|
Post by astax on Aug 24, 2006 20:52:30 GMT -5
Hi I play TBG almost exclusively. One thing I hate is how resource distribution usually gives one team huge advantage in ANCIENT TEAMER. I was wondering if there were any plans to change the way resources are dealt out. Maybe have it so that in a 3 vs 3 game (Usually on small map), one player on each side starts with copper, one starts with horse and one starts with iron. Something like that would make it better. I mean the way game is designed, metal is always better than horse, so even if one side has 2 horses and the other side 2 copper, the copper side has an advantage.
Not to mention that very often it is necessary to move from your starting location because you dont have enough hills.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Aug 25, 2006 2:04:50 GMT -5
Hi I play TBG almost exclusively. One thing I hate is how resource distribution usually gives one team huge advantage in ANCIENT TEAMER. I was wondering if there were any plans to change the way resources are dealt out. Maybe have it so that in a 3 vs 3 game (Usually on small map), one player on each side starts with copper, one starts with horse and one starts with iron. Something like that would make it better. I mean the way game is designed, metal is always better than horse, so even if one side has 2 horses and the other side 2 copper, the copper side has an advantage. Not to mention that very often it is necessary to move from your starting location because you dont have enough hills. If you choose the balanced resources option each player should have a nearby iron, copper, and horse.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Aug 25, 2006 3:43:41 GMT -5
in my experience resources are very well, fair distributed on tbf - 1 reason why it s such a popular map
|
|
|
Post by knupp on Aug 27, 2006 1:55:12 GMT -5
Yeh from what I've seen they are pretty evenly distributed besides elephants. And I have seen one side of the map get all the rivers and the other get none which is really annoying gnp wise.
|
|
|
Post by swissy on Sept 1, 2006 19:25:53 GMT -5
I've also seen odities such as one side has 3 horses the other 1. Both sides have all capitol metal, just on side copper the other iron. The river thing is a pain as most of the time that happens there is one big long river that gives the one team almost immediate trade routes. Handy when you have cap horses and your Egyptian teammate doesn't.
TBG is as good as any map for a teamer. I've seen many games one team get screwed for iron or horses in a Ren IS game. Unless you write very tightly crafted map scripts your going to be at the whim of the map generator every game.
|
|
|
Post by everybodysdarling on Sept 5, 2006 6:57:42 GMT -5
Civ is fortunately not played on some default maps, where you can be sure to have metal or horses near your cap. The only sure ressource you get is your food at the starting position of your 1st settler, but even here the forms of food you get differ much, and therefore cannot considered fair. But isn't that exactly the thing which makes civ so interesting? Be flexible, you cannot play every game in the same way, because the map and its ressources differ. If you knew every time that in x turns when you get ironworking, all you have to do is just to work it and you get your metal in x+4 turns, that would not be civ. Scout your land! Steal your neighbours metal if you have to. And if it's to late coz he already got metal or/and horses and you dont, then die with dignity and start a new game. or play chess.... but you know, civ is so much more that equal ressources for all
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Sept 5, 2006 11:49:22 GMT -5
It all depends on your point of view when it comes to set maps/resources. Some players are gamblers, some are not. I think alot of players who have a background in other genres of online multi-player games just aren't used to dealing with the randomness that is inherent in the Civ map generation scripts. Oh well, that's just life.
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Sept 5, 2006 15:11:33 GMT -5
Well the thing that bugs me about people who complain about unfair maps and rng going against them is that they should know this will happen from time to time. I fully expect it and when it comes it is no surprise. Sure I'm miffed, but I don't have a mentalist attack and shout "BS" over and over.
Having said that I am all for things like the C4F maps that make the game more fair. I don't think they take strategy out of the game, the game is just as fun. It's just you lose less often to downright bad luck.
Something that really gets me is when an opponent consistently wins fast moves, that's pretty game-changing too. But really there's nothing you can do about it. Just gotta aceept it and move on.
|
|
|
Post by lordelgis on Sept 8, 2006 14:51:55 GMT -5
I have gotten bent out of shape over 1 team getting more resources than the other on tbg. Then again I have also been on the team that got the lucky resource placement. I suppose in the long run it works out evenly. But wow it is a tough pill to swallow when your on the wrong side of this. I will try setting resources to balenced when I host if this works it should make the game more enjoyable for all.
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Sept 15, 2006 14:13:00 GMT -5
I think CIV4 is not random at all when you compare to civ3 bring back the civ3 maps ! The thing was it was fair at the same time becuase there was so much land to settle that in the long run better player wins, maps are what i see lacking most in CIV4 I believe. tbg i think is one of the worst maps btw for a teamer.. why, because it is an occ. Team shouldn't be limted to their land, land should be vast and used as neccessary.. civ isnt to be played with 3 cities and is boring no skill/depth to it
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Sept 15, 2006 18:37:21 GMT -5
Heh. TBG is no restriction on land. I once played with alexcherbourg and he settled right in the opposition's land and the city survived for quite some time.
|
|