BTS and the upcoming slavery nerf

[Solver]

Originally posted by DrSpike


As was mine.

You're a Londoner, hence, you and cute are incompatible by definition

[MJW]

Well, in 1v1 leads are important. They just take forever to mean anything big. Just like the game of chess. In chess this is not an issue because mop-up is not THAT bad. Unless you play against someone weak it would take at least until macemen to win.

In large group games this is less of an issue because of the fast tech-rate and imblanced fights messing things up. Civ4 is not a duel game.

[Ming]

The game truely is meant to be played with many different civs in the game. I'm not sure what changes would make duels better since my preference is for the large games. EON, what changes in the game play do you think are required to make Civ IV more acceptable to duels. What if a future patch/release included a "duel" setting. What would the changes in game play required to have a "good" duel setting?

[EyesOfNight]

Actually, big games are broken too. You guys don't realize that big games are just a series of duels for the most part. Duels for any game are the basis for all other settings. You can't say duels are broken and then not have larger games not be broken. If you're playing on a competitive level, big games are just as broken, it's just that the increased luck factors help to shuffle up the status quo. In other words, a stalemate is less likely not because one player won with skill over the other, rather it's because certain factors out of the player's control helped to uneven the playing field. The truth is I could write a book on where Civ4 departed from the proven formula, how it can be fixed, and how it is a reflection of the computer game industry as a whole.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
Actually, big games are broken too. You guys don't realize that big games are just a series of duels for the most part. Duels for any game are the basis for all other settings. You can't say duels are broken and then not have larger games not be broken. If you're playing on a competitive level, big games are just as broken, it's just that the increased luck factors help to shuffle up the status quo. In other words, a stalemate is less likely not because one player won with skill over the other, rather it's because certain factors out of the player's control helped to uneven the playing field. The truth is I could write a book on where Civ4 departed from the proven formula, how it can be fixed, and how it is a reflection of the computer game industry as a whole.

Maybe you could just enlighten us serf's as to your wise and wonderful superior intellect


I am reading post after post, I see you critiquing the game, but perhaps you could tell us exactly why this game is broken?

So far I believe you say its broken because people can measure up to you on some maps but you crush them on others?

Seems to me that makes yoiu stronger in certain type setting and more human in others

Gramps

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
Actually, big games are broken too. You guys don't realize that big games are just a series of duels for the most part. Duels for any game are the basis for all other settings. You can't say duels are broken and then not have larger games not be broken.

I take it you've never played Diplomacy.

[Ecthy]

Reducing any system to a series of bipolarities is stupid, but I guess he'll argue with some abstractness of Civ which supposedly allows such simplification.

[MJW]

'Stalemated' duels are broken. Almost all duels in 1v1 are stalemated. Not so in large games because the stalement never happens. It does not break the game if it is just luck because if you play enough the luck will spread evenly. However, it is kind of sad that the gamemakers had to basicly give players an edge to shake things up. It basicly makes one large game prove nothing and diplomacy ultra-important for starters.

Edit: Kuci crossposted with me.
Edit2: Super slavery kills off Civ4's gamebalance. It does not matter what the makers intended... However, the 1337s will find something else that imblances the game. (0% or 100% reasearch rate and other things like that comes to mind)

[Ming]

I personally like a game where diplomacy is considered a skill you need to win

The ten or twelve player games are a riot. While yes, some of the battles are more like duels than a large person games, you still have to worry about what the other players will do.

In a duel, it's build units and throw them at the enemy... in larger games, you have to be concerned what your other neighbors are going to do when you go balls out against somebody else. Diplomacy and trust are needed to survive.

Now, are these games suited for the traditional ladders?
Probably not. But as rah pointed out... the best players consistantly come out on top, and the noobs die. Sure, occasionally a good player is layed low due to luck, and a noob does well... but over time, it's real easy for everybody in the group to know who the best players are. We don't need a stinkin ladder to confirm it

[EyesOfNight]

Maybe you could just enlighten us serf's as to your wise and wonderful superior intellect


I am reading post after post, I see you critiquing the game, but perhaps you could tell us exactly why this game is broken?

So far I believe you say its broken because people can measure up to you on some maps but you crush them on others?

Seems to me that makes yoiu stronger in certain type setting and more human in others

Gramps

I could enlighten you, but at this point what does that accomplish? I could write about how to fix the combat system and complete it the way they had tried to make it, but who is listening anyway? I have never said anything about people measuring up to me on some maps and not on others. You should learn to read, or at least do it sober. If you think that was harsh, then don't make stupid statements.

I take it you've never played Diplomacy.

Diplomacy games are casual games played by casual gamers. The fact is that the greater the competitive level, the more chance there is going to be that players will break the game and degenerate it into a one size fits all system. Every game suffers from this to some degree. Civ4 just happens to suffer from it far more than any game.

I really can fix the combat system, in fact, you'd probably be surprised at what I would propose to fix it. The question is, who is listening, and what would i accomplish? At this point, it is clear no one is listening and equally clear I would accomplish nothing.

[Kuciwalker]

Diplomacy games are casual games played by casual gamers.

[Ninot]

Chess is for newbs too.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
I really can fix the combat system, in fact, you'd probably be surprised at what I would propose to fix it. The question is, who is listening, and what would i accomplish? At this point, it is clear no one is listening and equally clear I would accomplish nothing.

Learn Python, submit your mods, and see who agrees.

[Kuciwalker]

Bad analogy, actually.

xpost

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight


I could enlighten you, but at this point what does that accomplish? I could write about how to fix the combat system and complete it the way they had tried to make it, but who is listening anyway? I have never said anything about people measuring up to me on some maps and not on others. You should learn to read, or at least do it sober. If you think that was harsh, then don't make stupid statements.

EON, in your world does everyone drink?

I dont, I havent for over 15 years.

I ask because I read so much you posted, it all seems to run together.

I dont think your too harsh, your immature and looking for every opportunity to troll, and my statement wasnt stupid

Gramps