SP vs. MP

[Aeson]

Characterized by similarity or repetition.

[Krill]

Hmm. It is pretty difficult to argue which of MP and SP is more redundant when they are played on different settings. Only fair comparrison would be the same settings for SP and MP and then as you have already said the talent of the individual controlling each civ is a a major part of the equation.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Krill
It is pretty difficult to argue which of MP and SP is more redundant when they are played on different settings.

There's no need to make it a relative judgment.

MP is redundant in a specific manner. (SP is redundant in it's own manner.) Which a person prefers is of course entirely subjective, but it's obvious that MP limits viable play styles for those who want to be successful.

[Krill]

It is only obvious if, as you have already stated and implied, that in SP a player plays on a level beneath their skill; if I were to play an SP type game against MPers of lower skill then it is not impossible for me to win by a number of different playstyles.

However, quantifying the variety of different playstyles that work in each setting would be necassary to validate this arguement. That is quite a daunting task.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Krill
It is only obvious if, as you have already stated and implied, that in SP a player plays on a level beneath their skill; if I were to play an SP type game against MPers of lower skill then it is not impossible for me to win by a number of different playstyles.

No. What I have stated is that on a difficulty level suited for a player, SP allows a wide range of viable play styles, while keeping the outcome uncertain.

To keep the outcome uncertain in MP, you have to reduce play styles. Some are simply ludicrous to presume as an option in MP as you will lose very predictably against any competent opponent.

Even if we ignore that though, it is self-evident that MP restricts play styles. We have to look no further than turn limits and time limits (implied, stated, or game mechanic enforced). More micro intensive economic strategies are disfavored because there isn't enough time to spend swapping city laborers/specialist around each turn after calculating (even if you can do it in your head).

Map choice and settings are also restricted. In SP a player has full control over the type of game that will be played. In MP, you have to find players willing to participate in the sort of game you are looking for, which may not always (or in some cases, often) be available. Generally some compromises will have to be made, and there are logistic problems for anyone who wants a really "epic" game.

Also the MP specific maps and settings are designed to funnel play into a specific type of game. Exploration (one of the 4 X's) is in large part dropped in favor of a predetermined landmass configuration on some maps. Other MP oriented settings like no tech trading, X city elim, and even simultaneous turns, will limit what you can expect to be viable.

Those settings are optional, but are quite often used in MP. Certainly it would reduce your chances of finding a MP game if you were not flexible in accepting such limitations. As such it is a limitation imposed by MP in general.

To sum up... in the MP games I played, I never saw someone trigger a Cultural victory. I never saw a Diplomatic victory. I never saw a Spaceship victory from a 4000BC start. Never saw a huge map game attempted, let alone played out. Never had the time to run a spreadsheet to work out an optimal economic development for the specific situation, and even was never able to run proper SE economy. I'm sure these things can (and in some cases do) happen, but it's obvious they are not what you should expect to be viable options in your average MP game.

[Krill]

Even if we ignore that though, it is self-evident that MP restricts play styles. We have to look no further than turn limits and time limits (implied, stated, or game mechanic enforced).

For certain MP gametypes, yes, but not every MP game is played with a turn and time limit, for example RAHs saturday night games are sometimes played without time limits and always without turn limits.

[Krill]

Oh, and a clarification: What is your meaning of "Play styles". I just realised there are a couple of different possible meanings which would alter the context of your post significantly from my original understanding.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Krill
For certain MP gametypes, yes, but not every MP game is played with a turn and time limit, for example RAHs saturday night games are sometimes played without time limits and always without turn limits.

You realize there are time constraints implicit in such an endeavor, even without game options turned on to enforce them, right?

(To illustrate, try setting up a spreadsheet to plan your economy the next game. Or even just take 20 minutes a turn. See how well that is received.)

Oh, and a clarification: What is your meaning of "Play styles". I just realised there are a couple of different possible meanings which would alter the context of your post significantly from my original understanding.

