Return Of The King To Civ Gaming

[Dulaak]

Balanced for MP is balanced for SP. You can make a good MP game and it will be fine for SP. Age of Empires 2 is a perfect example of this. The fact is that the Firaxis programmers are incompetent. Civ4 would have failed a long time ago if it had any other name than Civilization. Everything from terrible programming to terrible gameplay, this game sold on name alone. Some of the **** they have done no other company could get away with. The whole "SP beats MP in sales" debate is nothing more than something programmers use now to shirk having to balance the game properly and it saves them money on development. PC game consumers have become far too tame and are willing to accept just about anything these days.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Dulaak
Balanced for MP is balanced for SP. You can make a good MP game and it will be fine for SP. Age of Empires 2 is a perfect example of this. The fact is that the Firaxis programmers are incompetent. Civ4 would have failed a long time ago if it had any other name than Civilization. Everything from terrible programming to terrible gameplay, this game sold on name alone. Some of the **** they have done no other company could get away with. The whole "SP beats MP in sales" debate is nothing more than something programmers use now to shirk having to balance the game properly and it saves them money on development. PC game consumers have become far too tame and are willing to accept just about anything these days.

Nah, SP balance and MP balance are different things. If a player doesn't know or doesn't want to use efficient strategies, he can exploit AI weaknesses, play on a lower AI level etc. Knowlege is shared much slower between playes (if at all). So, Civ 4 may be balanced enough for SP, for most players it's more important that game is fun to play, strategies' flavor is more important than it's relative power etc. But in MP only the most efficient strategies survive and it becomes obvious that game lacks the choice between efficient strategies.

And i'm not sure why do you blame programmers. Programmers code, designers design. So, you should be blaming game desingers. Blaming programmers for a bad balance makes as much sense as blaming graphics artists for that.

Also, managers think about money, not programmers or game designers. I bet most game designers will want to make the game of their dream for someone else's money, if possible So, you need to blame managers for the fact that they want to make money on a game and so game designers are forced to prioritize SP over MP

[Dulaak]

Nah, SP balance and MP balance are different things. If a player doesn't know or doesn't want to use efficient strategies, he can exploit AI weaknesses, play on a lower AI level etc. Knowlege is shared much slower between playes (if at all). So, Civ 4 may be balanced enough for SP, for most players it's more important that game is fun to play, strategies' flavor is more important than it's relative power etc. But in MP only the most efficient strategies survive and it becomes obvious that game lacks the choice between efficient strategies.

If the game is balanced for MP, it's balanced for SP. There's nothing that goes into MP that could break SP. On the other hand, there's tons of stuff specifically made for SP and not tested in MP that breaks MP. AOE2 was successful because 1. It was balanced for MP. 2. It was easy to play for beginners, but it was very difficult to be great at. 3. On the surface the game seemed simple, but there was tons of depth so beginners could jump right in and competitive players could get way ahead. Look at all the successful games in the past 10 years and you will see they followed this formula. It is only in recent years that they have begun simplifying games in an attempt to make them even easier that you see MP hurting horribly. Plus, it's not like SP is doing awesome either, PC game sales have been dropping for years. The simple fact is that game makers have taken a different philosophy and it is hurting them.

And i'm not sure why do you blame programmers. Programmers code, designers design. So, you should be blaming game desingers. Blaming programmers for a bad balance makes as much sense as blaming graphics artists for that.

I don't know what your experience is in other games, but in terms of programming, Civ4 is subpar. The interface is absolutely ****ing terrible. I have never seen a game that has such a sluggish, unresponsive interface before. It's not like Civ4 pushes the boundaries of what PCs can do either, in fact, it's pretty god damn weak on system requirements. You must not remember all the issues either when Civ4 first came out. There was everything from memory leaks (I had to defragment my computer like every day), to graphics card issues. On the designer side, they finally added in things that games have had since the 90s and everyone hails it as this enormous evolution in civ gaming. Civ fans are so ridiculous that it is funny. I can go on and on, but most the people who were around for all the problems are gone, they were part of the mass exodus in 2005 and early 2006.

