For example, Civ4 was exhaustively tested in multiplayer, revealing many design problems that were subsequently resolved. If properly done, multiplayer testing will lead to a much stronger game than testing around an AI and its inherent limitations. MP is one of the best ways to balance a game because good players will seek out and exploit every potential weakness in the design. Sometimes, I'll see someone who is arguing on the side of a mechanic I believe in, but the argument is just awful or the logic is flawed and that sucks because I want to call them out on it regardless. By far the most frustrating thing is when post after post is just another yell of 'make it this way or that way'. I've been beaten in debates here quite a few times (the phrase 'written daggers' comes from experience -> it's uneasy being put in a position you can't argue out of, and people have done it to me here), and that's part of what keeps me coming back along with the game's actual strategy discussion. For every well-reasoned point brought up by either side, you have what, a dozen statements made without basis or are pure fallacy or insults? I admit I'm no angel in this regard, because my frustration over that gets the better of me more than I'd like, but I'd honestly prefer to drill discussion and not insults. It's one of the biggest frustrations for me here.

Reddit knights of the old republic