|
Post by Tony on May 9, 2007 9:27:36 GMT -5
150,000 MP players? we have less than 1,000 on this ladder, where could the other 149,000 MP players be? Well you have to understand that ladder is only a small fraction of MP, and what you also have to understand is most of the million sales are just casual buyers that have probably played the game a handful of times and now its gathering dust. And perhaps some of those million copies are unsatisfied MPers, it’s a big generalisation to assume X people are MP, and the rest are all die hard SPers. Look at the direction most games are going in, MP is the way forward and IMO this is there the real fan base can be built. I doubt the average SP guy plays even a 20th of the amount a MP guy plays. IMO anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 12, 2007 7:53:24 GMT -5
Most of the issues will not be fixed but how about removing War Weariness in "Always War" games? It's just one extra line of code, i guess even Firaxis can do as little as that for MP players, even if they don't really care about MP.
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on May 12, 2007 22:10:52 GMT -5
The ladder is only a small fraction of MP? I'd say it's 95% of the MPers that PLAY ON A REGULAR BASIS. Someone purchasing the game and playing for 2 weeks don't count, neither do people that play twice a month. I've met very few non-ladders that can compete with a player in one of the top clans and some of those that can are ladder-players in disguise (i.e. deyreepher ) Of course I'm leaving out Civfr, but they are another MP league like us.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on May 13, 2007 8:04:16 GMT -5
My point was Firaxis isn't going to spend a lot of time (and money) with a small percentage of dedicated MP players when it's pretty clear by the numbers alone that SP, the larger target market, are by far the largest group of players whether or not they belong to civfanatics or apolyton
REMEMBER, it's a PLAYER DEVELOPED game and most (not all) of the game development now comes from the SP community
Even if MP made up as much as 10percent of the market, we don't come close to 150,000 and no mater how and where you search I don't think you could find 1percent, or 15,000 MP players.
Yes, a thousand here or in the FR league and the smaller MP groups all add up, but I doubt if they come close to a total of 15,000
And the ones that bought and never playerd, as well as the ones that bought and played some - then quit, well those numbers get spread equally across the SP and MP markets as well.
Regrettably, as Tony posted, it does not come down to who plays the most - it comes down to the number of purchased games and market sector and where the money comes from.
The bottom line (as someone earlier posted) is that comes back down to the MP community to make it's own mods and not wait for somone else to do it.
Look at it even in a more simplified equation - we all know what fried was generally paid as a contract consultant and the current number of members on THIS ladder now doesn't add up to what firaxis paid out.
No matter how it's argued - $$$$ is their focus and response.
It's regrettable and I don't like it either, but to them, it's "just business" handled via standard business practices - firaxis is not a "public servce group."
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on May 14, 2007 3:14:21 GMT -5
MMV, this "analysis" is way too easy.
I think the question should be "why do so few people play MP civ4?" - the answer is kinda easy:
Cause Firaxis/Take2 did never really support or even develop MP. The GS lobby is a joke, the connection coding is totaly outdated, no inbuilt ladder. Horrible mod loading, lacking patches to fight problems.
In this environment there was never the possibility to create a big MP community - have a look at the competition and how the MP part of games is supported - no wonder that people quit civ4 MP when the join GS lobby and can only connect to 1/10 of games if their router isnt set properly.
So the "problem" with lacking mp support dont come from lacking players but from bad proggraming and concepting of the mp part.
Something for which I still blame Fried and some other ladders who were involved in game design/testing of civ4 - they should have spoken up! Instead there were often topics in civ3 ladder forum how great civ4 is going to be ...
|
|
|
Post by MMV on May 14, 2007 8:04:12 GMT -5
YES and too true
The first six months of the game with so many people not being able to play multiplayer at all was certainly a contributing factor - hence, no "momentum-build" of the community.