Also, managers think about money, not programmers or game designers. I bet most game designers will want to make the game of their dream for someone else's money, if possible So, you need to blame managers for the fact that they want to make money on a game and so game designers are forced to prioritize SP over MP

You don't seem to understand that if you build the game based on MP, SP follows quite easily. There's nothing you need to add to SP to make it successful. Again, I don't know what your game experience is, but if you look back at the most successful games over the years you will see they followed that formula. There's been a shift in recent years away from MP and I think it's because they foolishly believe that MP isn't really needed. The SP should be prioritized over MP line is just propaganda designed to make you think that.

[Robert]

EoN: define MP game. 1vs1? or 10 player game?

[Dulaak]

MP is anything against a human player, I would think this would be obvious but then I have to remember who is asking the question. It has been this way since the term "multiplayer" was first used back in the early to mid 90s for games like checkers and chess.

[Robert]

An 1vs1 game is something completely different then a 3+ player game.

[Dulaak]

An 1vs1 game is something completely different then a 3+ player game.

Only in the little world you live in. Newsflash, but Civ is one of the smallest MP crowds in existence. Go play starcraft or something or any other game for that matter and you'll see the definition I used. For that matter, that definition was being used before PC games even had MP capability. So shut the **** up now newbie because as I said before, you don't know dick about what you're talking about.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Dulaak


Only in the little world you live in. Newsflash, but Civ is one of the smallest MP crowds in existence. Go play starcraft or something or any other game for that matter and you'll see the definition I used. For that matter, that definition was being used before PC games even had MP capability. So shut the **** up now newbie because as I said before, you don't know dick about what you're talking about.

I don't care about other games.
A 1vs1 MP game is something completely different then a 4+ multiplayer game.

A 1vs1 game will always be about who got the best military buildup. A 3+ (or even better: 5+) game will always need to be more ballanced.

In a 1vs1 game you don't need to focus on long-term planning and ballancing out your cities.
You don't need city specialisation, you don't need much infrastructure, you don't have to care about the non-war techs, etc. etc.

Oh, did I already mention that in our world the real good, wise, smart and all-knowing people act humble and subtle. It's the dumb not knowing group of people that speaks arrogantly and doesn't know how to word a message in such a way that others don't start to hate them.

If you're that smart, wise, etc. etc. you may want to improve the way you post your posts otherwise we may not reckognize your qualities. Just a hint.

[Dulaak]

I don't care about other games.
A 1vs1 MP game is something completely different then a 4+ multiplayer game.

Which is why you're a total newbie and don't know what the **** you're talking about. You are arguing something that was set in stone probably before you even got on the internet. MP has always been in reference to playing vs a human player and it was coined before computer games even got MP capability. Again, shut the **** up if you don't know what you're talking about.

A 1vs1 game will always be about who got the best military buildup. A 3+ (or even better: 5+) game will always need to be more ballanced.

Only in the newbie games you play in. Any large MP game for a ladder is about military build up. You don't quite grasp the fact that you're a newbie do you?

In a 1vs1 game you don't need to focus on long-term planning and ballancing out your cities.
You don't need city specialisation, you don't need much infrastructure, you don't have to care about the non-war techs, etc. etc.

Again, you're talking about your little games with Apolyton rookies. Go play on ladder and say that **** loser.

Oh, did I already mention that in our world the real good, wise, smart and all-knowing people act humble and subtle. It's the dumb not knowing group of people that speaks arrogantly and doesn't know how to word a message in such a way that others don't start to hate them.

Did I mention that I don't care what you think as you have proven beyond all doubt that you are a total beginner?

If you're that smart, wise, etc. etc. you may want to improve the way you post your posts otherwise we may not reckognize your qualities. Just a hint.

I was posting this way a long time ago cybershy, and unlike you, I was a leader in the MP community. Everyone in Civ2 knew who EyesOfNight was, nobody knew who CyberShy was. Being recognized by a bunch of beginners on a dead forum like Apolyton really isn't much to me. The fact that you named those 3 players before as "key-players" is sad to say the least. Solver for example has been a beginner since Civ2 and you think he's good? Again, you make this too easy. Anywhere outside this little world of Apolyton you're a nobody.

[Solver]

Much as I'm charmed that you should use me as an example, EoN, it's time to cut down on the insults towards CS a bit, I think.

And out of curiosity, would you name a few Civ4 players that you respect?

