Return Of The King To Civ Gaming

[Ellestar]

Runeofdoom was NOT found on the ladder.
Well, i guess your WoW forums suit you better in the end.

[RuneofDoom]

Originally posted by Solver
Thank you Eyes, I think this won't be too bad for you

I don't think, though, that everyone who replies knows what's in store for them. Sure, this thread gives a fair idea, but people like RuneofDoom haven't, presumably, been reading your posts for years, so they don't know what to expect from you as well as the more veteran posters do.

I've been around here and there over the years Besides, some people are such generic agitators you can just go to any game's forums and there they are. Their dissection of every word of a post is their calling card I had my fun though

Originally posted by Ellestar
Runeofdoom was NOT found on the ladder.
Well, i guess your WoW forums suit you better in the end.

Oh and no this log in is not on a ladder. Clearly anything I say means less because of it - in fact, I'm probably less human for it. And because I have knowledge of games outside of this one I must be a big fan for citing them, right.

Anyway, I should have the courtesy to get this back on subject so to the OP I do hope you give it a try and see for yourself what you think of Civ4. I'm sure you will find the odd thing you dislike but you will probably find many things that you enjoy. It's always best to make your own judgments after all. I think most people would agree that its strongest points aren't in the MP but, like many others, you may find its strengths outweigh any flaws in your view. Odds are you've already made this same decision and haven't been back to this post because you are playing it right now

[Robert]

1 vs 1 MP game may be the type of game that's played the most, but it's not true civilization.
True civilization is with many opponents. You can rush one early in the game, but then you find yourself backwards with no city improvements.

It's fine with me if many people enjoy 1vs1 war-games. But it's not true civilization.
True civilization is finding ballance in military, economic and scientific parts of the game. Together with diplomacy, espionage, etc.

In an 1vs1 game you don't need ballance. You just need to build a big military as quickly as possible and take over your neighbour and yell "NEWBIE" at him if he tried to maintain the ballance.

But you're not building a civilization, you're destroying one. You may have won the game, but you have not enjoyed the game. But if winning that way satisfies people, that's fine with me.

To me civilization is finding the ballance between all aspects of the game, if possible in a diplomatic environment where you actions matter to the other players and the way they trust you.

It's true that the more advanced players in a game are hold a bit backwards, and the more behind players get some bonusses. I think that's only natural in MP games to keep the game interesting for all parties. (what's the fun of winning a game where your opponent leaves it after 15 minutes?)

Naturally 1vs1 games are most common.
Most gamers are lazy and not willing to set a game up with multiple players. 1vs1 is quick and easy, join and start.

EoN may win all those 1vs1 games, that's fine by me. But to me it's just winning from bits and bites.
It's a mathematical game to him. No tactics, just abusing flat-civ-game, stripped from it's multiple layers.
Gaming is having fun to me. I don't even care if I'm winning. What I care for is having a nice empire. Ok, winning is pretty nice obviously, but the way EoN used to win his games are just not satisfying.

He playes civ as I used to play Dune2000.
Rush a big army and take the enemy over.
Quick and easy, but not civ, IMHO.
Dune2000 is a single dimention game. It only focusses on war.

And that's what 1vs1 civ playing gives you, a simplistic version of civ. And that's the version EoN prefers above all other versions. Firaxis didn't build Civ for 1vs1 games. It's been build for 8+ player games.

The 1vs1 market may be big for MP, but MP playing is only 0,5% of the civ market. The rest of the players plays SP games vs 7+ AI's. That's why the bonusses etc. are given to backwards civs and some penalties are given to advanced civs. Not like the advanced civs can not still be 8 times ahead (seen that many times, done that many times).

EoN and Co are complaining that their abuse of the civ game isn't working anymore. They represent like 0,005% of the civ market.
They think that they're good at the game, but they're not. They're good at exploiting a one-sided flatted-out version of the game.

If they're really good I'd like to see them joining 10+ players marathon MP games.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by RuneofDoom
Oh and no this log in is not on a ladder. Clearly anything I say means less because of it - in fact, I'm probably less human for it. And because I have knowledge of games outside of this one I must be a big fan for citing them, right.

Clearly, you're some noname who appeared from nowhere and your fist post in this thread was a personal insult, you never said anything intelligent about the game itself. So, well, judging by your posts, i bet you value yourself just about right.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by CyberShy
EoN may win all those 1vs1 games, that's fine by me. But to me it's just winning from bits and bites.
It's a mathematical game to him. No tactics, just abusing flat-civ-game, stripped from it's multiple layers.
Gaming is having fun to me. I don't even care if I'm winning. What I care for is having a nice empire. Ok, winning is pretty nice obviously, but the way EoN used to win his games are just not satisfying.

The truth is that it's quite the opposite. YOU'RE playing the game you imagine, not a Civ 4, when you're playing 1v1. The fact that most of the game is not used in 1v1 just means that game wasn't designed for 1v1 at all. In other words, it sucks for that kind of a game. But that's the real 1v1 none the less.

