|
Post by drixnak on Dec 11, 2006 13:13:50 GMT -5
Some of you might remember me as EyesOfNight, I played for a month when the game first came out and quickly gave up on it due to all the problems. On a random whim I decided to check the rankings and saw Ktulu playing. Is this the real Ktulu? Is NoD alive again? I see Yilar is still here.
My next question is, is this game worth playing again? I accept the fact that this game can never be played in a competitive manner due to all the problems. i.e. Civ imbalances, really poor resource system, incredibly low ceiling on the game that restricts all possibility of a sizeable lead, etc. Canucksoldier told me in the first week I wouldn't be able to dominate like I did in Civ2. I thought he meant it was because of all the good players, but I quickly learned it was because of the game mechanics. So, is this game good to play just for fun, or do all the problems outweigh the fun factor? I kind of liked the team games in this game if it weren't for the stupid resource system and some of the interface. I also see the catapult problem is still there and it amazes me things like this haven't been fixed...then again looking at who runs the community and works on the game balance and patching I'm not really surprised.
Let me know what your thoughts are on this from a purely casual gaming perspective. I have no intention of going through the nightmare again of trying to make this a competitive game because it's not and I think the game industry as a whole is moving towards that. Age of Empires 3 was a total fiasco in the same respect when it comes to skill caps and equalizing factors in the game and removing possibilities. Oh well, just a sign of the times I guess. I would love to hear from some of the people I used to play with.
EyesOfNight
|
|
|
Post by willburn on Dec 11, 2006 13:31:44 GMT -5
Disagree with you on civ4 disagree with you on aoe3. Any real time strategy game has element of quick thinking and therefore competitiveness. Aoe3 has plenty of micro. Civ4 has some elements of luck i agree. I find the later eras offer the most options for playing better than the others, but any era will just that it will be more in the likes of very small improvements instead of big steps like in the later eras. F.ex by not moving 2 tiles but moving 1 tile and prebuilding road 1 turn then moving to the resource your going to build (in this way saving 1 turn on a later road and gianing an edge) Lots of small stuff like that to gain edges. Basically you came back in a lull of civ4. A lot of the really good players quit for a while when warlords came out. But most of them are comming back slowly
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Dec 11, 2006 13:43:02 GMT -5
Hehe, I came back about a month or two ago after I felt civ3 had completely dried out. There is still some "competion" outside of the CCC. MGT has introduced real money tournaments, which he apprently uses his own money to promote, meaning they are free atm. But yes, civ4 still has problems. The universal killer catapult still owns everything
|
|
|
Post by drixnak on Dec 11, 2006 13:49:56 GMT -5
I was one of the top 50 players in the world for AOE2. I was the top player in civ2. I think I know what I'm talking about here. AOE3 has no micro due to the AI runback ability. You can literally sit there and let your army do all the work and it won't run across the map like it would in AOE2 thus removing the need for control. All you have to do is click the counters for them. There's no economy, and the card system allows anyone to put up a decent fight. I'm not here to argue AOE3 though.
I was never even referring to luck in Civ4, I was referring to the game mechanics. I understand if you don't know who I am, but I'd prefer if you didn't try to tell me that you can gain all these small edges because I've been down this road before. Everyone from when I played has quit this game for many of the reasons I have. The fact is that against any decent player in Civ4 the game will come down to score and it becomes one massive catapult fest with no side really able to gain an edge. Even worse was the fact that whoever attacked first usually won and city defenses were insane making it nearly impossible to capture a city. On top of it, people caught up quickly to you because of the low ceiling in the game. Less cities, more corruption, slower research, and the ineffectiveness of tech leads made completely dominating someone impossible. I've talked to some of the NoDs that were around at one time but I'm leaning more towards just waiting for civ5...or disappearing again. I can't express my disappointment in words and I'm not real interested in revisiting it. I almost think they should just let the civ fanchise rest in peace before they butcher a classic game any more.
|
|
|
Post by willburn on Dec 11, 2006 14:22:18 GMT -5
drixnak i havent exactly seen you active in civ4 so i dont understand your attitude. Ive been a pro player in many games (quake 3 national team for norway, nr 8 in warcraft 3 team 2v2 ladder etc etc..) I suggest you play civ4 a bit more before you judge it, i have some 600mp games and some 400 single player games so I think i have a clue of what im talking about. There now that we both have throwed our egos around I suggest you do indeed listen. yes the stack of doom is a big problem but no this is not everything. I know many good players that will win consistantly. Just look at the ladder there are several people with high win %. Would they be able to do this if civ4 was just luck or the mechanism encouraged nobody to play better than others? The answer is ofcourse no. So you sir are full of Sh** (that was the not so nice way of putting it your wrong.) Ive seen so many players like you sayign blablabla im so good but i cant join this game because its not for pro's balbabla. What you really are doing is excusing yourself from playing civ4 because you are afraid you will not be as good in it or that you dont have the time or dedcation to play competitive again and find some wierd excuse to yourself for stopping playing competitive. Its pretty damn easy actually..just say to yourself I want to play for fun ..and..*shocker* do it !
