The main pronlem with Civ 4 is...

[StarLightDeath]

Fun for you is sitting around playing against an AI. Fine, but the majority of people who play MP games play because they want to be competitive and they want to play against the other player, not the settings. In this game it's the opposite, most people play to waste some time and they don't care who wins. I think though that the fact that Civ has such a small MP community is very telling of this attitude while other games are enormous and have money tournaments and sponsors.

[John-SJ]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath
... The fact is you guys aren't civ players, you're Sim City players.

Now THAT has got to be the funniest thing you've said yet! I am very tempted to put that in my sig so we will all have something to remember you by!

LOLOL!

[polarnomad]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath
When luck negates any possibility of winning every game then people will move to other games where they can win every game.

So accept your own assessment of the situation and move on to another game...

Although, someone still has to lose, so good luck finding that perfect game.

[StarLightDeath]

Already have, but I have always milked the forums for every entertainment value I can get. Just waiting for my new computer to get here. Otherwise I'll just stop games all together. I never was really a fan of them except for a couple anyway.

[Maidel]

Fun for you is sitting around playing against an AI.

Well they do spend a lot of time making it.... it is there for a reason (Even if some people seem to find it easy)

Fine, but the majority of people who play MP games play because they want to be competitive and they want to play against the other player, not the settings.

Played plenty of multi player games - played a MPORPG called eve for over a year - the main reason I stopped was because I was absolutely fed up with whiners who whinged and complained every time they 'lost' - it ruined the game because thats not what playing a GAME is about - in any game you have a winner anda looser (or a draw) if everyone HAS to win for it to be fun - then half the people will be unhappy at any one point.

In this game it's the opposite, most people play to waste some time and they don't care who wins.

Sounds to me like they ENJOY playing the game, rather than enjoying winning.

I think though that the fact that Civ has such a small MP community is very telling of this attitude while other games are enormous and have money tournaments and sponsors.

ITs been an estabilished single player game for years, they tried multiplayer before, but it wasnt that successful (I realise you have played previous versions multiplayer before) so im not surprised that it doesnt have many multiplayers now - same as many people have graphics issues as they dont have pcs that can handle an overly graphical game.

[John-SJ]

Just for you SLD, you like?

[polarnomad]

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Diadem
StarLightDeath claims to be one of the best players, yet he had a pig resource within the Fat Cross of his capital, not hooked up to a road, while he badly needed health.

I think that's enough said about this game.

Good catch! I didn't even notice that. Just assumed he would have connected the resources he did improve... (Automated Workers are even smart enough to hook up resources with roads!)

Anyway. Is noone gonna give SLD a good thrasing on a mirror map? Would be nice to see that.

Check out the link posted earlier in the thread to OzzyKP's games against him. SLD was whining about the "imbalanced" map there too, which just happened to be mirror.

[Aeson]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Krill

I think I ended up getting 2 or 3 great Engineers, from the pyramids and the GE specialists. Aeson is right, those helped alot with the wonders.

Thanks. I figured it was a pretty sure thing you had gotten a couple of GE along the way, but the statistics in-game aren't working right still so couldn't verify it.

SLD had the ability to chop 2-3 Wonders, perhaps the Pyramids and Hanging Gardens which would have been the biggest help to him and added GE GPP. He could have researched Metal Casting for Forges and Engineers as well. All that would have helped him be able to hold his own on Wonder building.

Not that building Wonders is a terribly important factor in score games. A few Wonders that address your needs can be important to build, but building them all is just showing off.

Aeson, I did not research Claender myself, but that is simply because I decided to play it a bit lax.

Calendar obviously wasn't as big a deal for you. You had 1 Calendar Happiness resource. SLD had 5 Calendar Happiness resources.

The Deer had just come within my borders, and I was planning to hook it up, but I thought that the wonders would have helped my score more than hooking up deer at that point in the game. Stone and Marble were within reach towards the end of the game aswell, and I will freely admit I could have prioritised them. Thing is, Stone was right next to a barb city, and Marble was further up the Isthmus, so both entailed a risk I was not willing to take.

Yah, I thought about rating the resources for a minute by how easy they would have been to hook up, but figured that would just lead to more confusion on the issue. Since the point of the remarks was to laugh at his "zillion resources" claim, it wasn't necessary.

3 Forest chops get you a forge and a granary. Quick growth and quick production. And with Coastal cities providing the gold...I think Bismark is underrated by most players.

That's a good point. EXP in general tends to be underestimated too.

[StarLightDeath]

Wouldn't be the first time someone took an ingenius quote and felt the need to spread my words of wisdom to the rest of the community.

I guess what it really comes down to is that I have always been competitive in everything I do. I don't waste time on things when outside forces influence the outcome. Civ was the first computer game I ever played. It was also the only computer game I played in about a 6 year span. Even though civ2 had outside influences, they weren't to the point that this game is and I felt like I could still overcome them. I knew in civ2 that I would only win 85% of my games because some starts were simply not capable of winning. However, I still felt like I had a chance even in those because I could do things other people couldn't to get ahead. In this game the game has become so simplified that there is nothing special I can do to get ahead and the percentages are greater in this game than they were in civ2. Even when people had 4 cities to my 1 in the first 10 turns of the game in civ2 I still had the ability to come back and win. In this game if the numbers are against you you really stand no chance even against the most average of players. I continue to "whine" because I am so disappointed in this game and so angry with the marketing strategies being employed that are resulting in dumbed down and simplified games. I guess I'm looking for a challenge in the wrong place. I want the challenge to come from my opponent, not because I'm trying to overcome a deficit that was determined before the game started.

[John-SJ]

edit: In response to Aeson's remarks:

I guess whining about map imbalance is how he justifies his inadequacy as a player.

Poor thing, I almost feel sorry for him...NOT!

-----------------------------------
Fast forward about a week to a conversation that will go something like:

Hey, John-SJ, who is this StarLightDeath you quote in your sig?

Oh, he was that whiner who always complained about map imbalance and continually justified why he lost in 1 on 1 CIV games.

....Oh....cool, I guess

What, don't you remember him?

No, can't say as I do, sorry.

Well, guess it's time for a new sig then, eh?

[Maidel]

The problem is I dont think the game IS simplified - if anything it is more complex.

Just because you cannot find a strategy to pull away from other people is not a fault of the game and isnt a fault of yours - its intentionally made so that there is no one way if playing the game.


As for outside influences affecting your game - come on - this is real life - you could get run over by a bus the next time you leave your house... you didnt 'loose' at life, things just happen - its a game - accept that things happen and move on - if you are a better player than someone else then you will win more than you loose, if your not, then you wont. Simple as that.

[StarLightDeath]

I never whined about map imbalance in the games against ozzy, which btw took place in the first week of the game coming out. That is a complete and total falicy. My issues with that game were because I didn't realize yet that tiny wasn't for 1v1. Also it was the fact that he took advantage of the scoring system in the final turns by spaming out settlers with -90 a turn from gold which to me is just lame and a flaw in the scoring system.

[StarLightDeath]

I don't like the idea of having to play extra games to get an idea of how much is luck and how much is skill. Civ2 had that to a very small extent, but it was still there and it would really piss me off sometimes when someone would have 5 cities and horsemen on my doorstep in the first 10 turns of the game. I would have thought they'd have fixed this **** by now but I see they have just made it worse. Only now the difference is more subtle and impossible to overcome. I would take lucky hut starts in civ2 any day over bad land and a poorly designed scoring system.

[Maidel]

Just proves to me - the game isnt designed to be played in the 1v1 short game fashion