Global Conflict

Hitman47 wrote:at SBT today if u arent scared.

I gotta go to work at around SBT and will be back at like SBT +3

If a4, henidhor, zorplex, wenie can get on at SBT +3 or so, we can move it up to that time rather than SBT +6.

that would be nice

might be able to get on tonight, we'll see. (yes I got G&K)

Gods and Kings is available for sale this weekend for $22.50 on GreenmanGaming
Use this coupon at checkout!

PCGMR-ALLIN-GREEN

That coupon code can be used for anything on the site.
If you don't have a GMG account, feel free to use my shameless referral link!
http://www.greenmangaming.com/?gmgr=hexuviqa

(You get $2.00 credit if you use my referral link to buy something)

gaaaah!! i just bought it yesterday for 29.99

haruky post faster next time

I think I'll be taking a break from Civ 5 for a while. Hopefully I'll get into the Planetside 2 Beta or something next week though I certainly won't be playing civ.

I've had some of my most fun and exciting moments while gaming in Civilization 5 Multiplayer but also the stupidest and lamest. And while I have my complaints against the multiplayer, its levels of complexity, strategy, and diplomacy completely outclass singeplayer.

These are my complaints. Singeplayer games contain a few of these issues, but it's much easier to get around them and there's always the possibility of loading back saves or restarting.

Way too much is dependent on starting locations, which seem to be completely random. If you have a poor starting location, you're screwed and there's often no way out of it. In a singeplayer game you can restart in a situation like this, but not in multiplayer. Starts range from desert to jungle, from individual continents to being less than ten tiles away from someone who's going to rush you.

Civilization balance is stupid, with several key Civs as the best and the rest worthless in comparison. Several units are ridiculously overpowered. Going random still doesn't alleviate this issue, as the overpowered Civs aren't eliminated from the pool, and you can also be completely fraked depending on the civ you get.

Overly aggressive and warmongering players can ruin games for me. I sit down to spend a long, enjoyable, complicated Civilization game only to be rushed by warmongering players who do nothing but focus their empire on production to destroy me. I build walls, I build armies, but when someone's is hellbent on destroying you early-mid game it's extremely hard to defend against and just not fun for me. I play this game to build my civilization, and while I understand war is a part of that, there are many more games with greatly superior combat than Civ, such as Total War or even Battlefield.

I'm the first to admit that I'm not the best player at this game. I can do well, but I'm rarely the most advanced and never have the most land or biggest army. I never really played the game before hopping into multiplayer and while I've learned a lot I lack the experience acquired in games where you are more free to relax and experiment. I don't mind not being the best, hell, I rarely play specifically trying to win, but in some situations such as the ones listed above it ruins games for me.

Often consequently, I find myself pigeon holed into playing certain ways that don't make the game fun for me. Like being forced into immediate offensive wars, or being rushed because of a civilization I was randomly assigned.

Twitch based instant combat in a game that is supposed to be a turn based strategy game with animations is stupid and infuriating.

I'm really sick of restarts, loading screens, and lobbies. This game has some of the worst multiplayer support I've ever seen.

I'm not calling out anyone in particular in this post, rather stating trends I've noticed across about 100 hours playing multiplayer. (Though about 75 of those were probably spent staring at lobbies and loading screens and crashing.) I'm not saying anyone's playstyle is invalid, it's just not fun for me. Thanks for all the good games and I'll see y'all on Battleday.

I share the same feelings as Henidhor. I think I'm just burned out of the game now and will seek immediate refuge from being butthurt.

I was gonna sit down and play multiplayer with y'all, but the more I play singleplayer the less I want to do that. singleplayer I can at least play at my own pace. I'm like a week into my first play through as the huns and enjoying it, but no offense to y'all I don't know if I would enjoy playing with you.

well if you wanna play normally you can call me up and we can go play some time.

You guys are missing the point: it's all about trolling.

Way too much is dependent on starting locations

This is true. If you get a terrible start you are at a big disadvantage. However you may need to adjust your play. You may need to go for a cultural victory, go straight into early military to take out a city state, straight into expansion to build as many cities on decent land as possible, etc. At worst case you may have no hope of winning but you can be part of the decision of who will win as in picking your allies and enemies.

Civilization balance is stupid

You are right about that. There are about half a dozen very OP tier I civilization out there when used correctly are absolutely dominating. When we random and you get one if can be very unfun for the other players.

My solution would be for us to create our own list of "banned" civilizations that are too OP and then we could pick whatever we wanted as long as it wasn't on the list. We could also use random.org to random our picks without landing on the OP civs.

Overly aggressive and warmongering players can ruin games for me.

It is a simple fact that some of us relish war. If you are next to one of us you need to make allies and build a big enough military to defend yourself. Use the soldiers stat in demographics screen to see how big of a military you need. Civ is very defender biased and if you use the terrain correctly and the use of rivers well you can defend against a superior force with little effort. Also citadels are OP as long as you place them well and defend them.

Twitch based instant combat

Ya this does seem silly. However we could make a gentleman's agreement. Where you would pick who would move and attack first and who would do it second. This would simulate the normal turns that you would have in single player. However wars would last longer and turn timer would need to be disabled i think.

I'm really sick of restarts, loading screens, and lobbies.

Indeed.... civ 5 multiplayer coding is bad and it should feel bad.


Don't give up on civ 5 man we can work threw these issues!

If we can come up with some very standardized rules and streamline it so that we can avoid these issues, I might come back and give it another shot.

I like the idea of trying to simulate "turns" while in war. We would need to turn the timer off in order to do so... but thing is, the turn timer has saved us from many frozen games in the past so I'm a bit hesitant to do that.

AMD posted this on facebook:

Here was a game where me (America), uber (Austria), bitesizebeef(Sweden), and snowwolf(Denmark) played.

Myself uber and bite were on the same continent and snowwolf was off on us own.

Uber started a war with me at turn 8 over me "stealing" his barbarian camp kill. Since then it was a cold war stalemate until I built up a huge army and decided to end it. I caught his army on the other side of his territory and went straight for his capital. Here are is a screen shot

http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/93925 ... B69F023E9/

Afterwards I pushed to bitzebeef finishing off the remaining cities of Austria.

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/939 ... E20A4F0FC/

This is the end of bitesizebeef. His great wall made it take forever to kill him.

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/939 ... A27FF59CD/

A4 only won so easily because we decided to try taking turns in war. Whoever goes first has way too large of an advantage.