|
Post by SirPartyMan on Jan 24, 2006 14:31:44 GMT -5
Some people have been claiming that Ghandi is too over-powered a Civilization for the Ironman. Others feel Qin is stronger.
Right now the Ironman is not a short game, but an epic played to final victory conditions. We allow the players to pick Civs according to Rank on Friday and according to standings on Saturday.
Should we ban Ghandi as a selection or not?
Your opinion and comments are appreciated.
Best, SPM
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 24, 2006 15:48:56 GMT -5
No I don't think Gandhi should be banned, but having played that game I do think we should pick any civ we like and it should be FFA as in any epic.
Not sure which player in the staging room told me but in their semi they had choice of civ pick. And it worked very well.
Tommy insisted on Gandhi being his and his alone, and then another got China second, the others we're relegated to inferior civs and yes with skilled play you can overcome their advantages: no one is arguing that, but it's wrong to give players an edge before the game starts.
We now have the option we didn't have in c3c - and for which the rule was invented - to have multiple China's or Indias in the same game, not everyone will pick China and India and the semi proved that, some people have different strategies in mind other than the mindless builder style that was inherent with the patch, dagger or choke style for example.
In summation: I say picking civs should be left open and perhaps controversially that any epic type game should be FFA.
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Jan 24, 2006 16:25:45 GMT -5
Even though i havent played in a while, i fully agree with Sidhe... Why can't we use multiple same civs? If 3 people wanna be india, why not?
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Jan 24, 2006 17:19:10 GMT -5
Even though i havent played in a while, i fully agree with Sidhe... Why can't we use multiple same civs? If 3 people wanna be india, why not? Well my gut response to that, is that that would then make doing well in the CCC meaningless, it's a reward for the clans that finished ahead to be able to pick what they think are the best leaders/civ's. Not to mention that if everyone in the ironman picked Ghandi then all that does is create a defacto vanilla scenario, which isn't really what we want in most cases. But I agree that what this poll such really have been about is the issue of multiple identical leaders, that is a legitimate decision that the ladder as a whole can take part in. CS
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jan 24, 2006 19:35:51 GMT -5
as multiple same leaders not allowed in other evetns they shoukd not be allowedin ironman aswell
and I really think its good that way
if gandhi is banned quin might be too powerful and cruise won last time with england (most powerful civ with having stone or marble imo)
|
|
|
Post by mrgametheory on Jan 24, 2006 20:09:12 GMT -5
I will not be playing in a tournament where 1 player is allowed to pick a character and another isnt. I wrote an essay on this under the Cheating/Problems/Solutions thread and I suggest you read that part. Have fun in your tournament, which might I add isnt really a tournament because tournaments prove skill and with this rule it isnt a direct show of skill and ultimatly a waste of time that proves nothing in the end. Your not supposed to give the advantage to the best players, its an illogical rule. Enjoy your game and when you guys understand how to create fair and balanced tournaments I will join. And Tommy, you said the player wins the game, not the Leader, than why dont you enter the tournament without Qin or Ghandi.........
Enjoy your game people.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Jan 25, 2006 0:20:48 GMT -5
I don't think Gandhi is too powerful; it's simply a comparative choice. Tommy is an excellent player and he utilized the unit well. On the other hand, if someone had played Elizabeth and built an abundance of workers, Tommy would have rued the day the Redcoats arrived. They didn't; he didn't. It's just one more advantage you can choose to take or not.
I'm still waiting for another civ to "get noticed" myself.
Regarding multiple choices of the same leader: this was included in CIV for a reason - it was intended to be allowed. There's nothing wrong with two players choosing Gandhi, and a clan that already has an advantage in points shouldn't enjoy a FURTHER advantage beyond that which they're already enjoying. WHY do the leading clans need a further advantage? Aren't they already demonstrating dominance?
