What about MP

[wodan11]

Not really. Much of balance is perception. The true test of skill is playing a lesser "hand."

The only thing that's critical is whether the game requires players to make a blind decision which is simply a roll of the dice. That's not skill, is pure luck. An example is in cIV if one player goes for BW and doesn't get copper anywhere in sight, while another goes for BW and does get it. If the cost/time of the second player making an unstoppable number of units is lower than the cost/time of the first player getting to an alternative, then there you go.

It's debatable whether cIV makes that criteria or not, because of the cost/time comparison.

[Ming]

Not really. Much of balance is perception. The true test of skill is playing a lesser "hand."

While I would agree that playing a lesser hand is a good test of skill, and can even be fun in our friendly MP games, balance is critical for tournament/ladder play.

You want to minimze luck and chance as much as possible to make it as even as possible.

[wodan11]

While I would agree that playing a lesser hand is a good test of skill, and can even be fun in our friendly MP games, balance is critical for tournament/ladder play.

You want to minimze luck and chance as much as possible to make it as even as possible.

Agreed, but there's "luck and chance" and "luck and chance".

Have you ever played the board game Diplomacy? The only luck in the game (literally) is the initial selection of which nation you play.

Most tournament players would agree that Italy is the toughest to play. Yet, at least one player has won the (previously Avalon-Hill sanctioned and sponsored, before they were bought by Hasbro) world championships as Italy.

Now, I admit that part of this perception on the part of the other players. They see someone who got Italy as almost automatically a second rate power, and thus a good ally rather than a threat.

On the other hand, I think there's something to be learned from the example. And that is that starting position isn't everything. If there are viable recoverable strategies, then it's not a problem.

The far extreme of the "luck and chance" argument is to make everything exactly the same. Same terrain, same resources in exactly the same spots, everything. A "wheel" world map with spokes. And that would be pretty boring.

[rah]

That would probably go far with ladder players, but for me, add me to the boring group.
The game would become rote.

[Krill]

Not that this is really needed considering the good posts above, but I might as well add a point or two:

I like playing both perfectly balanced maps (including mirror), and I also like playing more relaxed maps, depending on the setting, and who I am playing against. If I'm playing in a ladder tourney, I don't want to play a future game on tilted axis, where my entire team starts crammed into one corner of the map, and I can't even plant my three cities, whereas the other team has got nice starts, some coastal, not started on top of each other, and has space to expand into. There are flexible starts, and downright broken ones, which is one of the reasons MPers tend to ask for better balance on "SP" map scripts, so that the two camps aren't completely isolated from each other.

We like flexibility to, but alot of the mapscripts that provide some form of flexibility tend to place teams in awful positions. It wouldn't be so bad if both teams were fairly cramped, or were spaced in relatively open and vaguely equal positions (we realise some give and take on team starting positions is needed). It's when one team gets crammed in the corner and the other gets the central position that the map script is broken for MP.

As for the ladder system, I actually agree that alot of people don't really want it, but here's the kicker: it can easily be made optional. Let everyone who signs up into MP to have the ladder account done in the background, stats collated automatically (as on win/loss etc), and have the option to make games count on the ladder be a game setting in start up. A good example of how it is done is by WiC (World in Conflict), a game which sadly isn't played all that widely anymore, but was an awesome game. Ah, the memories of getting the game and playing 18 hours straight, only to reach number 13 on the ladder. If hte damned Yanks hadn't had the game for 3 extra days I'd have been #1 damnit .

I'd much rather have excellent single player and no multi-player than good single player and good multi-player. I played multiplayer Civ4 for awhile, and while OOS errors on GameSpy and the like were a major issue, the fundamental problem was there was the games just take too long to be feasible for most people. And while shorter game times would help for that, a large part of what makes Civ fun is the epicness of it. Those are two contradictory goals.

I agree, OOS and the like were a pain in the arse, and they mainly stem from the fact that it isn't a client server model, but peer to peer. That is a problem with the game programming that should never have arisen, we can only hope CiV is coded and designed better.

Also, the comment on the "Epicness" is a personal opinion, which doesn't pertain to the point of this project (woo, alliteration). Long games are better done on pitboss or PBEM, because players can play one turn a day, no rush for diplomacy, or to figure out micromanagement or strategy. MP is generally used to denote the short game version of online play. I like Pitboss games, only way you can really get large games going (up to 18 players), and it is a much more relaxed atmosphere, but they are a different game type to the 3 hour, all guns blazing smash'em up of MP.

