I'm a bad player! So what!

[Andz83]

Well, I'm not a bad player but you can believe me when I say that I never hit 200% in a free Single Player game! But I'm not one of these people biting themselves when they don't reach 10000000000% in any game. little exaggeration . I don't care about my lack of experience. I don't bother myself about this! Why the hell must there so many people who want to be the best? If there weren'T so many guys being that extreme, others wouldn't be forced to also strive to the top! Why can't we all just live in peace together without trying to kill each others? Well, winning is nice but aren't some of us going too far?

Once again: I don't care.

So, anyone wants to match me?

[Steve Clark]

Actually, I don't see any 'contests' of achieving a high score. Most feel that is a waste of time, not to mention incredibly boring. What most people do for contests is to achieve the fastest times. That, imo, takes considerable skills. That is FUN for a number of civers, which is your point I think.

[Andz83]

Well, trying to achieve fast times IS a kind of contest.

There is this newbie, don't remember his name; he read many posts here and "became really better" or something like this, as he said. Now he wants to know when to swith over from perfectionist to expansioist. THAT's what I'm talking about. When he has more fun being perfectionist, then why does he want to become a conqueror? Well? Because he wants to

1. fit in

2. being GOOD. But it's not important whether you are GOOD at anything or not.
I know that Americans see this very different. They always want to WIN. It's ridiculous...

[Hasdrubal]

Nobody is striving to be the 'best', or is bragging about their unsurpassed qualities. It's just that, after having played this game for years, it has become to easy to beat the AI in SP. We have to set new challenges. If four years ago anybody would've suggested that it is possible to win with just one city, I would've thought that he was mad. Now, it's just a matter of how fast you can win in an OCC. As you said, mastering this game is a matter of experience. Nobody looks down on the less experienced, we've all been one, and we only got to the point were we need to set ourselves ridiculous challenges by devoting a zillion hours to this game. It's not about outdoing others, but improving on yourself.

------------------
Ceterum censeo Romanem esse delendam.

[jpk]

Andz83, play in whatever way you wish to play. For what it is worth I rarely complete a game. I play until my civilization seems to be excellent, say "job well done," and then retire.

The idea is to develop a nice civilization in spite of what the barbarians and AI's throw at me.

[War4ever]

perhaps the reason he wishes to be a warmonger, is er.. uhm.. cause he LOVES TO KICK ASS.... oh i am sorry thats me. Admittedly i learned to bloodlust first hence the name, but now i am also a master ala these boards of AC games as well. This makes me a good MP opponent but certainly not the best. Winning is fun and i play to have fun therefore i play to win

IMO its extremely important to win both ways... and i should clarify but what i mean by AC.... i am not one of these players that goes to AC after crushing all the civs but one city..... i take on the world, crush some while building my ship..... i try to make the game as hard as possible for myself.... therefore while keeping the babylonians alive and gifting them tech i have a space race going while fighting the crazy vikings and ruthless Romans....

[Huey]

quote: <font size=1>Originally posted by Andz83 on 06-08-2000 02:51 PM</font> Well, trying to achieve fast times IS a kind of contest. There is this newbie, don't remember his name; he read many posts here and "became really better" or something like this, as he said. Now he wants to know when to swith over from perfectionist to expansioist. THAT's what I'm talking about. When he has more fun being perfectionist, then why does he want to become a conqueror? Well? Because he wants to 1. fit in 2. being GOOD. But it's not important whether you are GOOD at anything or not. I know that Americans see this very different. They always want to WIN. It's ridiculous...

IMHO his questions don't have anything to do with fitting in or being GOOD. When I first stumbled into ACS, months before I made my first post, I was a perfectionist player too. By reading this forum I discovered there were all kinds of ways you could play Civ, ways I never dreamt of. And I wanted to try them all and I did...and got beaten by the AI again, which didn't happen for a long time. So naturally I started to ask questions here and with the help of the people here became a better player. Compared to most people here I'm only average but by asking questions and trying different approaches Civ became even more fun than it already was.

And it felt really good when I was the first on AC in one of the OCC-forthnights

Edited some grammar.


[This message has been edited by Huey (edited June 08, 2000).]

[Hawkx9]

Andz83,

Being the one who posted the question, "when to switch from Profectionist to Conqueror?," I'd like to refute your post.

First of all, I wasn't aware that I needed to become a war mongorer to "fit in." Isn't the big thing now OCC? I'm interested in others' aggression tactics because I'd like to learn other facets of the game. Yes, perfectionism will alway be my preferred style simply because it fits my personality, but that shouldn't keep me or anyone else from trying something new. We must remain open minded in life.

Secondly, mediocrity is nothing for which to shoot. Becoming "good," or bettering one's self, should be the goal in everything we do. Why settle for less?

With that said... I understand you're German? The war's over. We won. Let it go.

Peace
[This message has been edited by Hawkx9 (edited June 08, 2000).]

[Steve Clark]

quote: <font size=1>Originally posted by Hawkx9 on 06-08-2000 04:37 PM</font> With that said... I understand you're German? The war's over. We won. Let it go. Peace <font size=1 face=Arial color=444444></font>

I already like your style, Hawkx9
[This message has been edited by Steve Clark (edited June 08, 2000).]

[SilverDragon]

quote: Originally posted by Hawkx9 on 06-08-2000 04:37 PM I understand you're German? The war's over. We won. Let it go. Peace

LoL!
Andz - I personally have fun being good, so I will play anything to win as quick as I can. I play a perfectionist, warmonger, or expansionist game, depending on my start. I do not agree with you, but you are entitled to your own opinion.

[MasterBob]

When I go for a high score, I do it over 3weeks-1 month. Play half an hour every day, its boring, but you its cool to see if you can beat the top score.

I am currently trying to beat the warlord record.

[cavebear]

There's something wrong with wanting to win?

I like to succeed at things I compete at. I've played chess, backgammon, cards, etc, where the only real purpose is to win.

I also like to master complex situations. I played computer quest games, the Sim games, etc for that reason. But neither group was entirely satisfactory.

So, when I discovered CivII, I was hooked. Both apply. Winning is a measure of your success in dealing with barbs, opponents, geographical restraints, selecting appropriate strategies for a given situation, etc. On the other hand, you also get to build a civ the way you want, as perfect or as large as you desire to attempt, and can enjoy your own little people wandering around doing useful work.

But I don't see any reason to denigrate enjoying the "winning" part, too. Is there anyone who *likes* coming in last in a game?

[mindseye]

Andz83, I'm with you - I'm a terrible player! I was so excited recently when, playing at King level, I won for the second time ever!

My problem is that I get caught up in playing the role of "leader of my people" which can lead to decisions not perhaps overly compatible with winning!

For instance, if one of my cities is captured, I will spare no effort to liberate my citizens, even if the kingdom's coffers are emptied and the military wrecked in the process. Hey, they are my people, I am responsible for their welfare!

Sometimes I hang onto ancient units for sentimental reasons. Also, I will never nuke a city that was formerly part of my kingdom. How can you nuke your own people!

I may not win often, but I always have fun!

Now you know why I don't dare to play MP! Hey Andz83, maybe we should organize an MP game with kindred lousy players!

- mindseye

[Gatekeeper]

Andz83, et al.:

Typically, I start out as a perfectionist ruler. I only destroy enemy nations early on if they're within 20 squares of my capital city. Later on, though, I transform into something War4ever might be able to identify with — a bloody, ruthless sonofab*tch wreaking VENGEANCE upon the AI for past transgressions and tribute payments.

Yeah, baby. That's it. PISS ME OFF, AI, AND YA BITE THE DUST!!!!!

Okay ... no more caffeine tonight ...

CYBERAmazon (who likes his style of play)

------------------
Resistance is futile. Lower your shields and disable your weapons. You will be assimilated into the Borg Collective.

[Andz83]

quote: Originally posted by Hawkx9 on 06-08-2000 04:37 PM Andz83, With that said... I understand you're German? The war's over. We won. Let it go. [This message has been edited by Hawkx9 (edited June 08, 2000).]

Can anyone explain me what our newbie wanted to tell me here?