BTS and the upcoming slavery nerf

[Ninot]

This is a pretty sad thread.

Civ 4

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
As for you Provost Harrison...a guy who is nothing more than an off-topic poster can't comment on a game and its players that reached their heigh of popularity before he ever even registered on this board.

you posted in the Off-Topic forum about the game. You obviously only want Off-Topic posters posting.

Since the on topic posters seem to be able to refute your claims quite easily.

Seems to me you moved it here for the same reasons you hate Civ 4, you keep getting your ass handed to you.

ACK!

[EyesOfNight]

What would that prove?

If you win then you boast that Solver is just a newbie who doesn't know anything about MP and isn't fit to dispute your points in this thread.

If you lose then you whine how Civ4 is broken and even loser newbies like Solver are given a chance to beat "superior" players.

The fact is that you are not a superior player. You are a relic of a 10+ year old game who developed one strategy on one set of settings that you've used to kill newbies in every civ2 game for a decade now and are throwing a tantrum that it doesn't work in civ4 and no one plays or cares about civ2 anymore.

Time to move on.

Failure to adapt = death.

First of all, I was top 3 on the ladder for glicko rating in Civ4 when it first came out. Second of all, I didn't develop one strategy for one setting. Your saying this shows how little you know about what I did in civ2. You apparently forget I went through and beat everyone on 1x1x, and 2x1x, medium maps, large maps, and small maps. In civ2, you were a nobody. You blame this on "exploits" that you were too lazy to learn and had you learned them then you would have been top too. Typical newbie bull****. It's the same thing with all of you, the top players were top because they used exploits, now that Civ4 is all about strategy the true skill is beginning to show. What a joke. That might be true if I were the only one saying these things, but you'll find any decent player will agree with me at least to a certain extent that the game equalizes and has removed options and strategies from the game. You also assume that I'm a lower level player in Civ4 at this point, which you are clearly mistaken on and I'm willing to prove that to you in a 1v1 mirror map duel. You should just accept the fact that you were a nobody in Civ2 and move on, and the reason you're able to play on the level of better players is because the game has allowed you to, not your skills.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight


That's the problem, there aren't many levels of play. With slaving, there's decent, and a little better. The players that are a little better know how to slave units faster, that's about all that separates people. If you remove slaving, the difference between players becomes almost non-existent. The maintinence system, the tech system, and the horrible combat system make for an incredibly simple game that leaves little ability to go outside the normal play or to gain even remotely significant leads.

EON, your not processing the so called information you dispense. You claim your the best or near the best in the world, ok, congrats.

How did you get that way? By beating someone who is of a lesser understanding of your gamestyle or level of play.

I play all the time, and I play with folks so far superior to me its not funny. I get whooped and then whooped again, sometimes I see the err of my ways, sometimes I still dont know. I care but I dont quit playing, I try to learn.

Paddy is a great player, I dont know where he is in the world rankings, but he has taught me much. Dauphin is another. Wittlich is as well. The list is long and distinguished of those whom have taught me how to play.

You think I dont know many could squash me?

I do, but still play because my level I am enjoying this game, very much so. On a higher level they are as well.

Thats why there are many levels one can enjoy the game.

Sometimes I enjoy a great big map with many slots, while other times I enjoy me vs just a couple ai's so I may build up a larger civilization.

Thats what I enjoy about Civin, this Apolyton community and this education I am receiving (along with the awesome players who are my online friends and acquaintences).

Oh and for the record, "whooping" up on newbies cant do well for thesoul, if your not trying to train them to be better. Since your the best in the world EON, why even bother playing with inferior players here?

Just asking...................

Gramps

[EyesOfNight]

I play all the time, and I play with folks so far superior to me its not funny. I get whooped and then whooped again, sometimes I see the err of my ways, sometimes I still dont know. I care but I dont quit playing, I try to learn.

Paddy is a great player, I dont know where he is in the world rankings, but he has taught me much. Dauphin is another. Wittlich is as well. The list is long and distinguished of those whom have taught me how to play.

You think I dont know many could squash me?

I do, but still play because my level I am enjoying this game, very much so. On a higher level they are as well.

Thats why there are many levels one can enjoy the game.

Sometimes I enjoy a great big map with many slots, while other times I enjoy me vs just a couple ai's so I may build up a larger civilization.

Thats what I enjoy about Civin, this Apolyton community and this education I am receiving (along with the awesome players who are my online friends and acquaintences).

Oh and for the record, "whooping" up on newbies cant do well for thesoul, if your not trying to train them to be better. Since your the best in the world EON, why even bother playing with inferior players here?

