|
Post by elfplanator on Jul 26, 2006 20:16:55 GMT -5
I was wondering if there were any ladder players interested in any game types other than cton or teamers. I really like FFA's but quitters ruin it yet I never see a ladder FFA.
|
|
|
Post by rupman on Jul 26, 2006 20:36:55 GMT -5
I am trying to pull this game type off the shelf. The problem is getting enough veteran players to join. Read the Suggestions for ironman thread in the CCC section. We had a discussion about it already there.
|
|
|
Post by coloneltreize on Jul 27, 2006 12:12:47 GMT -5
I disagree with cton rules. No tech trading makes it so you have less knowledge as to how far advanced other civs are. Being able to trade technologies is realistic so I kinda like it. I think if two players share all their techs with each other to team up against another without a Permanent Alliance first, they do so at their own risk. When one "pseudo-teammate" (without a Perm Alliance, Defense Pact, etc.) betrays the other, which they will eventually, they may be in for a rude awakening. Over the centuries of history, wars have been fought by various coalitions of forces, many of which had an unfair advantage, for example the coalition of the willing vs. Iraq in the recent Iraq war. Some people were in favor of the invasion, though most were not. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's right or necessary to gang up on the player with the highest ladder rank or otherwise best reputation outside the current game, but it should be expected and natural for players to gang up on the highest scorer or strongest military in the current game only. IMHO, the cton style as described doesn't fully prevent gangbangs. As long as players can send their forces where they please, "always war" doesn't ensure the game will be fair. And the usual speed settings (150 turn limit, blazing turn timer, quick game speed, simultaneous turns and 2 city elimination) designed to declare a winner in an hour are just too fast. A game called Civilization was simply not meant to be played in an hour. I'll even dare say the ladder rankings are based on this inane philosophy, trying to make an involoved strategy game into a "fastest-finger," live-action, shoot out. You can't even win a cultural victory, diplomatic victory, or a space victory unless you start in a later era, and forget about a domination victory altogether. The ranks simply do not reflect true skill at the game as it was intended to be played. That's why I'm hosting my own PitBoss and FFA game in the forums: civ4players.proboards44.com/index.cgi?board=pspga&action=display&thread=1153255446&page=1If all goes well with this first game, I want to form my own clan of players who prefer to play an entire FFA game.
|
|
|
Post by decepticon on Jul 27, 2006 12:35:53 GMT -5
i've hosted a few packed hub format games recently. (around 120 turns any era after classical , tiny hub map, 6 players, always war OFF, 2 city elim) Let me relay my experience. Its a freakin whiners fest anytime options are different from starndard ctons or inland sea teamers. in the last three or four days i've tried hosting these type of games. and guess what? only 1 filled up but it was a great game. the rest of my attempts were crying parties. PACKED HUB FORMAT is AWESOME and ACTION PACKED. its just too bad that not many aren't willing to try new ways to play. thanks to lporiginal, KCceaser, KCnicoya1, willtheconquerer, for having the grace to play something different. feel free to post your comments on this format...I'm interested to hear if I'm the only one who thinks these games are worth playing
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jul 27, 2006 13:02:06 GMT -5
You can't even win a cultural victory, diplomatic victory, or a space victory unless you start in a later era, and forget about a domination victory altogether. Bullsh it. I played like 15 ctons only and i have a conquest victory (i killed all five opponents).
|
|
|
Post by coloneltreize on Jul 27, 2006 13:14:05 GMT -5
You can't even win a cultural victory, diplomatic victory, or a space victory unless you start in a later era, and forget about a domination victory altogether. Bullsh it. I played like 15 ctons only and i have a conquest victory (i killed all five opponents). You didn't exactly counter my point. The only vics you can win are conquests and score, precisely. Did you win a cultural, space, dom, or diplo victory starting in ancient? I'd like to see that happen in 150 turns. Btw, I liked your idea for anonymous players; it turns out they released it in Warlords. So peole can now play genuine FFA's without fear of being rank hounded.
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jul 27, 2006 14:26:55 GMT -5
I can't wait - I think with the anonymous feature FFAs will become really popular, now that there's undeniable skill in diplomacy and manipulation.
|
|
|
Post by dreddcool on Jul 27, 2006 16:36:02 GMT -5
i m with u guys
|
|
|
Post by swissy on Jul 27, 2006 16:44:47 GMT -5
FAA may work with the anonymous feature. The one thing that put a major damper on FFAs back in civ3 was rank-mongers making allainces aimed at taking out the top ranked player in the game. It got so bad that many 6 player FAA were more like 5 v 1 teamers. This rank-mongering ganbanging was probably the number one reason for the developerment of the Cton game style.
