BTS and the upcoming slavery nerf

[Arrian]

You really do have a soft spot for him, dontcha?

Whatever. Carry on.

-Arrian

[Ming]

Originally posted by Arrian
You really do have a soft spot for him, dontcha?

Not really... I've probably have restricted him multiple more times than any other mod has

But I do respect his knowledge of civ, and his playing skills. While I don't agree on many of his "opinions" on the "only" way to play the game... he does offer up some solid thinking if you can get past his chest beating

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by rah
After all his chest thumping, he got bronze from a hut and still quit the game. Most people would romp and stomp after luck like that. Not Eyes, he just continued to complain then quit, using his complaining as an excuse instead of the fact that he was getting thumped.

NEWB

Uber NEWB

Got his ass handed to him in Rah's group, got his ass handed to him twice in 1v1 against me. No wonder he is frustrated with Civ4.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
Seems contradictory to me.

-Arrian

That's because Eyes doesn't actually understand Civ4. All he knows how to do is play Civ4 as if it were Civ2.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
You really do have a soft spot for him, dontcha?

Whatever. Carry on.

-Arrian

Yes

[rah]

Don't get me wrong. Eyes does have some skill. (despite lacking in all diplomatic areas) He outplayed me on our front but was taking it from other sides.
I got spooked and did major panic. (to the point that I forgot what my UU was. ) Not my usual play but I don't play eyes that much and let it bother me. Which for the life of me I can't understand since I usually play with players that I consider better than him. (at least in MP civ IV)

But that said. Claiming that all our settings were for newbs and then got kicked, doesn't really support his claims.

Better players usually do better so there must be strategy involved. So Eyes claiming that there is no strategy just doesn't add up.

Yes we play settings that put a little luck in the game, so some of the players that aren't as good sometimes have a good game. (and sometimes they make the right decisions and have a better game) Otherwise I doubt they'd want to continue playing week after week.

We don't use the score to determine who did the best, it's usually obvious. (especially since over half the players usually are eliminated by the end of the session)

Our goal is to get as many players in that we can since it makes for a more interesting game. Duels aren't really interesting to a lot of us.

Respect the options people play. There are no official settings (of course I worry about people that would play an MP game at immortal) But whatever makes you feel it's competitive.

And you shouldn't play in a large game unless you have some clue about diplomacy regardless if your sytle is subtle or more blunt.

There is a lot of bloodshed in our games.

[EyesOfNight]

What I don't understand about you Rah is that you continue to claim you play on settings that take skill, ladders are just for chest thumping, and that you are a skilled competitive player when you play on settings no one plays and you don't play 1v1. By any definition in any game you would be considered a lower level player. If you aren't willing to play without luck and in 1v1 then you really have no case to make here. Also, I'm not really interested in arguing at this point because I'm hoping some Firaxis guy comes along and tells me why I'm so wrong on my suggestions, even though I know they won't say anything. If you want to 1v1 using the standard settings that 99% of the community uses then maybe I'll listen to you. Until then, you're still the same newbie that played "Rah rules" in civ2.

[EyesOfNight]

That's because Eyes doesn't actually understand Civ4. All he knows how to do is play Civ4 as if it were Civ2.

Kind of hard for you to make that assertion since you've never played me. 1v1?

[rah]

There is skill involved whatever the settings.
Luck may have impact but overall skill will shine.

Duels are a waste of time in my opinion. I'm allowed to have opinions just like you. and on this one we can agree to dissagree. I respect your opinion on it and would hope you would respect mine, but like the the rest of you diplomatic skills......................

1v1 games really don't interest me, and in fact I think they require the least amount of skill. It's just a military game. Very one dimensional requiring the least amount of choices.
In a large game you try to get away with some building for later dominance but you have to be prepared on all fronts. Sometimes you have to fool or convince people to keep them off you back till you get that tech lead you're looking for. Sometimes you have to choose the right time to backstab.
Far more interesting and skillfull then the axeman rush you keep claiming is why 1v1 games are broken.

SO it all comes down to what type of game you like to play. Each will decide differently, and I don't see what is gained by mocking those decisions.

[MRT144]

I think its readily apparent that eyes fashions himself a better player than the results of the game reflect.

[EyesOfNight]

There is skill involved whatever the settings.
Luck may have impact but overall skill will shine.

Duels are a waste of time in my opinion. I'm allowed to have opinions just like you. and on this one we can agree to dissagree. I respect your opinion on it and would hope you would respect mine, but like the the rest of you diplomatic skills......................

1v1 games really don't interest me, and in fact I think they require the least amount of skill. It's just a military game. Very one dimensional requiring the least amount of choices.
In a large game you try to get away with some building for later dominance but you have to be prepared on all fronts. Sometimes you have to fool or convince people to keep them off you back till you get that tech lead you're looking for. Sometimes you have to choose the right time to backstab.
Far more interesting and skillfull then the axeman rush you keep claiming is why 1v1 games are broken.

SO it all comes down to what type of game you like to play. Each will decide differently, and I don't see what is gained by mocking those decisions.

Your settings have far more luck factors than any other setting. That in itself makes it a non-competitive setting. It's not a matter of what interests you, it's a matter of what settings provide the most even playing field and it is that way in every game. I really don't care about your opinion and what you feel you can agree to disagree on. The fact is that all larger tournaments played for money in every game are 1v1 games. Therefore, the highest levels of competition are determined by duels. End of story. There is no disputing this.

As far as it being just a military game, all settings are just military games. Civ4 focuses on military more than any other game before it. The fact that you don't realize this says a lot. Also, as far as axeman rushing goes, you should learn to read since that issue was one I complained about in original Civ4. It's amazing how you people give your opinions so readily without actually reading first. Axeman rushes aren't the craze they were anymore due to a number for factors, however, catapults still remain king, and while not grossly over powered, they are still too strong due to the complications caused by collateral damage and their overall base strength.

It's not about what you like, it's about what is considered acceptable forms of play at higher levels. You clearly are not a higher level player and you never were. I don't care if you're a casual player, really, I don't. Just don't try to tell me that your settings take skill and the better player wins. If you want to determine who is better (at least as much as you can in a game like Civ4 remember) then 1v1, no huts, Quick, Mirror Map, no barbarians, pick civ is the best determinate of this.

[Kuciwalker]

Your settings have far more luck factors than any other setting. That in itself makes it a non-competitive setting. It's not a matter of what interests you, it's a matter of what settings provide the most even playing field and it is that way in every game. I really don't care about your opinion and what you feel you can agree to disagree on. The fact is that all larger tournaments played for money in every game are 1v1 games. Therefore, the highest levels of competition are determined by duels. End of story. There is no disputing this.

The highest levels of competition aren't playing Civ. They're playing a tiny subset of the game.

[MRT144]

you seem to only be able to play by those rules and its psychologically damaging to try any other way.

[Kuciwalker]

It's not about what you like, it's about what is considered acceptable forms of play at higher levels. You clearly are not a higher level player and you never were. I don't care if you're a casual player, really, I don't. Just don't try to tell me that your settings take skill and the better player wins. If you want to determine who is better (at least as much as you can in a game like Civ4 remember) then 1v1, no huts, Quick, Mirror Map, no barbarians, pick civ is the best determinate of this.

That's not civ.

[MRT144]

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