|
Post by aeson on May 1, 2006 23:25:11 GMT -5
You're right aeson, deity is beatable and the reason for that is you know what the AI is going to do after you have played that level a few times. I am glad you agree with me on the point that it is beatable. To each their own. This is true. Though it's still somewhat dependant on your level of experience with those involved, and basic human nature. Even very good players have tendancies. The very best players in any direct competition know how to read their opponents, deduce what they are doing, and then exploit that knowlege. You may not know for sure, but even the AI does random things as well. (For all intents and purposes at least, unless you're mapping out the RNG while you play.) I know the posts are rather long, but I very clearly stated that when I am looking for interaction I post on message boards. When I play games, I am not looking for human interaction, quite the opposite. This is not the contradiction you seem to think it is, as people are not static. Also, games and message boards are seperate things. I can easily come and go from a message board at my leisure. If I never show up again, no big deal. If I want to post several times in a row (to within the limits of the moderation) I can do that too. In a MP game there is a structure that must be adhered to based on the game type. Even in a PBEM I can't just show up once every few weeks at some odd time of day and then choose whether to participate or not, and for how long, based upon my mood. But on a message board I can choose exactly the extent of the interaction with others, and not be stuck with anything more. It's that freedom that I enjoy. And vice versa. For instance, how many cultural victories have you had in MP on Marathon speed with no turn limit or time limit? How many OCC (vs opponent's empires)? How many Dominations on a Huge map? Some of these things either don't work very well MP, are difficult to impossible in the commonly used settings, or just don't see any air-time for whatever reason. SP allows for the player to set their own goals independant of anyone else, pursue those goals, and judge their performance based on similar games (their's or other's), score, theoreticals, how much fun they had, or whatever else their reason for playing was. You can play any way you like, and that does allow for learning aspects of the game that don't generally see any use in MP. (Which was basically Vel's argument. It's not necessarily so... maybe there are Marathon no-time limit, no turn limit Huge map games going on out there, where people are winning my culture... but it's not the general pickup game you'll find when in the lobby.) Challenge is what you make it. I can see the challenge MP presents. I can see the challenge that SP presents. Play what appeals most to you. Given my preferences, I tend to enjoy the SP side of things. Not because of the challenge (which doesn't vary for me between the two, even in MP games I judge my play against myself or theoreticals), but because of the rest of the environment. If you can't see that possibility, it's a limitation of your perception, not a lack of potential for challenge in my own chosen gameplay style or any other.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 2, 2006 1:00:26 GMT -5
Anyway, arguing about this is far enough off-topic that it's silly, and if you won't take my word for it I don't see anything I can say that will really convince you, so I might as well drop this point. The proper way to drop a point is to not respond to it. Continuing to post on the subject is not dropping it. You will have to be more specific. When you say "the player often needs..." do you mean in regards to SP, MP, or both? If it's both, I agree. If it's one or the other, I disagree. I do. Sure I could win plenty of other ways. But the point of the exersize was to win in the most overwhelming manner possible. I literally spent thousands of hours playing Civ III (most of it the first year or so) trying everything I could think of, reverse engineering the actual formulae involved, and developing the most exploitative strategies to maximize effects. And all the while I was sharing that information with a lot of other people who were doing the same thing, learning from each other. You can dismiss whatever value came from that if you wish, or the same type of study that has gone into CIV SP. (Perhaps you should first read into it before dismissing it. Dismissing something you don't have any familiarity with is simply ignorant.) But it does apply to SP gameplay, and simply saying MP applies more to SP gameplay without given any evidence to back it up proves nothing. Either you understand SP gameplay, or you don't (to whatever extent). And that is what dictates whether you understand SP gameplay or not. (Obviously.) MP can factor in to help you out in areas of overlapping skillset, but it doesn't have to. So? That is a fundamental part of