|
Another "multiplayer sucks" thread
Well, well. I just played my very first two games of multi-player civ3. The first was with 2 other human players and after having built only 3 cities, the lag between telling a warrior to move and him moving was six seconds. SIX BLOODY SECONDS! Incidentally, the ping given for that game in the lobby was 290. And yes I have the 1.14f patch.
So, we all quit that and myself and one of the players tried again - this time, just 1v1 with no AI players. The lag was much better, but only being able to play 2-player multi-player games is a big let-down. And oh my god, it was so boooorrrring. With only 2 players, there's no interplay, no real diplomacy, no alliances, no treachery, no co-op victories, nothing. And since there's no one to trade techs and resources with, your progress is really quite slow.
Civ games work best with lots of players, for the reasons I've outlined above. Even 8 players would be great. Firaxis seemed to have designed the game with 8 players in mind - 8 is the no. of heads in the Foreign Advisor screen, 8 is the max. no. of players in a mp game. More would be preferable, but 8 I could live with. But 2? Seriously, with 3 human players (with no AIs) the lag quickly gets unbearable. And 2-player games are rubbish. And I don't mean 'not good', there are rubbish
|
