|
Post by tommynt on Mar 8, 2006 13:50:19 GMT -5
the fun in civs lies behind that even a worse player wih a worse civ can beat the better player with the better civ - on some day
|
|
|
Post by lporiginalg on Mar 15, 2006 17:03:03 GMT -5
wow I just posted about this in the suggestion thread and then found this...what a long thread...game theory calling tommy a rank sleeper is classic heh.
After playing in the last ironman I feel 100% that people should be able to pick the same civs. I don't see how 8 ghandis is going to be more boring than 8 different civs and personaly I wanted to choose Elizabeth anyway. In fact although ghandi won the last ironman he was the third to even get picked, ban him? rediculous.
The timer needs to be blazing too.
And although I'm loath to suggest that chatting during ironman be completely banned there was many things said by many players in the last one (self included) which were arguably against cton rules so I think it's something that should be considered or at least taked more seriously, people should understand that to even joke about the game info or make ambiguous comments like 'you lucky dog' could result in a disqualify.
|
|
|
Post by eiffel on Mar 15, 2006 17:30:37 GMT -5
Why not random civ ? Already discussed ?
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Mar 15, 2006 18:25:56 GMT -5
imo land is big enoough random factor
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Mar 16, 2006 6:58:05 GMT -5
This has been discussed before and I agree, giving an already advantaged team, the ability to gain greater advantage is not in the spirit of the game IMO. Untill the issue with certain civs is resolved winning the Ironman is more about what clan you belong to and less about individual skill. It's still there but it's diluted by the choice of civ rule, that's an antiquated overspill from C3c. People seem to have a hard time letting go of them though for some reason. Also in practice giving people a choice of any civ seems to work better too for game balance and enjoyment purposes, but nm.
Just say no more than 3 Indian civs or chinese civs per game and let everyone chose what they want, way better IMO. No just get rid of the stupid I get to pick the best civ because of my clan rule. It makes sense when you can only pick that civ once but in the current game it's just antequated nonsense IMO. If you have 3 indians 3 chinese and 2 french, in the game then land is a much bigger factor. India is too damned good to give to one person alone, whilst the persons skill and position counts for alot too, why give one player a small but significant advantage from turn 1 if you don't have too? It's just ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Mar 16, 2006 19:35:53 GMT -5
I agree but I think the point some are trying to make is certain players if given first pick take an overpowering civ.
Of course land is a factor.
But skill is a factor so good player +1 Civs are a factor so good civ +1 Land is a factor so good land +1
So if you pick 6th and further down for an iron man you are starting behind the 8-ball so to speak because you have several "little" disadvantages to content with right off the bat.
Not sure what the solution would be, a similar problem we had in C3C with Sumeria often running away with ironman.
I would suggest either random civs (roll of the dice) or multiple players on same civ acceptable (ie Gandhi, China etc)
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Mar 18, 2006 8:20:21 GMT -5
I think the second option is the best. With a limit of 3 civs of the same, when you see choice of civ picks in Ancient ctons you might see a double up of civ but even that's rare, normally people will look at what sort of civs appear to be the majority picked and go with what they feel will best counter, at least down a the bottom of the picks. I really fail to see any problem with this, and it has worked remarkably well in practice, as it did for the CCC before lasts semi as I mentioned before, it works in practice and provides a more balanced game, few people disagree with it, it's a damn site fairer than the current system? Cons anyone?
|
|