That said, Krill's list looks like a good start, though I don't agree with all of it. I'd be hesitant about the ladder system, as that can lead to situations where people care more about ranking than fun (this is what I observed while playing Age of Empires III online) - Civ4 was fortunate not to have that problem. I'm also not sure Server-Client is ideal, unless the server part were transferable - it would be no fun to be in a game and have it quit halfway through because the host had left. And I have a philosophical objection to the most likely combat situation always happening in Civ. The distinction between SP and MP that he seems to be hinting at may be key, though, as what makes SP fun (epic, long-term gameplay) and what makes MP fun (dynamic battles and it not taking forever) are somewhat distinct.

The reason I suggest bringing the ladder under the control of 2K/Firaxis is because ladders WILL be created if they don't (Civ4players for one). There is nothing that anybody can do to stop ladder play from occurring, it would just get pushed underground to direct ip games if anyone was foolish enough to try.

Server-client, servers should not be one player hosting but a persistent hosting server belonging to Firaxis/2K, just like major MP games have. Basically, gamespy but without the insane suckiness, with gamespy servers hosting instead of the peer to peer model of each player. Preferably without gamespy involved as well, but you get the picture.

The most likely outcome, I agree, definitely not for the main game, but instead as a game option (like OCC etc). someone brought it up on RB, and personally I think it would be a decent option for any game. FWIW, I know MPers don't want it either. I would just like the chance to explore such an option and the effect on game play in a couple of games. It could be good if intergrated into mods and such.

I don;t think there is anything contrary between MP and SP, more that they are different ends of a broad spectrum of how civ can be played. Ultimately, game balance is the same for all of them, just different game options would be more useful for some than others.

Oh, and one more thing we need for MP: variable double move timers. Even in pitboss, the double move timer is set to 8 seconds. Sometimes it would be nice to increase that to something like 3 hours or whatnot, preferably a setting that can be changed by the hoster at any given time instead of preset in the game hosting screen.

[CanuckSoldier]

What MP needs:

1. Server-Client model for online play
   
   
2. Pitboss, PBEM and online games
   
   
3. Mass testing prior to release (hundreds of players, unlike the dozen in CIV) to stress test the platform.
   
   
4. To not have uber slow early game play (ie 20 turns for a worker etc). 2 hour maximum games in a ladder setting should be the aim. Most people find it hard to come home from work and play a 4 hour game after all. Making it smaller should help more people take part and play.
   
   
5. Specific MP mapscripts designed to give identical and near identical starts (and good starts at that, none of the crap plains cow or calendar res starts that would **** up CIV MP games).
   
   
6. balanced leaders. Hopefully Firaxis have learnt from (my) mistake with EXP leaders that lead to EXP becoming overpowered, so that the none of the new leaders are drastically overpowered because they start the snowball faster than their adversaries.
   
   
7. Balanced warfare. For instance, it's not OK to make it so that there is a rock/paper/scissors type combat system, and then leave map scripts that don't give players a good chance of getting strat resources needed to build units to defend with. Nor is it OK to give some great choking units to one leader and not to another (Enkidu/Jag warriors)
   
   
8. On line moderators with strong central control over on-line behaviour. Let's kick out the objectionable language and flaming from MP, it should be a good environment for everyone from children to OAPs. I still remember Levi and what a joke that was.

What would be nice to have, but isn't critical:

• Integrated ladder system.
  
  
• Expected combat results mod, where the most likely outcome always happens (50/50 come out as defender wins on minimum hit points)
  
  
• Easy to work mods. In CIV the mods system destroyed any chance of mods taking off as a major part of the MP scene because most players couldn't fathom how to get them to work, so most mods only worked when people outside MP agreed to meet at a specific time to play a game, drastically reducing the chance of a mod ever catching on and becoming widespread. It is quite two faced to say that modding will be uber powerful, and then do nothing to help make modding work in MP.

None of that is really at odds with SP, except it might mean that more resources are dedicated to getting MP to work. However, if those resources mean that more people buy the game, because it appeals to a new market, that's a big bonus to 2K.

I couldn't have said it better myself Krill, wait.....I have on other sites :P

And yes good MP is not a competitor for good SP, although you would think so from the attitude of some SP players and even Dev's. When the truth is if you can balance the game for MP, it will be very balanced for the AI. However the opposite is not true.

