|
Post by Elledge on Mar 12, 2006 5:44:34 GMT -5
Hiya guys! Quiet around these forums Particularly quiet around the "Epic Games" forum, where there have been all of 5 posts this year, to my great disappointment. I really don't have a lot of love for ctons and squish-map city-elim teamers, which is all I see regularly in the lobby from ladder players...but it's literally been months since I had any challenge at all from playing pangaea/continents/arch/islands etc. games with random pickups (and singleplayer is so boring!) I'd be thrilled to find some serious competition in the arena of larger, longer gametypes. Is there some sort of secret cabal of ladder players playing these games that I keep missing? Or if not, anyone want to start one? Or are all you guys burnt out / waiting for patch / just not into it?
|
|
|
Post by Atomation on Mar 12, 2006 12:41:09 GMT -5
The problem with epic speed games is they generally need to be saved and picked up at later times - which is fine for many of us, but the players in the multiplayer community and ladder especially just don't like to save games and restart them later. I'd recommend you try the civfanatics forums or apolyton forums for games with slower speeds, or try the play by email setting, which is really great for this!
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Mar 12, 2006 13:23:58 GMT -5
You will find many epics within the clan setting. I know several clans have epic players. Therefore several clans host epics say "Tuesday nights epics" Where 6-8 members may meet for 4-5 hours. Save game and reload the following week.
To make it short, look around the clans and see which may be suited for your style of play.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Mar 12, 2006 14:56:04 GMT -5
it s extremly hard to do such long games with unknown or even known but not from your clan.
Even with clanplayers, interest after 1. session might suddenly be gone for 1 player, which kinda screws game
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Mar 12, 2006 15:08:09 GMT -5
Very true but if you respect your clannies you come back for sessions 2-3-4 even if you got no chance of winning And they in kind shall return the favor when you get the upper hand. I was always impressed in civ3 watching some of the "open" players. Some will not quit until their whole civ is gone. I respect those and you can be sure I will return the favor when they have the upper hand
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Mar 12, 2006 16:50:13 GMT -5
Yes I'm a big Epic player but since the ladder population in gerneral is still maturing, having players return the following week did become problematic for me. But perhaps next sunday I'll start up a Epic now that I have some more time.
CS
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Mar 12, 2006 17:51:53 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind changing it up a little from the quick bashers to playing an epic once or even twice a week. Giving my opponent a slow suffering death sounds so much more entertaining then putting them out of their misery quick.
I have a few questions regarding epics:
1. I was wondering if you start an epic and can't make it for one session for whatever reason, can you just substitute the ai in for that session and the player just live with the decisions the computer makes and then return for the next session? Let say the session begins and 8:00 and a player hasn't shown up yet. Do you just start the game with the ai after allowing maybe an extra 10 minutes(which is the standard time you give someone to return to a game in ladder) then start with ai in control and then he can join later that session or the next if he can't make it at all that day.
2. Another question is about how many hours does it take to complete an epic from ancient to modern era? And how long is the average session per day?
3. Land quality seems so much more important in an epic then a 130 turn game. What maps do you play to help ensure land equality?
4. Is 512 enough memory to play an epic game?
I'm available from 9:00pm to 1:00am(possible a little later)central time Mon-Fri. I think that is 3:00pm to 7:00pm GMT. I can play on the weekends too.
If someone is starting one in my time limits e-mail me. Ladder name Necrominous, my email can be found there
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Mar 12, 2006 21:42:57 GMT -5
1. Ai cheats - in ironman for example ai outpowered me after having taken over 20 t ago - before that i had triple power of the player
2. it depends on game speed and timer speed and lag
on fast speed i d say i go to space in about 10 - 12 hours usually on normal maybe in 15 hours
3. yes it is - but the mapgen isnt that bad imo - i never started game with unplayable land - this ironman for example i saw 5 desert and 4 lake tiles in my cap - but second city had 1 floodplain and some grass so all was fine - oh well and if u dont like your land u have to conquer some1 else
4. hm maybe others wont be too happy .. but it should be playable
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Mar 12, 2006 22:18:18 GMT -5
In the few epics I played we had everyones email or used a thread. If someone couldn't make the "normal" time we either.....
1-found a sub
2-Wait until a time when convenient for all
Now with civ 4 being 10-15 hour epics it should be even easier to finish them. At 4 hours once a week the game should be over in 4 weeks...6-7weeks tops even if a few cancellation dates.
In civ3 35 hour epics we would go for months then often not finish.
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Mar 13, 2006 0:41:05 GMT -5
Posted by tommynt Yesterday at 9:42pm 1. Ai cheats - in ironman for example ai outpowered me after having taken over 20 t ago - before that i had triple power of the player
It States in the manual that "On Noble difficulty the ai plays under the same conditions as the human player".
If you got over powered by a computer player on noble difficulty I'd keep that your little secret.
The ai has certain rules it must follow and probably went into 100% unit production as soon as it took over. If a player laid down good infrastructure before he left the ai could become formidable but I don't see how it would over run you unless you didn't respect the ai and figured it wouldn't attack you.