SP gameplay. Ignoring it will not lead to better SP gameplay. There are random decisions the AI makes. I have looked extensively at the game code, have you? You cannot 100% predict the AI's movements unless you are mapping out the RNG and have a perfect knowlege of the sequence of events going on. (Let's just say it's impossible for practical reasons. If you're going to that extent, you're not really playing CIV at all.) The AI does do a lot of stupid things, which is why it's not a good measuring stick for assessing your performance. And at times, neither are people. That is why I stick to judging my performance based off of other, less variable, criteria. In both cases. The argument wasn't whether or not they would develop in regards to MP, but in regards to SP. Pay attention. It is perfectly reasonable that experience with SP will lead to further understanding of SP. It is not reasonable to presume that that understanding will necessarily transfer to MP, or that similar understanding of MP will necessarily transfer to SP. It is ludicrous to assume that understanding of MP will be better for understanding SP than actually understanding SP. Not everyone is like you. It's almost scary that I have to tell you that. Your motivations are your own, mine are my own. It is ignorant to try to argue with me about what my motivations are, as I am the authority on the subject of my own motivations. As you are about your own motivations. My incentive to explore SP is simply to understand it as well as I can. There are other people like me too. We tend to post what we find, and plenty of people read that and apply it to their games. (Even some of those on the ladder have mentioned to me that my input was very helpful to them. Firaxis noticed too, which is why I'm on the credits I guess. But obviously because I like to play SP I can't understand anything as well as a MP player will... :lol: ) What works best in a given environment will become more apparent with experience with that environment. Experience with related environments can help, but the more disimilar the environment becomes, the less the transferable experience. Again, dropping a subject means to not address it. Sun Tzu has lots to say about human interaction, which is a basis for combat in reality, in MP, and even can help when dealing with the AI. You could find as many applicable quotes to CIV tactics as you want if you look hard enough. CIV 4 is a new game, a compilation of various factors if you will. Each of those factors has similarities to other factors that have existed in other games, or in real life, and thus applicable to past insights... especially into the people who play it. That you dismiss all of human history as not applicable to understanding human interaction is hillarious. Remember, we are talking about the feasibility of a tactic in SP, not in MP. (As per tommynt's statement that MP are better at SP than SP.) If it works in SP, it works in SP. It doesn't have to work in MP to work in SP, and sometimes it's mutually exclusive even. You again ignore that it isn't just the AI that can be used as a measuring stick though. Seriously, is it that difficult to understand what an internal challenge is? I have never said that playing the game is not a pre-requisite for understanding it. I have said that playing the game in the manner you do determines what type of understanding you gain from it. Simply playing one style does not give you understanding into all styles of play. MP is not the end-all-be-all of understanding CIV. If you want to understand MP, you play it. If you want to understand SP, you play it. You can deduce things about one from the other, to the extent they are similar, and that works both ways... but there are things mutually exclusive about each (not to mention the countless variations within each).
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on May 2, 2006 6:04:03 GMT -5
dude there s no way that u beat deity with "normal" settings - I tried ironman setting - hub 7 players - 6 ai no techtrading. I really d like da see how u keep on teching wiht ai - and when u want speak about units .. ai just get 1 per turn in every city (at least about that)
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 2, 2006 6:18:00 GMT -5
Well, cheesy tech trade is possible as well (espeically if you have a bad score that is to be expected early on on Deity, AIs stop trading techs with 1st score after trading some number of techs, but limit is bigger for lower-score civs). After that, you use diplo to slow down strongest AIs with wars (although they shouldn't steamroll other AI). All that cheesy singleplayer-only crap that relies on a knowledge about how to exploit stupid AI behaviour. In any TBS diplomacy is the easiest thing to exploit because it's a way to get something for effectively nothing almost without any inherent costs involved.
There also was a praetorian chop rush with a permanent anarchy on pangea.
