BTS and the upcoming slavery nerf

[SlowwHand]

SP sucks.

[MJW]

In order for a game to be truely blanced the game makers have to take orders from the high-end MPs. If it is broken for them it is broken for everyone else. The only thing that cannot be copyed from them is the mirco and as I said before that does not count a lot in Civ4.

[snoopy369]

"High-end" MPs do not necessarily play the same exact game as other parts of the MP community. Not only do you have the split between duelists (who, like EoN, consider themselves the epitome of MP) and larger game players (who think the same) - and those are two entirely different games right there - but also you have the large number of players who, like in our Saturday Night games, prefer to play a more balanced building game that is a little closer to the SP game (but not too close).

It is necessary to balance the game for all playstyles, and ultimately if the choice is "balance the game for the majority of players" or "balance the game for a few hardcore players", the choice is easy for designers.

That said, why do you believe they don't listen to the high end MPs? Perhaps balancing the game is simply not as easy as you would believe (or as easy as the high-end MPs think)?

[EyesOfNight]

You can say that all you want, but the designers have said in interviews that they wanted to make the game more approachable to new players. That, and it makes logical sense... a more approachable game means more new players.

No game has ever had a problem of being too complex for new players to approach. I challenge you to show me a game that has suffered in tersm of sales because players found it too challenging and hard to learn. That is nothing more than a PR ploy to turn a lack of innovation and poor gameplay into a good thing designed to make life easier and bring new players to the game. It's simply not the case, and the amount of discontent with the game shows that.

EoN, modding is simply remaking Civ4 into what you want to play. If you mod the game into the Civ4 you want to play, others can also play it, multiplayer, with you... and I guarantee you that if you made a mod that was well made, balanced, and played MP better than the current game, many would play it with you.

I shouldn't have to remake the game into something I want to play. I didn't have to do that with Civ 1 or Civ 2. I will go back to my last point, you clearly don't understand MP if you are suggesting fixing poor gameplay with a mod. Mods are the ****ing death of MP if they have to be used to fix gameplay issues. Successful games work well out of the box and everyone plays the same game.

You aren't reading my posts very well, sir, not the other way around... I specifically described how the effect you want could be simply and effectively accomplished by adjusting certain elements of the military unit costs. By increasing the non-free unit costs astronomically, you would effectively make it impossible for players to have military units beyond their free unit capacity; which would allow you to have a "population-supported" military, rather than a gold supported military. When your units cost 20gp each beyond the free ones (or 200, or 2000) you're not going to have many beyond the freebies.

My final point was related to balance. If you tie losing a city to losing units, that means a player who is losing will just lose more - which is simply not good for game balance. You want players to have a chance to win the game, or they won't keep playing... and so if you tie losing one city to losing a dozen or more military units, in a game where most players have at most a dozen cities and usually fewer, a player who loses one city might as well give up then.

Sometimes - in fact, usually - game balance must trump all other considerations, or you do not end up with a fun game at the end. That is something any game designer must understand.

Your suggestions were idiotic and poorly thought out, much like Civ4 is. Again, you didn't read anything I said or you would realize I felt the current maintinence system is too stringent. Why the **** would I increase the maintinence system by taking away the freebie units? The whole point of using population is to free up the overbearing maintinence system while tying military units to growth. I really can't believe you suggested that. I'm half tempted to just stop writing now as I realize who I'm dealing with. As far as losing units...are you ****ing serious? Did you just ****ing say that it's not fair that a player that is already losing should lose more? Are you some sort of ****ing nancy? Get the **** out my topic you ****ing commie. If you're a loser you deserve to be a bigger ****ing loser as I steam roll your ass. It's a game, there are winners and there are losers and the losers deserve to be punished for their incompetence.

I don't care what your ranking is, and have never cared about such things. However, you need to understand your own biases and rationales. You say in this post "increasing the importance of buildings", yet you describe in the earlier post not increasing their importance, but increasing their military value. You talk about increasing the options and complexity of stacks, and do not understand that the difference between a RTS and a TBS is the focus on tactics in the former.

I'm sorry, how many years of high level RTS play do you have? How long have you been playing civ? Ok, shut the **** up *****. Increasing the military value of buildings and adding in stack restrictions has nothing to do with RTS. I told you that before and I'm not going to repeat myself again.

In an RTS, you control a large army on a single battlefield. The "strategy" in an RTS is in the decisions made in building up the army (and it is certainly important); but ultimately the combat in an RTS is primarily about tactics. This is why i'm not particularly good at RTS (although I enjoy them quite a lot, I would never be competitive in them). I am not good at the tactical portion of the game, but excel at the strategic aspects. Hence why I am much better at TBS games than at RTS. Tactical decisions are much less valuable in a TBS. Most combats are decided from the outset - either the diplomacy leading to the war (leading to an imbalance of power) or the civ-building leads to a larger, more developed, or better equipped army on one side or another. I would say that over 90% of combats i've been in were decided from the outset, one way or the other. The only battle I've been in lately that was decided by tactics was three weeks ago, when I got MD's stack to chase me into his western city, and then stranded them there and headed with my faster stack east..