|
|
|
Post by drixnak on Dec 11, 2006 14:35:42 GMT -5
Wow, you're 600-400...which means you are probably a CTON player which to me is nothing more than a flawed system taking advantage of a flawed system. When I played it was all 1v1 and I was in NoD which is the best clan ever. My win % was 90+% and my skill rating was consistently around 2000. Were this back in the days when civ actually still required some skill you would be just an average casual player at best. The fact that you are number 10 on the ladder is nothing more than a result of a flawed system...a system I have debated in detail and I have no further desire to do so. You are the typical player gaming companies market towards and due to the dumbing down of games you are now a top player. This can be seen in AOE3. People who were mere 1500s are now 2300s yet they claim this is because the game has taken on a totally new dimension. In reality it hasn't, it has simply been watered down in order to appeal to a broader base that gaming companies perceive as desiring graphics and an easy learning curve rather than challenging gameplay. There was a time when civ was a very complex game...this is simply not so anymore. As I said, it is simply a sign of the times and I was always considered an extreme gamer, hardly part of the target market. They have taken their desire for simplification and ease of use too far though and this is what we have instead. I've been playing the civ franchise for 15 years so please, don't insult me with a reply like that.
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on Dec 11, 2006 14:44:08 GMT -5
loolooll We have on live entertainment system here
;D
|
|
|
Post by willburn on Dec 11, 2006 14:47:38 GMT -5
Ah so its ok that you insult me in your reply? First of all ive allmost allways play teamers. Second of all I was rank 2 when I cared about rank. Im rank 10 now in 4 days of playing civ4 after 200 days away from it. Rank means nothing to be honest...
All i know is ive been around civ4 since start and i know your not one of the good players. In fact if drixnak is your online name ive probably never ever played you. So go crawl back to your civ3 if your afraid of civ4. And the dumd down part is so incredible stupid said of you - its just an excuse of yours to yourself because you are afraid to play.. On general notion yes i do agree many games are dumbed down. Civ4 is not one of them (they made it more friendly yes with overflow for techs counting to next tech, hammers overflow etc..) but there are still gazillions of tricks (20% bonus on a tech with prequsite bonus overflow trick etc. etc)
So again i say , you sir are full of nuts. I suggest you play some of the good players on the civ4 ladder instead of whining about how dumbed down the game is before your even playing someone good.ppffff.. anyone with a logical mind can read and understand how stupid that sounds. You cant say that before you have tried man! (and dont give me ive tried because ive never seen you online and I know most of the good players in the community)
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Dec 11, 2006 14:48:20 GMT -5
Thanks and glad you stopped by -
please exit through the back door, we wouldn't want the public to see you and your history
it would ruin our reputation
Happy Holidays!
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Dec 11, 2006 14:49:54 GMT -5
oh yeah, wait a minute.....
if we can get firaxis to "dumb-down" the game a little more, would you start playing again?
Just a thought
|
|
|
Post by willburn on Dec 11, 2006 14:51:10 GMT -5
Yes if you enjoy civ3 thats fine for you, but we wont shed a tear for you not playing civ4. So bye bye drixnak...
|
|
|
Post by drixnak on Dec 11, 2006 14:56:27 GMT -5
All the good players left this game. The fact that you don't know who I am says alot. It means you came after everyone had already left. I recognize a few names on the ladder like tommynt and ktulu, but the rest of you are nobodies. Also, I stayed away from civ3 because the MP was so terrible when it first came out. In addition, your argument to refute mine was basically to say how stupid my argument is. My argument was shared by the same people who were top in Civ4 before guys like you came around. Clans like GC and NoD have all moved on. I'm not going to discuss the problems with the game with someone who obviously has no idea. The fact that you think I'm a Civ3 fanboy says it all.
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on Dec 11, 2006 14:58:28 GMT -5
looollolll
more more .... we need more fun... ;D
|
|
|
Post by willburn on Dec 11, 2006 15:07:56 GMT -5
All the good players left this game. The fact that you don't know who I am says alot. It means you came after everyone had already left. I recognize a few names on the ladder like tommynt and ktulu, but the rest of you are nobodies. Also, I stayed away from civ3 because the MP was so terrible when it first came out. In addition, your argument to refute mine was basically to say how stupid my argument is. My argument was shared by the same people who were top in Civ4 before guys like you came around. Clans like GC and NoD have all moved on. I'm not going to discuss the problems with the game with someone who obviously has no idea. The fact that you think I'm a Civ3 fanboy says it all. Tommynt: Good ancient player. Ktulu: bad player. GC: decent. NoD: Placed bad in CCC. I started civ4 mp when civ4 came out so i dont know how you can say I came after your time..pff. Ask tommynt if he thinks im a bad player (or ask him how many turns it took me to kill him in the future ccc for that matter i can give you a hint you can count it with one hand) You know what i suggest you just play me instead of egoing it up - or are you afraid? And sure its a very nice argument to say you obviously have no idea..very smart..how about comming with some arguments instead of just random bullnuts. You know how a discussion works is both parties bring arguments to the table and discuss, it woudl be silly if they threw say cakes at each other and called each other names while bashing theyre chest and proclaiming they where the greatest. Anyways your free to do whatever you like. But civ4 dumbed down.. Give me some real arguments and we can discuss, in the meantime I suggest you play some of the good players of today. (may i recommend for example islandia for a 1v1 or me and gogf and speaker for a future 3v3) Also while im at it you talk like your so pro and stuff, and you say in your first post you played for a month of civ4. How the hell did you know the pro community if you only played for a month? Give me a break man. Im afraid your own words give you a bad case..
