Just finished first multiplayer via-internet game

[Sarxis]

And boy was it buggy! All kinds of problems and all kinds of limitations. Give it a try and you will see how limited and awkward it can be. It was still fun in a jolty, primitive 'CIV game' sort of way. And there just was not a whole lot of options. Some of the things that bother me:

No selective chat. Well, this isn't a big deal since the only way to win a multiplayer game is to be the last man standing (so much for the advanced diplomatic features being used in multiplayer). What?!?!?! That's right, you CAN NOT win any other way except by bloodlust, and that stinks! Even Age of Kings (Yes, yes! A real time strategy game) has better diplomatic options and victory options than CTP2 multiplayer (and you can at least choose who you talk to in that game). But anyhow, even though you can still trade techs and form alliances, there basically is no possibility of team play because you can not secretly communicate with allies.

Not that you would want to anyhow, at least not with the exceptionally buggy chat window that Activision provided- it can not even keep lines of text from piling up 'one on top of another', so all you get is a bunch of garble every few lines. And the text that is displyed outside of said window- instantly after messages are sent- do not even scroll independently of the map! Which basically means, when the map scrolls, the chat text moves right along with it and only 'gets back to where it once belonged' when you stop scrolling (this may be related to a problem mentioned by others with voodoo3 cards, but still....).

Besides the things I mention here, which just makes CTP2 multiplayer a weak gaming experience, the bugs are so numerous and just plain funky I don't even know where to begin.

Yes I do.

First of all, one of the strange things that happened was, somehow, I gained the ability to see an opponents cities, but not the map surrounding the cities- I could see the actual city, but the terrain and tile improvements next to the city were still invisible. I had not asked this player specifically for his map, though I had traded maps with another player. So really, I don't know if I was SUPPOSED to see his cities, but just couldn't see the surrounding terrain, or if I WASN'T SUPPOSED to see anything at all. Either way, this was a bug.

Another thing that was strange was how the 'style' of our cities would somtimes change from the Greek Parthanon look to the Oriental look. This did occur after a restart, but nevertheless, it's a silly bug.

A very poor choice in design was to force players to execute all of their diplomacy proposals during their own turns. If you try to even see what proposals you can propose to another civ, a warning box pops up telling you, "No, no! You must wait your turn! Come back tomorrow." This is, very frustrating. The developers could have at least allowed players to choose their diplomatic actions during other players turns (in the same way they allow players to change city and empire settings), and then have the game send out the proposal during the proposer's turn. This whole thing is akin to the tile improvement icons being grayed out and unselectable if you cannot afford to place that specific improvement at that time.

All of these things only compund to the problems that exist in singleplayer games, making any patch that might be released for this game a major project. That is, if Activision is going to present a thorough patch for this game in the first place.

But go ahead and give a multiplayer game a try- I dare you!

[quinns]

Thanks. Yet another reason not to buy CTP2. The reasons keep piling up. I think I'll stick to CTP1 until they work out all the bugs and add PBEM and HotSeat (6 months... if at all?).

Thanks again for saving me the money!

[Alexander's Horse]

Thanks for the multiplayer review. I am really spooked about buying the game now. I can't believe they could have stuffed multiplayer up so badly!!!!! No private chat with muting, what's that about?? And you can't do diplomacy in other's turns? In civ 2 people do ALL their diplomacy in other's turns because to do it in your own turn slows up the game. Put all this together with the fact that you can't use icq or net surf, and no hotseat and PBEM and you have a very dodgy multiplayer platform

I have warned the civ 2 multiplayers and raised this issue with the Firaxis civ 3 team.
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HT...4.html?123#123

------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.
[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited November 28, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited November 28, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited November 28, 2000).]

[Hydey]

I was definately going to buy this game until I read this thread. If multiplayer sucks I won't buy it .
If they want my money I will have to hear that multiplayer works great and is fun to play.

Thanks for posting the review, you just saved me money.

------------------
I'm Australia's nuclear cop
I am the real Troll
A.H. is a nice guy

[suas333]

Thanks, I'll wait for Civ3.

[Mr Ogre]

There is actually private chat. If you type:

/msg 2 Hi there!

It will send a message to only player 2. You can sort of figure out player numbers by looking at the ctrl-n window (first player is 1, next is 2, etc. but that fails after someone has lost the game.) The other way you can tell is by color: player 1 is always blue, 2 is orange, 3 is green, 4 is pink.

You can also do it by name:

/msg Julius Hi there!

And it will send the message to the first player whose name starts with Julius. This is easier than figuring out the player number, but if there are two people whose names are the same up to the first space, there's no way to diffrentiate between them since only the first word after the /msg is considered part of the target.

Sorry about the other issues. Single player is of course much more popular, so got much more attention, but I do want multiplayer to be fun for anyone with enough patience.

[Alexander's Horse]

Ya thanks for replying Ogre, I hope you can improve the MP interface in a mod or patch at some stage because the number who exclusively multiplay is growing and we need a user friendly platform.

The big issues are easier chat options and the ability to conduct diplomacy out of turn. Otherwise multiplayer games will be awfully slow and awkward, especially if you can't use icq.


------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

[Sarxis]

Thanx Mr Ogre for the info; I only wish this was stated in the manual, but it is good to know for future reference.

I still hope that this game ends up being SOLID after the first patch. I can only hope and pray!

[Luticus]

I completely agree with Anunikoba's assessment of the the multiplayer game. The chat problems and posted "solution" ("You can sort of figure out the player numbers by looking at the control-n window"??? Gee, thre's some real design clarity for ya) make me have to point out that the developers and publisher should be ashamed of the near-useless manual, complete with a prominent ad for the strategy guide inside, which will no doubt contain all of the vital information missing in the retail game.

Multiplayer can actually be quite fun and moves along at a nice clip, but this and the rest of the game's positive aspects are utterly hamstrung by the issues that Anunikoba highlights. Secret chat should be easier or custimizable messages should be included in the diplomacy menus so that true negotiations can occur.

Exchanging maps with other players often renders no apparent results. Sometimes I can see population changes in enemy cities out of LoS. I could go on and on about the inconsistent interface issues and bugs that crop up at every turn.

It's astonishing to me that this is the second iteration of a game engine, but is still so riddled with problems. I'm returning it to the store tomorrow, and will maybe pick it up again when the price drops and it gets patched sufficiently (which is hard to imagine).

[Grandpa Troll]

I just want to say this is a great game and keep up the great work Activision..and of course Apolyton for providing the Forum and assistance to us all..and if anyone out there dont like it..take it back..play or dont play....me I'm a gonna have lots of fun..and long hours doing it!!

Keep up great work!!

Troll

[Metamorph]

I will bite my tongue in a desperate effort to avoid shrieking at the irony...

- Metamorph

[marc420]

Just so the folks at Activision know what I feel about a game.

When I get a game I play single-player to get used to the game.

If a game had a decent AI, I'd play more single player. But usually in most games the AI is easily beatable. The only games where its not usually provide massive cheats for the AI at higher levels that take away the fun of the game.

So after I'm familiar with a game I'm usually looking for Multiplayer. Typically with complex strategy games, multiplayer is a completely different game than single player. Strategies and tactics that worked against the Artificial Stupid no longer work against human players. And Diplomacy becomes interesting and a key part of the game instead of just a menu to go through.

I'd like to play a game both "Live" (TCP/IP connection) and "PBEM". To me both have advantages. In many ways the PBEM option is my favorite, as it allows a mix of players and the diplomacy becomes very intricate.

Just wanted to post this up here so the folks at Activision can no that not everyone wants single-player only, and that people are interested in PBEM.

marc