Does SP Brilliance Make for MP Excellence

Robber Baron · November 19, 2002, 17:41

Personally, I haven't ventured into Multi-Player realms yet with CivIII. Too many bugs for games outside of local LANs, I gather. In any event, the Single Player experience is what I love about Civ III.
Still, like any student of human psychology, I am intensely interested to learn whether the people who have shaped our understanding of the SP game are killer MP'ers.
I would assume they are highly effecient, wringing every scrap of production and trade and gold out of their cities. (They've taught me a huge amount along these lines.)
But are they flexible enough to adapt to quirky, less predictable human tactics and strategies?
Be honest, and let us know. Tell us about MP games that went wonderfully right, or weirdly astray, as the constantly unpredictable elements of human nature pushed and pulled on your games.

ducki · November 19, 2002, 17:48

I think MP will see a lot of two things in pickup games.

1 - Massive military buildup very early. Imagine Arrian playing against himself times 3. Archers and Horsemen and Bloodshed, oh my!

2 - Lots of frustrated "builders" leaving (or being eliminated from) games very early.

For LAN games or games with buddies, I think you'll see more flexibility - where the Horde and the Builder agree to work together against the AI, or agree to no ultra-early Archer/Chariot rushes against each other.

DaveMcW · November 19, 2002, 17:55

I don't think there is any relationship between players who are "brilliant" at SP and MP.

Running an efficient empire certainly helps in both games, but to reach the top of your class you need to dedicate a lot of time to playing games and learning strategies. Many excellent SP players simply won't dedicate the time needed to become great in MP. Similarly, some people who never played SP much will love MP and play enough to become very good at it.

And then there is the difference between being good at turnless MP and hotseat MP and PBEM MP...

Brizey · November 19, 2002, 17:56

I think the buddy games may be the most fun. Put the AI on emperor or diety, and cooperate with a buddy to beat it. I like team games, especially when one of the teams is an AI that derserves all the hatred I fling at it!

Catt · November 19, 2002, 18:20

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveMcW
I don't think there is any relationship between players who are "brilliant" at SP and MP.

Running an efficient empire certainly helps in both games, but to reach the top of your class you need to dedicate a lot of time to playing games and learning strategies. Many excellent SP players simply won't dedicate the time needed to become great in MP. Similarly, some people who never played SP much will love MP and play enough to become very good at it.

And then there is the difference between being good at turnless MP and hotseat MP and PBEM MP...

I agree with DaveMcW and couldn't have said as clearly. Great SP skills will help in MP (particularly around efficiency and resource allocation), but will not equate to great MP skills. MP will be a very different game.

Catt

FrustratedPoet · November 19, 2002, 18:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Robber Baron
Personally, I haven't ventured into Multi-Player realms yet with CivIII. Too many bugs for games outside of local LANs, I gather. In any event, the Single Player experience is what I love about Civ III.
Still, like any student of human psychology, I am intensely interested to learn whether the people who have shaped our understanding of the SP game are killer MP'ers.
I would assume they are highly effecient, wringing every scrap of production and trade and gold out of their cities. (They've taught me a huge amount along these lines.)
But are they flexible enough to adapt to quirky, less predictable human tactics and strategies?
Be honest, and let us know. Tell us about MP games that went wonderfully right, or weirdly astray, as the constantly unpredictable elements of human nature pushed and pulled on your games.

You've been reading the PTW-DemoGame forum haven't you?

To answer your question in one word: No.

Good SP play will be very different from good MP play. Success in SP is based on exploiting AI weaknesses, human players have very different weaknesses.

vmxa1 · November 19, 2002, 18:48

I think DaveMcW is partially correct. I have no doubt that peple that can master SP could and will master MP. They will do so as they are able to think logically and will recognize the things that are need for each type of game. Sure there will be bumps in the road for all.
Catt I suspect you could say it just fine.

FrustratedPoet · November 19, 2002, 18:48

When I get PTW I'll try to post a thread about how my poor SP skills translate into poor MP performances.

Catt · November 19, 2002, 23:16

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I think DaveMcW is partially correct. I have no doubt that peple that can master SP could and will master MP. They will do so as they are able to think logically and will recognize the things that are need for each type of game. Sure there will be bumps in the road for all.

I think you're right. Good skills at SP will probably translate to to a good chance at solid MP play (after some bumps). But I suspect that a lot of SP players enjoy a SP game but won't have enough interest to invest the time in MP to develop solid MP skills (as DaveMcW alludes to).