I wasn't really trying to get into the "why's" of how it got to this point - only that it IS at this point and that this continued "player-developed" game and it's future is basically in the hands of the SP community.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on May 14, 2007 9:40:12 GMT -5
Something for which I still blame Fried and some other ladders who were involved in game design/testing of civ4 - they should have spoken up! Instead there were often topics in civ3 ladder forum how great civ4 is going to be ... It is easy to criticize what we see now as faults in the code, but you have to realize that due to development issues there wasn't time for a large open beta of Civ4 before it was released. Therefore some of the issues that happened with release version just couldn't weren't identified with the limited testers, many of whom were less than active and would rather play C3C ladder games than provide feedback to the dev's on Civ4. Being a tester is often like being a general, you have to pick battles you can win. The decision for civ4 to be a peer to peer game using gamespy was made well before an tester was invited, and other than state our displeasure with that out of principle there was little reason to fight that losing battle. It was a much better idea to push for other things that we now take for granted....do the C3C vets remember how much a problem imposters were/are still in C3C? Or how about being able to hotjoin? Or having combat odds displayed before a battle? Yes we can still improve the game code more, but the real battle is getting Civ seen as an MP game, until the Dev's/publishers advertise and develop Civ like it was WoW or CounterStrike or Quake then we will remain a SP game with a MP faction. This is not to say that this is not already a great MP game but it is not at the point were people buy it on the shelf because they want to play MP. My 2 cents CS
|
|
|
Post by eyesofnight3 on May 14, 2007 10:02:37 GMT -5
It's funny you should mention combat odds because to me that sounds like a newbie feature, and it definitely wasn't in civ2. The fact that you put effort into getting that in Civ4 instead of other issues says a lot. Also, Civ2 had no problems with hotjoin, these were all problems that occurred in civ3 because of, dare I say it, poor coding and lack of support for MP. Sound familiar? Lets face it, you didn't voice anything, you just enjoyed your place as tester and leader in the community. All things come to an end though.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on May 14, 2007 11:07:26 GMT -5
Well since you weren't there EoN, I suggest your opinions are far less than valid. Combat odds were just one example I picked off the top of my head, there are many others I could have used. I'll let all the other MP testers judge my contributions to Civ4, including the ones that are testing BtS right now. Anyone that reads these forums already knows that you don't like the gameplay in Civ4 and that you blame all us testers for what Civ4 became, which is all starting to sound like a broken record(or scratched CD for the younger generation). I noticed that you withdrew(again) from the ladder, if you don't want to be part of the solution then atleast you can stop being part of the problem!
CS
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on May 14, 2007 11:38:05 GMT -5
I dont deny that civ4 has some MP improvements to civ3 - that s the reason I changed.
But when u pick imposters as a example I pick civ3 future as a example - why didnt u show the important people the fun of this type of mod. Look what happened to civ4 future - oh well opinions may vary - but seeing all map - havíng explorers and mechs as only untis u need, build and spamming as many cities as possible as best strategy is for me far away from the fun and excitement of civ3 future - killing kings with missles u didnt even see was just ;D
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on May 14, 2007 13:24:35 GMT -5
I agree modern & future don't compare to Civ3 Regicide. Stealth bombers to locate the king, then nuke it once, twice, three times whatever it takes to kill it. That and the draft TOW rush. Use bombers on a carrier to pillage an enemy's city to nothing. When I was in B2C I remember Elrad killing the entire other team all by himself after all of us died. Ahh the good old days The only other thing I would say is better in civ3 was the ease in which mods were loaded. The whole exiting and restarting thing is way too much. That and people could see your MOD game in the GS lobby, so they'd know what the game was. As it is now, you have no idea if a UQC mod is up unless someone spams the lobby or you check to see what game your buddylisters are in. Civ4 is by far a much more superior game. It's just that future vs ancient in civ3 were so completely different that it was like 2 separate games. I think Civ4 will do well, but unless some mods become popular and somehow easier to load & join, I'm positive Civ4 won't have the longevity that Civ3 has had.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on May 14, 2007 14:51:34 GMT -5
Well not to try and make excuses for Firaxis, but the reason the late era's didn't get as much attention as the rest of the game was simply a time issue. Up until 3 month's before the game went gold there was still major basic code changes being implimented and since there are only so many programmers, creating a C3C style future regicide mode just didn't happen, stuff that required low amounts of time to do, like hardcoding OCC happened. But then Firaxis did make the game highly moddable for everyone, so if you want the perfect Future Regicide game, please test and give us feedback on the Mod that Primax is making for us, this is your mod to improve the future game in Civ4 so make the best of it.
As too the mod loading, there's nothing we can do about that, I really don't think it's that complicated that people that want to play will. We are now playing UQC on a regular basis and based one CCC event on it and there was no problems with the event due to the mod. Unfortunately the mechanism is a cheating prevention mechanism and although it's a bit of a pain, it's the least of two evils, we still don't have any working cheats in MP and I'd hate to introduce them by changing the way mods are loaded.
We are also going to trial UUMadness in the Nations Cup as a free event. Mods are truely the future of MP and can keep the game fresh for everyone.
CS
|
|
|
Post by eyesofnight3 on May 15, 2007 9:51:33 GMT -5
Age of Empires 2: The conquerors was created in early 2001, yet I can go find 1000 people playing that game still at any given time 6 years later. That's with Age of Empires 3 being released back in Fall 2005 and with them closing down MSN gaming zone. It's called gameplay and community and AOC had both. Civ4...it's obviously lacking on some gameplay, but the community could be 10 times what it is. A good game doesn't need mods to keep people playing. It needs a competitive community with regular tournaments that are run by clans and where competition is fostered. Instead you have a damn net nanny that doesn't know thingy about anything running the show on top of a horribly flawed and outdated ladder. Mods don't keep a game fresh, people and competition do.
