Depending on what phase of QA it is, they may be highly unsure of what's going to end up in it - so very little might be safe to say other than "a focus on MP". They may even have several alternatives in QA for comparison.Originally Posted by Nefliqus
the simultaneous turns thing pisses me off. first time i played multiplayer i set up a nice battle front that was completely ☺☺☺☺ed by the fact that you cant give all your orders at the same time, you have to do while every one else is acting as well
Really hope this patch un-breaks the automatic ending of turns thing that was introduced in the last one, even when automatic ending of turns is disabled.
animations as an option to turn on sure
default should be off
lag issues should be priority
especially in the industrial era
also id like to see a fix to GS where the massive bulb fest goes away
make them wait turn in between similar to the GA culture bomb where u need to wait turn in between (scale with game speeds)
funny that ppl are asking for MP battle animations when they are unplayable at the moment even on SP. Have you tried recently to play SP in the modern era with animations on?? Turn times could even take 5' for absolutely no reason, just because a silly fighter animation is stuck or there are countless AI battles to be seen, turning off the animations and the turn time loading goes to a few seconds..so why do you need these animations on MP?? just to turn them off after a while I guess, a big fuss over nothing.
About turn based MP I think it should be added for, 2-3 max, friends playing against each other. For me stability, adjusting the end of turn timer, and the ability to use AIs should be higher on the list of changes.
Guys, you get nowhere by belittling other people and saying they are wrong or stupid for wanting animations in MP. Especially if you're playing just with friends or mixed games with the AI, how long the game takes is probably not an issue. It's the same argument for why have the animations on in SP at all. then. All they are asking for is an option which won't affect you in the least. I can understand people getting upset that they are worried that adding animations will take priority over fixing stability, but I sincerely doubt that would be the case.
With that said, both SP (and MP) could benefit from the animation options that were in Civ IV (show friendly moves, show enemy moves, quick offensive combat, quick defensive combat) instead of just a lump on/off switch for all animations. Some of these hardly add any time at all to the game but still could add the immersion factor that these people are looking for while others can seriously slow it down and aren't really necessary (for example, I could care less about wasting 5 minutes watching two city states fight each other just outside my border). With the combat system in Civ V, though, a MP animation option would probably work best if they also added a non-simultaneous turn option (again something that was also in Civ IV).
In CIV IV the "show enemy moves" did not work on MP even though it was there as an option. It didn't actually do anything..about SP animations they need an overhaul at the moment and until that is done I'm 100% sure they are not going to "work" on MP..at least not in their present form..perhaps movement animations would be fine but I don't see people making the distinction between the two. Not belittling anybody just stating my opinion which could be wrong.
^This. An option is fine. I just seriously doubt the assertion that MP animations=MANY more people playing the game. What's more, MP still has major stability problems. If that weren't the case, I would have precisely zero opposition to the matter. I would think that making a game functional is a priority.
Hey, I was right!
It's about time the MP community got this, in all seriousness. Not that I can blame Firaxis for improving SP while they didn't have MP coders.
I have no personal opinion on what's included, I only play SP.
What I want to know at the moment is if they plan to introduce sequential turns or not.
I wasn't directing anything at you, just I know in past debates the animations argument can get pretty ugly. I was mentioning the Civ IV animation options as I think more customization options can only help a game in the long run.
No, because people never read. The moment they post patch notes, everyone on the forum and their pets will be completely convinced that everything on the list will make it into the patch. If they decide that some things aren't feasible and remove them, everyone will complain and say that 2K lied. It doesn't matter how much of a warning you give them, some people will still think that "may" means "will".
Look at this conversation; once Greg mentioned that multiplayer will be the focus, people start demanding that singleplayer be worked on. Greg never said that the patch will be MP-only, but some people like to assume that focus means exclusivity.
Hey now, with the improved MP stability this patch may bring, maybe you can pit yourself against the best a.i. possible, another human being.
@2K Greg - Thanks for the update on the patch. When published, I'll assume you'll post the changes to the Patch thread and bring it up to date (a little behind at the moment).
The major problem with SP is that people expect an AI as smart as a human, when that won't be possible on home computers for about another 25 years (they estimate that an AI with the same intelligence as a toddler will be available in 2029).
The major problem with MP is that it's not similar enough to SP (I'm talking about gameplay problems, not the connection problems, because they're often case-specific). Get rid of simultaneous turns, or at least make sequential turns default. Civ isn't an RTS. It's not meant to be played over three hours.