I've also pointed out that in this day in age, good MP = big $ So from a profit perspective I really don't know why 2K isn't pushing a MP server and announcing up from that Gamespy is dead :-/ I mean just look the list of all the largest selling games in the past 5 years, all have major MP components.

CS

[CanuckSoldier]

Not that this is really needed considering the good posts above, but I might as well add a point or two:

I like playing both perfectly balanced maps (including mirror), and I also like playing more relaxed maps, depending on the setting, and who I am playing against. If I'm playing in a ladder tourney, I don't want to play a future game on tilted axis, where my entire team starts crammed into one corner of the map, and I can't even plant my three cities, whereas the other team has got nice starts, some coastal, not started on top of each other, and has space to expand into. There are flexible starts, and downright broken ones, which is one of the reasons MPers tend to ask for better balance on "SP" map scripts, so that the two camps aren't completely isolated from each other.

We like flexibility to, but alot of the mapscripts that provide some form of flexibility tend to place teams in awful positions. It wouldn't be so bad if both teams were fairly cramped, or were spaced in relatively open and vaguely equal positions (we realise some give and take on team starting positions is needed). It's when one team gets crammed in the corner and the other gets the central position that the map script is broken for MP.

As for the ladder system, I actually agree that alot of people don't really want it, but here's the kicker: it can easily be made optional. Let everyone who signs up into MP to have the ladder account done in the background, stats collated automatically (as on win/loss etc), and have the option to make games count on the ladder be a game setting in start up. A good example of how it is done is by WiC (World in Conflict), a game which sadly isn't played all that widely anymore, but was an awesome game. Ah, the memories of getting the game and playing 18 hours straight, only to reach number 13 on the ladder. If hte damned Yanks hadn't had the game for 3 extra days I'd have been #1 damnit .



I agree, OOS and the like were a pain in the arse, and they mainly stem from the fact that it isn't a client server model, but peer to peer. That is a problem with the game programming that should never have arisen, we can only hope CiV is coded and designed better.

Also, the comment on the "Epicness" is a personal opinion, which doesn't pertain to the point of this project (woo, alliteration). Long games are better done on pitboss or PBEM, because players can play one turn a day, no rush for diplomacy, or to figure out micromanagement or strategy. MP is generally used to denote the short game version of online play. I like Pitboss games, only way you can really get large games going (up to 18 players), and it is a much more relaxed atmosphere, but they are a different game type to the 3 hour, all guns blazing smash'em up of MP.



The reason I suggest bringing the ladder under the control of 2K/Firaxis is because ladders WILL be created if they don't (Civ4players for one). There is nothing that anybody can do to stop ladder play from occurring, it would just get pushed underground to direct ip games if anyone was foolish enough to try.

Server-client, servers should not be one player hosting but a persistent hosting server belonging to Firaxis/2K, just like major MP games have. Basically, gamespy but without the insane suckiness, with gamespy servers hosting instead of the peer to peer model of each player. Preferably without gamespy involved as well, but you get the picture.

The most likely outcome, I agree, definitely not for the main game, but instead as a game option (like OCC etc). someone brought it up on RB, and personally I think it would be a decent option for any game. FWIW, I know MPers don't want it either. I would just like the chance to explore such an option and the effect on game play in a couple of games. It could be good if intergrated into mods and such.

I don;t think there is anything contrary between MP and SP, more that they are different ends of a broad spectrum of how civ can be played. Ultimately, game balance is the same for all of them, just different game options would be more useful for some than others.

Oh, and one more thing we need for MP: variable double move timers. Even in pitboss, the double move timer is set to 8 seconds. Sometimes it would be nice to increase that to something like 3 hours or whatnot, preferably a setting that can be changed by the hoster at any given time instead of preset in the game hosting screen.

Yes Civilization Players will support Civ5, whether we need to create a ranked league will depend on the rankings(if any) that 2K creates as part of the "community hub" concept, which is all they have stated to date.

But at the very least, we will create a framework for Clans and competive competitions for Clans and individual players.

Just like the SP fan sites we will fill in any gaps in service that the develpers and publishers don't provide. And provide the best service to the community that we can.