Quote:

Catt I suspect you could say it just fine.

Thanks.

Catt

notyoueither · November 20, 2002, 05:24

SP skills matter. Believe it. Wringing every last shield out of that crappy start is even more important. Growing your cities rapidly is critical. Never forget that much of what beats the AI is the underpinning of any good empire.

But then it comes to war... Sorry Soren, but you never will scare me the way most any human could on any given turn. Now the game comes into its own.

Diplomacy? Ohhh yeah! Worlds away now. Head games will never be the same as they are with any AI.

So it boils down to one-third is the same as SP. The most important one-third, but one-third none-the-less.

Chemical Ollie · November 20, 2002, 08:08

I have never played MP on turnbased games, but a lot on RTS (mostly StarCraft BW and Age of Empires). My experience is that the strategy is totally different in MP compared to SP.

In MP, you can put everything on one card, like making an early rush, while games against AI tends to be more balanced.

The unit characteristics in Starcraft and AoE makes it possible to change tactics and win even if you fall behind, especially in team play where your team buddies can protect you during your transition. The units in these games have bonuses and weaknesses against certain enemy units, so if you see that an opponent is using a certain unit a lot, you can build counter units and beat him. Coordinated attacs with combined arms gives you huge advantages.

Other RTS games are simpler, like anything in the Command & Conquer series. The one who is the fastest rusher will win, and smart tactics will not help you to beat him. OK, there are some dirty tricks with stealth units, but they only work on newbies.

I am afraid that MP in Civilization works more like CC than Starcraft: The one who is the fastest rusher will allways win. This due to the lack of unit bonus/weakness and combined arms. Can anyone who have tried it confirm?

I think Notyoueither is right. The SP skills will help you a lot in the civilian part of the game: terrain improvement, building order etc. But you will have to adapt completely different war strategies.

jshelr · November 20, 2002, 08:39

ducki writes,

1 - Massive military buildup very early. Imagine Arrian playing against himself times 3. Archers and Horsemen and Bloodshed, oh my!

Here's a thought.

Based on no experience whatsoever, but looking at the characteristics of civ III military, it seems to me that we are in a WWI situation -- good defense will beat offense.

I don't necessarily mean defensive units will beat offensive units. I mean that surprise is hard to achieve and that the defense has a huge mobility advantage on its home turf and road (even RR) system.

So, I wonder if some players will build a nice, compact, defendable civ and then build / research, making the diplomacy window the real place that the game gets fought out.

Again, this speculation is completely unencumbered by any experience or facts.

joncnunn · November 20, 2002, 12:58

Well, SP Brillance won't neccesary lead to MP Excellence, but someone who can't win against the AI on Regent certinately can't expect to win a MP game against humans.

vmxa1 · November 20, 2002, 14:02

I agree that being a knowledgeable SP player will not mean you will automatically be a good MP. The things that got one to be a good SP player are the traits that could allow one to master MP. Traits like dedication to studing the game, adaptability, creativeness and knowledge of game functions. Anyone really think that most of the top players here will not be formidable opponents in MP?

DeepO · November 20, 2002, 14:23

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Anyone really think that most of the top players here will not be formidable opponents in MP?

Well, I do. or at least, there is no garantee... I can't imagine a good MP player who is bad at SP (e.g. beating all humans, but can't get past regent on SP), but the other way certainly isn't true. I played some MP games before (not many, and not PTW (yet)), and even if I consider myself decent on SP, I know I totally missed the mark in MP... I got rushed by fellow n00bies, even knowing what to expect. In PTW, you know the rules, but the unpredictability of humans messes all those nice AI strats up, and it will take a while to adapt. Indeed, like NYE (and others) said: if you're good on SP, you know how to squeeze the last drop out of a bad situation, you know how to rush the AIs, but the largest part that is missing is the defense needed in a human game. Add to that the diplomatical options who go a lot farther then the few scripted ones in SP, and you get a whole other game in which you might not do so well.

DeepO

Arrian · November 20, 2002, 14:38

I will probably never be a good MP player, simply because I play Civ for the SP experience. I will be participating in the PTWDemogame, but that's not quite the same as a normal MP game.

ducki,

Me playing against myself would probably be boring - both of me would be building up a solid defense in anticipation of attack, and a good offense in anticipation of an opportunity... waiting to have what we feel is a comfortable advantage before attacking. The result would probably be somewhat of a stalemate.

