SP vs. MP

[Diadem]

Most of the multiplayer i've played were teamgames. They are great fun!

Your armies are HUGE compared to SP. As a result teching and expansion are much slower. You don't have time to research nice techs such as religions and stuff. You're beelining for the military techs and that's it.

You're fighting over strategic locations, harassing your opponents with small attacks, meanwhile massing a huge army to strike and kill.

[Krill]

Team games are better when you can play with people who you can speak with at the same time using ventrilo or teamspeak though; you normally need a headset to remove all that annoying echo and when alot of people play MP they don't realise that it does require a little extra investment (though it does help you learn alot faster as better players can look over how you are playing and tell you how you can improve).

This doesn't just go for CIV though, goes for pretty much every MP team game.

[Aeson]

Handicaps are actually quite fun.

MP is terribly redundant in my experience. The most fun games I was involved with were the times I joined an AI placeholder later in the game, since an AI tends to set you up very differently than anything you'd ever choose to do.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Aeson
MP is terribly redundant in my experience.

That's what I would say about SP.
The AI is very predictable. Humans aren't

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ming
That's what I would say about SP.
The AI is very predictable. Humans aren't

But how you beat humans is very predictable.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Aeson
But how you beat humans is very predictable.

And beating the AI is even more predictable

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ming
And beating the AI is even more predictable

Try Deity? (And know what you're doing so you have a chance...)

Winning at MP is mostly following a pre-set recipe. (PBEM not as much.) You allude to such in your first post, a great many approaches are simply not viable. Also, you simply have less time to specifically tailor an approach to a situation.

SP allows a much wider range of approaches, and on the proper difficulty level for your skill, can make most of the approaches viable but not assured. You also have as much time as you want to tweak things, so there is room for much greater deviation from the cookbook.

Plus most players really aren't as unpredictable as MP is given credit for...

[Ming]

I have to disagree. The AI is totally predictable. Granted, the cheats provided to the AI at the higher levels gives them a distinct advantage and makes the game more difficult, but it doesn't really change how the AI acts. The AI is far more predictable than a human player.

In SP, many more approaches are available to you. And that is because the AI is stupid and predictable. Only the high level cheats they are given makes it possible for them win. You can afford different approaches

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ming
I have to disagree. The AI is totally predictable. Granted, the cheats provided to the AI at the higher levels gives them a distinct advantage and makes the game more difficult, but it doesn't really change how the AI acts. The AI is far more predictable than a human player.

Um... you aren't disagreeing with me. I never said the AI aren't predictable.

In SP, many more approaches are available to you.

See, you're agreeing with me.

[Ming]

Agreeing in some ways, and disagreeing with you on the redundent comment you made.

I find playing the AI very redundent and totally predictable. I find playing other humans refreshing and different.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ming
Agreeing in some ways, and disagreeing with you on the redundent comment you made.

If you want to go back and address a quote made before, you should quote it, not follow up a response with no reference to what you are actually referring to.

In any case, you seem to have misread what you are referring to, as I have never said the AI is not redundant or predictable.

I find playing the AI very redundent and totally predictable.

Which is different than what you said earlier, "beating the AI is even more predictable".

"Totally predictable" is an overstatement as well. The information necessary to predict the AI reactions isn't available in many cases, and wherever the RNG factors in, there is of course uncertainty as to the results.

I find playing other humans refreshing and different.

Like whatever you want, but my statement was that MP reduces viable play styles. Something you have said yourself. If you want to disagree with me, you have to disagree with what I've actually said.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Aeson
If you want to go back and address a quote made before, you should quote it, not follow up a response with no reference to what you are actually referring to.

OK... then here is the EXACT quote.

MP is terribly redundant in my experience.

And I will repeat since you seem to have misread
I find SP the more redundant. The AI is stupid and predictable... and while you may have more options, it's only because the AI is so stupid and predictable that you can pick whichever way you want to win. That is what makes it so boring and redundant in comparison to MP.

Playing against humans makes the games far more different and interesting, because human oponents aren't as redundant or predictable

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ming
OK... then here is the EXACT quote.

... out of context.

And I will repeat since you seem to have misread

No, I read what you said just fine. The only point I was confused on was what you were referring to by responding to my post, since you failed to quote what you have since claimed you were responding to, so I was understandably under the impression that you were responding to the post directly previous to your reply.

That is what makes it so boring and redundant in comparison to MP.

You seem to be under the assumption that I have said SP is less redundant than MP in general. I have not addressed the general nature of either in relation to the other. I have expressed some specific areas of each, and in those areas you are in agreement.

My statement was not a comparative one. It simply said I found MP redundant. Do you disagree that I found MP redundant? No. (I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that.) Do you disagree that MP is redundant in the manner I have explained? No, you agreed.

Before you "disagreed" I had explained further what I meant by "I found MP terribly redundant". In fact the post you now claim you weren't responding to was a continuation of that explanation. By trying to pretend that you were responding to my initial statement, and not the explanations of what the statement was referring to, you are taking that statement out of context.

In the end, either way you were responding to the post previous to your reply, whether you want to pretend you were or not. Because it is the context of the statement you want to say you were responding to specifically.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ming
The AI is stupid and predictable... and while you may have more options, it's only because the AI is so stupid and predictable that you can pick whichever way you want to win.

I disagree with the last portion. You cannot win in any way you want on a difficulty level appropriate for your abilities. You can have a viable chance of winning in various ways in such case, but it won't be assured. Assured wins are for those playing on a difficulty level that is too easy for them.

I also disagree that the extra options are only because of the AI's nature. SP (and PBEM to a large extent) allows a player to chose the pace of the game. This allows for more micro intensive play styles, and in general allows a more custom tailored approach to the situation. Also, at least in my experience, the type of games available to play in MP tend towards a limited group of settings. SP allows a free choice of settings, and the AI will always show up even if you want something uncommon. (Unless by "uncommon" you mean without any AI...)

[Krill]

Aeson, what meaning are you using for "redundant"?