|
Post by ghost on Nov 3, 2005 23:02:35 GMT -5
here is some really bad land i gotten toady. My capt wasn't to bad but it sucked for my 2nd and 3rd cities. i tired a chartiot and horsearcher rush but both failed.
|
|
|
Post by StarlightDeath on Nov 3, 2005 23:10:57 GMT -5
*Begin beta tester reply* "Part of the skill of civ4 is the ability to adapt and change your strategy. If you don't like your land you can try one of the many map scripts for a more balanced game such as East/West, Mirror, Team Battleground. The map scripts have been vastly improved since civ3 and map screws aren't really a problem anymore. The possibilities are endless and there is a vast depth to this game. *End beta tester reply*
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Nov 3, 2005 23:38:45 GMT -5
Keep it up, EoN. Keep it up.
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Nov 4, 2005 8:35:01 GMT -5
This reminds me of the start of a 5v5 teamer yesterday. 4 out of 5 players on one team had ultimate crap start, 2 people were all ice and 2 people were in mostly all tundra. The other team had regular land. Mind you this was on a "balanced map"... so much for balance huh?
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Nov 4, 2005 10:14:46 GMT -5
as if this never happened in civ3, lol.
|
|
|
Post by sparta on Nov 4, 2005 10:30:53 GMT -5
*Begin beta tester reply* "Part of the skill of civ4 is the ability to adapt and change your strategy. If you don't like your land you can try one of the many map scripts for a more balanced game such as East/West, Mirror, Team Battleground. The map scripts have been vastly improved since civ3 and map screws aren't really a problem anymore. The possibilities are endless and there is a vast depth to this game. *End beta tester reply* And the reward for most annoying posts is.....
|
|
|
Post by StarlightDeath on Nov 4, 2005 11:45:08 GMT -5
Are you trying to tell me you'd reply differently? It's just the same lines over and over. Were they practiced or something? Some of you have money riding on this, some of you have loyalty and reputation riding on this. It's not hard to see why your responses are so cookie cutter.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Nov 4, 2005 12:41:19 GMT -5
As you know I weas in that game and I had a similar start, but kept my points up high enough to be a threat with only 3 cities, one of which on ice. Other players must have been mad, as I was pretty much the only one to attack. And I will chime that it is not always the land but what you do with it, the only thing I really lacked was production, all in all I thought it was a good game, and hope to have a few more like it.
|
|
|
Post by sparta on Nov 4, 2005 18:06:16 GMT -5
Are you trying to tell me you'd reply differently? It's just the same lines over and over. Were they practiced or something? Some of you have money riding on this, some of you have loyalty and reputation riding on this. It's not hard to see why your responses are so cookie cutter. I actually agree with you. But I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds you annoying in a few of your posts. But it's good, you provide great entertainment on these forums
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Nov 4, 2005 18:13:19 GMT -5
What were the settings on that map? 5v5 on anything below small is certain to draw bad starts. I'm not even sure small will give you decent ones. The more you cram onto a map, the more likely you are to get a lousy starting area. The game looks for good starting areas a distance apart first, but if you have too many players, eventually it will choke and dump someone in poo. I'd be interesting in seeing what the settings were in those games. This actually reminds me, I think there's a thread we all need to read that will help with getting better map starts. civilization4.net/3/175/Sirian's map guide - it explains a lot about how the maps work, and should save people headaches of that nature. Note the line "We reccomend players try a map on default settings first." I'm willing to bet those lousy starts were ramming a lot of players into a small area - which is far from the defaults.
|
|
|
Post by Srayman on Nov 5, 2005 23:10:01 GMT -5
One of the games I was in with an outcome like this was on a standard size "balanced" map with 10 players. 4 of them, all on my team ended up in tundra. I was the only one that was up further into the middle of the map. The other team was all north and all had decent land. Some had a lot of jungle, but with jungle you can do a whole lot more than you can with tundra.
I then was in another game. 8 player ffa I believe and they wanted to play balanced. I told them the last time I played it ended up with half the people in tundra. But anyway, we played and at least 2 that I know of out of the 8 were in tundra. I think that's where ghosts screenshot comes from. And also random was in that game. I think this game was on standard also as we all had lots and lots of room between each other. But it was at least small, pretty sure it was standard though.
Balanced map, is not very balanced. There's lots of starting spots down in the bottom of the map that are in tundra.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Nov 5, 2005 23:15:54 GMT -5
I think this is an issue of the map generator putting a priority on starting distance at the expense of other concerns, I'll bring this to the attention of the map gods.
