Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This Game Sucks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    That would be a joke. Ozzy was one of the worst players in Civ2 and the only reason he was able to win in Civ4 was for the very reason I hate that game; it equalizes players. All you have to do is look at the mechanics and fundamentals of the game to realize that the game punishes the leading player very harshly which is why you almost never saw any sort of lead form in games unless it was a CTON style of game spanning many turns.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by DriXnaK View Post
      I didn't play CIv4 because I didn't like it so why would I wish for it to come back? Obviously I hit a nerve by hitting the only thing you had going for in your life which was your pointless useless strategy postings. You remind me of that Velocir guy or something like that who always used to make long posts too, all of which were mainly geared towards the other little kids still playing against the AI. Also, you're absolutely corny in your postings. I'd love to see a picture of you because right now I get the feeling you are some fat middle aged guy with glasses. Usually a lack of wit combined with this posting style indicates someone who is deficient in real life.

      Endlessly slamming Civ >2. That's one thing. I can respect a point of view, even if I don't agree with it.

      Ad Hominem attacks. :Shakes head sadly: That's just tasteless.

      Comment


      • #93
        Seriously how old are you?

        You have certainly won the game of board warrior. Pat yourself on the back and scuttle off now.

        Comment


        • #94
          The man believes that II was the Pinnacle for CIV.
          That is the fact that he should be judged upon.
          It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
          RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by yin26 View Post
            The best thing I could say is that I have been playing the game in various states of development for a long, LONG time, and when I came home last night, the only game I wanted to play was Civ5. That's pretty amazing.

            That said, you have identified a few things that I think I could help with as the game continues to mature. First, I would definitely go up in difficulty level. Try Emperor. The next thing I would do is add some more AIs in the mix. Many people have noted that once another civ touches your borders, get ready for war. While this isn't a guarantee (you can, of course, work on diplomacy), it's pretty sure to happen regularly. And on the topic of diplomacy, please keep posting your ideas for improvements. I can tell you that all of us want the best diplomacy possible, and this will mature for sure.

            As for the interface, give it a while. Mostly I enjoy things like the notifications. The interface will also develop more!
            I tried again. This time it was better.
            Still, I reckon the most fundamental difference in the default settings is the vastness of the maps and the slow tempo of filling them out. I feel that the number of civs and minor states should be at least +50% on any setting to have any pressure on borders. I played standard and by 400BC none of us had more than two cities, with vast unclaimed lands inbetween. This is why the 'feel' of previous civs is absent, there is no landgrab and no incentive to go to war over some land. While this was surely exaggerated in some of previous iterations, current default settings are creating 'empty' worlds. This was on King.
            So I guess 9 civs on small and 12 on standard might do.
            Anyway, thank you for your polite reply. Please tell the guys in Firaxis that having wants/gives resource screen is a must (ala BTS).

            Comment


            • #96
              Who was it thrashed EoN (he was HappySunshine at the time IIRC) at civ3? My memory says nbarlcay, but I might be wrong. His complaint then was exactly the same - that it wasn't civ2, and that (amazingly) his civ2 strategies didn't work in a completely different game. IIRC he argued at the time that, just like in this thread, he was actually the better player and had better strategies, but the other person one the game by understanding the rules better. Clearly bad game design

              I wonder when the civ 5 version of this cyclical story will take place.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Fidel View Post
                I tried again. This time it was better.
                Still, I reckon the most fundamental difference in the default settings is the vastness of the maps and the slow tempo of filling them out. I feel that the number of civs and minor states should be at least +50% on any setting to have any pressure on borders. I played standard and by 400BC none of us had more than two cities, with vast unclaimed lands inbetween. This is why the 'feel' of previous civs is absent, there is no landgrab and no incentive to go to war over some land. While this was surely exaggerated in some of previous iterations, current default settings are creating 'empty' worlds. This was on King.
                So I guess 9 civs on small and 12 on standard might do.
                Anyway, thank you for your polite reply. Please tell the guys in Firaxis that having wants/gives resource screen is a must (ala BTS).
                You're on to an important point about the size of maps and when the feeling of pressure kicks in. In the meantime, definitely keep trying different combinations of maps size and CS / Major Civ #s. I have come to enjoy the different pacing of the early game, but I don't like ANY game to go on too long without some serious entanglements. I suspect that as the AI matures, we'll see something less forgiving than what we have at the moment.

                I'm also a UI guy and absolutely believe that we need a lot more help figuring out things like wants/gives. Almost certainly we'll see more of those type of screens (based on how things developed to BtS).
                I've been on these boards for a long time and I still don't know what to think when it comes to you -- FrantzX, December 21, 2001

                "Yin": Your friendly, neighborhood negative cosmic force.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by rah View Post
                  The man believes that II was the Pinnacle for CIV.
                  That is the fact that he should be judged upon.
                  That and how he truly believes participating in 1 on 1 games and subsequent victories make his opinion more valid.
                  "I hope I get to punch you in the face one day" - MRT144, Imran Siddiqui
                  'I'm fairly certain that a ban on me punching you in the face is not a "right" worth respecting." - loinburger

