We love the 'X' day - a crutch for the weaker player?

[Crustacian]

quote:
Crusty:
And even tho you don't like it for your expressed and valid reasons, you won't think those you end up playing with are weak players cus they like to use it?

Venger:
I don't MP, so it doesn't really matter. It's just a point for discussion, as having seen a number of posts where city growth is designed around WLTYYYD, rather than WLTYYYD results from wise development.


I have been in a discussion with a player who does not MP, and is not experienced with using WLPD trying to get him to try it so he can talk from an informed platform.

He wishes to stay ignorant, of other valid views, so be it.

quote:
Crusty:
When you see that END sequence as someone takes your last city you might then."


Venger:
Never happens (bloodlust). I do however fail to conquer other races by the determined time. If I play an additional 200 turns, I might make it, but alas, the tech tree has normally petered out (original Civ2) and 200 more turns of the same thing with no hope for glory kinda bites..."

Get some EXPERIENCE in MP with even some of the average players on this forum, and I guaranty you WILL see the end sequence! That is if you don't surrender before it gets there. It was playing MP I was refering to.

I have much experience in playing the AI's as well as MP. Why don't you get some EXPERIENCE in MP and WLPD and then talk some more on this subject?

I gave you my 2 cents worth, you can take it or leave it.

It should not be hard to whoop the AI with one hand tied. I don't blame you for choosing ways that challenge you when playing against the AI's. The One City Challenge ought to keep you out of mischieve for awhile if you really want a challenge against the AI. BUT READ THE INSTRUCTION MANUEL ON IT FIRST!! ...
http://members.home.nl/paulvdb/occ.htm

... LOL or you WILL see that end sequence.

Then maybe play a little MP when you are up to it and see how is goes.



------------------
The journey itself is the thing~Odysseus

[Crustacian]

Venger you are wrong man. Please take your knocks, learn, and be glad you got some good responses to your post.

Your original point, and bad mouthing others is what sucks.
Ming is not the only one on your case.

You seem to be a sincere civer, and reply to most comments sent you, but you are just getting worked up now.

I heard ya, I thought on it, I learned somethin, but I still disagree. I hope you can say the same.

[Crustacian]

Put it to a vote.

Judging from the comments thus far, it is very clearly not a crutch in most players eyes. You are only one of many voices.

If you want to handycap yourself for a little challenge against the AI, then sure go for it. Or try some of the even more challenging ways once you have that mastered.

Then come to MP and give it a whirl.

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Crustacian on 05-13-2000 12:31 AM Your original point, and bad mouthing others is what sucks. Ming is not the only one on your case.

What's funny is this thread suddenly is about posters and not about posts. And excuse me, my point doesn't "suck". You may not agree with it, but I sure don't agree with yours and your points don't "suck".

quote: You seem to be a sincere civer, and reply to most comments sent you, but you are just getting worked up now.

I'm not "worked up", I'm tired of ridiculous statements about "that's your opinion" - well no ****, are we not all doing that?. "Don't use it" - is that the answer to every Civ question? "You just don't know what you're talking about" - what kind of assinine answer is that?

quote: I heard ya, I thought on it, I learned somethin, but I still disagree. I hope you can say the same.

Not a thing wrong with that...

Venger

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Crustacian on 05-13-2000 12:39 AM Put it to a vote.

I did not post it to request a popular vote - certainly a majority of people seem to think it's a great thing to do. I would offer that popular is quite different than valid, or optimal.

quote: Judging from the comments thus far, it is very clearly not a crutch in most players eyes. You are only one of many voices.

Did I claim otherwise?

quote: If you want to handycap yourself for a little challenge against the AI, then sure go for it. Or try some of the even more challenging ways once you have that mastered.

I find it the best way to play, that is challenging and doesn't rely on what I consider to be the gimmicky WLTYYYD...

quote: Then come to MP and give it a whirl.

I may try a MP game at some point, it'd be interesting to see the strategies used.

Venger

[hydey]

Vengar
you started this thread and it created gteat argument which allowed all of us to learn which is what this place is for you put up strong arguments as did many others and in the end each to there own opinion.
this is now becoming a slanging match which is a shame

well done on a good subject lets not ruin it with insults

[Ming]

Venger
"It seems your observations of insults are particularly one-sided, especially for a moderator"

I just have to count all the insults you have made to people vs the ones tossed at you. You are by far ahead on that score.
It's not a one-sided view, just a factual count.