CS
|
|
Sirian
Settler
Fried's Alter Ego
Posts: 7
|
Post by Sirian on Nov 6, 2005 4:45:28 GMT -5
*Begin beta tester reply* "Part of the skill of civ4 is the ability to adapt and change your strategy. If you don't like your land you can try one of the many map scripts for a more balanced game such as East/West, Mirror, Team Battleground. The map scripts have been vastly improved since civ3 and map screws aren't really a problem anymore. The possibilities are endless and there is a vast depth to this game. *End beta tester reply* Actually, you're not too far off the mark. Some of the maps are set up to provide "realistic" terrain, and this will include some godawful stretches of land. Packing these maps with more players than they were designed to handle at a certain size will put somebody in to the inhospitable regions. You should read the threads from some of the SP players who complain that the deserts aren't large enough (to be Earthlike), or that civs are starting too close together, which is pretty much the opposite of the complaints here. You can't please all the people all the time. I'm wise enough not to try. Some of the maps are aimed at SP, and some are aimed at MP. Some serve well for either. Some can handle crowding, some cannot. Some facilitate land wars, some sea wars, and some can do both. I wrote a guide. Please make use of it. Maps that won't ever stick you deep in the ice: Great Plains, Inland Sea, Oasis, Islands, Ring, Hub, Wheel, Team Battleground. These maps were all made with MP game balance foremost in mind. If you play the maps aimed at SP balance foremost in mind, you may still get a good game, but it helps to know the settings. Don't expect any changes to the "realistic" maps that would run against the interest of SP players. "Balanced" map script is not my baby. That one is literally one of only two maps I didn't touch. The other is Continents, and that one is the "anti-MP map" according to Soren. I could do a number of things to improve the balance of Balanced map, but Soren was happy with that one the way it was. ::shrug:: Maybe if you guys tally up your complaints against it, he'll let me do a new version for the expansion (or a later patch) and spruce it up. For the moment, Balanced may be the worst map in the game in terms of handling overcrowding, so I recommend not having more players there than the map size would default to in SP. "Balanced" refers only to strategic resources, and not to actual game balance or fairness of starts, etc. Are ladder players finding it to be the least well balanced map, and this is an irony? ... Sorry about that. But you -can- try the other maps. Give the guide a look, please. There are fun games waiting for you, but you should actually look at the menu before ordering! - Sirian
|
|
Sirian
Settler
Fried's Alter Ego
Posts: 7
|
Post by Sirian on Nov 6, 2005 4:51:41 GMT -5
5v5 on anything below small is certain to draw bad starts. I'm not even sure small will give you decent ones. Not necessarily true. 5v5 on Tiny is well doable on MP-tailored maps. These include: Ring, Hub, Great Plains, Inland Sea, Team Battleground, Oasis, Custom Continents (One Per Team setting), Mirror (Small Lakes setting), and Islands. It's not going to work well on all map, though. Some of them, you will have to use a larger map setting or accept suboptimal starts for some players. Pangaea, Highlands and Ice Age should be able to handle crowding, too, but some folks may have thinner starts than others. - Sirian
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Nov 6, 2005 9:30:44 GMT -5
Thank you Sirian ;D nice to get some ideal at which maps may become the standards for our mp games.
|
|
|
Post by ImmortalLord on Nov 6, 2005 11:50:07 GMT -5
(no offense to those who have posted just the overall effect)
i honstly can't believe all these land posts. but all this complaing about land starts is annoying. in future in c3c, people say its all based on reasources and when they get jack and a person gets big3 and cow start what do they do? b***h B***H! get over it for god sakes. same thing in anc, when a guys get horse and iron in cap and all u get is a fur, deal with it, since when has this forum page turned in cry baby page?
(annoyed immo)
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Nov 6, 2005 14:10:14 GMT -5
My prediction: people will complain about how they have no chance if they don't get coal in Future. (Which isn't true, since there's a whole huge strategy players can use when they don't have coal which is just as good as a coal-based approach.)
|
|
|
Post by thejesus on Nov 12, 2005 14:53:34 GMT -5
civ 4 sucks. Its like all the effort in the production of this game was put into the video at the beginning and the 3d graphics. Game play was obviously not a factor in its development. If I was Sid i would be embarrassed
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Nov 12, 2005 15:16:35 GMT -5
Would you actually like to post why you think gameplay sucks? As apposed to just bashing the game? We did put lots of time into gameplay testing and I'd be glad to logically discuss your concerns.
CS
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Nov 12, 2005 16:33:21 GMT -5
hehe just read the last 10 posts on the fourm and 5 of them been from thejesus saying how bad civ4 is. u only played 8 hours of the game,or thats what i got from one of your civ4 bashing posts. so you only put 8 hours into everything you do? ? why pay $50 on something if you ain't going to give it more then a quater of a day time on it? ? if you don't like the game just let it sit on your computer desk self or whereever you want to put it and let it collect dust. but you don't have to come on here and say a million times in 5 min how much you dislike the game. 1 post would do it. civ 4 isn't a game that u can come into and learn everything at once. it takes time. when i 1st got the game i was alittle disapointed in it but it grows on you as you learn what everything is.i myself like civ4 better then civ3 cause theres more thought involed in the game then building x unit a 100 times and send it over to your nearest enemy.
|
|