Believe it or not, I'm actually a pretty conservative player. At least I started out that way. As I learned the game, and came to understand the AI, I was willing to take bigger and bigger risks (which weren't as risky once I knew what to expect from the other side).

Humans are unpredictable, however, and thus my old conservatism would probably come back.

-Arrian

Jawa Jocky · November 20, 2002, 15:49

If play yourself in a hotseat game you may get some idea of how you would play. Of course the information problem would make the results worthless.

ducki · November 20, 2002, 16:56

Quote:

Originally posted by jshelr

I don't necessarily mean defensive units will beat offensive units. I mean that surprise is hard to achieve and that the defense has a huge mobility advantage on its home turf and road (even RR) system.

So, I wonder if some players will build a nice, compact, defendable civ and then build / research, making the diplomacy window the real place that the game gets fought out.

Again, this speculation is completely unencumbered by any experience or facts.

Bear in mind, I was talking about pick-up games. When you play with friends or people you "know" from the forums, I'm sure it will be different.

Maybe past experience with online pickup games is making me a bit too cynical about the average pick-up game opponent.

I'm sure you will see some conservative defensive play, but I bet you'll see a lot more early rushers, especially in games like Regicide and Elimination and Capture the Princess - the psychology being, if I can win early, I am better.

To me, it's kinda like the difference between Boxing and Car Racing. In boxing, if you knock your opponent out early, you win and you win big. In racing, it doesn't matter who is in first for the most laps or even the early laps. What matters is who leads the last lap.

I prefer car racing.

And Arrian wrote:

Quote:

Believe it or not, I'm actually a pretty conservative player. At least I started out that way. As I learned the game, and came to understand the AI, I was willing to take bigger and bigger risks (which weren't as risky once I knew what to expect from the other side).

Maybe I got my 'poly pros mixed up. I was thinking you were the biggest proponent of ultra-early archer/horseman rushes. Maybe that was rpodos/Theseus or Aeson.

I still think we're going to see "a lot" of very early buildup and rushes by people going for the first-round knockout punch.

But, again, I have to stress that I'm talking about random pick-up games here. Just picking a game out on gamespy.

When you set up a game with a "friend", I'm sure there will be more ground rules and more etiquette/gentleman's agreements.
*chat - Hey, my start spot really blows, cut me some slack for a bit.
*chat - Hey, Rome's killin' me here, can you help?
*chat - Hey, I'm stuck on a 3 city island, let's make a deal.

Anyway, if I confused my ultra-early rush proponent, forgive me. And remember, I am fairly cynical about random pick-up games.

Arrian · November 20, 2002, 17:12

ducki,

Oh, I'm all about the horseman rush (or war chariots). My main strat on Monarch was the mass chariot upgrade (build 20 chariots, accumulate 400 gold, get hbr, hit shift+U, and lay waste). I also have been doing more with swordsmen (which I didn't use at all until recently) and even warriors. Archers are the units I use the least (except when playing China - they're just so perfect for it).

Theseus will use any unit any time he feels he has an advantage, but like all of us, recognizes the power of mobility.

Sir Ralph is the archer rush specialist.

-Arrian

ducki · November 20, 2002, 17:23

Ah, thanks.

Early war, and warmongering in general is still new to me and the AU205 game is where I really learned to love the Bow and the Saddle. It's still a big experiment for me, but I do see it's advantages. It's just hard to get used to fighting when I think I should be building.

I'm starting to reassess the value of granaries in conjunction with that and am coming around to the popular belief that the Pyramids is the single most important wonder in the Ancient Age.

Eek! Sorry 'bout the threadjack!
I stand by my assertion that pick-up games will be full of early war, begetting a lot of happy warmongers and frustrated builders. Defense units just became twice as important, and dual units (swordsmen, Babylonian Bowmen, Numidian Mercs, Legionaires, Celtic Swordsmen) just became 3 times as important.

vmxa1 · November 20, 2002, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by DeepO

Well, I do. or at least, there is no garantee... I can't imagine a good MP player who is bad at SP (e.g. beating all humans, but can't get past regent on SP), but the other way certainly isn't true. I played some MP games before (not many, and not PTW (yet)), and even if I consider myself decent on SP, I know I totally missed the mark in MP... I got rushed by fellow n00bies, even knowing what to expect. In PTW, you know the rules, but the unpredictability of humans messes all those nice AI strats up, and it will take a while to adapt. Indeed, like NYE (and others) said: if you're good on SP, you know how to squeeze the last drop out of a bad situation, you know how to rush the AIs, but the largest part that is missing is the defense needed in a human game. Add to that the diplomatical options who go a lot farther then the few scripted ones in SP, and you get a whole other game in which you might not do so well.

