Blazing :(

[Deity Dude]

Can someone explain to me why it seems like everyone on Gamespy insists on a Blazing timer. I mean is everyone so impatient that if every once in awhile a turn might go over 20 secs it becomes an unplayably slow game?

In Civ II you had to wait for everyone's turn. If everyone went quick and took 20 secs and it was a 4 man game turns took 1:20. As the game went on they certainly got longer. 1 min.. 2min... 3mins per player. Thats 12 min rounds in a 4 player game.

Granted no one wants a 12 min round, but is an occasional 1 minute round so unthinkable or even a 2 min round if you are moving multiple stacks and managing 7 or 8 cities.

I just don't understand the impatience.

[MasterDave]

No matter what speed the game is set at, people have a tendency to use every second of every turn. This can get painful for players like me that wonder why it takes 1:30 for some dufus to move his ONE warrior around for the first fifteen turns EVERY DAMN TURN.

If it was a matter of someone occasionally taking longer every now and then, that would be fine. But as the game drags on and every turn means a minute or more of stewing in my own juices, it just saps the fun.

Anyhow, that is why people on gamespy like blazing. With that time setting it is possible to get even a long game that goes into the 1800's or 1900's done in one sitting.

I didnt like Blazing at first either, but I got used to it. It is easier to manage the clock if you use grouping commands and do your city maintenance stuff after you press enter to end your turn and before the next turn begins.

Hardly anybody played Civ 2 multiplayer because it took so damn long. I was one of the biggest civ2 fanatics ever, but my attempts to play the game mulitplayer when it finally came out scared me off quick with the glacial pacing.

[Deity Dude]

So you feel that you would not play better under a slower speed? Time has never stopped you from playing your best game?

[OzzyKP]

I can't stand it DD. I've been in games where I can't even move all my troops before the timer runs out. Its very hectic and stressful. No thanks.

[Deity Dude]

EXACTLY - I want your BEST GAME not your QUICKEST.

[Deity Dude]

Sorry to spam but this is a perfect example:

I went into Gamespy and titled a game "No Amatuers - No Timer"

5 or 6 people must have joined and asked me to put on a timer. I asked them to read the title of the game again. They all left immediately but one person. She agreed to play a no timer game cuz she was a noob. After about 3 hours she quit.

I signed on around 8:00pm my time. When I left this game it was about 11:30. As usual Gamespy was having trouble connecting

4 of the 5 people who wouldnt play me in a non-timer/slow timer game because it would take too long, were still looking for a game. Three hours later.

Boy did they save alot of time

[sovietwaffle]

Really, people choose blazing because of the clash of playstyles. I play relatively slowly and dislike blazing (I wouldn't mind a slow timer). Some people though enjoy rushing into the game (Build an army if they're around ). It really is best to organize games before hand though, makes things convinient!

[PJL]

I wouldn't mind MP if it wasn't so fast.

[OzzyKP]

That's why you should play games with folks you know, and not the retards in the lobby.

[Deity Dude]

We should set up a non-blazing group

[CanuckSoldier]

Well most MPers are happy with fast, but when you live in constraints of trying to get an average 130-150 turn game into the 3-4 hour time span, you have to put some time limit on the turns, we don't all have time to spend 6 hours on a game just because one player wants to look at every advisor screen every turn

CS

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by CanuckSoldier
Well most MPers are happy with fast, but when you live in constraints of trying to get an average 130-150 turn game into the 3-4 hour time span, you have to put some time limit on the turns,

If the timer were placed on 1 min and every player took the full amount of time every turn (Very unlikely) in 4 hours you would still get 240 turns in. Thats almost 2 games

Originally posted by CanuckSoldier
we don't all have time to spend 6 hours on a game just because one player wants to look at every advisor screen every turn

CS

Agreed. I'd just like enough time to move my units, pick techs and choose what I want to build.

[Solver]

Don't forget that the majority of players that you'd come up against in random games in the lobby aren't hardcore civvers. And chances are, the other MP games they've played have been faster. Like, RTS games, where 2 hours is a really long match. So they want a fast game...

[CanuckSoldier]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


If the timer were placed on 1 min and every player took the full amount of time every turn (Very unlikely) in 4 hours you would still get 240 turns in. Thats almost 2 games



Agreed. I'd just like enough time to move my units, pick techs and choose what I want to build.

Yes but you can't set the CIV timer to a specific time limit, it scales with the size of the map and the number of units as the game progresses. I have found that if I am playing the builder I'm often waiting for 80% of each turn for the wars that other players are fighting to finish each turn, but to me that is a neccesary evil as in some games I'm the conqueroring warmonger :P

CS

[Solver]

All those ladderites...