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    He had a week where he appeared in civ4 times and was trying to tell everyone that picking Holy-Rome and rushing for Engineering was unbeatable in an Ancient start duel. He got thrashed a couple of times, whined a lot and disappeared again. I played him as well back then - it´s interesting to see he´s pulling this routine off for years now
                    Last edited by jobe; September 22, 2010, 14:09.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by jobe View Post
                      He had a week where he appeared in civ4 times and was trying to tell everyone that picking Holy-Rome and rushing for Machinery was unbeatable in an Ancient start duel. He got thrashed a couple of times, whined a lot and disappeared again. I played him as well back then - it´s interesting to see he´s pulling this routine off for years now
                      I suspect autism or ocd.
                      "I hope I get to punch you in the face one day" - MRT144, Imran Siddiqui
                      'I'm fairly certain that a ban on me punching you in the face is not a "right" worth respecting." - loinburger

                      Comment


                      • Who was it thrashed EoN (he was HappySunshine at the time IIRC) at civ3? My memory says nbarlcay, but I might be wrong. His complaint then was exactly the same - that it wasn't civ2, and that (amazingly) his civ2 strategies didn't work in a completely different game. IIRC he argued at the time that, just like in this thread, he was actually the better player and had better strategies, but the other person one the game by understanding the rules better. Clearly bad game design

                        I wonder when the civ 5 version of this cyclical story will take place.
                        Too bad I never played Civ3 Mp. My experience with CIv3 MP was PTW release and I saw they didn't have a working chat, so I went right back to AOC. I completely skipped Civ3 and went for Civ4.

                        He had a week where he appeared in civ4 times and was trying to tell everyone that picking Holy-Rome and rushing for Engineering was unbeatable in an Ancient start duel. He got thrashed a couple of times, whined a lot and disappeared again. I played him as well back then - it´s interesting to see he´s pulling this routine off for years now
                        That was after I got tired of winning with Rome. Sorry, but Civ4 is boring to begin with and spamming out praetorians and **** is even more boring. Also, we played Jobe and you managed to take a city USING ROME BTW but somehow you sucked so bad that you lost your entire stack in the process and allowed me to get fully upgraded landschneckts with forges in my cities. LOL NICE JOB LOSER! Then you quit the game and said you had to leave because you were going out with your girlfriend, which everyone knows you don't have one. I go out into lobby and there you are already joining another game. You later claimed that the game was just no worth your time because you had it so won. You suck, and everyone in Civ4 knows it.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DriXnaK View Post
                          LOL NICE JOB LOSER! Then you quit the game and said you had to leave because you were going out with your girlfriend, which everyone knows you don't have one. I go out into lobby and there you are already joining another game. You later claimed that the game was just no worth your time because you had it so won. You suck, and everyone in Civ4 knows it.
                          Why is this person even allowed on this site? This kind of talk is more reminiscent of high school geek squad than any worthwhile Civ discussion.

                          Comment


                          • Civfanatics is the commie site which bans on sight (and thus have a lot of activity too, as newbies feel more accepted), approach here is more liberal, and for me more fun. After all EoN is just out in force as usual and some of us are enjoying it (I am sure I'm not the only one )

                            btw historically, it was a bit of an event when he lost, fun to read all the excuses and the gloating from all involved sides.
                            Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
                            GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"

                            Comment


                            • Im tickled to death with the game thus far, soon headed hom for a good 5-7 hours worth if nothing comes up!!

                              Im sorry ole EoN doesnt enjoy but I do, just as game ships
                              Hi, I'm RAH and I'm a Benaholic.-rah

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DriXnaK View Post
                                Honestly, all these years of work and this is what you came up with? The hex tiles are nice, and maybe a few changes to the battle system are interesting, but what do we really have here? This is basically Civ4 with some stuff taken out, which is terrible since I thought Civ4 was a game made for 5 year olds. Basically all the maintenance system has been boiled down to happiness. Somehow, they even managed to make it more repressive than the maintenance system in Civ4. I just love how my size 1 cities are angry on king level with 3 cities total. Yes, 3 cities total and my cities are unhappy the minute I build it. Even Civ4 had less of a repressive system than this.

                                Do you just want to turn this into OCC? Is this what we're moving towards? Each ****ing game you put out you somehow get it in your head that there's jut TOO MANY GOD DAMN cities on the map! You even have a ****ing trait for India that actually discourages buildings cities. What? Are you ****ing insane? I won't even get started on the civ traits because...well, obviously you didn't think things through very well. The barbarian bonuses as civ traits is just laugh out loud stupid. I mean I realize you only put MP in the game because you were forced to in order to get good reviews and sell it, but this? Seriously?

                                So basically your only options to stop unhappiness in the early game is resources. Of course the whole resource idea was flawed from the beginning anyway, but lets just put EVEN MORE emphasis on resources because that's the way they roll at Firaxis. Take something broken and emphasize it, pure genius at work. They even "simplified" the buildings available down to almost nothing. Everywhere I look I see "simplification" which is code for "we think you're too stupid to handle this so we're going to take some more stuff out of the game." Now your only real way to fix unhappiness is in classical age and you have to build a ****ing circus. Yes, I am not kidding here. Unless of course you're egypt, then you can build a burial chamber, which is just slightly overpowered I would think.

                                Honestly, I can't think of a reason to play this game at this point. They took everything bad about civ4 and took it up a notch. The game is designed for people that only want to build like maybe 5 cities at most. In fact, the game FORCES you to do that. What ****ing game can you think of that pretty much forces players to play a certain way and puts so many constraints on what can be done? God, I knew not to get my hopes up, but I really thought it would at least be better than this.
                                I think there are plenty of options for getting lots of cities, and I only played the demo. I had no trouble building 7 happy cities by 1AD on the hardest difficulties. You need to use piety and go for techs that give you your luxuries first, not to mention actually build happy buildings.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X