Ok, yeah, you're not winning me over by telling me those people are good and they beat you. I know who the good players are, and there aren't that many left. Also, I don't think there is really a "best" in this game. There's so little separating players that once you hit the ceiling anyone can win at any given time. It's not like Civ2, or even civ3 for that matter, where you could just completely dominate with a very high percentage of wins. Civ4 is simply not designed to allow those kinds of percentages. Everything about it is designed to keep people on the same level. I don't play for fun, I never have. I play to win and I play to dominate. When a game doesn't have the option to just absolutely dominate then in my book that is a broken game. Slavery is the only thing keeping Civ4 even remotely playable, I couldn't imagine going back to pre-slavery Civ4. The simple fact is that this is a casual gamer's game, it's not made for power gaming and this is reflected in people like OzzyKP.

[Ecthy]

Eyes, ever thought about writing about other stuff than Civ2? With that same authentic character of yours as a background theme, of course? Vel wrote about how to conquer women after becoming famous for his SMAC guides. Do you think you could go into themes like that just to give us more insight? How about the Middle East conflict? You could be like an anti-War Nerd.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
I play to win and I play to dominate. When a game doesn't have the option to just absolutely dominate then in my book that is a broken game.

This says more about you than the game.

If a game isn't fun what's the point in playing?

ACK!

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
You also assume that I'm a lower level player in Civ4 at this point, which you are clearly mistaken on and I'm willing to prove that to you in a 1v1 mirror map duel.

Don't you recall? We already played a 1v1 mirror map duel. Twice. In fact they were the very first two MP games I've played in Civ4 and I beat the crap out of you both times.

For everyone's amusement:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142099

[Tattila the Hun]

This seems... very sad. I play for fun. Three of the most fun, interesting games I've played, I lost them all. But it was a struggle all the way. What point is even playing, when you've tipped the scales permanently after few turns? When winning is only a question of bothering to finish the game...

[EyesOfNight]

Those were pre-slavery games number 1. They went exactly like all pre-slavery games...try to get a lead and grind it out until the end when you scrap for points. I remember 1 game you totally got ****ed, the game wasn't even close in the beginning. However, I learned the hard way that game that leads don't mean **** until the end of the game and that anyone can comeback by simply surviving. I even asked you what you did to win that game and I'll never forget your reply, "I didn't give up and in Civ4 that counts for something." Those were the words that ended any sense of competition in Civ4. You went on to win that game by exploiting the poor point system; you built a bunch of little cities at the end. You talk about exploits, but I don't remember ever having a civ2 game come down to 100 points after 2 hours simply by throwing down some cities all over the map. We're past the pre-slavery stage now and I'm more than confident that with slavery I can get enough of a lead to kill you. It's not the lead I would expect to gain vs someone of your low stature, but in Civ4, you can't really expect to dominate someone. Either way, I can easily prove my point that slavery allows the better player to gain a lead, albeit a small one. When shall we play?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
You talk about exploits, but I don't remember ever having a civ2 game come down to 100 points after 2 hours simply by throwing down some cities all over the map.

That's funny, cause simply throwing down cities all over the map seems to be the hallmark of your strategy in Civ2. You keep complaining that it has been neutralized in Civ4.

[Q Classic]

This went from being a meh thread, to a funny thread.

Unfortunately, AAHZ and EoN are providing NOTHING! to convince me to join their ilk. So I shall remain here, laughing at the whole affair.

[ZEE]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
This went from being a meh thread, to a funny thread.

Unfortunately, AAHZ and EoN are providing NOTHING! to convince me to join their ilk. So I shall remain here, laughing at the whole affair.

i was willing to write this whole thread off...

but then i saw my name come out of YOUR mouth Q Cubed! ready for round 3? or are we up to 4 now?

i openly state that i do not like civ 4, state my reasons, now i am being attacked for it. who is really the aggressor here anyways? did i once say that i wanted ANYBODY to "JOIN MY ILK...?"
piece™

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Unfortunately, AAHZ and EoN are providing NOTHING!

They want to destroy Civ4! Those criminals!

[MJW]

Firaxis should not even code MP into Civ5 and make a special MP only game...

Edit: This is mainly caused by the fact that AI and human styles are very different. This causes the game balance for their styles to be very different. Even if something is only 'a little off' it's all that takes for the 1337s to break the game. And if it is broken for them it is broken for everyone because the only thing they can not copy is the mirco and that does not count a lot in Civ4. The only way to solve this problem is Sirian's "super-ai" idea (good luck) idea or make different games for MP and SP.

Edit2: Also, if you play to win in anyway, what the developers intended really does not matter. One has to use everything. Slavery has massive imbalanceing consequences. The nerf is beyond justified.