Return Of The King To Civ Gaming

[MasterDave]

I really like Civ4's gameplay in multiplayer in general. It is fairly stable, and there are multiple winning strategies in games with multiple players (maybe less so in 1v1, I don't play that way much).

I am not a big fan of the ladder, I had some bad experiences in games early on with people claiming victories they did not earn and generally people being too hyped up about things and trash talking.

Don't listen to ***** like Eyes of Night. I have been playing Civ 4 MP regularly since release (almost two years), and I still look forward to our Saturday afternoon games with a regular group of some very skilled players.

Although, I have not seen this yet in multiplayer BTS, from what I have seen in my single player gaming, I think that the BTS nerf on siege units should greatly reduce the effectiveness of catapult spam, which was pretty much unbeatable in Civ 4. Although Civ 2 certainly had its share of unbeatable loopholes as well.

Civ4 is a great multiplayer game, if played with the right people (I avoid the lobby games because there are too many teenagers and people who quit on turn 10 if they don't get copper right away). If you had the patience to play Civ2 online (I tried, it was just too slow and unstable for me), then you should find Civ 4 to be a huge improvement.

[Dulaak]

Yeah...don\'t listen to me. I\'ve only known you since 1999 and played tons of games with you over the years on the same ladder as you in Civ2. You should listen to MasterDave instead, even though he admits he never played Civ2MP and doesn\'t play 1v1s, he clearly knows more than me on this one. Here\'s to low life casual gamers who don\'t know dick but like to give their opinion anyway.

[rah]

Another example of hyper ladder or old duel players that believe that it was the end all of the game.
A 1v1 game was quite one dimensional. Do their standard trick and brag how great they are. I do partially respect them for what they did in that arena. More power to them. But there are a lot of us that are looking for the variety of a larger player game where diplomacy has impact. I don't care how good you are in CIV II OR IV, if everyone gangs up on you, you're toast.
The more player there are makes every game different, and not just a race to axes and cats (even though it's still important). You have to make deals, bluff, be sneaky in order to continually succeed. There is obvious skill because the better players may not always win, but they usually end near the top. Poor players are usually eliminated early.

To those that like that type of game, CIV IV is not that bad (the jury is still out on BTS for me) Just because some don't like that type of game is no reason for them to show disrespect. But it does seem to be a trait for those that are more into duels. Large multi players routinely show respect since it is a benefit in the game, Dualists never have to worry about that.

[Dulaak]

Lets just call it what it is:

Casual gamers like the game because they rarely play and don\'t fully understand the mechanics of the game and so they haven\'t \"broken\" the game yet. Therefore they think it\'s the greatest thing ever.

Competitive gamers broke the game very quickly and came to realize how flawed it really is. The game was designed for casual weekend MP games, not for competitve play. That\'s why people quit in hordes starting in the first 2 months of Civ4. BTS seems to have created another wave of mass quitting as very few MP beta testers are even playing BTS now.

End of story. There\'s nothing to argue about here because there\'s too much evidence backing up my argument. If you enjoy playing once a week in large games with screwy settings, great, but for those of us who play to compete and like to find strategies Civ4 is an absolute failure.

Rah, stop giving your opinion if you\'re not going to back up anything you say with evidence. You\'re a Saturday night beginner, I get it, but stop trying to argue this.

[Beta]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight1
You, like me, like to dominate and play King. Don't bother, it's simply not possible and you'll only spend months trying to find a way to dominate only to find that the system has been specifically designed to prevent that.

He could always play on settler and get that feeling of 'domination' he so desires.

Originally posted by rah
Yeah, what Eyes is saying is that they eliminated all his normal loopholes to the rules, and now it's a more balanced game. But don't be fooled, while it's more balanced those that understand the game better will almost always do better than those that don't. And it my opinion that makes it a better game.

Exactly.

Dominae vs Beta. Who has their money on Beta?

Even my wife would bet on Dom. I think my dog might still be loyal but not sure.

[Dulaak]

Yeah, what Eyes is saying is that they eliminated all his normal loopholes to the rules, and now it\'s a more balanced game.

Evidence for this? You are basing this on what? How much ladder play have you done? Last time you were in the gamespy lobby? How many beta testers have you played with and talked with? You play on saturday nights with a select few on settings that no one even plays and yet you feel you can give an opinion? Shut the **** up until you back up what you say for once with some sort of argument based on fact and evidence.

[rah]

Originally posted by Dulaak
Lets just call it what it is:

Casual gamers like the game because they rarely play and don\'t fully understand the mechanics of the game and so they haven\'t \"broken\" the game yet. Therefore they think it\'s the greatest thing ever.

Competitive gamers broke the game very quickly and came to realize how flawed it really is. The game was designed for casual weekend MP games, not for competitve play. That\'s why people quit in hordes starting in the first 2 months of Civ4. BTS seems to have created another wave of mass quitting as very few MP beta testers are even playing BTS now.