"Play style" can mean what goal you have (in CIV, that means victory conditions), or how you want to get there. Both are limited in MP.

[Krill]

You realize there are time constraints implicit in such an endeavor, even without game options turned on to enforce them, right?

(To illustrate, try setting up a spreadsheet to plan your economy the next game. Or even just take 20 minutes a turn. See how well that is received.)

Beside the point, the amount of time it takes to calculate the ideal course of action doesn't affect the probability of that course of action leading to winning the game.

[Krill]

"Play style" can mean what goal you have (in CIV, that means victory conditions), or how you want to get there.

Map choice and settings are also restricted. In SP a player has full control over the type of game that will be played.

In SP the player has full control over which map type, the amount of land, and the climate, none of which the AI knows, giving the player an advantage over the AI. The AI therefore is playing at a disadvantage that it has to overcome, decreasing the possible playstyles that the human will come across, leading to a specific set of strategies that will give a better chance of victory than others, which to a player attempting to be succesful renders the other strategies redundant.

In MP however every player can understand the settings prior to the start of the game and adjust their strategies accordingly, leading to a greater vareity of choices that each player can make in their attempt to win the game.

In MP, you have to find players willing to participate in the sort of game you are looking for, which may not always (or in some cases, often) be available. Generally some compromises will have to be made, and there are logistic problems for anyone who wants a really "epic" game.

This is a metagame issue, it has no effect on what playstyles in game are effective or not.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Krill
Beside the point, the amount of time it takes to calculate the ideal course of action doesn't affect the probability of that course of action leading to winning the game.

It certainly does affect the effectiveness to not be able to spend the time necessary to adequately assess the situation. Some play styles more than others, which promotes some play styles over others.

For instance, a SE is much more difficult to run efficiently in a time constrained environment than a CE. That is because an SE requires spending extra time inside cities changing specialists, often turn by turn, whereas in a CE, there are far fewer laborer and specialist re-assignments that need to be made. A city governor can even run a CE reasonably well, but makes an absolute mess of a SE.

In simul turn MP I found being in the city screen for much time at all was generally a very bad idea. You have to be ready to react to unit movements on the map as they happen. As such, I never ran a SE economy, tending towards very simple and straightforward decisions as to how to handle Specialists and GP. There just wasn't time (even in no time limit games...) for more in-depth approaches.

In SP the player has full control over which map type, the amount of land, and the climate, none of which the AI knows, giving the player an advantage over the AI. The AI therefore is playing at a disadvantage that it has to overcome, decreasing the possible playstyles that the human will come across, leading to a specific set of strategies that will give a better chance of victory than others, which to a player attempting to be succesful renders the other strategies redundant.

SP was extensively balanced so that the AI would present a similar challenge in regards to each victory condition. On the proper difficulty level, you should be able to go for any given victory condition, and have a similar chance of winning as if you went for another victory condition. At least if you know how to play similarly effectively in the given play styles. It may vary from victory condition to victory condition a bit. Cultural was about a difficulty level easier at release for instance, but that's not really a problem either since if you want a cultural game, just bump the difficulty up a notch.

If you find a difficulty level too easy, you move up until you have a viable chance to win and lose. If it's too hard for you to win, you can move down. You can choose how to play. It's up to you.

In MP however every player can understand the settings prior to the start of the game and adjust their strategies accordingly, leading to a greater vareity of choices that each player can make in their attempt to win the game.

No, this actually reduces the variety of choices you'd expect from participants. When everyone knows the settings, it's more likely they will chose the "optimal" play style for those settings, which is much the same for each player.

A random settings game (SP or MP) may increase the variation on choices that are made by the players involved, since some people will not at first make the proper choice for what the settings turn out to be. It doesn't change whether those choices are viable or not though.

This is a metagame issue, it has no effect on what playstyles in game are effective or not.

If you can't even play a certain style, it is not viable, and certainly not effective. It is not in play. Eliminating options entirely contributes to "redundancy".