peasantb wrote:
Here's an even better idea: implement systems that make random queuing more viable.



If I need to seek out a group to make multiplayer playable, that's proof that the game is lacking.

Blaming developers for this is quite incredible, if I may say so. Take responsibility yourself to find trusted players to play with is my advice.

Just join in with like minded people. Civilization lasts longer to play in multiplayer then Endless Legend, still there is no problem with quitters if you join the NO QUTTERS group. Quitters can stay with singleplayer or horrible Public games, lasting max 10 turns before you have a quitter.

The problem is that the score shows exactly what's going on the entire game. Games themselves are decided within the first hour or so, and then it's just a slow grind to finish someone off. Players know this by looking at the score. If it was hidden, tons of people would turtle with their doomstack and not realize they were about to be overwhelmed, or instantly know about my triple expand early game.



Unfortunately, the regions are so big that the score is almost necessary because scouting, especially early on when it's most important, is difficult. Scouting by score is generally good enough.



The individual region sizes are also a problem when it comes to length. A large portion of multiplayer games are spent playing Sim-City with yourself because the risk of being out of position is too great, and it's not punished because the score lets you see how your build is going relative to the world.



You're not gonna quit when you're about to lose if the score doesn't tell you it's coming.



My suggestions are options for the host to :



1) Limit max number of hexes in a region.

2) Option to hide players' scores from each other.

Propbuddha wrote:
Condensing the tech progression is planned, but I wanted to wait until Amplitude takes a pass at balancing the game before I make those changes.

Not what I meant. Civ 5 for example gives you the option to start in a later era which speeds things up quite a bit. Not that I don't enjoy early exploration, but in multiplayer I can see it getting tiresome.

Nirual wrote:
But I do like the idea of having an even shorter mode for multiplayer purposes like the mod is trying to do. Possibly even going a bit further, starting you in a later era and a few cities and armies.

Condensing the tech progression is planned, but I wanted to wait until Amplitude takes a pass at balancing the game before I make those changes.



This mod wouldn't be as necessary if we could customize the turn limit for the score victory. Current "Fast" pacing and a 75-turn score victory, (with balancing) would make an excellent "Quick" option. I'd also like to see an "advanced start option" but this isn't possible with modding.

Honestly thats pretty much the reason why I never even want to play this kind of game in multiplayer. Even you might want to quit yourself if the game starts out badly for you, which isn't a problem in singleplayer obviously.



But I do like the idea of having an even shorter mode for multiplayer purposes like the mod is trying to do. Possibly even going a bit further, starting you in a later era and a few cities and armies.

Lets be realistic, this game, even on Fast settings takes 4-6 hours to play. That's a big time commitment and not something unique to Endless Legend, but any multiplayer 4X. People are going to quit, especially when they are random strangers.



- Make friends with people that play

- Organize times to play

- Trim settings to make the game shorter (Fast setting, small maps or Battle for Auriga mod)

peasantb wrote:
Here's an even better idea: implement systems that make random queuing more viable.



If I need to seek out a group to make multiplayer playable, that's proof that the game is lacking.

At this very moment, in the entire world, a grand total of 4 people are playing EL multiplayer.



Incidentally, there are a lot of fixes and improvements that EL multiplayer desperately needs that could raise this figure.

peasantb wrote:
Easy to have a rejoin window of a few minutes where you do not get flagged.



My main frustration is when I play a hundred + turns and am left playing only AI. I technically "won" because everyone ragequit, but it lacks the satisfaction of a victory screen/score recap.

it also lacks the achievement.

I have won two games so far and still no achievement.

the first time it was lost because the host died second to last and the last remaining player (other than me) left the lobby instead of returning to the game

the second time because the 2 remaining player said gg, declared me the victor, and disconnected.



I am actually fine with people conceding the game. I don't want to force them to continue to the bitter end when they admit defeat. But I would like to get the achievement for my hard won victory

I suggest a "deserter" flag. If you leave before the end of a game, you get a 24-48 hour flag. Hosts have the option to ban flagged players.



The other issue is when AI replaces a player midway through the game. Unless I set the AI on Serious or greater, drop-in players don't have a chance.



If the last opposing player leaves, I don't want to play AI, have an option set by hosts to declare the last player standing the winner.

Personally I think after 2+ hours it is reasonable to save and continue another day if someone has to leave. I personally never quit because I'm doing poorly, but any number of minor personal emergencies will take priority over a game. Also, banning quitters is bad when you consider technical reasons people can drop (computer/network issues). The best option might be some kind of reputation system.. but i don't know how it would work.

daveyg2611 wrote:
I don't really think there is ever a true solution to this problem in turn-based multi-player. I don't favor the idea of banning players, because the reasons for having to drop out of a game that takes so long to play are vast, not limited only to rage-quitting.



I do like peasantb's suggestion of having a setting for last player standing to be the default winner after X number of turns with AI-only.

I agree. While its very annoying when you've taken the time to free up your schedule and ensure you have no distractions to finally sit and play a multiplayer game, only to have people randomly leave, its also a VERY long commitment. A lot can occur in RL in the spam of 3-4 hours.



As someone mentioned before, the best option is joining a group, finding some friends online, or RL friends. But even then you'll have people leaving. Unfortunately, the only real cure I see it to make the game shorter, but that'll just take WAY too much away from the experience.

I don't really think there is ever a true solution to this problem in turn-based multi-player. I don't favor the idea of banning players, because the reasons for having to drop out of a game that takes so long to play are vast, not limited only to rage-quitting.



I do like peasantb's suggestion of having a setting for last player standing to be the default winner after X number of turns with AI-only.

peasantb wrote:
Here's an even better idea: implement systems that make random queuing more viable.



If I need to seek out a group to make multiplayer playable, that's proof that the game is lacking.

Needing to look for a group isn't a problem with the game, but with the number of people unwilling to see a losing game through. Which is fine. Basically any multiplayer game, no matter the genre, will have this problem, and every one of those games are better when played with like minded friends.

Here's an even better idea: implement systems that make random queuing more viable.



If I need to seek out a group to make multiplayer playable, that's proof that the game is lacking.

Here's an even better idea - Stop playing with random people in a game that takes hours.



Find a group - Organize playing times. This isn't a 30 minute "round based" shooter.

Easy to have a rejoin window of a few minutes where you do not get flagged.



My main frustration is when I play a hundred + turns and am left playing only AI. I technically "won" because everyone ragequit, but it lacks the satisfaction of a victory screen/score recap.

The problem is for a system like that to see the difference on a quitter or one who diconnects due to bad connection.



Anyways. I invite people that do not quit to my friends list, and never do with quitters. Quitters can have fun playing among themselves. The most enjoyable games are with friends only.