posted by Dale
But saying something is crap before you even played it is just stupid.

Well, evidence proves who was stupid and who wasn't.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Actually Civ4 MP is one of the best in the civ series.

And the Diplo games of Civ4 have made the game seem almost like it was designed for MP.

I guess you're right that it's the best of Civ series, but that just proves how bad it was all the time. It pales in comparision with a good RTS and FPS games. Of course, these genres are more suited to MP than TBS, but i played a lot in Civ 4 MP and i know that if Firaxis tried, they could have made a much better MP game than what they made, with a relatively small efforts.

Originally posted by snoopy369
So, anyone want to try some MP Col?

I guess i'll wait for a Stardock's TBS, they promised a multiplayer there, and they're launching their online MP service for games so they seem to be more serious about MP than Firaxis. They let anyone who's willing to make a preorder to betatest their games (and there is no NDA so they can't hide their crap like Firaxis). And they do listen to their buyers. So their game has a potential to become a much better MP game than a Firaxis games.

[MasterDave]

I played Civ4 MP a lot since release, and was in a regular apolyton game every week for a long time and it is definitely the best version of Civ for multiplayer. That being said, I do not think that Colonization lends itself well to MP.

First of all, it is much more expensive in terms of opportunity cost to defend every settlement than in Civ4, which would be a must since someone is sure to be running around with a soldier looking for free cities.

After the early game, the mid game is mostly about building an economy, and if someone forces you to fight wars early, then both players are going to have no chance of ever generating enough liberty bells or cash to ever go independant. If someone wanted to "win" just by knocking out everyone else to the point where they quit, then they could, but with only three units to choose from on the ground, it would be far less interesting as a war game than Civ 4 is. If everyone sat around and grew their economies like the game expects you to, then that would be pretty boring and slow in MP.

So it seems like the choices are to have a wargame with a very small and limited number of units or a sit around economic game which would proceed much more slowly than a SP game. I think I would rather stick with Civ4 BTS if I felt like getting back into multiplayer Civ...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ellestar
I guess i'll wait for a Stardock's TBS,

You mean Galactic Civilizations???

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by Ellestar


I guess i'll wait for a Stardock's TBS, they promised a multiplayer there, and they're launching their online MP service for games so they seem to be more serious about MP than Firaxis. They let anyone who's willing to make a preorder to betatest their games (and there is no NDA so they can't hide their crap like Firaxis). And they do listen to their buyers. So their game has a potential to become a much better MP game than a Firaxis games.

Are you talking about the new Master of Magic? Or some other Stardock TBS that I have not heard of??

I am really looking forward to a modernized MoM...

[Dale]

Originally posted by Ellestar

I explained how i knew it. You decided to ignore it, but that's not my problem. If you can't do the same, sucks to be you, but that doesn't mean that others can't do it.
Say, balance issues in MP should have been obvious to everyone who played in Col1, and these posts prove that my prediction was accurate:

http://col2.civplayers.com/forum/index.php?topic=11.0

Ellestar, September 25, 2008, 04:33:10 AM (before anyone got the game, and i wasn't a beta tester)
I think it's too easy to attack at the start of the game - it's the same issue as on water maps in civ 4.
Also, it requires at least a mod for efficient automatic trade routes if we want it to be playable with several colonies.
I don't think it will be fun unmodded, but it may be interesting with some changes.

Later responces after the release:
Well, just got the game, played it a couple times. Tried to play in online, but never managed to get the game past turn 20. The problem is that you start the game with 1 military unit, your choice with your military unit is to either go expoloring, and meet the natives, or go kill your neighbor, who has probably sent his military unit to go meet the natives. You cannot quickly or easily get more military units, so someone usually ends up with a really lame start.
Not really very good for MP, in my book, though I will give it a few more chances.

Yes, TBS, the option to rush (thanks to the combo soldier+boat) is heavily problematic for MP. That issue was raised during beta-test but was not adressed eventually. For MP "ladder-style", I suggest advanced starts, which add some more soldiers to your party.
A thorough mod will be available soon (if it is not already), which will add a lot to the game.

And of course i was right about the lack of MP playtesting, just look at these stability issues:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=292964

I've tried a few today, most had terrible lags right on the start and 4\5 ppl left, and after founding their first colonies everyone declared war on natives and died, so game was over even before I founded my second colony, what was your MP experience?

We had several good games last night; quitters are unavoidable in online play.
Now, if only Firaxis would fix the various out of sync bugs, bizarre amphibious attack and retire bugs, and re-work the pause feature so as to prevent people from hot-joining games and then constantly hitting the pause button.
And yes, multiplayer is "Powered by GameSpy," but no, GameSpy did not design these features of the game. And yes, these features of the game can be fixed.


Dear Firaxis,
Please fix the random out of sync errors that occur in games.
Please fix the random bug that causes Civ4Col to crash if an out of sync player stays in a game for more than one or two turns.
Please fix the myriad peer connectivity issues.
Please change the pause feature so that people cannot join games and just pause-crash them to death by constantly pausing the game. Don't let a player pause the game but one time every 5 turns or something. If people need pauses more often than that, just have others in the game pause it.


Topic starter asked the question, i answered that question and you started to flame me (that is, you focused on what i wasn't in beta so i can't know, instead of trying to counter my arguments why it can't be good). Please


Well, evidence proves who was stupid and who wasn't.

Hey, I'm not disagreeing that MP does suck. I haven't tried it, and won't. I have no interest in MP. And I have no interest in personally spending my time fixing MP either. But if in the course of fixing SP that I someone do something to fix MP, then yah!

My whole problem with your comment started when you blatantly said "MP will suck, no doubt about it" before the game was released.

It's that sort of attitude that will convince yourself that it does suck. The fact that you have already written off MP before the game came out proves that even if it had been the best MP in the world you would still think it sucks because you'd already entered the mindset of "no doubt about it".

That's what my problem with your attitude was. Declaring that without even trying the game.