Format for MP

[Beta]

As per some of the discussion in the "On Theseus, Mixed-Armies, and Multi-Play" thread, I thought I would poll to find out how the forum feels about the style of MP we should be using in the MP tourney.

Feel free to express your views.

[Fried-Psitalon]

Simulturn was created specifically for MP - it's silly to take twice as long to play the game simply because on rare occasion one person may have to exert slightly faster reflexes than another. So once in awhile you may lose one unit - if your overall strategies are sound, it won't make that large a difference. Certainly not a large enough one to make a 2 hour game into 4 hours, or a 4 hour game into 8!

[Arnelos]

Turn-based. Those match-ups with your units can be rather critical. I'd rather not leave them up to reflexes.

[notyoueither]

I'll vote for Simultaneos if it is one or the other.

At the same time, I would not begrudge an opponent wanting to change to turn based when the combat starts. You can do that, btw. Save. Exit. Reload with Turn Based instead of Simult.

[Fried-Psitalon]

The problem is the whole mechanic of combat changes when you go back to turn-based; the value of horsemen VASTLY decreases in that environment. As I said during the Conquests beta: MP is a *different game* than SP, and Turn-based is the mark of the SP game, and simulturn the mark of MP. In SP, horsemen are useful but not devastating. In MP, horsemen are every bit as threatening as swords. Rather than try to reduce MP back to its SP roots, it is far better to embrace this expansion and enrichment of the game - this making it more than what it once was.

To me, to play MP in turn-based is reducing a new and exciting thing back to its bland roots, simply because people dislike change.... and, well, I admit that is very distasteful to me. I respect and enjoy the chess-like nature of SP play against the AI, but human vs human combat should never be about that - war in every era HAS been about reacting quickly to changing circumstances, and I like that MP reflects that. The only host/player 1 advantages in MP civ are the same as with SP - completion of research/wonders etc. In larger (4+) MP games the host is actually sharply DIS-advantaged, as he waits for players to "synch up" at the start of each turn on slower computers.

It's New Year's Day and I'm blathering on from fatigue, but to reiterate: MP Civ is simply a different game than SP civ, just as, say, Cascade Tetris is different than normal Tetris. To reduce MP Civ back to SP civ by making it Turn-based is to take away one of the best aspects of MP civ, that makes it such a unique - and different! - and challenging game.

[Arnelos]

And what is wrong with the chess-like strategies of playing turn-based when facing off against a credible opponent? As in PBEM play (which I've done a good bit of now), this ENRICHES the game. I find simultaneous turn MP games to be less interesting than that.

[notyoueither]

I think he grants that it is different. He urges players new to MP to embrace the differences.

It is a bit different game, but it is good in its own right. Just sacrifice something to the Gods in praise of them not having people able to try to force Turnless on you.

I have a question though, how common is it to use the clock? I simply can't play civ on a clock. That is too far for me.

[Fried-Psitalon]

It is not only regular but assumed in common MP play - veterans usually find that anything slower than normal is dreadful, and since Conquests came out, most play fast, though some prefer a slightly calmer pace.

[notyoueither]

Why do you want to veer towards click fests?

I can play fast, but sometimes I need a minute to think about what it is I want to accomplish. There is a reason that the grand masters do not play speed chess for the titles, isn't there?

[Fried-Psitalon]

Well, there's a couple of factors at work here, and you're seeing the tail-end of a "chicken and egg" situation.

It started out with everyone pretty much playing normal, and life was good. Unsurprisingly, after "ladder game 6, 491" people got a little quicker at making those ancient era decisions - one thing a lot of, well, SP folk, don't realize is that your typical MP veteran has played a *staggering* number of games - true, your average MP vet may not see much beyond the medeival era, but how often does a SP player play through an entire ancient/medieval era? Joe MP Vet sees it 4-5 times a night. There are only so many different "opening scenarios" no matter what your land and situation are, and after awhile, you've seen them all enough that you don't need to think as much. (Which is part of the reason you see so many weird variations springing from the MP community that are more than just minor mods - UU madness, Quickciv, Later-Era Starts, etc.)

However, as more new players joined, the veterans got...well, impatient with waiting around. You finish your moves in the first 45 seconds or so, and then spend the next 3 minutes watching the lil' green bar slowly crawl up to the top. Not exactly fun - hence, fast timer saw some use, but not a terribly large amount, because the PTW fast timer was psychotic. C3C's fast, however, is a but more moderate, and so those of us who were frustrated with normal and working desperately to finish in time on fast found it very ideal for our purposes.

So now the average Veteran player moves *extremely* quickly by SP standards - part of the reason I was so successful in the C3C beta had to do with that, rude comments by others not withstanding. Frequent MP doesn't neccessarily make one play better (though I know some MP fanatics who might argue that) but it clearly and unquestionably allows one to play MUCH faster at the same quality.

So for Mo-D, myself, and others, we're not turning it into a click-fest: we're just tired of moving all our units, checking the city's laborers, gauging your progress via the various demographic screens, watching our borders.....

and then waiting for the other 85% of the timer remaining on the other guy.