Hopefully if 2K does take the built in league/ladder idea to heart that it will be better than the exploit ridden XBL and PSN ladders that they had made with CivRev. If they do do something like that then we will be happy to provide the community with the same league template we have now for Civ3 and Civ4 with a Glicko2 based skill ranking.

Good discussion here though, I must admit I was a bit susprised as poly has always been a tad anti-MP in the past :-/

CS

[Ming]

Good discussion here though, I must admit I was a bit susprised as poly has always been a tad anti-MP in the past :-/

I disagree that Poly has an anti MP past... A leader in Diplo games, PBEM games and regular MP, Poly has always had a strong MP history. Granted, it has never supported a ladder or other hard core competitive MP activities... but it has always been a strong supporter of MP since the Civ II days. And I hope that tradition continues with a strong Civ V MP version

[CanuckSoldier]

I disagree that Poly has an anti MP past... A leader in Diplo games, PBEM games and regular MP, Poly has always had a strong MP history. Granted, it has never supported a ladder or other hard core competitive MP activities... but it has always been a strong supporter of MP since the Civ II days. And I hope that tradition continues with a strong Civ V MP version

Well I'm glad to hear that Ming, yes I know all about the strong Diplo game community here. But for the adrenaline junkies this has not been the place, at least not since trading barbs with Eyes of Night was fun in the civ2 days on Gameleague :P

I used to try and post in the Civ4 MP forums regularly, but to be honest they looked like a museum at times So I tended to spend more time answering questions in the Civ4 MP forums at CFC, and of course in my own forums.

CS

[Krill]

I disagree that Poly has an anti MP past... A leader in Diplo games, PBEM games and regular MP, Poly has always had a strong MP history. Granted, it has never supported a ladder or other hard core competitive MP activities... but it has always been a strong supporter of MP since the Civ II days. And I hope that tradition continues with a strong Civ V MP version

nah, the general/strat Civ 3 and the CIV forums weren't much better. Yeah, we've had a fair amount of PBEM/pitboss games hosted here, but the general population was an SP population.

[Ming]

I agree that there are far more SP players than MP players here at Poly. That is the nature of the beast since the general civ community on a whole has more SP players than MP players. But that doesn't mean that Poly had an anti MP attitude


And CanuckSoldier, Yeah, EON, always entertaining.

[MikeH]

In fact, when CivV was announced one of the very first threads in the CivV forum was asking about MP!

[CanuckSoldier]

In fact, when CivV was announced one of the very first threads in the CivV forum was asking about MP!

Yes I will say that DanQ was very proactive in having a vision to support MP here, and me and him agreed to become sister sites and he even made me the "Civ4 MP Group Leader" here. Which I tried to use to encourage poly to enter a team in Civplayers Clan Championship Cup. But after a few tries with no response, I moved on.

But maybe we can try again when we find out more details on Civ5....


CS

[MasterDave]

I actually thought Civ4 multiplayer was fairly well implemented and stable from a software perspective. What I found most objectionable in the early days was awful user behavior on Gamespy, from the constant stream of racist hatred in the chat to people quitting in the first five turns, and most games ending 15 turns in, etc etc. I tried a few ladder games, but early on encountered some very hyper-intense people who definitely put winning and rank ahead of fun and having a good game. I remember one guy deliberately crashed the game and refused to come back so he could claim a victory. I think ladder play for me makes more sense in the RTS world, where most games rarely last more than an hour and the "pwned joo noob" mentality is a little more palatable.


My best multiplayer experiences were the regularly scheduled games with a group of apolyton folks (several of them posting in this thread). Civ 4 MP was a regular part of my gaming schedule for around two years (or more, not sure now), and the only game I played more on line was the old Master of Orion 2.

Part of the reason for that was that the platform itself was fairly stable and reliable, especially compared to earlier versions of civ. Hopefully Civ5 will be as stable and fun to play MP out of the box as Civ 4 was...

[CanuckSoldier]

Yes it is hard to regulate human behavour when you have 1500 players.

But after running or helping to run a MP league for 9 years now, I can say that for players that like a competitive environment, or just causal MP players that want games with some rules in the sandbox, the league is the best balance of compromises to regulate human behavour and have fun at the same time.

Of course, unfortunately Firaxis didn't pay GS to moderate the lobby with Civ3 and Civ4, which causes a lot of bad impressions and hurts MP in general. I hope that lesson has been learned and that if we are still using GS or even any other service that lobby moderation is part of the deal this time.

CS