Wow, I can't believe you just said that. I mean I know you're trying really hard and all, but that was just ridiculous. First of all, RTS's aren't about controling large armies on a single battlefield. This alone shows your total lack of knowledge of RTS gameplay. You talk about tactics, but can you even name the strategies and tactics in an RTS? I'm really not sure you can. In fact, I'm not sure you can even distinguish the two in Civ4 which is why you are making these ridiculous assertions that my suggestions would turn Civ4 into too much of an RTS. I don't think you're good at either TBS or RTS based on what I've read here.

Most combats are decided from the outset - either the diplomacy leading to the war (leading to an imbalance of power) or the civ-building leads to a larger, more developed, or better equipped army on one side or another. I would say that over 90% of combats i've been in were decided from the outset, one way or the other. The only battle I've been in lately that was decided by tactics was three weeks ago, when I got MD's stack to chase me into his western city, and then stranded them there and headed with my faster stack east..

Sorry, but I can only tolerate so much. My jaw literally dropped on this one and I started laughing. Seriously, go back to the On topic forum with the rest of the newbies. You are the reason Civ4 turned out the way it is. Congratu****inglations my friend, you are the proverbial SP newbie that Firaxis dumbed the game down for. Nice ****ing job, you and your ilk ruined a classic.

[SlowwHand]

A nancy?

[MJW]

Originally posted by snoopy369
"High-end" MPs do not necessarily play the same exact game as other parts of the MP community. Not only do you have the split between duelists (who, like EoN, consider themselves the epitome of MP) and larger game players (who think the same) - and those are two entirely different games right there - but also you have the large number of players who, like in our Saturday Night games, prefer to play a more balanced building game that is a little closer to the SP game (but not too close).

It is necessary to balance the game for all playstyles, and ultimately if the choice is "balance the game for the majority of players" or "balance the game for a few hardcore players", the choice is easy for designers.

That said, why do you believe they don't listen to the high end MPs? Perhaps balancing the game is simply not as easy as you would believe (or as easy as the high-end MPs think)?

Anyone who spends anytime online while have to adopt the high-end ideas or die. Any causual player who is willing to do reasearch (and that is nearly all of them who play seriously.) Sure their micro will not be as good but that does not matter much in Civ4. So everyone has to do it or die. There is plenty of ideas that come to mind that came from 1v1 that imblanced mass group MP. Super slavery comes to mind.

So if a game has no "tricks", mirco does not count much and is simple to control-- if it is imbalanced for the top players then it is imbalanced for everyone. 1v1 duel are imbalanced in the wrong way because they stalemate. Mass party fights are imbalanced in the right way. There is still much fun to be had. However, in those games diplomacy becomes so important that it dominates.

[SlowwHand]

We don't need no stinking diplomacy!

[EyesOfNight]

You're wasting your time MJW. The guy is clearly lower level and inexperienced in both TBS and RTS.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight


No game has ever had a problem of being too complex for new players to approach. I challenge you to show me a game that has suffered in tersm of sales because players found it too challenging and hard to learn. That is nothing more than a PR ploy to turn a lack of innovation and poor gameplay into a good thing designed to make life easier and bring new players to the game. It's simply not the case, and the amount of discontent with the game shows that.

Axis and Allies.

I shouldn't have to remake the game into something I want to play. I didn't have to do that with Civ 1 or Civ 2. I will go back to my last point, you clearly don't understand MP if you are suggesting fixing poor gameplay with a mod. Mods are the ****ing death of MP if they have to be used to fix gameplay issues. Successful games work well out of the box and everyone plays the same game.

You don't like Civ4, then I'm sorry. Either remake it to your specificities, or make suggestions for how it can be improved; but plenty of people DO like Civ4, so it's not exactly a bust. That's why it was made to be modifiable; and hundreds of people do just that. Plenty of people like the gameplay, and happily play the game; so I would argue it's not poor gameplay, but gameplay that is not consistent with your desires.

Your suggestions were idiotic and poorly thought out, much like Civ4 is. Again, you didn't read anything I said or you would realize I felt the current maintinence system is too stringent. Why the **** would I increase the maintinence system by taking away the freebie units? The whole point of using population is to free up the overbearing maintinence system while tying military units to growth. I really can't believe you suggested that. I'm half tempted to just stop writing now as I realize who I'm dealing with. As far as losing units...are you ****ing serious? Did you just ****ing say that it's not fair that a player that is already losing should lose more? Are you some sort of ****ing nancy? Get the **** out my topic you ****ing commie. If you're a loser you deserve to be a bigger ****ing loser as I steam roll your ass. It's a game, there are winners and there are losers and the losers deserve to be punished for their incompetence.

You didn't even read my post, and make it clear by your argument. I don't suggest taking away the freebie units. I suggest using them as your "population support" and making it prohibitive to have any units that aren't freebie units.

I did not at any point suggest it is not fair to lose units. I said it is not good for game balance. Making a game that is still winnable after suffering some losses is important in a long view game like Civ4. If losing one city cripples you and ensures you cannot win, then the game is not well balanced, and is not a good game. Do you want players just quitting the game as soon as they lose one city?