If the Epic is truly a measure of player skill, all players who wish to demonstrate mastery of a particular leader should be entitled to do so. Just because something isn't done in any other event - which is certainly something that could also be discussed - doesn't mean it can't be done here. We only have one event in the future, one in medieval, and one in renaissance; but that doesn't mean we should stop doing them. Each event is different - and so should this one be.
Let them choose who they like; if a player's skill is penultimate, then it won't matter if there is another, inferior Gandhi, or Elizabeth, or Huanya Capac, or Washington, or Qin, or Frederick.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 25, 2006 0:30:31 GMT -5
Although Gametheory is being quite provocative, not something I'd consider doing, I'm far to layed back for that he does have a point; Tommy will get India next Ironman, have an early edge and china and India will dominate early game most likely. OK tommy why not? Let's see you play without Quin or Ghandi, silence your critics and show them you can win without an edge, how's that for a challenge ;D Edit: Let them choose who they like; if a player's skill is penultimate, then it won't matter if there is another, inferior Gandhi, or Elizabeth, or Huanya Capac, or Washington, or Qin, or Frederick. Nice show of humility Fried I don't think your inferior
|
|
|
Post by donaldkipper on Jan 25, 2006 6:44:12 GMT -5
i would allow duplicates
or reverse the current selection order - why do we always give the most successful/best the advantage
regarding duplicates, i think its more interesting in team games to allow duplicates and see how teams structure themselves
one key problem with the ironman(imho) is the Hub map - it kinda prevents war for a long time and really dumbs down and kind of border battles
i imagine wheel or ring might be better
a better poll might be 'should ghandi and qin be banned?'
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Jan 25, 2006 7:32:42 GMT -5
I've always been a big fan of Wheel for FFA games. ::Shrug:: People sneer at the map for a lot of reasons, but triple-access routes and inner-outer naval lanes make for a lot of interesting dynamics on the land-sea front.
|
|
|
Post by GERMANIA on Jan 25, 2006 9:04:48 GMT -5
I don't think Gandhi is too powerful; Well Gandhi is for sure over powered if you get fast some workers out and have enough forest to chop! Why, well they have the only worker you can move in a forest if it is next of the worker and start chopping that means you have after 10t after the first worker, 3 workers and if you have that you can jump on a hill and mine it again with out waiting a turn. you also can get faster to forest outside your border and can chop wonders, buildings ore settlers.. at this way no civ can hold with them and about england with stone and marble, you don't wane see Indian with them both you can concede if he has them. you will have no chance if he has enough forest around. and what you wane do if he has all early wonders, heh .. he will join his leaders in cap and will change his government to rep and then he will out techs all so easy.. and then it doesnt care more he isnt philo ore fin... well ofcource others civs can do that no question but non so fast as Gandhi ...
|
|
|
Post by Random on Jan 25, 2006 9:33:16 GMT -5
I will not be playing in a tournament where 1 player is allowed to pick a character and another isnt. I wrote an essay on this under the Cheating/Problems/Solutions thread and I suggest you read that part. Have fun in your tournament, which might I add isnt really a tournament because tournaments prove skill and with this rule it isnt a direct show of skill and ultimatly a waste of time that proves nothing in the end. Your not supposed to give the advantage to the best players, its an illogical rule. Enjoy your game and when you guys understand how to create fair and balanced tournaments I will join. And Tommy, you said the player wins the game, not the Leader, than why dont you enter the tournament without Qin or Ghandi......... Enjoy your game people. As much as I hate to do so I agree with that blurb. Also think that all should be able to select civ of thier own choice, even if someone else has the selected civ. The programmers worked hard to improve the game and with many of these last few posts I see a lot of reverse engineering. And see a lot of new ladder wimpy suggestions. No barbs, razing cities, 2 city, we are on our way to Sim City, and rewarding the building. My favorite CIV is Cathy, and setting are Wheel, raging barbs, small 10 players and no city razing. I used to play plenty of these games but now to many cry and moan. And some even claim that those are not ladder settings... WTF are we all becoming lesser players with more to pick from. The only thing I can see all agreeing on is the fact that chopping in the ways used by many in the ladder is not realistic. Any real life civ that chopped every living tree in the nation soon died out or migrated. As it is now there is no penalty for doing something that is and and should not be beneficial to your civ. With the onset of this very over powered, and under countered strategy, I have pretty much retired. It really is not fun for me to see the winner is a guy who in reality killed his civilization. This is a strategy that can not be countered IMHO as some areas do not have any trees, and some only jungle which give no free shields. This is one thing we as a ladder should be concerned with, not all the this civ is better than that one and suggesting no barbs, and my last complaint is turning off AI take over. It was put in the game to prevent the giving a civ the free land in the event a player could not continue the game. Yes I know the AI is not very competent, and slows interupt games, but I would rather have all that than give other players half way accross the map a whole section of free improved land. Come on guys think a few minutes and do not just respond out of your early end game anger. Just Blu's 3 cents of the day...