Also, can you fix the problem with mods? Last time I played I couldn't save when using them. It's very annoying to keep your computer on for over twenty hours whilst it's making a hurr sound the entire night.
It's called artificial intelligence. We don't expect it to be as smart as a human, but rather to behave like a human. We expect Hiawatha and the rest to behave within the bounds of normal humanity. We also expect certain contingent behaviors based on the actions of other players.
Good point, but I'm saying it'll be a while until we can play an actual human by ourselves.
the AI Hiawatha shouldnt be chopping all his forests...
Good news.
Okay, but how would they prevent him from doing that? If they specifically override Hiawatha's civilization code, then we would have modding issues. Unless they add a new XML field that says <KeepForests>true</KeepForests> or something like that, then they can't add this into the game.
Or a new flavor...yikes, we don't need another one of those.
Yeah, that really wouldn't be that complicated.
Right the AI just does things beyond stupid thats what is aggravating. At least they could give it a bit of common sense. If not that they can surely make it better than it is. I love how people think the AI is beyond coding, as if it will take divine intervention to make it play the game better. That philosophy is absolutely ridiculous. Like I said we do not want it to be human, but it should realize certain things. Things like protect embarked units, do not lead with catapults, do not attack with a huge army and run away as soon as you lose a unit or two. The AI should be more determined when it attacks a city. It never follows through enough many times during military campaigns. It should realize what civ it is and play to that civs strengths. Things like that are not too much to ask and can be coded in.
Like you said?
I haven't played CIV V in a couple of months.
I really want more technologies, units and empires. Multiple leaders for each civilization like the old times.
I didn't say it was complicated, but my point is that you have to consider the appropriate method to solve the problem instead of just asking for the solution. The XML thing is the easiest, in my opinion, and that's the method I would choose.
I am also awaiting animations to be added in. It was a huge mistake to not include them in the first place. For the few people who would prefer to continue to play the game without animations, give users the choice.
Exactly. Not including animations was huge oversight. Put it in the game, and give players the choice to play it with or without animations.
It's Firaxis' job to figure that out and give us the solution. It's literally their job
.
The onus is not on us, but on them.
Yes, but it seems animations cause huge stability issues. I don't multiplay, so I don't see things from the same bus window as you, but it seems it'd be better to forgo animations in favor of being able to complete a game without crashing. Additionally, Waiting for the other player to finish his turn because he's waiting for all the animations seems tortuous. Granted, that's a matter of choice, but some of the game animations take a really long time.
Okay, I understand.
As a modder I am always afraid of hardcoded solutions, however, because they've proven in the past that they'll hardcode almost everything and make it impossible for us to modify them. You have to understand my worries about adding a hardcoded override to anything (including Hiawatha's AI).
There are already mechanisms to change how individual AI's behave. It's the same info that makes Gandhi a nuclear psychopath.
Now, I don't mod, but these are not "hard coded" If you put a ruler with Gandhi's picture in, they don't automatically drop nukes like Santa delivers toys, right?
These are called flavors, and are not specific to Gandhi's AI. All AI's act the same way as Gandhi, but I guess his nuke flavor is set so he will construct more of them than anyone else. This is completely different from preventing an AI from chopping forests, however, as that is changing the way they play the game, which is where hardcoding comes into play.
EDIT: Yep, just checked. His nuclear flavor is "12", way higher than anyone else's, which makes him more likely to build nukes, that's it. Building and using nukes is something all AI's have access to, the flavors just control how often they build them.
Which is why I used it as the example...
All AIs decide when to chop trees too, the goal is to change Hiwa's priorities
I feel the same way. I hated them in Civ IV.
Animations do not cause stability problems, the inability to implement decent code is what causes the problems.
And waiting for somebody to have their turn was never a problem in Civ 4, nor where animations, and anyway, Civ 5 multiplayer does not have animations and still you must cut the game down to bare bones to finish a game, so it does not matter if you don't want multiplayer, many do, and an option to enable it should be a good solution for all.
this
Although I found be fine even with some hybrid option. Like "simultaneous turns" when not in war, "sequential turns" when in war. Or even "sequential turns" only for players that are in war, with rest still playing "simultaneous turns". Best of both ways.
Enabling animations would be the greatest improvement for C5, imho. Playing with no animations is like playing new game with graphics like in much older game.
hopefully when/if they add Pitboss and PBEM
Thanks for the heads up 2kGreg!
1, Great news. Patch, mod stuff, DLC (?)... very happy.
2, What the **** is a pitboss?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote