BTS and the upcoming slavery nerf

[EyesOfNight]

I hate to break it to you but you're in the minority in this. 99% of MP players use those settings. It's kind of like in Age of Empires you always had these little groups that would play no rush games and they claimed playing with rush wasn't really the way Age of Empires was mean to be played. Didn't really matter since all tournaments and all good players played with Rush. You guys are in effect the same as the no rush rookies from Age of Empires. You can claim your settings are just as competitive and the real way to play, but numbers matter and you are clearly in the minority.

[EyesOfNight]

higher levels determined by who? you? what kind of authority are you on higher levels when you cant play against multiple people at once?

lol What a stupid argument. Are we determining who is the better player between player A and B, or are we determining who is the better player when players A, C, and D gang up on play B? Nice logic there idiot.

[Kuciwalker]

I hate to break it to you but you're in the minority in this. 99% of MP players use those settings.

They're still removing most of the game.

It's kind of like in Age of Empires you always had these little groups that would play no rush games and they claimed playing with rush wasn't really the way Age of Empires was mean to be played.

Actually, that's you. You're claiming that any part of the game you can't handle has to be eliminated.

[MRT144]

duels are the way to play civ because the most efficent manner of playing mp happen to be duels.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
lol What a stupid argument. Are we determining who is the better player between player A and B, or are we determining who is the better player when players A, C, and D gang up on play B? Nice logic there idiot.

Avoiding a gangbang is part of the game.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight


lol What a stupid argument. Are we determining who is the better player between player A and B, or are we determining who is the better player when players A, C, and D gang up on play B? Nice logic there idiot.

The best player will utilize all the tools in their skillset including diplomacy which the 1v1 games have none of. given your personality on here, it easy to see why you suck at diplomacy and any games that involve it.

also the fact you cant hack it in a pool of other players says something. its not A and B, its A in a pool of B through J

[EyesOfNight]

Avoiding a gangbang is part of the game.

Yeah...I think I can go ahead and claim victory here.

They're still removing most of the game.

I played the exact same way in that game with Rah and the others as I would in any other setting. In that game I had 3 cities before any of them had even built a settler and I was already choking Rah, which is sad considering he was Mali and I was Aztecs which means I started with no warrior. I will admit I made a stupid mistake that game that cost me a city to one of the rookies playing because I forgot his archer was a protective archer and had an extra first strike. Then I lost 2 workers to the ****ing barbarians because I didn't realize they were turned on. Rah...well Rah did nothing. Rah bent over and took it without putting up a fight. Then we had the genius in the other corner who was building irrigation on his sheep (another example of the ridiculous setting the guy had 2 marble, 1 sheep, and 2 corn and that was just what I could see in half his city view). Nice job guys, nice playing.

Oh, and playing on normal speed does nothing more than to allow the lesser player a better chance. It was that way in Civ2 also when people demanded 1x1x instead of 2x2x. Some things don't change I see.

[Kuciwalker]

I played the exact same way in that game with Rah and the others as I would in any other setting.

That's probably why you lost. Playstyle has to alter to fit circumstances.

[EyesOfNight]

God you just don't ****ing know how to read. lol

[Kuciwalker]

Then I lost 2 workers to the ****ing barbarians because I didn't realize they were turned on.

exactly the point! You're so stuck on one tiny subset of civ that you don't even remember that the other parts exist, let alone how to deal with them.

[EyesOfNight]

Why would you turn on barbarians? Seriously, that's like having a random event option that says "X player will be ****ed over at X time for no apparent reason other than because you checked this option as on." Again, if you have so much skill why do you need all these outside factors to influence the course of the game?

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, and playing on normal speed does nothing more than to allow the lesser player a better chance. It was that way in Civ2 also when people demanded 1x1x instead of 2x2x. Some things don't change I see.

You mean, it doesn't fit your playstyle as well.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight


Yeah...I think I can go ahead and claim victory here.



I played the exact same way in that game with Rah and the others as I would in any other setting. In that game I had 3 cities before any of them had even built a settler and I was already choking Rah, which is sad considering he was Mali and I was Aztecs which means I started with no warrior. I will admit I made a stupid mistake that game that cost me a city to one of the rookies playing because I forgot his archer was a protective archer and had an extra first strike. Then I lost 2 workers to the ****ing barbarians because I didn't realize they were turned on. Rah...well Rah did nothing. Rah bent over and took it without putting up a fight. Then we had the genius in the other corner who was building irrigation on his sheep (another example of the ridiculous setting the guy had 2 marble, 1 sheep, and 2 corn and that was just what I could see in half his city view). Nice job guys, nice playing.

Oh, and playing on normal speed does nothing more than to allow the lesser player a better chance. It was that way in Civ2 also when people demanded 1x1x instead of 2x2x. Some things don't change I see.

so actually what happened was you were cocky and didnt adapt your game or take care to play the game according to the rules. then you got bent out of shape because you dont expect to fail and rarely have a contigency for failure besides whining?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
Why would you turn on barbarians? Seriously, that's like having a random event option that says "X player will be ****ed over at X time for no apparent reason other than because you checked this option as on." Again, if you have so much skill why do you need all these outside factors to influence the course of the game?

Barbarians don't **** you over if you take reasonable precautions (which every player will have to take, so it's an even effect). If you're clueless how to deal with them then yes, they will rape you.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
Why would you turn on barbarians? Seriously, that's like having a random event option that says "X player will be ****ed over at X time for no apparent reason other than because you checked this option as on." Again, if you have so much skill why do you need all these outside factors to influence the course of the game?

If you have so much skill why cant you cope with random factors? because you've developed a system in a vacuum that only functions in the vacuum. you're a one trick pony who thinks he is the only one with a trick.