[Dulaak]

MrGameTheory, many of the players that quit Civ4 but were good at Civ3 like Ktulu, Reptile, Unimatrix, Trinity, etc. DeviousDevil is pretty good. The truth is though that anyone good has quit Civ4 for the most part, and the "good" players that are left wouldn't be good were it not for everyone else quitting and the nature of the game that allows everyone to be at the very least decent at the game. Most of you have already admitted that the game game gives bonuses to those behind and punishes the players ahead so there's no arguing this really. What game in the history online computer gaming has actively equalized players like this? I can't think of one.

[Robert]

CyberShy:

A 1vs1 MP game is something completely different then a 4+ multiplayer game.

EyesofNight:

Which is why you're a total newbie and don't know what the **** you're talking about. You are arguing something that was set in stone probably before you even got on the internet. MP has always been in reference to playing vs a human player and it was coined before computer games even got MP capability. Again, shut the **** up if you don't know what you're talking about.

Seriously, your rant is not in any way connected to what I said. I said that a 1vs1 MP game is different then a 4/5+ player MP game.

I don't even talk about SP games.
Seriously, you must read the post your respond to before you respond!

Only in the newbie games you play in. Any large MP game for a ladder is about military build up. You don't quite grasp the fact that you're a newbie do you?

First, maybe I'm an idiot and totally incapable of playing civ, but I'm not a newbie. I've played this game since 1991 After 16 years of playing I can't be considered to be 'new' anymore.

And military buildup is OBVIOUSLY a part of ANY civ game. But military buildup is a LARGE (of not 90%) part of a 1vs1 game, but just one of the parts of a 4/5+ game.

(not 4/5+ as in 2vs2 or 3vs3, since that's essentially still 1(team) vs 1(team))

Again, you're talking about your little games with Apolyton rookies. Go play on ladder and say that **** loser.

So, what kind of long-term planning do you do with a 1vs1 game?

Did I mention that I don't care what you think as you have proven beyond all doubt that you are a total beginner?

Just to get the record straight, I'm a beginner with civ (just quoting you), not a beginner with life. I'm actually pretty advanced if it's about communication and social behavior, etc.

I was posting this way a long time ago cybershy, and unlike you, I was a leader in the MP community.

Leader as in 'best', not as in 'the person who leads his followers'. Well, you may have been the best, but I remember beating you in civ2 1vs1 games.

I just didn't care much about ladder games, and I still don't. I believe that you're better then me if we talk about ladder games, good for you.

Everyone in Civ2 knew who EyesOfNight was, nobody knew who CyberShy was.

Nobody? haha!

Being recognized by a bunch of beginners on a dead forum like Apolyton really isn't much to me.

Seriously? What's the reason for you being here then?

The fact that you named those 3 players before as "key-players" is sad to say the least. Solver for example has been a beginner since Civ2 and you think he's good?

Never said he was good.
I said that he has much knowledge about civ.
He knows much about the programming, the techniques, the systems, the calculations, the loops and the wholes.

I don't know if he's a good player or not.
I think that I can beat him

I may be the worst civ player around (still quoting you), you are the worst reader ever! You really don't know what I write and what I didn't write. I wonder if you even read my posts at all.

I'll give you my hint again: read a post before you respond to it.

Anywhere outside this little world of Apolyton you're a nobody.

Define 'anybody' and define 'nobody'.
For my wife and my son I'm a big deal.
For my parents and my brother/sisters I'm important as well.
My friends also care about me.

Or is that not what you mean

Seriously Eyes, you used to have a pretty good reputation in the civ community, why are you ruining it?

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Dulaak
If the game is balanced for MP, it's balanced for SP. There's nothing that goes into MP that could break SP. On the other hand, there's tons of stuff specifically made for SP and not tested in MP that breaks MP. AOE2 was successful because 1. It was balanced for MP. 2. It was easy to play for beginners, but it was very difficult to be great at. 3. On the surface the game seemed simple, but there was tons of depth so beginners could jump right in and competitive players could get way ahead. Look at all the successful games in the past 10 years and you will see they followed this formula. It is only in recent years that they have begun simplifying games in an attempt to make them even easier that you see MP hurting horribly. Plus, it's not like SP is doing awesome either, PC game sales have been dropping for years. The simple fact is that game makers have taken a different philosophy and it is hurting them.

You say me that. I know it himself. And i played Starcraft competitively which had a much better balance than AoE.