"So what's yours based on Ming? Is there a stone tablet somewhere that says "Using WLTYYYD as a substitute for growth over time is deigned by God an ordained strategy, as defined by Ming?"

Add this to your insult list... And it's not even a correct observation. It is not my opinion, but a fact that the designers intended it to be used that way. So it is a viable feature of the game.

"Facts? What fact have you raised? The program let's you do it, so who cares? Your logic? "

My logic is that the same as above. It's no different than building a wonder or setting up trade routes. It is a feature that was designed into the game for exactly the purpose that people use it for. And that is a fact, not an opinion.

"I've addressed EVERY issue raised, treated those who've posted with respect respect, and insulted those who've insulted me.

You must see insults in everything, because you have done the majority of insults here, and that is a fact. Go ahead, count them.

"I suppose your argument must just boil down to "it's cool", "itz 3l33t dOOdz", "it rockz". Funny how other people seem to disagree but actually notice that I'm bringing up points, which they manage to respond to without some weak-ass "you just think it sucks, that's all you're saying", which is pure crap."

No, my argument boils down to it's a designed feature and that people are using it as intented... yours argument comes down to it's not fair and you don't like it... based only on your opinion.

"Yeah, this board is SO COOL!!! Look, my NAME!!! Fu#king please."

What else are people supposed to think when all you do is post thread after thread in a row. Why not just make long thread when you post instead of putting a bunch in a row.

"Do you READ the posts, or just randomly respond in stream-of-consciousness? After all, your last posts have added so very much..."

Another insult... you are way ahead on that count. But yes, I read every word. And you are the one that really hasn't anything new from the very beginning. I find I must repeat myself, because even if you are reading what I say, you don't understand.

So get off your high horse. All you are doing is insulting people for disagreeing with you. Again... you raise NO FACTS to support your opinion.

[Alexander's Horse]

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 05-13-2000 08:53 AM So get off your high horse.

Hi Mom

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 05-13-2000 08:53 AM Venger "It seems your observations of insults are particularly one-sided, especially for a moderator" I just have to count all the insults you have made to people vs the ones tossed at you. You are by far ahead on that score. It's not a one-sided view, just a factual count.

Factual count. What is the count? Go and read through the whole thread - please find where I instigate a pissing contest. You'll note I attempt to maintain a serious tone throughout the thread.

quote: "So what's yours based on Ming? Is there a stone tablet somewhere that says "Using WLTYYYD as a substitute for growth over time is deigned by God an ordained strategy, as defined by Ming?" Add this to your insult list... And it's not even a correct observation. It is not my opinion, but a fact that the designers intended it to be used that way. So it is a viable feature of the game.

Insult? Hardly Ming. Apparently disagreeing with you is high crime in this board.

And I disagree with your quote of "intended", the fact that the designers made each city work pop+1 squares does not mean they intended for us to ICS. That's just plain wrong.

quote: "Facts? What fact have you raised? The program let's you do it, so who cares? Your logic? " My logic is that the same as above. It's no different than building a wonder or setting up trade routes. It is a feature that was designed into the game for exactly the purpose that people use it for. And that is a fact, not an opinion.

I believe it was designed to be more of an effect than a tool. Do you think global warming was designed so someone who is losing an MP game can screw the other players? Well, it can be done, so by God, that must be the exact purpose it was designed for.

quote: "I've addressed EVERY issue raised, treated those who've posted with respect respect, and insulted those who've insulted me. You must see insults in everything, because you have done the majority of insults here, and that is a fact. Go ahead, count them.

For the last time, show me where I precipitated any BS. Come on Ming, find the post. You'll find no such post. I responded to serious posts seriously, to insulting point with said.

quote: "I suppose your argument must just boil down to "it's cool", "itz 3l33t dOOdz", "it rockz". Funny how other people seem to disagree but actually notice that I'm bringing up points, which they manage to respond to without some weak-ass "you just think it sucks, that's all you're saying", which is pure crap." No, my argument boils down to it's a designed feature and that people are using it as intented... yours argument comes down to it's not fair and you don't like it... based only on your opinion.

I tire of this Ming, I've said it before, and you don't hear what I'm saying. It's not unfair, it's unrealistic and beyond what I believe the game designers had in mind. That's my opinion, and you have yours. You're kidding yourself if you think you've expressed anything more factual than your opinion.

quote: "Yeah, this board is SO COOL!!! Look, my NAME!!! Fu#king please." What else are people supposed to think when all you do is post thread after thread in a row. Why not just make long thread when you post instead of putting a bunch in a row.