|
|
|
Post by willburn on Dec 11, 2006 15:08:23 GMT -5
Lestat do you have popcorn?
|
|
|
Post by drixnak on Dec 11, 2006 15:14:24 GMT -5
I don't see the point in playing civ4 in its present state. I'm not interested in a 3 hour catapult war or fighting from the start against a bad map where I have no production resources. Make civ4 a game where I can build unlimited cities and where tech leads actually are powerful and where catapults don't own everything and where stack fights don't come down to who can move first most the time and maybe I might take the time to play again. Also, I find your classification of ktulu as a bad player downright hillarious. He was the best player in civ3. Who's a good player to you...Fried? Don't make me laugh.
|
|
|
Post by knupp on Dec 11, 2006 15:18:40 GMT -5
ROFL!!! You still think you are better than anybody else on this ladder? Strategies evolve, things change, people change. You can't possibly post here as if you are some Civ God and call excellent players such as Willburn "nobodies". Please..why don't you prove you are good at this game instead of throwing "I was the best Civ2 player" around. I'm 100% positive that you would get owned by most anybody on this ladder in your first weeks of playing.
I don't understand your motivation of posting here. Your mind was already made up before you posted. You think Civ4 sucks. Your reasons for saying so I don't understand and I'm complexed as to why somebody from the Civ2 community would come back to the Civ4 community years later and say Civ4 sucks...
As willburn said please play this game a bit more before you pre-judge Civ4 and Civ4 ladder players.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Dec 11, 2006 15:23:52 GMT -5
All the good players left this game. The fact that you don't know who I am says alot. It means you came after everyone had already left. I recognize a few names on the ladder like tommynt and ktulu, but the rest of you are nobodies. Also, I stayed away from civ3 because the MP was so terrible when it first came out. In addition, your argument to refute mine was basically to say how stupid my argument is. My argument was shared by the same people who were top in Civ4 before guys like you came around. Clans like GC and NoD have all moved on. I'm not going to discuss the problems with the game with someone who obviously has no idea. The fact that you think I'm a Civ3 fanboy says it all. Hahaha, thanks for your time. You come here, know only 2 players, and insult the rest of us. That's really great. Any you wonder why people are getting defensive? Ok. Civ4 is pretty much the only video game I have ever played online, so my having no clue who the f*ck you are in no way is any reflection on whatever skills or abilities I have in Civ4, any other video game, or life in general, so please don't try to throw that awesome argument back in my face. Good bye.
|
|
|
Post by knupp on Dec 11, 2006 15:23:54 GMT -5
You realize that Civ3 is a different game from Civ4 right?
Pffft. Civ3 has 2 dimensions. Build 8000 cities and then 8000 units and kill everyone in the game. Basically..whoever micromanages to get the most cities wins the game..hardly strategical.
Civ4 is a completely different game. You can't build 8 million cities or you will kill your tech. And there is no "Great Library" which automatically gives you techs known to two other people.
I agree with you that catapults are a bit overpowered in their current state. But you act as if that is the only way to win a game is to build all catas. You obviously have no idea to play Civ4...
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Dec 11, 2006 15:26:36 GMT -5
Civ3 multiplayer right now I can tell you is way more basic in terms or economy, the infinite city sprawl etc. Civ4 economy features are much better than civ3, might need some adjusting on settler and workers though.
However Civ3 had much more tactics in recon which was really nice and was much more tactical. Compared to right now the ability to seein cities I see a reason for that I dont mind takes away from the ability of recon and such. In future mainly
A few problems that I see with Civ4 unit warfare is -The culture bomb-Cities already if at 60 percent are too powerful id have to say -The maps which are commonly used, Inland Sea make it so there is one front -- so often your only choice to take down a enemy is with cats as he has a stacked up city with 80 Percent Def, unlike civ3 where you could rush in a weak side because there were more angles to attack from. Dont know why people dont like fractal and such, apparently unbalanced -- not so they just like to play chess type games where they can plan out the game before they even play.
But I believe Civ4 is a better game, way more indepth economy. Just need to work out a few flaws in combat.
Basically what I did in civ3 for every game if i remember correctly in Ancient Warrior Warrior Settler Granary Settler continous in cap till barracks
more warriors Settlers More workers and settlers in new citys and warriors/spears/archers Continous
Then Barracks and units for rest of game So essentially you do not put tech on, and build settlers, workers, barracks and units - While playing civ3 it seemed cool, but civ4 way more indepth
Civ3 future is better though, just because civ4 future is so terribly made - 3 settlers pop 5 with all the the buildings already done?? No colonies, figthers can see whole map. WTF, build settler in one Turn?
|
|