End of story. There\'s nothing to argue about here because there\'s too much evidence backing up my argument. If you enjoy playing once a week in large games with screwy settings, great, but for those of us who play to compete and like to find strategies Civ4 is an absolute failure.

Rah, stop giving your opinion if you\'re not going to back up anything you say with evidence. You\'re a Saturday night beginner, I get it, but stop trying to argue this.

gee where did I say the greatest thing ever? I believe I said it was not that bad. But then what I say is unimportant to you. Thanks for proving my point with every post. ALL EGO and insult and show no respect. It was expected and always entertaining.

Just because people have FUN doesn't mean that they have no understanding of the game.

[Dulaak]

Just because people have FUN doesn\\\'t mean that they have no understanding of the game.

You haven\\\'t shown any understanding yet at all. How could you? You don\\\'t play on a high level. Yes, I know your Saturday night games are just all the rage as you and the rest of the geriatric crowd duke it out on pangea on normal speed, but the fact is that that is not high level. The only people you\\\'ll find who agree with you are the ones who play in your games.

Yeah, what Eyes is saying is that they eliminated all his normal loopholes to the rules, and now it\\\'s a more balanced game.

I\\\'m still waiting for you to back this one up. I also find it amusing how you comment on Civ2 and what we did when yet again, you were just a casual weekend player playing on settings no one else played with a select group. It\\\'s time to accept the fact that you aren\\\'t high level, you never were high level, and you never will be high level. So stop commenting on game mechanics you don\\\'t understand because you don\\\'t know how to break them like the rest of us.

[Beta]

Originally posted by Dulaak
Lets just call it what it is:

Casual gamers like the game because they rarely play and don\'t fully understand the mechanics of the game and so they haven\'t \"broken\" the game yet. Therefore they think it\'s the greatest thing ever.

Competitive gamers broke the game very quickly and came to realize how flawed it really is. The game was designed for casual weekend MP games, not for competitve play. That\'s why people quit in hordes starting in the first 2 months of Civ4.

Is your entire comment here regarding MP, or all of civ4? I ask because to be honest, I just can't get into the MP thing. PBEM, pitboss, demo and diplo games I can. And I would not consider myself or many of my playing colleages 'casual' gamers.

The game is a tool to an end, simple as that. And in my humble, and not too casual opinion, it works just fine.

[Dulaak]

PBEM, pitboss, demo and diplo games I can. And I would not consider myself or many of my playing colleages \'casual\' gamers.

You are the very definition of casual. In fact, you should be used as the perfect example of a guy who plays casually, thinks the game works great, and truely believes he\'s playing competitively. What a joke.

[rah]

Your arrogance is quite entertaining right along with your leaps of logic.

Arguing with you is as futile as with EON.
I've never claimed to be an expert at the game but I am far above the level of a newb.

But I'll agree with you that the game won't satisfy the 1v1 hardcores. But for a larger group, it's not a bad game. I doubt you would survive long in a large player game. EON didn't. You're expertise about our games also amuses be since you have no experience in them. But then why should you have to know anything to critizise.
Somehow I think if you joined our games, some people would consider you a sub-par player. I think you'd be pretty good, but you would probably have problems handling multiple enemies which no doubt you'd make during the game.

The game serves many purposes and it may be broken for your purpose, but not as broken for others. So feel free to raise the objections that affect 1v1v games but please respect on how others use the game. Another exercise in futility.

[Dulaak]

lol Rah. I think the only person right now who is truely laughing right now is me. Basically what you\'re saying is that you want to see how I would do taking on everyone at once. You are basically saying that in a 1v1 situation you would lose...which is correct. Lets face it, you can\'t back up anything you say, and you never have. You live in your little world here and pretend that you\'re a good player when you never were. You create these special little rules like Rah rules and then you try to tell people that these are incredibly competitive games and that ladders are just for penis measuring. It\'s like running your own little sports club and then saying that you\'re just as competitive as professional sports and that professional sports are for penis measuring. Stick to your little group with your rules that nobody else uses and stop making these one line comments that you can never back up.

[rah]

Actually I remember playing you 1v1 in the old days in civ II and you won 2 out of 3 but not all of them. Of course when you won it was skill and the game you lost was luck. But yeah, I'm saying you suck at diplomacy and would get routines gutted in large person games.
Your tricks don't take into account diplomacy and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to read your posts to figure out that you're not a skilled diplomat.

[Dulaak]

Actually I remember playing you 1v1 in the old days in civ II and you won 2 out of 3 but not all of them.

That\\\'s interesting. What settings were these on again? :LOL:

Your tricks don\'t take into account diplomacy and it doesn\'t take a rocket scientist to read your posts to figure out that you\'re not a skilled diplomat.

Also, I\'d like to know what your definition of a trick is and please cite some specific examples of tricks that I routinely used in Civ2.

[rah]

Yours, it was the only way you'd play.
One game you just mauled me, the other game you still out expanded me and you eventually won but it wasn't a cakewalk. The game I won was all luck.
And if I remember correctly I admitted that you were a better player on your settings.