Because I respond, point by point, to those who address me. I do so in a complete manner. Maybe I should make posts like "Ha Ha" and "LoL", which are brief but do nothing. Why don't you think "He takes this seriously and wants to discuss the options". Rather, suddenly you've found me annoying so I must be posting out of some personal defect.

quote: "Do you READ the posts, or just randomly respond in stream-of-consciousness? After all, your last posts have added so very much..." Another insult... you are way ahead on that count. But yes, I read every word. And you are the one that really hasn't anything new from the very beginning. I find I must repeat myself, because even if you are reading what I say, you don't understand.

You know what, screw it Ming. Don't respond to me, I won't respond to you. Apparently I'm too damn stupid to understand anything you say, I'd rather insult you than listen to you. So I'll just discuss this with others who have some interest in the topic who can somehow find a way to communicate to me in a fashion I can understand.

quote: So get off your high horse.

Ming, you're blathering.

quote: All you are doing is insulting people for disagreeing with you.

That's a lie. Period. Find the post. You're a damn poor moderator if you can't follow the thread to see where the instigation begins, and where it ends.

Yeah, I insult anyone who disagrees with me, like I insulted Shamrock, Sieve Too, Carnide, Scouse, and any number of others who posted disagreements...oh wait, you'll find no such insults. Why? Because they posted on the subject not the writer, they were serious but gentlemanly, and they take the game seriously without taking it personally.

Find them. Ming, I dare you to. Find a post where I take off on someone without cause, just because my ego is so sensitive I can't handle someone disagreeing with me. Find any. You won't. Because they don't exist.

quote: Again... you raise NO FACTS to support your opinion.

Whatever Ming, skip the thread, we have nothing left to say to one another. If you curled up and blew away in the wind I'd notice it no sooner than if you posted something in here that made sense.

Venger

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by hydey on 05-13-2000 07:35 AM Vengar you started this thread and it created gteat argument which allowed all of us to learn which is what this place is for you put up strong arguments as did many others and in the end each to there own opinion. this is now becoming a slanging match which is a shame

Agreed. If every single snide remark on both sides could be removed, I'd be all for it. I'm glad you found the debate and surrounding points reasonable.

quote: well done on a good subject lets not ruin it with insults

Thanks, kind words on this thread are most welcome...

Venger

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by cavebear on 05-13-2000 12:17 PM Forgive me for observing that the tenor of the discussion has changed somewhat of late.

Indeed.

quote: What was a very reasonable question about the value and intended purpose of WLTxD seems to have gotten "just a tad" out of hand.

Some people seem to disagree as to the reasonableness of said question. I'm pleased you found it thought-provoking, as noted in your posts in the discussion.

quote: My sincere appreciation to Venger for bringing up the question (which I found interesting). My equal appreciation to those who discussed the idea at length. Both sides did well, and it is worthwhile to question things that *can* be done (and defend that they *should* be done. Can we ease off a bit on the personal stuff, though?

Well said. Ability and Nobility are indeed different as you can/should phrase states quote well. That you've noted that nuance in what I've been trying to say indeed says that my arguments are not falling on entirely deaf ears...

Thanks for the modicum of thoughtfulness you've shown in this thread...

Venger

[JERandall]

Well, earlier (*much* earlier, heh) I expressed my distaste for "realism" as a criterion to apply to a game. Now I must express my disagreement with the "designer's intent" argument.

Some people have said that the designers intended for WLT_D to be used civ-wide. Others have said it is only intended for a single city which happens to achieve high luxuries.

This is all meaningless. The intent of the designers is (1) unknown and (2) irrelevant.

It is the players, not the designers, who discover which strategies do and don't work, which ways of playing are most efficient, and generally stretch the game to its utmost limits. In fact, for most games (not just Civ2), the designers *don't even know* what the best way to play the game is.

Oh sure, they might build in some things which tilt the playing field in a certain direction, but they cannot anticipate the cleverness of thousands of players expending millions of hours on the game.

So: whether or not the designers intended for WLT_D to be used on one city, many cities, or all cities is totally irrelevant. The fact is that WLT_D *can* be used to make a lot of cities grow very quickly. Whether or not you *should* use it that way is, utlimately, a personal preference -- *especially* in single player.