|
|
|
Post by zerza on May 2, 2006 6:31:52 GMT -5
Well, Diety may be beaten I'm sure. Its common practice for the single player to reload everytime something doens't turn out right. Restart until a perfect map is given, etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by zerza on May 2, 2006 12:09:29 GMT -5
Its a brick wall your beating Dusty The haters of MP hate it because they are playing a simulation, remember SimCity? We are playing an Empiralistic War game, totally different ball park.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 2, 2006 17:57:14 GMT -5
dude there s no way that u beat deity with "normal" settings If you were correct that MP was better at SP than SP, you'd know it's possible to beat Deity because you could do it yourself. I have beaten Deity several times on standard settings (Continents, Standard size and larger, default number of players) without reloading, perpetual Anarchy, Praetorians, or even extensive pre-patch Forest Chopping. (Which BTW isn't as big a deal on Deity given the insane Maintenance/Upkeep costs you'll run into by expanding too fast, peacefully or militarily, combined with the relative higher importance of Health due to tighter Health restrictions and less opportunity to claim Health resources). I was even playing Quick (to get through more games faster), which is much tougher than Epic or the completely imbalanced Marathon where the tech rate (variable) is so much slower in comparison to how fast units can move (not variable). If you don't want to believe me, look at the statements Soren has made. Deity was essentially balanced to give me a good game. I can beat it on standard type settings, and I can lose when playing it. Basically it comes down to what the AI (randomly) decides to do. If they attack me more than a few times during the course of the game, I'll fall behind the ones not involved in the warfare. If they aren't as agressive, or if there are natural chokepoints to defend more easily, I will generally win. Turning off tech trading makes it easy to win vs the AI. Sure it cuts out the tech trading tactics, but it does so by removing the actual need to participate in tech trading as well. It slows down the overall tech pace to a crawl, giving the player more time to conquer, culture, and/or catch up economically (depending on the victory you are pursuing). Using "MP" maps makes it much easier to beat the AI too. That way the player knows what the map will be like (choke points especially) and be able to approach the game from 4000BC with that knowlege. Are you asking me to teach you how to play SP? Ok, a little bit for now. With tech trading off, you are correct in that it's easy to keep up in tech with the AI. As I said, that makes the game a lot easier for the player. With tech trading on, you have to take advantage of it. I posted about the principle on CivFanatics if you wish to go read up on how you can turn the poor individual trades (AI always get more than you) into an efficient method of trading (player always gets more total value from trading than any given AI). It's a principle that is pretty common knowlege in the SP community given that it worked well in past games too. It doesn't work as well in CIV as it did in Civ III, but it still does work well enough to keep up and even have a slight tech lead on Deity when done correctly. (I used these same principles in MP games where tech trading was allowed as well. The AI isn't the only one you can take advantage of diplomatically, or leverage an advantage against. Easier to do vs the AI usually of course... but that's why they get bonuses.) As for military, don't get blinded by numbers. It's possible to run about 4:1 kill rates vs the AI because of their lack of ability to properly use seige, terrain, counters, ect. They don't properly identify threats, and don't have any concept of "fronts". They stick a bunch of units they don't need in cities that aren't threatened, while they could be much more useful in other areas. In short, they play very "safe". Which translates to "futile" when taken advantage of properly. That makes it roughly even on the military front given the Deity AI's advantages in military production potential. (Which is why those advantages are set as they are in fact.) As long as you have a Metal or Horse unit (or Jags), you should be able to rush a Deity AI or three in the Ancient Era still though. Otherwise, Catapults give a good opportunity. As does any later military unit that you have the resources for or that requires no resources. The only real limitation on military expansion on Deity is economics, as the Maintenance/Upkeep is really high on Deity. (2x what it is on Settler. Close to that in comparison to Noble.) The military portion is relatively easy. (Which again is why Maintenance/Upkeep are set as they are.) Economics are the key.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 2, 2006 18:02:31 GMT -5
