BTS and the upcoming slavery nerf

[Kuciwalker]

Law of averages, kid.

[EyesOfNight]

What's there to deal with here? The fact remains, all ladders and competitve play had barbarians turned off in all civ games. There's always been this fringe group who thinks you need to have a bunch of random factors added into the game to determine skill. If you're determining skill between two players, you turn off random outside events. This argument has gone on since Civ2 MP and it occurs in other games as well. Get it through your head. You are a fringe group that makes up like .01% of MP players, I on the other hand am in the other camp that just happens to make up the other 99.9% of MP players. It's a little hard to keep regurgitating these arguments when you are so overwhelmingly outnumbered not just in Civ4, but all games ever created.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Law of averages, kid.

exactly.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
What's there to deal with here? The fact remains, all ladders and competitve play had barbarians turned off in all civ games. There's always been this fringe group who thinks you need to have a bunch of random factors added into the game to determine skill. If you're determining skill between two players, you turn off random outside events. This argument has gone on since Civ2 MP and it occurs in other games as well. Get it through your head. You are a fringe group that makes up like .01% of MP players, I on the other hand am in the other camp that just happens to make up the other 99.9% of MP players. It's a little hard to keep regurgitating these arguments when you are so overwhelmingly outnumbered not just in Civ4, but all games ever created.

why is it so hard to admit that you are only good in certain circumstances? and that the circumstances dont have moral value to them?

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
You are a fringe group that makes up like .01% of MP players, I on the other hand am in the other camp that just happens to make up the other 99.9% of MP players.

What about the remaining 0.09% of MP players?

[Kuciwalker]

There's always been this fringe group who thinks you need to have a bunch of random factors added into the game to determine skill. If you're determining skill between two players, you turn off random outside events. This argument has gone on since Civ2 MP and it occurs in other games as well.

Skill includes the ability to predict, prevent, and recover from randomness. Barb attacks are practically harmless if you take the proper precautions.

[MRT144]

again i say that duels are the standard mp form because they take the least time investment and commitment. it's not because of the purity of the game, its because its simply a more functional experience than coordination among X amount of other players.

[MRT144]

and why is it about determining who is a better player 1v1 when it seems a much more impressive feat would being the best among 6-7 player?

[rah]

Yep in MP games, the better players mostly do better.
Yes, luck sometimes gets them sometimes. Gee just like life.
That's the problem I seem to be having. In our games the better player usually does well. Eyes is saying that in duels the better player usually wins. I DON"T SEE THE DIFFERENCE.

We just don't need it validated. That's more youth.
And I guess in larger games, you could claim that if you were number 1 in the world that others would gang up on you. Deal with it. You are the best.
Now EYES does have a point if you're playing for Money.
BUT IF YOU"RE PLAYING FOR MONEY WHY ARE YOU PLAYING CIV. There are 1000's of other games that are truely just skill and no luck at all. Chess, Duplicate bridge. But certainly not CIV.

[EyesOfNight]

Ok Rah, so you basically just admitted there that your settings aren't the best for proving skill. I rest my case. If you can't play your settings for money then they aren't good for proving skill.

[Ming]

I think he's saying that even on your settings, why the hell would you play civ for money. There are better games to play for money that have far less luck in them then civ. If I'm playing for money, the last thing I want to see is lossing a battle where i had a 90% chance for victory, but didn't win. Even on your settings, luck still matters

[MRT144]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
Ok Rah, so you basically just admitted there that your settings aren't the best for proving skill. I rest my case. If you can't play your settings for money then they aren't good for proving skill.

you're ridiculous

is 1 v 1 poker the best way to display skill? and if it is then why is the WSOP not a 1v1 format?

[EyesOfNight]

On another note, I'd like to hear a Firaxian comment on why I'm wrong in my suggestions and how Civ4 is pure genius and the mass exodus of hardcore fans from Civ4 in MP was not caused by gameplay issues but rather other factors.

[EyesOfNight]

Look, I don't care if you like your settings. Just don't ****ing tell me that your settings are competitive settings that are a good judgement of skill. Your settings weren't in that category in Civ2, and they definitely aren't in Civ4.

[Ming]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
On another note, I'd like to hear a Firaxian comment on why I'm wrong in my suggestions and how Civ4 is pure genius and the mass exodus of hardcore fans from Civ4 in MP was not caused by gameplay issues but rather other factors.

Frankly, I don't think they would want to comment either way on that in public.

And also remember, the money is in SP, not MP. MP represents a small percentage of the market.

I think we can ALL AGREE that if Civ IV had been designed as a MP game only, it would be a better MP game. But like all other versions, it's really designed to be a SP game.