What causes multiplayer in 4x games to be so…. Dead?

[LnLP]

Even with really great games that have high sales, you're still lucky to find 20 people online, who are not afk, and want to play a game. I've been trying to figure this out lately and wanted to hear more peoples experiences. My theory is that the content of 4x games is geared more towards the solo experience, where you're in total control trying to run a perfect game against challenging but predictable AI opponents.

But I feel like even an experience solo player would want to play against are more unpredictable, and possibly even more challenging, human player. Or team up with friends and wallop some AI.

Some things off the bat that most 4x games don’t have vs other popular online strategy games:

• Win/loss record
  
• Player Rankings
  
• Variety of game variants (some games do have this, with win conditions)
  
• Matchmaking
  
• And, of course, the sheer number of players required to run matchmaking

Any other thoughts on this? I realize I may be in the minority of players who want to face human opponents, and that the option is simply not a necessary requirement for most people.

[Mansen]

Setup and length for the most part as far as I'm concerned.

[WollieG]

Personally i think it is because 4x games take too long, people want to play the COD, battlefields etc, they are short 20min or so maps, you shoot, lots of action etc and over. When you have only an hour of time or so then you can play a couple of pvp maps etc. You cannot with 4x games, takes too long, other player takes forever to take his turn or you feel rushed if timer on turn etc etc. I prefer playing 4x games on my own and i am not at all interested in playing them with other players. 4x game is MY TIME games and when i feel like playing with others then i rip out the shooters, lol. i think that is why so little people play 4x games in multiplayer, might be same or similar reasons i stated.
Edit: also you might find a guy to play with, it could take days to play and then after playing a week then guy is gone, you never get to finish the game. People come and go and if game is long game you might not finish them most of the time. That is also not a way i would like to play because i would waste my time then.

[BobbyBullets]

Length. No doubt...

[Reten]

I have never played 4x mulitplayer in my life. Length makes sense but if you're going to play multiplayer on those types of games you should be prepared for the time it takes to play.

[LnLP]

From what I gather, it's not just that the game takes a long time to play necessarily, but that that the amount of people who have a 2-8 hour block of time, at the exact same time, with no long term interruptions is very few and far between.

I think, even with the small amount of responses, that game length is the #1 drawback. Are there any macro or small-scale 4x games that have a reasonable length of games for multiplayer? I'm curious to know for my own game as well as simply wanting to play some online 4x with people :P

[ashbery76]

When I read the Endlesspace2's dev diary and they say combat is made faster and with little interaction for multiplayer games it makes me mad.Hardly anybody will play it in that mode.

[Lego]

I think turn waits are the big killer. Something like EU IV, which takes forever to play, still seems to have more people online then most 4x games do.

[Mr.Kill]

game length. I mean sots is a great game but every battle is minimum 5 minutes. There's no way I'm gonna wait 10-20 minutes for my turn in a game that's usually 200 turns or more.

[jlc2]

Also game length for me. I occassionally jump into a RTS or shooter for a multiplayer match and used to play MMOs a lot, but now I'm lucky if I have an uninterrupted hour of gameplay, forget the typical lengths most 4Xs go.
I guess if it was possible to set up a 4X multiplayer match that you could play not in real time (totally drawing a blank here on the description) and get notifications it was your turn via text/email/alerts like some mobile games and it worked well then maybe that method would work. At the same time though most 4X games require some amount of continuous focus just to keep your strategy in mind.

[Tragic]

The genre is defiantly not "dead" as there are more games being made around now than in the entire time videos games have existed.

I think the majority of 4X gamers are not interested in multiplayer. I know I am not. This is probably the most contributing factor to it "feeling" dead.

The biggest problem for multiplayer and 4x for me is the length of the game. These games take hours to play.. I mean playing large maps with many players you can be looking at time counted in two digits!

Also for a multiplayer to work you really need many players. Probably at least 4, but more like 5/7/9. Odd numbers always work better btw. So it is hard to organise that.

ALL 4X games should have a PBE (Play by Email) system. This is by far the best way to play a 4X game multiplayer.

[Biz]

length
balance
complete lack of developer effort

the only turn-based one i really bothered to play was civ4. it also ruined single player 4x gaming for me because it was so much more rewarding than playing against a dumb AI. it also helps that civ 4 is an amazingly designed game

i know 4x is a silly term, but civ4 multiplayer (which was mostly 4v4) is very similar to rise of nations/age of empires multiplayer.
without diplomacy (which isn't done in multiplayer for balance reasons), 4x games and RTS games are basically the same. and once you see this you realize how bad the 4X multiplayer implementation is

[Nasarog]

For me, it's 3 things -

No time.
Games are too long.
Turns take too long.

[Mezmorki]

I've played MP for a number of 4X's over the years

- Alpha Centauri
- Sins of a Solar Empire
- UltraCorps
- Neptune's Pride
- Starbase Orion
- Armada 2526
- Age of Wonders 3

Maybe some others ...

The key is having someone to play with (e.g. a closer friend), that knows it's going to take a while. Play-by-email (and similar asynchronous) games can be great. UltraCorps, Starbase Orion, and Armada 2526 in particular worked pretty well for that. Really, you log in and spend maybe 5-15 minutes taking your turn ... and then go about your business.

Age of Wonders 3 is great MP as a 1v1 game because turns are simultaneous ... or you can use PBEM systems. It helps if you prefer smaller maps and shorter, faster paced, games to begin with, as that cuts down on the total time.

I have the most fun playing 4X games against other humans. It underscores how it easy it is to game the AI, and how non-cunning AI's typical are. A competent player is much better competition.

[Tragic]

yeah... PBM makes multiplayer completely viable.. but as Nas said.. not only are the games long, have many player .. the actual individual turns are long.

PBM is so great. As you say.... you check your mail.. ohh.. it is your turn. You take a turn, takes a few mins.. and then your done! I've played games of Amanda that have taken months and involved 25 players and one of the best things is that you do not need to actually do any organising. People from all over the world can play the same game and just deal with their turn when they get the mail.

So much fun!

If there was any turn based 4X game feature I would love in a new game it would be PBM.

Heroes implemented a simultaneous turn system for multiplayer. I think this can also work pretty well. Basically the idea is that there is so much of the game that dose not involve the other player, so the game only needs to actively get reactions from the other humans if they are in the same area or w/e. While this works great in early game, and speeds things up really well, as the game progresses to late game all the same issues about 4x multiplayer crop up as most of you actions require player reactions.

[Biz]

i find play by mail to be really awful for fog-of-war strategy games because they're mostly about planning things and reacting to the flow of the game

that stuff is better suited for stuff like chess