Originally posted by Dulaak
I don't know what your experience is in other games, but in terms of programming, Civ4 is subpar. The interface is absolutely ****ing terrible. I have never seen a game that has such a sluggish, unresponsive interface before. It's not like Civ4 pushes the boundaries of what PCs can do either, in fact, it's pretty god damn weak on system requirements. You must not remember all the issues either when Civ4 first came out. There was everything from memory leaks (I had to defragment my computer like every day), to graphics card issues. On the designer side, they finally added in things that games have had since the 90s and everyone hails it as this enormous evolution in civ gaming. Civ fans are so ridiculous that it is funny. I can go on and on, but most the people who were around for all the problems are gone, they were part of the mass exodus in 2005 and early 2006.

I'm participating in a creation of a Planetfall mod for Civ4 as an SDK programmer so i know how it was made. The most problems (other than memory leaks and the wrong use of the graphical engine that consumed resources like crazy) are because Civ 4 was made easily moddable. Even object-oriented programming is rarely (and sparingly, in non-perfomance-critical parts) used on consoles. Python will be obviously slower than C++. Almost nothing is hard-coded (it's taken from XML instead) so it adds a huge overhead even in C++ alone. Of course, if you sum all of that together, game becomes super-slow, requires huge amount of memory etc.

Originally posted by Dulaak
You don't seem to understand that if you build the game based on MP, SP follows quite easily. There's nothing you need to add to SP to make it successful. Again, I don't know what your game experience is, but if you look back at the most successful games over the years you will see they followed that formula. There's been a shift in recent years away from MP and I think it's because they foolishly believe that MP isn't really needed. The SP should be prioritized over MP line is just propaganda designed to make you think that.

Of course i do understand that. It will be a different kind of a game though. Firaxis tried to make it pseudo-historical so IMHO their balancing options should have been too limited so to make a really good MP balance. Well, it's weird enough as it is. For starters, Horse Archers will eat spearmans for breakfast on open (with ZERO losses), catapults as a major military unit? LOL
Game experience? Computer games are my primary hobby for 16 years. Preferred genres are RTS/TBS, RPG/MMORPG, FPS (in that order).

Anyway, when you create a game you have a limited amount of resources. Obviously, MP balance (and especially a competitive MP balance) is a much harder goal than an SP semi-balance (that mustn't be even remotely be as good as MP one). So, when you don't really need a top-notch MP, you may make that SP balance and patch it here or there for MP (with minimal development resources) - that will be enough to have a good sales and please common players. That's exactly what Firaxis did. That's much cheaper than a good MP balance, sales are about the same anyway...

And another thing, if you want MP-like SP, then you need MP-like AI. If i remember correctly, "super AI" was advertised in every strategy five-ten years ago. Well, we still don't have that "super AI". The fact that AI in Civ 4 is generic (it was supposed not to be completely broken with player mods) doesn't help it either. And the quality of it sucks of course, considering that even players were able to make a better one - BetterAI mod (that was included in BtS as a part of an expansion). Obvioisly, a good AI requires a lot of development resources too. And as i already said, game was sold just fine as it is.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I don't care about other games.
A 1vs1 MP game is something completely different then a 4+ multiplayer game.

A 1vs1 game will always be about who got the best military buildup. A 3+ (or even better: 5+) game will always need to be more ballanced.

In a 1vs1 game you don't need to focus on long-term planning and ballancing out your cities.
You don't need city specialisation, you don't need much infrastructure, you don't have to care about the non-war techs, etc. etc.

How about no? If a military buildup is equal then OBVIOUSLY the one with a better infrastructure wins. So, the only case when military buildup is eveything is when you totally suck at it and you die because your opponent doesn't. That's a perfect example of a scrub thinking (see the same article Play to Win ) - instead of trying to find a counter to the tactics and play the real game, scrubs are just saying "it's unfair", "no skill", "not a real game" etc.

So, i suggest you to drop that loser's thinking, learn how to do a military buildup and win duels with either a better military buildup, better infrastructure or a better balance between both

[Robert]

How about no? If a military buildup is equal then OBVIOUSLY the one with a better infrastructure wins.

Only if it's equal.
But the person who focusses most on non-military buildup will have a worse military buildup (obviously) and thus the player who focusses most in military buildup in the early 1vs1 game will win.

Military buildup is obviously more then just only building military units. Everything that helps to boost your military buildup is a part of the military buildup.

- building new cities
- mining
- building roads
- building barracks

How many 1vs1 games last long enough to build universities?