Well, Diety may be beaten I'm sure. Its common practice for the single player to reload everytime something doens't turn out right. Restart until a perfect map is given, etc etc. That may be your approach to SP, and it's certainly the approach of some, but it's no different than those in MP who try to use exploits or hacks to gain an advantage. The dishonest use it, the honest don't when presenting games as if they were not reloaded... those for competitions, proving points, ect. Simply assuming all SP cheat is no different than if you were to assume all MP cheat. It just shows your own paranoia and inability to accurately assess the validity of the results. I don't like MP for the reasons I have stated. I know that's a terribly difficult thing for you to comprehend, as you can't tell the difference between your own opinion and that of others, but it's still the case. It is a different ball park. Not totally different of course, but different enough that to operate efficiently in it you have to change up your game in various regards. Which is what I have been saying all along.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 2, 2006 18:07:42 GMT -5
Yes this is somewhat what I'm trying to say. However the point is, in MP you have a choice of playing at least 200 diffenrent styles (in this particular Ladder) but in SP you are relegated to only playing against AI which is set to play only one way and is not able to adapt if player does something illogical. I get no pleasure in beating a machine. Machines are programed that if A = B then do C. Humans on the most part don't do this. In SP you can play any style you want as well. You continue to ignore the ability of a person to compete not with the AI, but with their own past results, the results of others on similar settings, and even theoretical limits. You may not have that ability, but it doesn't mean everyone is limited the same way. MP offers plenty of depth and competition. So does SP. It's up to the person involved to come up with the depth and competition in SP to a large extent. But the same can be said of MP (ie. to those who only play a certain way, vs the same people for example). Those limitations are purely self-inflicted either way. This is exactly what I said. It's possible to try to play them, but very unlikely you'll find a pickup game with these settings, and likely not to work out well. As I said, it's possible these games are going on, but unlikely to be what you get by joining a pickup game in the lobby. I have played MP. My own preferences are based on my experiences. I am not the one making qualitative and absolute statements about whether SP is better than MP, or vice versa. That is what I have been arguing against in fact. Like tommynt who says that MP players are better than SP players, even at SP. You are dealing with me. Some MP players haven't played SP much at all either. Does that mean you haven't played enough? Or should we actually look at your experience instead of trying to guess about what it "might be" based off some speculation? Some SP players don't play MP at all, it's true. That fact doesn't define how much MP I have played. The amount of MP I have played is purely dependant on how much MP I have played, not what anyone else is doing. That should be mind-numbingly obvious. To be precse, I asked how many Cultural victories have you had on Marathon speed with no turn limit and no time limit. I specified certain criteria because I felt they would further refine the likelyhood of it occuring in MP based on those criteria. Simply saying you have had Cultural victories in MP does not technically answer the question. (And as I stated, I do not think these are impossible, just rather uncommon.) About 50-60 MP games of CIV, most of which were with/against players from the ladder. 100's or 1000's of games (each) of various TBS, RTS, FPS, arcade, strategy/card/board games, ect. I was a sports junky for most of my life, competition junky in general. I understand what it's like to play with and against other people in general. But I also understand what it's like to be able to evaluate my own actions without requiring the relative actions of others to judge off of. In any case it's more than enough for me to know what I like and don't like. How can you even begin to think you can argue with me about what my actual preferences are? That is beyond inane. I accept you feel the way you say you do about SP, even though it's very likely I've played more SP Civilization than you have. You don't need to play as much SP as I have to know how you feel about it. Same is true for MP. I've tried it enough for me to form my opinion about it, and I just don't care for it. If you want to discuss how much I have played, perhaps you should look into it before forming your opinions. It just makes you look ignorant if you assume things you have no idea about. If that was what I had done, sure... it's not rational action. That is not what I have done. How about people who try to make arguments before knowing what they are arguing about? Oh wait... that's the same principle you are talking about here. How ironic. I have not come here to rant about how great SP is. SP is as good as the person playing it thinks it is. I have been arguing against those who pretend that just because they like MP, it means they are better at SP than any SP player can be. The value of SP or MP has nothing to do with it. As before, first you should find out about my play experience, then you have the information to make assessments about it. Unless you enjoy discussing things you are obviously ignorant of. At least we agree on something. (I'll let you guess which.)