I'm sorry, how many years of high level RTS play do you have? How long have you been playing civ? Ok, shut the **** up *****. Increasing the military value of buildings and adding in stack restrictions has nothing to do with RTS. I told you that before and I'm not going to repeat myself again.

I've been playing RTS since the early 1990s, and Civ since 1992. I have no concerns over my understanding of the difference between RTS and TBS, and suggest perhaps that you should address my arguments rather than my qualifications. Disputing an opponent's qualifications is a standard debating tactic for one who is aware he is unable to win the argument otherwise, and a quite poor one.

Wow, I can't believe you just said that. I mean I know you're trying really hard and all, but that was just ridiculous. First of all, RTS's aren't about controling large armies on a single battlefield. This alone shows your total lack of knowledge of RTS gameplay. You talk about tactics, but can you even name the strategies and tactics in an RTS? I'm really not sure you can. In fact, I'm not sure you can even distinguish the two in Civ4 which is why you are making these ridiculous assertions that my suggestions would turn Civ4 into too much of an RTS. I don't think you're good at either TBS or RTS based on what I've read here.

Do you know what the difference between tactics and strategy is? Tactics is the movements of the elements of an army on the battlefield; strategy is the longer term plan. Advancing your cavalry in an attempt to flank an opponent's army is tactics; choosing to invade France through Belgium instead of through the French border is strategy.

In an RTS, strategy is building your army, choosing the upgrades you will go for, and what specific units will become a part of your army; and then choosing when and where to invade your opponent. Tactics is invading your opponent, and using your units to attack your opponent in specific manners.

In a TBS, strategy is building your empire, choosing to build military units, buildings, cities, great people, etc.; choosing who to trade with; choosing what tech to research, and how much to focus on research versus gold (units/rushing/city maintenance); choosing what military units to build; and choosing who to ally with versus who to attack. Tactics is taking your army on a particular route and choosing to attack first with catapults and later with axemen.

The RTS player clearly needs a greater handle over tactics, than the TBS player does; while a TBS player clearly needs a greater understanding of strategy.

I'll leave the rest of that alone. Comments like that are childish and inappropriate.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by MJW


Anyone who spends anytime online while have to adopt the high-end ideas or die. Any causual player who is willing to do reasearch (and that is nearly all of them who play seriously.) Sure their micro will not be as good but that does not matter much in Civ4. So everyone has to do it or die. There is plenty of ideas that come to mind that came from 1v1 that imblanced mass group MP. Super slavery comes to mind.

So if a game has no "tricks", mirco does not count much and is simple to control-- if it is imbalanced for the top players then it is imbalanced for everyone. 1v1 duel are imbalanced in the wrong way because they stalemate. Mass party fights are imbalanced in the right way. There is still much fun to be had. However, in those games diplomacy becomes so important that it dominates.

You can play Civ4 in many different ways, and that is the beauty of the game. I am aware of how the high end players play, having played with several of the top players (not in ranking necessarily, but in reputation), and although they have many things in common, even they don't all play the same precise style.

That said, I don't disagree that imbalances (like slavery) aren't present, and the major ones are just as obvious from the "high" players as from anyone else. I mostly object to suggesting that high players are any more aware than the rest of "us" of these balance issues. You don't have to be an amazing player to know that cats and slavery are both pretty strong

[EyesOfNight]

I got into reading your post and I simply couldn't read further. You're that guy I always envisioned when I thought of why Civ4 turned out the way it did. Oh well. Go back to on-topic so I get back to some of the more amusing posts in this thread. Seeing you on here is just depressing and just further drives home the reality that the days of great computer games are gone. I feel like I need to drown myself in alcohol, and I don't even drink.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'll buy the first round.

[MJW]

That said, I don't disagree that imbalances (like slavery) aren't present, and the major ones are just as obvious from the "high" players as from anyone else. I mostly object to suggesting that high players are any more aware than the rest of "us" of these balance issues. You don't have to be an amazing player to know that cats and slavery are both pretty strong. -- The end of his qoute EyesOfNight

Thanks for clearing that up. The imbalances really do not do much harm to casual gameplay. The other style of gameplay however...

[snoopy369]

Actually I would disagree there too (I'm being disagreeable today apparently...) Games like Rah's saturday game are affected as well. When I started playing the game, it instantly was forced into a more aggressive game, not because of my natural aggressiveness (I am half builder, half warlord) but because I built large stacks of catapults that, playing against people who mostly built traditional combined arms stacks, gave me a huge advantage for several games. If cats weren't imbalanced, the game would probably be a very different game today...

I think the common mistake is to assume casual gamers don't know about the imbalancing effects. Many do, but often it is chosen to not use them (e.g. using double moves). Also, in some instances I suspect the imbalances can lead to a more balanced game, as better players try to avoid them in order to have a more interesting game...

[SlowwHand]

They're not imbalanced. They were devestating in real life, with no defense.
I'm not trying to tag team you or anything, I'm just saying, in Civ 2 they were pretty accurate.