So there! :-)


------------------
JERandall

[shamrock]

Venger wrote:
"I believe it was designed to be more of an effect than a tool."

Of all the comments posted by you Venger (both constructive and destructive), I think this is the most terse.

And you know what's kinda scary to me? It's starting to make some sense.

Now don't get me wrong - I still believe that the "pop-whoring" effects of WLTXD were intended by the game designers; I think that the preponderance of evidence makes this clear. However, maybe, just maybe it was not meant to be used this way, but rather as an occasional bonus effect.

Forgive me Venger if I've misinterpreted the crux of your argument

Ming, et al.-

I would have to agree with Venger that both sides of this discussion are merely stating opinions. While I would argue there is more evidence on the side of "intended effect," I don't think there is any way for us to know short of talking with one of the game designers.

So what say we direct the discussion more in the direction of what I believe Venger's original point may have been? Assuming that the WLTXD was not intended to be used this way, should it be used this way?

Well?

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by JERandall on 05-13-2000 02:12 PM Well, earlier (*much* earlier, heh) I expressed my distaste for "realism" as a criterion to apply to a game. Now I must express my disagreement with the "designer's intent" argument. Some people have said that the designers intended for WLT_D to be used civ-wide. Others have said it is only intended for a single city which happens to achieve high luxuries. This is all meaningless. The intent of the designers is (1) unknown and (2) irrelevant.

Indeed, it is nearly impossible to truly discern - we can only speculate. The truest test is how it fits in gameplay. My contention is that it can fit alright as an event, poorly as a strategy.

quote: It is the players, not the designers, who discover which strategies do and don't work, which ways of playing are most efficient, and generally stretch the game to its utmost limits. In fact, for most games (not just Civ2), the designers *don't even know* what the best way to play the game is.

True again, I imagine the best players at nearly every game are never the designers...

quote: Oh sure, they might build in some things which tilt the playing field in a certain direction, but they cannot anticipate the cleverness of thousands of players expending millions of hours on the game.

There is no truer testament to this than the ridiculous Civ2 power graph. Is this thing even usable past 2000B.C.?

quote: So: whether or not the designers intended for WLT_D to be used on one city, many cities, or all cities is totally irrelevant. The fact is that WLT_D *can* be used to make a lot of cities grow very quickly. Whether or not you *should* use it that way is, utlimately, a personal preference -- *especially* in single player. So there! :-)

Well said.

Venger

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by shamrock on 05-13-2000 02:26 PM Venger wrote: "I believe it was designed to be more of an effect than a tool." Of all the comments posted by you Venger (both constructive and destructive), I think this is the most terse. And you know what's kinda scary to me? It's starting to make some sense. Now don't get me wrong - I still believe that the "pop-whoring" effects of WLTXD were intended by the game designers; I think that the preponderance of evidence makes this clear. However, maybe, just maybe it was not meant to be used this way, but rather as an occasional bonus effect.

EXACTLY. Look, I have games where WLTYYYD days happen to my cities. But it is a side effect, a result of a new trade route, new improvement, or wonder. It does not occur because I boosted my luxuries so I could cause my cities to bloat for 10 consecutive turns. To use WLTYYYD to grow your cities, rather than planning and time, to me is kind of gimmicky. Note that I remove planning from WLTYYD and present it as an integral part of simply building a large and successful rep/dem. Many have noted the planning needed for WLTYYD - I agree, but let the planning support a city grown through time, not through WLTYYYD.

quote: Forgive me Venger if I've misinterpreted the crux of your argument

You are forgiven! But you've captured so much of it, there is nothing to forgive...

quote: Ming, et al.- I would have to agree with Venger that both sides of this discussion are merely stating opinions. While I would argue there is more evidence on the side of "intended effect," I don't think there is any way for us to know short of talking with one of the game designers. So what say we direct the discussion more in the direction of what I believe Venger's original point may have been? Assuming that the WLTXD was not intended to be used this way, should it be used this way? Well?

One correction - I posted the following well over a week ago:

Doubtful. It was designed as an effect, not a cause.

I've tried to express this throughout, and hope that my efforts have not been seen only today.

As to your question of should, that indeed IS the crux, or alternately if you can remove it from gameplay by limiting the max luxuries rate. If I could I would, because I believe it offers the best challenge.

Venger