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 2, 2006 21:54:24 GMT -5
Interesting your retaliation is to continually insult my capabilities to think. Aeson I'm am so glad you are able to argue a point by attacking a persons brain matter. If you wish to show that I have avoided addressing a point specifically to attack your abilities, please quote what you are refering to. Then we can discuss the validity of your assessment instead of dealing with your unsubstantiated assertions. I have addressed every point you have made. In cases where those points had implications on you personally, I have discussed those implications as well. Your post here is the one dwelling on character instead of dealing with the issues. My statements are still there for you to respond to if you feel up to it.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 2, 2006 23:18:10 GMT -5
guess I'm "assuming" again but what is this. It was a joke if you must know. The statement I was responding to wasn't a relevent point to the discussion, and clearly wouldn't be categorized as "avoiding addressing a point" as per the criteria I offered. I addressed all your points, and then took something of a derogatory pot-shot at an irrellevent statement you made in addition. You used the term "retaliation" in your assessment of my posting style. How can I retaliate against a self-depreciating comment you have made? It doesn't even make sense to label it that way, regardless of how you interpreted my statement. "Retaliate" is "To return like for like, especially evil for evil." To do so in regards to your self-depreciating remark I would have had to make my own self-depreciating remark, which I did not do.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on May 3, 2006 2:33:12 GMT -5
aeon dude there s no way that u beat deity with the settings i suggested - on continents maybe .. u might be able to kill the 1 ai on your continent and have afterwards more room to expand as the rest of the ai .. but u not gonna win with settings where all ai s have same chances to win as u have
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 3, 2006 8:36:01 GMT -5
aeon dude there s no way that u beat deity with the settings i suggested - on continents maybe .. u might be able to kill the 1 ai on your continent and have afterwards more room to expand as the rest of the ai .. but u not gonna win with settings where all ai s have same chances to win as u have The settings you listed are actually relatively easy to beat the Deity AI on. Easier than the random map types where the player doesn't know going in what the land is going to look like, where the choke points (if any) will tend to be, and where tech trading is enabled for a faster tech rate. It's funny you think that it's impossible, when it's actually easier than what I have done on other settings. Quite the compliment, thanks. As for giving all the Deity AI the same chance to win as I have, that is just silly to suggest. Because given even starts I can easily beat a Deity AI, so to give them the same chance to win I would have to start in Tundra or something similarly bad, and they have godly terrain. Even on Deity it just isn't that tough to beat any given AI. It is only collectively that the AI has a chance to win. That chance is pretty close to 50:50 when I play on standard settings with average starts (though it's slightly in my favor), because of how Deity was balanced.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on May 3, 2006 10:09:50 GMT -5
dude u r a big mouth and nothing else - at the time i had my 4th city ai were sharing middle of map allready and had knight stacks when i was maybe discovering catapults. As said there s imo no chance to keep on teching and building military at same time with deity- if u find some way to neglect either military or teching there might be a small way. But if u do so thats again one of those cheesy "cheating" victories over AI which d never work in MP aswell as in "reality"
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 3, 2006 10:49:29 GMT -5
at the time i had my 4th city ai were sharing middle of map allready and had knight stacks when i was maybe discovering catapults. With that level of detail, there's no way to give any hints on what you may be doing wrong. You are doing something wrong for SP if you have fallen behind in the tech race, because it's easy enough, especially with tech trading off, to keep up. This illustrates my point very nicely, thanks. SP is not the same as MP. If in playing SP you do things that only would work in MP, you will not be as efficient in SP. I have never said that to win in SP you do the things which will work in MP. It is you who have said that learning to play MP will necessarily make a player better at SP than actually playing SP can. But here it seems your understanding of MP is hindering your ability to perform in a specific SP situation. I have said already that you don't generally need the same level of military in SP to be "safe" as you do in MP. It is not "cheesey", it's just the way the game is. No different than if you look at MP on Island maps, or on a teamer when you are not on the front lines; you simply don't have to have as much military protection early on as if you're playing on a Duel Mirror map (or other settings where early warfare is normal) for instance. Should you always, regardless of the game type, have to run the highest level of military necessary in any MP setting? That would just be stupid. The proper level of military to be "safe" or to accomplish your goals is dependant on settings and how the map turns out. It is not "cheesey" to act accordingly, it is just smart. MP or SP.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on May 3, 2006 19:16:12 GMT -5
no need to argue dude - do settings i suggested hub 7 player no techtrading and show me save where u are winning
|
|
|
Post by Tony on May 3, 2006 19:55:13 GMT -5
I would suggest a slight modification to this post, i would ask for a series of saves.
Delete your auto save folder, beat it on diety. Which you say is done with considerable regularity. Then send the whole auto save folder after the game.