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 25, 2006 10:35:00 GMT -5
here here. I agree to all of that, No city raising is a more skilled game basically, especially since the advent of the patch, slowly but surely players are coming round to it, but there's a lot of people who like mindlessly popping out workers and settlers and expanding beyond all reason, knowing early attacks are damaging to your score in city raising, and then consolidating there huge points tally by building a few superior teched units at the end.
And all those settings are exactly how I would play. Apart from I'm often forced to play ancients(which I liked alot better before the patch) which I prefer to play on an inland sea map with low seas, so players can still get at one another, but the land is a bit a better than on average.
I had a sneak peak at the Release notes for the next patch. Not a cert mind so don't quote me on this, but the 25% build costs are gone and chopping for settlers and workers is now worth half the shields(hope these are included in final release).
If anybody asks you aint seen me right?
Nerfed the builder, good job Firaxis ;D
|
|
|
Post by Random on Jan 25, 2006 10:43:12 GMT -5
IMHO I want chopping totally nerfed and if not make it effect the lives and the quality of life of the citizens. Until that happens I will TD many events play very few, and continue building my ShortBusBlu warrior gnome on WoW. I know there are problems there but so far they are easier to live with.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jan 25, 2006 12:09:44 GMT -5
i suggested often enough to make choping less powerful - but ... after 50 turns into ironman i doubt that there was a single tree left on my hub
|
|
|
Post by mrgametheory on Jan 25, 2006 12:16:59 GMT -5
Listen people, You need to understand this game a little more before you make comments on it. Let me break it down for you. Currently players on Ladder have subliminally left an impression on themselves on how to play this game. They believe that certain settings in this game should be in every ladder match. Gandhi is the product of a static environment, just as in any game there will ultimately be a better player/character/leader in a specific static environment, change is what affects the game and I highly suggest people doing it. Every Ladder Game I play I see the Same 5 Maps and the same climate. Instead of playing every single game on temperate, which every single game is played on, why don't you use one of the other climate choices. Certain characters are dependent on certain permanent resources, horse, iron/copper, etc. Gandhi is the only character that is dependent on a non-renewable resource (For his slight short term advantage). Playing every game on temperate is like playing every single game with horses or iron inside your capital. You guys put this on yourselves. Instead of going and just changing this entire game, why don't you people understand it and the people that play it a little more. Promote diversity in settings and don't change an already balanced game in the grand scheme of things because a group of people who play this game online in a ladder league have imposed certain settings restrictions on themselves. The climate changes were created for a reason people and not just created to give temperate a group of Friends to hang out with when you are not playing the game. People think that different climates are not fun, but In reality, if you people actually shut up for a second and thought about what I am saying you will find the solution to all your problems with specific leaders.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 25, 2006 13:07:57 GMT -5
I would imagine If I changed it to cold I'd end up in a tundra and if I changed it to warm I'd get more desert than I get now, Saudi Arabia basically, but he has a point. Sorry to divert attention away from the topic but I didn't want to start a new thread for something that can be answered simply; In the second patch did the programmers make it so that resources rarely if ever appear within your caps borders? Or that they generally appear 3/4 squares away or further, or am I just incredibly unlucky. Cause 19/22 with no resource within the city perimeter of 3 culture expansions let's say for those who can't get religion seems the norm? I know it's a bit of a