Well, who plays the "real game" and who doesn't, who plays for fun and who plays to win... There is a good article on the net, it summs it all nicely, i can't possibly say it better (not with my knowledge of English for sure) http://www.sirlin.net/Features/featu...ToWinPart1.htm

P.S. Actually, 1v1 in Civ 4 has a lot of tactics but a little strategy.

[Dulaak]

1 vs 1 MP game may be the type of game that's played the most, but it's not true civilization.
True civilization is with many opponents. You can rush one early in the game, but then you find yourself backwards with no city improvements.

I think we made it pretty clear that 1v1 MP games are the least played setting right now. In fact, they're pretty much non-existent outside of tournaments.

It's fine with me if many people enjoy 1vs1 war-games. But it's not true civilization.
True civilization is finding ballance in military, economic and scientific parts of the game. Together with diplomacy, espionage, etc

Too bad the game is fatally broken in that regard. No matter what size game it is, slaving units is almost always the way to go. I even wrote about how to fix this in other posts. Until buildings are required to build military, and combat becomes more complex, and the game ceases to be nothing more than an equalizer, then this game will be for 5 year olds.

In an 1vs1 game you don't need ballance. You just need to build a big military as quickly as possible and take over your neighbour and yell "NEWBIE" at him if he tried to maintain the ballance.

This describes every form of MP game. How many times have I called people newbie, and watched others call people newbie, for building anything not related to military and slaving?

To me civilization is finding the ballance between all aspects of the game, if possible in a diplomatic environment where you actions matter to the other players and the way they trust you.

That's great, I suggest you go play in Ming's Saturday Night Newbie MP Games, because that's about the only place you'll find that.

It's true that the more advanced players in a game are hold a bit backwards, and the more behind players get some bonusses. I think that's only natural in MP games to keep the game interesting for all parties.

I honestly believe you are the kind of people Firaxis listened to, which is why Civ4 sucks so bad. Not much else to say.

EoN may win all those 1vs1 games, that's fine by me. But to me it's just winning from bits and bites.
It's a mathematical game to him. No tactics, just abusing flat-civ-game, stripped from it's multiple layers.
Gaming is having fun to me. I don't even care if I'm winning. What I care for is having a nice empire. Ok, winning is pretty nice obviously, but the way EoN used to win his games are just not satisfying.

I simply use what is available to me and what works best and I use it to maximum effect. Should I use a strategy that doesn't work as well to make up for a horribly flawed game? Is it the player's fault for breaking the game or is it the incompetence of the programmers and their complete lack of understanding of how MP games work?

EoN and Co are complaining that their abuse of the civ game isn't working anymore. They represent like 0,005% of the civ market.
They think that they're good at the game, but they're not. They're good at exploiting a one-sided flatted-out version of the game.

Actually, we're complaining our abuse of the game works too well, and that it is too easy to do it. Of course we're also complaining about a host of other things, but little fanboy Firaxis *****es like you are only capable of bringing the discussion back to "You don't like the game because your strategies don't work anymore." If you can't be bothered to read anything, and you clearly have no experience in high level MP in any of the civ games, then shut the **** up and go back to your SP and ridiculously low level MP games. Snoopy and CyberShy for the Firaxis public relations team on Apolyton!

[Robert]

The truth is that it's quite the opposite. YOU'RE playing the game you imagine, not a Civ 4, when you're playing 1v1. The fact that most of the game is not used in 1v1 just means that game wasn't designed for 1v1 at all. In other words, it sucks for that kind of a game. But that's the real 1v1 none the less.

that's what I said more or less
The game has not been designed for 1vs1 games.

Well, who plays the "real game" and who doesn't, who plays for fun and who plays to win

Well, everybody is free to play the game like they want to play it.
But the problem with people like EoN is that they blame Firaxis for civ4 problems when playing 1vs1, while the game has not been designed for 1x1 games.

It's like I complain to my bike manufacturer that I become wet when it rains.
It's not a car, it's a bike. I can use it as a car, by biking large distances through the rain, but it's stilly to complain that it's not as comfortable as the car.

there are better games for 1x1 games with quick wars and early civ eliminating.

[Dulaak]

Well, everybody is free to play the game like they want to play it.
But the problem with people like EoN is that they blame Firaxis for civ4 problems when playing 1vs1, while the game has not been designed for 1x1 games.

You are an absolute idiot. The game is broken for every kind of setting except epic games because I hear you can do more on it and get bigger leads. Who wants to play 1 game for 12 hours though? I've written some long ****ing posts on what is wrong with this game and it applies to all settings. For a guy who doesn't even play all settings, and clearly not on a high level, who are you to even question any of this? You have not once made any convincing argument backed up with gameplay and evidence. Typical Firaxis Fanboy scum.

[rah]

Lay off the personal comments. Discuss the game.

[Robert]

Moderator hat on: Stop the insulting, relax and just discuss the topic

Firaxis Fanboy hat on: I play on Emperor, and I used to play immortal (and beat it) on Warlords. I'm not playing on the 'lower levels', thus what are you exactly refering to?

2nd: I've played normal, epic and marathon games, so what are you refering to?

3rd: I have given plenty arguments on why the game has not been designed for 1x1 games.