I ask for a series of saves as anyone can open world builder"
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 3, 2006 21:57:13 GMT -5
I know you don't want to argue the actual topic tommynt, as you're completely outmatched. All your arguments are unfounded assertions, guesses, and blind egotism on your part. That you feel the entire argument can be cleared up by a demonstration game highlights that point. (Win or lose, I don't pretend it impacts the validity of my arguments at all, other than those about whether I can win or not. The rest stand or fall based on actual reasoning.)
When I do get a copy, I'll take you up on the offer. I'm still waiting on getting the game. Bought a copy at release, but gave it away a few months ago as another copy was promised to me, schedualed to arrive then. It hasn't arrived yet, but should soon. (This is Firaxis "soon".) Beta testers can confirm when it does arrive, roughly speaking, as many of them will be getting their copies at the same time. The copy will be signed by Sid, which is a shame to open... so if any of you would like to buy another copy for me to play it earlier... feel free to contact me about it.
tommy, will you just fall back on saying I must be cheating, reloading, cherry picking starts, ect? You've already basically said playing intelligently for the situation, instead of limiting yourself to tactics which would be safe in other situations, is what you consider "cheesey". If I do spend my time on this, do you agree to accept a win as a win and not whine about whether or not things I have done would work in MP? If not, we can just skip the exercise and not waste the time, because as I (and even most of you) have said many, many times already, SP is a different game, and requires a different approach than MP.
Any additional requirements? (Seriously tommy, within your stated restrictions anyone could beat Deity with just a setting or two you haven't specified. Ask Ellestar.)
Which game version? Preferably the one which you were playing on in the game(s) you are refering to tommynt. Was it release, 1.52, or 1.61?
We gotta at least throw out late era starts, as Ancient is far and away the most difficult setting vs the AI. Same with 2 city elim, as that makes the AI completely inept. Same with turning off the Spaceship victory condition, as the player can almost always win eventually without it as it makes the tech rate completely irrellevent. (Though no tech-trading might do that anyways.)
Permanent Alliance has to be off of course, as it makes the game into a joke. Diplomatic victory is kinda stupid, almost like rolling dice to see who wins.
It takes about 20-30 hours to have a decent game of SP played at a high level. Much more at the highest level. (Talking spreadsheets, sims, ect.) What amount of playtime (and of course the related playsessions) would you find acceptable? Given no restrictions, I would probably spend around 80 hours on such a game to play it properly.
Can you think of anything else to address? I don't want you to have any possible gripe about how I played, so speak up now.
And on that note, care to put any money on whether I can win or not? I have $500 USD I could wager on it. It's a sure thing in my favor, but you don't seem to accept it... so might as well make some money off it.
(I'll only observe the additional restrictions (outside the commonly accepted cheese/cheats in SP) if it's not for money...)
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on May 4, 2006 2:28:42 GMT -5
just play and show me the save bigmouth - u can reload every turn and ll still loose - perm alliances off for sure and diplo vic of aswell - and i m talking about anc dude - for sure u can win later era starts - as said u can win if u either neglect teching or building units - if u start later era u can just kill 1 ai - I figure that - u can even get a religion for free.
And in fact i didnt read any of your great arguments as i dont care for em - i dont even know u - it d just be nice to have a backup for big words
oh well and aeon dude can u pls stay out of my thread untill u post some saves - u dont like MP so u r obviously no part of this community and have no rights to post here
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 4, 2006 3:25:42 GMT -5
Guess you don't have the balls to put any money on it? How weak. You say I need to back up my words (which I have no qualms with, I'll enjoy making you eat yours), but won't back up your own... I'm not going to reload of course. That's just cheating. There's no way I'd do anything like reloading to try to impress or prove my point when it would be the most embarrassing thing to do in regards to the people who's opinions actually matter to me. I can't say you suprise me by your admission you haven't read my posts. It was obvious in the way you responded to me that you hadn't a clue what you were responding to. It was also obvious you don't know who I am by the way you estimate my chances at this. I was hoping to take some of your money based on that... at least you have some sense... But feel free to keep speaking about subjects you are completely ignorant of. It's good for laughs. I'll continue to post here in this thread as long as I feel like it, people continue to respond to me, and the moderators don't ask me not to or close the thread.
|
|