DeepO

No guarantees, really that is really going out on a limb. Of course there will be learning curves and growing pains, but MP is not some unknowable strategy. Some will need less time to adapt, others more, but the good players will figure it out.

Comrade Tribune · November 20, 2002, 18:36

Quote:

Originally posted by ducki
I stand by my assertion that pick-up games will be full of early war, begetting a lot of happy warmongers and frustrated builders. Defense units just became twice as important, and dual units (swordsmen, Babylonian Bowmen, Numidian Mercs, Legionaires, Celtic Swordsmen) just became 3 times as important.

I agree.

The situation is very similar to AoE2, I believe: Main difference between a human opponent and the AI is: AI can´t do a well-executed Rush.

One more thought: There will be less Rushing in Pbem games, because I´d expect Pbem players to mostly be Builders.

DeepO · November 20, 2002, 19:29

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1

No guarantees, really that is really going out on a limb. Of course there will be learning curves and growing pains, but MP is not some unknowable strategy. Some will need less time to adapt, others more, but the good players will figure it out.

I agree with that statement, but it isn't exaclty the first... I don't believe SP brilliance will make MP excellence(=title), but with enough training and going through the learning curve it should be possible for all good SP players to not completely suck at MP. The problem is of course that if you know the AIs are pushovers and you have more fun doing that, you don't want to go stick to MP games in which you will lose the first 50 of so.

How many of us lose SP games? Not that many, I reckon... we all know that if we don't do foolish things, we will win, and playing becomes a style excercise to win beautifully, or from underdog positions. In MP, that's not enirely true anymore, or at least it isn't the first few games you play. There are some general strategies that will work, but no strategy will work all the time, and if the other does something which might appear stupid at first, he could very well win a battle there. I find it very hard to try to assess other players, where the AI doesn't have many secrets for me anymore... which is one of the reasons I joined the PTW demogame to learn from others how to analyse human PTW behaviour... it will work a lot better then to try to do it on my own, playing a lot of games in which I would be the one to lose all the time.

DeepO

Sheik · November 20, 2002, 22:04

I have played part of a MP game with some friends (We are the same street and our houses are in a row, the game still lags).

When I play the AI I know what I am getting when I trade and I know how I compare with the other AI civs. in MP it was different. I never knew what they where thinking and that bugged me. I wanted to know what they had and how they where reacting towards my civs greatness

vmxa1 · November 20, 2002, 23:23

Well I do not know where all of these MP gods are coming from, but anyone that lose their first 50 games should consider finding something else to do with their time.

Theseus · November 21, 2002, 02:29

I think SP excellence WILL translate into MP proficiency, for those who choose to go there. Sure, you're not facing AI civs anymore, so you'll make some mistakes... but not too many. C'mon, if you're facing a notorious warmonger, you're not gonna adjust?

I'm lookin' forward to it.

ps: Sorry I haven't been around... new job, and an industry conference.

DAVOUT · November 21, 2002, 05:39

It is also possible that the players who have played against humans in chess, go, and traditional wargame feel comfortable again in making what I would name *natural* strategic analysis. I think that playing against the AI, although intellectually not really challenging, requires mentally an additional effort to adapt to the *artificial* side of the AI strategy.

yxhuvud · November 21, 2002, 06:27

I definitely agree with theseus.

Actually, I'd say SP excellence is a REQUIREMENT for MP dito. The simple reason is that a player that is good at SP will have learned to maximize production and to produce enough troops. Just a fact that a good SP manages the workerforce manually leads to a enourmous difference of the speed of the REXing or early warmongering.

DeepO · November 21, 2002, 08:13

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Well I do not know where all of these MP gods are coming from, but anyone that lose their first 50 games should consider finding something else to do with their time.

Exactly... why do you think I say I'm terrible at MP

okay, 50 may be an exaggeration, but the first 10 games I played on Starcraft I lost... I never played an 11th.

DeepO

vmxa1 · November 21, 2002, 14:20

Yes but that was a long tiem ago, I bet you would be much better now. Well let me qualify the whole thing, by saving that FPS and RTS is another thing all together. You need a skill that is not required for tbs, that is good fingers. I will stipulate that beating the AI at those games is not the same as beating a human as that human may have better reflexes and more stamina and concentration. Those traits are not required for TBS games as you can take all the time you need. Anyway I know you are well aquainted with how to play Civ.