|
|
|
Post by eyesofnight3 on May 15, 2007 9:54:49 GMT -5
Oh, and I'm really surprised something as simple as observer mode hasn't been implemented yet, let alone a recorded game system.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on May 15, 2007 14:49:13 GMT -5
Oh, and I'm really surprised something as simple as observer mode hasn't been implemented yet, let alone a recorded game system. That has been asked for but unfortunately I can't wave my magic wand and give the MP community everything it wants, I can only identify those to Firaxis, and perhaps they will become part of the next generation of Civ. CS
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on May 15, 2007 14:53:30 GMT -5
Mods don't keep a game fresh, people and competition do. And those people want new things to try, but thanks for telling me something I already know. C4P is built on it's players, it's players that make up our games, players that become our TD's and Admins. Now do you have something constructive to add here, I'm sure everyone is well aware that you don't like me or how we have successfully managed the MP community for the past 5 years, but your tune is getting old. CS
|
|
|
Post by eyesofnight3 on May 15, 2007 15:23:07 GMT -5
I could tell you how to fix everything, but I don't have the power to implement those changes. I'm waiting on a few events to happen first. We'll see if they do, and we'll see what the next few months bring. You're incapable of managing this community properly, nor should you be the lone person. Just like a real life economy, regulations and rules stifle the community. The community should run itself, not a few lone people. You simply don't have the understanding needed and the fact that guys like you have been giving input on this game from day 1 has been part of the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on May 15, 2007 15:48:19 GMT -5
I could tell you how to fix everything, but I don't have the power to implement those changes. I'm waiting on a few events to happen first. We'll see if they do, and we'll see what the next few months bring. You're incapable of managing this community properly, nor should you be the lone person. Just like a real life economy, regulations and rules stifle the community. The community should run itself, not a few lone people. You simply don't have the understanding needed and the fact that guys like you have been giving input on this game from day 1 has been part of the problem. I see you have failed reading comprehenson, I don't run this place alone. I have a team of admins and TD's that all came from being dedicated players and they want to give something back to the organization that allowed them to have so much fun in the first place. You don't get it, your not just criticizing me but every player on this ladder that has put there personal time and effort into making C4P the place to play Civ. This ladder belongs to every player, the Admins and TD's only do the grunt work to make the wheels turn. CS
|
|
|
Post by eyesofnight3 on May 15, 2007 16:19:27 GMT -5
I guess that's the difference between you and me. I don't think the community should be run by a team, nor do I think tournaments have to be run by tournament directors. Apparently you're not a fan of the invisible hand. Communities run themselves, your only job as an administrator is to ban cheaters and moderate disputes. Clans and players run the community, they're the ones that set up events and tournaments. You simply don't understand the fundamentals of a healthy MP community. I don't remember if you were a part of it or not, but there was a group of people that tried to set up something similar on cases back in civ2. We killed that real fast, and we had a MUCH higher percentage of the MP community on our ladder. Kwang didn't try to regulate the actions of behavior of people, he only moderated disputes and banned cheaters. We had a very thriving community considering MP for civ2 came out 3 years after the original game was released. I can't say the same for Civ4. The game has a lot of flaws, yes, but that can't be used an excuse for the failure of the ladder. You point to your success with CCC, but the reality is things could be much better if you tapped into the vast amount of players out there not on the ladder. You don't know the first thing about attracting people to competition.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on May 15, 2007 17:34:49 GMT -5
I guess that's the difference between you and me. I don't think the community should be run by a team, nor do I think tournaments have to be run by tournament directors. Apparently you're not a fan of the invisible hand. Communities run themselves, your only job as an administrator is to ban cheaters and moderate disputes. Clans and players run the community, they're the ones that set up events and tournaments. You simply don't understand the fundamentals of a healthy MP community. I don't remember if you were a part of it or not, but there was a group of people that tried to set up something similar on cases back in civ2. We killed that real fast, and we had a MUCH higher percentage of the MP community on our ladder. Kwang didn't try to regulate the actions of behavior of people, he only moderated disputes and banned cheaters. We had a very thriving community considering MP for civ2 came out 3 years after the original game was released. I can't say the same for Civ4. The game has a lot of flaws, yes, but that can't be used an excuse for the failure of the ladder. You point to your success with CCC, but the reality is things could be much better if you tapped into the vast amount of players out there not on the ladder. You don't know the first thing about attracting people to competition. Your splitting hairs, TDs are players, and mostly belong to clans as well. They are just the players that have access to the software to organize tournaments. In fact short of a minority of troublemakers any ladder player is welcome to become a TD and run any sort of tournament that the players may want. And no I was not part of any Cases Civ2 ladder, As I recall that was a Cases run(as apposed to a Myleague) system. I do remember Civleague/Gameleague falling apart when the owners stopped having the time to manage it properly, even though it was a technically better scoring system than Cases, in the end the human factor turned out to be the most important aspect. That is what is most important here, the players. An as long as we put the needs of the players first we will always succeed, despite your predictions of doom. CS
|
|