Try it yourself, though it will probably be less effective before much longer: Time a game at your usual pace sometime this week, and then come play with us on the ladder for a month or so. Time yourself at the end of that month and you will find yourself *vastly* quicker, with no real loss in quality. Repitition has its good points.

You might even pick up a few tips to throw at Swissy next time, while yer at it. "Going barb" indeed! LOL.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by notyoueither
There is a reason that the grand masters do not play speed chess for the titles, isn't there?

My thinking exactly. This is the reason I prefer PBEM games and turn-based MP games (ideally with slow timer, sometimes no timer). I'm patient enough to wait on my oponent to have a full chance to think out his moves and I like being able to think out my own. It's exceptionally rare that I even take up half the clocktime on a turn, but there are turns where the extra time is quite useful for making strategic decisions and watching information the game is feeding you closely.

That said, my prefered mode of play is PBEM. You have all the time in the world to plan and conduct diplomacy with multiple other human players. The full game is far more strategic in scope and diplomacy is far more meaningful.

[Snotty]

You've got a point about diplomacy as the finer points of dip certainly suffers. Alliances can still be coordinated effectivly though as long as you don't waffle.

I hated timed turns at first, but have got used to it now. I still have time to crunch the numbers in the power graphs and demographics. I don't feel rushed unless I have had a super expansionist start, but that is more out of politeness to my fellow players.

The more you do it, the easier it gets. What FP said was so important it needs to be said again.

C3C fast is very comfortable now I am at that level, and I don't come from a twitch gamer background.

In the later game you need to be more focused, and proritize what is most important to you (think the failed 'imperial focus' idea from MOO3). Automating workers is a good place to start. I know people here hate the idea but when your core is up it really isn't as important to micromanage them.

Sim moves is a blessing for MP civ. Not many people are going to be patient enough to wait for 7 other players to do their turn based moves.

[MotownDennis]

With a timer, you've really got to prioritize. Queue up your tech. Automate workers where feasible. If you know you want a worker to build a road from City A to City B, you can automate him to do just that. After the road to City B is completed, the worker will prompt you for instructions again.

Being able to think fast is an important skill in it's own right. I play mostly with a fast timer, and yes, once in a while time runs out on me before I'm quite done. It's irritating when it happens, but I'd have it no other way. Beta and I played our game on Simultaneous Moves with a fast timer and it STILL took a total of 6-8 hours I believe. We'd be playing till June if we played turn-based.

F-P is right; my SP games are very noticably faster since I started playing MP, with no sacrifice to quality (exclusively Demigod/Emperor levels)

[notyoueither]

Well, we might have a problem. there are those for whom a timer is very undesirable, and there are those for whom no timer is very undesirable.

I will have to try a timer again with C3C (if they have adjusted them, they ran too fast for me with PtW) before I decide where I sit; either no timer or don't care.

[Jon Miller]

I generally play with no clock

I trust that people will not be too long

if they are, than we can discuss putting a lock up

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

of course, the games I play in take 24 hours to get to the industrial age

Jon Miller

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Well, we might have a problem. there are those for whom a timer is very undesirable, and there are those for whom no timer is very undesirable.

I will have to try a timer again with C3C (if they have adjusted them, they ran too fast for me with PtW) before I decide where I sit; either no timer or don't care.

Under those circumstances, I think playing with a slow clock timer might be an acceptable compromise for each. Neither will be entirely happy, but it's at least a middle ground.

[Beta]

I voted for simulplay. Yes - it is different in a number of respects from the SP, and PBEM MP games I currently play. But it was still civ - in the same way that speed chess is still chess - it just adds a new dimension.

And - I enjoyed it immensely. MotownD is right about having to be much more efficient with workers and build queues and the like. But the first game I played with Snotty had the timer on a slower speed, and even after one game I was able to make the leap (reasonably well) to the faster speed that Motown plays at.

So, I think MP games should be played as simulplay to take advantage of what having both people on-line at the same time has to offer - speed, and the uncertainty of simultaneous movement.

Turnbase, on the other hand, strikes me as pretty much a very accelerated PMEM game. Although I have to admit, I have yet to play this style.

Now - what about team based MP tournament? Two on two with two AI's?

[Fried-Psitalon]

Unfortunately, AI's are too easily manipulated for this to work well, even with locked alliances - they won't trade techs to their partners, for example. 2 humans vs. 2 humans, on the other hand, works very well, and is frequently seen at the ladder.

[MotownDennis]

Maybe I was somewhat unclear in my previous post. I can play with a slower timer, no problem. Turn-based though? Eeeeek!

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by MotownDennis
Maybe I was somewhat unclear in my previous post. I can play with a slower timer, no problem. Turn-based though? Eeeeek!

Heh... I might be more willing to play Average Timer Turn-Based than Slow Timer Simulplay.

That said, I'm not really sure about that... I don't think I'd like either of them.