I have never noticed the computer on noble difficulty having any added advantage. To me it would be a major disadvantage to have the ai takeover for a session or any amount of time and any player would want to avoid it at all cost if possible.
|
|
|
Post by lorddragon on Mar 13, 2006 3:31:38 GMT -5
No, the AI does seem to cheat a bit on noble. Often seems to have multiple archers faster than it should, I see it fairly often when invading someone and they leave.
I disagree about map generation though. For instance in the Ironman a couple of peoples starting positions were truly awful (mine was not great at all, but a lot better than a couple peoples).
Personally I think many maps, particularly hub and wheel/ring need to tone down the desert generation. I have seen instances where peoples land was half desert. It should be 1 square in 10 on the hubs, at most. It hurts more on maps like that because there is no easy way to expand out of the desert early on.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Mar 13, 2006 7:04:33 GMT -5
I neither say that it overrun me nor that it s better as a decent human player - but it cheats a lil bit on getting units - I think it can get some units in every city faster as it should .
and about hub map - hubs arent even - land is never even if not played on mirror map - but personally i havent sufferd to half desert and havent seen it for others aswell. But its just best map for epics - maybe beside islands - on a map like pang it s all about luck to have either warlike neighbour or some peaceful one - oh well with low sealevel u can even go to others land by triemers fast - if u wana have war
I personally prefer maps without early war a lot - thats just epic imo
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Mar 13, 2006 7:23:23 GMT -5
And in the iron man there where 2-3 AI's used as subs. These computer players trade and work together which may be a serious issue if you got off to a poor start.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Mar 13, 2006 9:16:32 GMT -5
The problem with epics in C3C has always been that one player has a poor start location and/or lacks resources. This player soon sees that his situation is hopeless and he doesn't want to invest the time in a hopeless cause. If he quits it usally kills the epic as his departure leaves a large void on the map which will greatly benefit his neighbor. I would expect the same with CIV4.
One solution is to have someone from outside of the game make a map with "fair" start locations.
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Mar 14, 2006 0:12:56 GMT -5
In CIV I would say that a player or two quitting wouldn't be as big a deal as in c3c with the ai able to take over and not leaving an empty space. If you started out with 8 and 2 bad starts quit there would still be a good game for the remaining players. The ai taking over would be ok compared to an empty space left behind. The human player neighboring would still have something to deal with and not be able to expand unfettered.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Mar 14, 2006 8:16:42 GMT -5
Yes but on all war setting the AI's start to trade techs and luxuries while you do not. Since this is a game where you have at most 10-12 cities, three civs can quickly out tech you. Not ot mention the slight bonus each civs gets for unit production, nor the fact that they all show up at the same time to pounce on ya
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Mar 14, 2006 8:21:24 GMT -5
Realistically I can't see a decent human player falling to a combined AI force ganging up on him. Noble AI is pretty stupid, and it's really terrible at war in particular (attacking with worthless odds, etc.)
Honestly I think multiplayer games gain a little in fun factor from AI involvement; manipulating the AI to your benefit adds one more layer of strategy to the game. It can certainly tip one way or the other balance-wise, though.
Thanks for the advice to look for clan games and think about joining a clan that plays this stuff. I may do just that shortly.
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Mar 14, 2006 11:26:08 GMT -5
I thought epics were FFA. And even if the ai formed a triple alliance all human players would have to deal with the same random chance of that happening. And if the people with the bad starts quit the ai wouldn't be a threat at all.
A person can also manipulate an ai to work for him. I think a few ai in there cold actually spice it up adding another dimension to it.
Edit: After re-rereading everything I notice I did some parroting. Ditto, What he said.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Mar 14, 2006 12:35:21 GMT -5
No the Ironman was a cton liek affair, no diplomacy within players. A rule which the AI's ignores.
Realistically it can happen to lose to the AI's. A human player and I were fighting all game, both of us where weak because of it, the AI mace men and knights show up on my other flank which is very lightly guarded because I invested much of my units on boat drops elsewhere. Nest thing you know I am practically dead, from 3-4th place to last in a matter of seconds. Why? Because 2-3 players chose to leave and let the AI's take over for them.
Now at home on SP noble, I would not get run over but sometimes in MP you never know what position you may find yourself in. You can be way ahead of everyone in techs and production or you can lag behind because of rushers, or bad judgments made early. I screwed up early as did some of my neighbors. The comps where able to help each other out of a hole while we were left to attempt to climb out on our own.
Now I lost but I ask. Would it be fair to have 2-3 players quit and be replaced by AI's. What if the AI's find a way to combine their efforts and kill the leader in the iron man? Should the leader who invested 8 hours playing well be penalized and come to lose to 2-3 AI's.
I think it would be best to leave a hole in the map and not allow AI subbing.
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Mar 14, 2006 22:06:43 GMT -5
Seems we are talking apples and oranges here. I thought this thread was pertaining to organized epic games that would be played FFA, not Ironman competition.
It's kinda hard to get a feel for what an epic games would be and get a consensus on how it would be played when people go off on a tangent. Or maybe it does give me an idea of how it would be, a lot of confusion with an unfinished game as the conclusion after much frustration.
|
|