4th: Oh yes, I actualy am an idiot. I've been playing civilization games (since civ1) for at least 3000 hours. One must be a total fool to do that. You got that right.

Last, oh wait, I'm not a Firaxis fanboy. I actually didn't play any other Firaxis game. I only play civ. No matter if it's Microprose, Firaxis, Activision or whatever else.
And I actually love the game. I've played many MP games and many SP games.

Why is someone suddenly a stupid fanboy when he just loves the game?

I understand that you do not love the game, you're free to not love it. I just think that the reason is wrong. You hate the game because it's not what you want it to do. I'd say, it's not been designed for what you want it to do.

It's obvious that game elements that rely on longevity of the game and diplomatic ballance aren't working in a 1vs1 game, since one of the players will start an early war, ignoring all other features of the game, since it doesn't have to focus on the time after the war.

Civ is a 3/4+ player-game by nature.

Only when you face multiple 'enemies' you have to focus on multiple goals.
There's no need to focus on defense when you're about to attack your only enemy with a huge attack force.

but when there's another player involved then you suddenly have to deal with him as well.
Civ has multiple layers. You only have to focus on the war layer with 1vs1 games. Thus you're automaticly ignoring the other layers.

If you have fun with that, that's fine! I'm glad that you're enjoying it.
But if 1vs1 isn't fun to you, well, that's right, since the game has not been designed for that.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by CyberShy
that's what I said more or less
The game has not been designed for 1vs1 games.

Not exactly. You said that MP 1v1 is not a real Civ. But it's a real 1v1 Civ, it's just not like ffa Civ so you feel it's not real. Well, i guess such details doesn't really matter anyway.

Originally posted by CyberShy
Well, everybody is free to play the game like they want to play it.
But the problem with people like EoN is that they blame Firaxis for civ4 problems when playing 1vs1, while the game has not been designed for 1x1 games.

It's like I complain to my bike manufacturer that I become wet when it rains.
It's not a car, it's a bike. I can use it as a car, by biking large distances through the rain, but it's stilly to complain that it's not as comfortable as the car.

there are better games for 1x1 games with quick wars and early civ eliminating.

Well, i don't think Civ 4 is designed for a MP game at all. AIs doesn't play to win so it's less obvious. AI just pretends to roleplay a civilization (in a non-historical way, i must add, in reality things weren't as peacenik) and then waits for it's ultimate demise as a perfect sitting lamb. That makes for a good singleplayer game, and game was designed and balanced exactly for that kind of play, but it's obviously non-competitive. So, as a result, any Civ 4 MP games are broken.

[Robert]

Civ is first and most of all an SP game indeed.
But with large groups of dedicated players it's possible to play it in MP as an SP game as well. (see the RAH games and the diplomacy games in this forum).

With 'real civ' I meant a game that uses all of the game mechanics. Ok, it's still civ of course

[Dulaak]

Firaxis Fanboy hat on: I play on Emperor, and I used to play immortal (and beat it) on Warlords. I'm not playing on the 'lower levels', thus what are you exactly refering to?

I rest my case. Anyone who plays SP is not a good player. Plain and simple. It's been that way since Civ2 and everytime I heard someone say they beat the game on Deity, and were therefore a good player, it was a clear warning the guy was a total newbie. You're a joke.

[Robert]

Anyone who plays SP is not a good player.

Sure

Plain and simple.

In disneyworld

everytime I heard someone say they beat the game on Deity, and were therefore a good player

Just to keep track on the way this argument flowed:

you: For a guy who doesn't even play all settings, and clearly not on a high level

Me: I play on Emperor / Immortal level

you: You're a joke

Ok, let's be honest, maybe I am a joke. I'll keep that option open to be answered by others who actually know me. (no, that's not you )

But it's weird that you first start about how I play not at the highest levels (apparantly that's important to you, you started talking about it, not me)

Then I just reply to you that I actually do play at the higher levels, and then I'm suddenly a joke and a newbiew, etc. etc.

It's amazing how you know all those qualifications about me without even knowing me. Tell me, how do you know who I am? Or how I play civ? How do you know that I'm a newbie?

First, I'll never claim that I'm the best MP player. I'm a better SP player indeed. (Though I am improving )
But it's so entertaining how you have all kinds of descriptions about me, without talking about any of the arguments I gave.

Seriously, give me a reason to take you seriously!
Why should I have to listen to you and admit that I'm a joke and a newbie.

I'm totally open for the option that I may be a joke and a newbie, but please, give me a reason to accept that! Just a few good arguments! Tell me a bit more about my playing style, about my tactics, tell me something more about my civ history.

I'm really curious about myself, and you apparantly are the one who knows more about me then I do myself!

Thanks in advance!

[Robert]

Oh, and another response to this part of your post

everytime I heard someone say they beat the game on Deity, and were therefore a good player

1. I never said I beated Deity
2. I never said that I was a good player

I just responded on your claim (!!) that I didn't play at the higher levels by writing down at which level I do play.

Conclusion:
- you claim that I'm a fool because I don't play at level x
- I respond to say that I do play at level x
- you say that I'm a fool because I do play at level x

let's be honest, that's weird!

(I hope you understand the more abstract write down of our argument above)