diversion but I'm asking because I find this very odd? I know I can hook a resource by careful placement of a second city but missing out on early resources when other people seem to have them is very frustrating. I had a game again to day the nearest resource was iron 5 squares from cap and horses(I was Persia) where about 14 squares away, not even any elephants. I quit the game in disgust after 3 archers lost to a skirmisher unpromoted, and earlier 2 warriors lost to one causing me to lose my worker. When you get nothing to work with and use all your defensive units to attack a unit to ensure you don't lose a second worker it's time to say, nah not my day(was dead anyway cap empty. Wouldn't of taken the risk normally but I was in a position where I had to take risks, it didn't pan out and I'm dead pretty much? nuts happens, does it have to happen quite so often though? Sorry I digress
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jan 25, 2006 13:52:25 GMT -5
oh well and this are stats of this great player: 174 ..A..MrGameTheory 13-7 6-6 13-7 1594 65.000% +1 0.1
who have still not reported losses of a ccc game
some permanent mute bottom d really be great to have in forums
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Jan 25, 2006 15:01:41 GMT -5
CIV gives us many choices - to me that's part of the fun.
Some choices are controversial and debatable, for example NO CITY RAZING. Personally, I think checking it is the superior choice because it introduces all kinds of strategic possibilities. However, I know others who like to see the cities razed. Neither position is morally or intellectually superior. It's a preference. Hosts and players deal with these issues every game.
Some choices are just plain bad, because of bugs. Example - No Cheating.
Some choices are justifiable perhaps, but generally unappetizing to most players. I think cold climate is one example. Why play for 4 hours on a map that presents extreme challenges like that, limiting growth substantially. I think that's why the "Arctic" map isn't popular.
Anyway - I won't try to convince anyone here that one set of choices is best. I host games and play in those others host - and I've noticed a wide variety of different choices. If you notice, the CCC had a wide variety of maps and settings - generally reflecting the choices people make in games.
The best players are more than "one trick ponies" - they can play on multiple maps, with different civs, and selections.
Another thing I've noticed over years of involvement with MP CIV is that the best most honorable players don't need to be arrogant, bragadocious, and treat everyone else as intellectual inferiors. We have a large number of very smart people playing this game, if you haven't noticed. When people start out a post, with something like "You are all idiots, let me explain the game to you," is it any wonder that people tune them out. One thing we try to foster here in our ladder is mutual respect - which is always a two way street.
Best, SPM
|
|
|
Post by mrgametheory on Jan 25, 2006 15:21:24 GMT -5
As I recall Tommy I have beaten you every single time we have had a fair 1v1 game, or do you not have a good memory? Only reason why I lost to you on CCC is because Lord dragon got booted from the game and there was no body on your side of the map to balance you out while I was being attacked by my Southern enemy and to Top it off I wasn't allowed to pick the same leader as you. Rank means absolutely nothing in this game, people have high rank because they play the game more than others and are online when A Higher Ranked person is on. I have been to Rank 3 before and Was over it. Every single person who has reached rank 1 on the ladder that has chosen to play me a 1v1 has lost, including you, so I suggest you slow your role a little. And in regard to the Losses of CCC, I already reported that I will report the losses after the Admins have made their decision on the matter in regards to sidhe. Tommy no offense but your a rank hor who only play the same 5 people. How about this, you actually beat me in a 1v1 game, Epic 1v1 or Standard ladder 1v1 and I wont spam the board anymore with insightful information. Ill even offer to play you a standard Epic game with 6 other people, but I am allowed to pick who I want and your not allowed to have an initial leader advantage over me.
|
|