Hosting

[Smash]

It would seem logical that certain color slots would get better terrains.When a game is started,the program starts plunking civs down starting with white,working down the list to purple.We've all seen when a map runs out of room and the purple civ is stuck on a pole.BUt we've all seem purple stuck in a corner which turns out to be paradise for civing.

But ,this game has a very screwy idea of what is good and what is not.So I think it is fairly impossible to test.

I will say this though,whenever I want to start in a river basin,I pick the Zulus.I have no concrete evidence,just experience of 1000s of games.Seem to get rivers often with them but maybe its just my imagination.

[War4ever]

ironically i think we all see rivers with certain civs....

i am not sure if there is any way to test this tho

[Alexander's Horse]

One thing that affects it is starting techs. If the host gets techs its usually because its settler has been placed on woods or plains i.e. no science/trade. You restart over and over till the host gets no techs. This usually means the host starts on a river, with a special or on grassland near water. In other words some sort of situation which allows beakers from the get go.

I usually host the Aussie games so I've seen this a lot. You never seem to get a tech starting on a river.

[DrSpike]

Hmm, that's interesting; even if there is no a priori advantage there could quite well be one selecting for games that get played out: the ones where the host has no starting techs.

Good catch AH.

You should definitely test clean starts only Rah.

[rah]

Having hosted as many as I have, I've started most games without a river in site. And it's always seems to be the river basin, special, huts starts, when you get techs and have to restart.

But I will limit myself to testing clean starts.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by rah
And it's always seems to be the river basin, special, huts starts, when you get techs and have to restart.

Hehe it's human to remember those more than the others.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by rah
Having hosted as many as I have, I've started most games without a river in site. And it's always seems to be the river basin, special, huts starts, when you get techs and have to restart.

But I will limit myself to testing clean starts.

Hmmm, maybe game settings and colour choice also affect it. Its certainly not my exerience.

And hosting has given me some really crap starts more often than not.

[rah]

Yeah, spike is right, we do remember the bads ones more. But I truely think (with the amount of games that I've hosted) I'd have noticed an advantage. I don't think so. But that's why we test.

On the surprise bonus, every experienced mp player knew deep in their hearts that one existed despite all the SP players that tested it saying that it didn't exist.

[War4ever]

RAH, perhaps we can meet early on saturday and test this......duel settings which would be inline with what strat was talking about, if we do it over icq phone it will go quickly

[Graag]

Interesting thread, something I've been thinking about for a long time.

I think a good way to test this would be to provide a form so interested apolyton civvers can note the specifics of their start positiion in each mp game they begin, and simply compile data for a while before trying to test hypotheses or come to conclusions.

it's certainly something that is worth testing, but you're gonna need plenty o' numbers.

[Hydey]

Group testing is a good idea Graag.

[MalevolentLight]

The real advantage of hosting comes from the fact that you have no lag, so when you're winning and the other guy is losing he'll also be annoyed by the lag hence making him really pissed off. I'd rather be losing without lag than with it.

[Ming]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
The real advantage of hosting comes from the fact that you have no lag, so when you're winning and the other guy is losing he'll also be annoyed by the lag hence making him really pissed off. I'd rather be losing without lag than with it.

Good point...

[StrategicKingMi]

The color of the civ is irrelevant. All that matters is the host. In 2 recent games with Kuja, we each hosted once....
In game one, I started on the end of a very thin pennisula, no rivers, no specials, he started on huge river system with gold and iron mine in the meat of the cont, he won obviously by 3600 bc . I only had 2 huts near me, he had 10.
In game 2, still going on, I was host, started in awsome, wide open terrign with a silk and in the meat of a cont, he started at the top end of a rough terrign portion of the cont, as much as I have revealed of it so far. As far as huts, I had many near me and he said he had few, or at least did not get citys, which I take as having few.
These 2 games prove out exactly what I said about host advantages, all be it only 2 games.
A host generally starts with extra settlers and techs if the other civ starts with resources in city radius. How many people have had a great start only to look at demographics and see a 2 next to the scie. and have to restart. So, maybe its just not that the host has a great start, but that the non host is almost assured of having a weaker start.

[War4ever]

Originally posted by StrategicKingMi
The color of the civ is irrelevant. All that matters is the host. In 2 recent games with Kuja, we each hosted once....
In game one, I started on the end of a very thin pennisula, no rivers, no specials, he started on huge river system with gold and iron mine in the meat of the cont, he won obviously by 3600 bc . I only had 2 huts near me, he had 10.
In game 2, still going on, I was host, started in awsome, wide open terrign with a silk and in the meat of a cont, he started at the top end of a rough terrign portion of the cont, as much as I have revealed of it so far. As far as huts, I had many near me and he said he had few, or at least did not get citys, which I take as having few.
These 2 games prove out exactly what I said about host advantages, all be it only 2 games.
A host generally starts with extra settlers and techs if the other civ starts with resources in city radius. How many people have had a great start only to look at demographics and see a 2 next to the scie. and have to restart. So, maybe its just not that the host has a great start, but that the non host is almost assured of having a weaker start.

my only problem with this statement, you can pop a ton of huts, but there is no guarrantee of cities/nomads....

its based on %'s or so they proved in the strategy forums....so in theory, you could pop tons of huts and NOT get cities or nomads