As for games that could have a chance of using more than few victory conditions; there is a game style called Epic Game, where players play a full game from start to ultimate finish, no turn limit other than the one in the game. The CCC Ironman is played like that. The only thing that makes the game prohibitive is the time needeed to play. Get yourself 6 players with the time, its a good game.
|
|
nicoya1
Warrior
Tourney Director
C4PTD
Posts: 253
|
Post by nicoya1 on Jul 28, 2006 0:45:50 GMT -5
I think there are plenty of people who would love to play full games, but the reality is most don't have the time to play a 10 hour game. Even some ctons that go on for 3 hours are a large commitment of time. There is life outside of civ. If I had the time to play those types of games I would. My suggestion is that you maybe try to host that type of game. I'm sure there will be a few people out there who will interested in joining your game.
P.S. Thanks for the different type of games smatt and rupman always fun trying a new type of game style out.
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Jul 28, 2006 2:34:18 GMT -5
ill play any type of ladder game just i can only play after 7pm gmt
|
|
|
Post by 9iron9 on Jul 28, 2006 5:07:29 GMT -5
if any1 can tell me how to bury my girlfriend under the floorboards and make it not smell im open to suggestions. the only way i'd have 10hrs consistent gaming time is if i pay her t go shopping or put her 6ft under. im considering rappin her in cling film... wat u think
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jul 28, 2006 5:52:24 GMT -5
You didn't exactly counter my point. The only vics you can win are conquests and score, precisely. Did you win a cultural, space, dom, or diplo victory starting in ancient? I'd like to see that happen in 150 turns. Nah. What's the difference between conquest or domination, anyway? Everyone is dead so there is no difference, just assume that you can build cities on an entire map after you're alone there ;D Diplo victory in a multiplayer strategy game? ROFLMAO Anyway, there are no good ways to make a fast enough ancient game that can end in a space victory etc. I don't see anything wrong with it. Probably it's because i firmly believe that there is no "TRUE Civ 4" game or some other bullsh it like that. There is a singleplayer Civ 4 game with a rules that are good for singleplayer, and there is a multiplayer Civ 4 with a rules good for multiplayer. Neither of them is "true", "only real" etc. Civ 4. If you don't understand that multiplayer is inherently different from a singleplayer and so it generally require a different rules, then i feel sorry for you.
|
|
|
Post by longhorn on Jul 28, 2006 8:12:02 GMT -5
ES-
Diplo victory in a multiplayer strategy game? ROFLMAO ********************************************
I lost a ladder game to Lestat via diplomatic victory as he was elected to Sec General of the UN-- I think it was on the third vote.
It was an OCC CTON, and had something to do with the 5-10 ICBM's i sent at each player. I still couldn't believe he won that way!
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on Jul 28, 2006 8:27:28 GMT -5
ES- Diplo victory in a multiplayer strategy game? ROFLMAO ******************************************** I lost a ladder game to Lestat via diplomatic victory as he was elected to Sec General of the UN-- I think it was on the third vote. It was an OCC CTON, and had something to do with the 5-10 ICBM's i sent at each player. I still couldn't believe he won that way! Yup, u nuked all but i have anti nuke tools. Other peoples pop droped but mine not. How i kno it ?? Got spy in each enemie cite and watching nuking ;D I builded UN then in second vote i voted for myself and won. Was Great game.
|
|
|
Post by coloneltreize on Jul 28, 2006 13:47:14 GMT -5
I think there are plenty of people who would love to play full games, but the reality is most don't have the time to play a 10 hour game. Even some ctons that go on for 3 hours are a large commitment of time. There is life outside of civ. If I had the time to play those types of games I would. My suggestion is that you maybe try to host that type of game. I'm sure there will be a few people out there who will interested in joining your game. P.S. Thanks for the different type of games smatt and rupman always fun trying a new type of game style out. Ahem...what about me? I'm hosting a FFA PitBoss multiplayer (see above). With the PitBoss, you don't need to play consistently. Bury her with Trebuchet fire I don't know what ROFLMAO means, but there is a good way to play multiplayer the way I've described. It's called the PitBoss; it allows you to play, log off, log on, and play some more. And with Warlords, like I said above, we now have "anonymous play," the idea you suggested in another thread, which allows players to play without fear of being rank-hounded. In the rules, they specifically state that they don't want to tell us what specific settings to use in-game. Thus, the settings most people play with are not carte blanche. You misunderstood me in my first post. I never referred to the "true" or "real" way to play Civ 4. There's no such thing as the correct way to play single player or the correct way to play multiplayer. I said, "the way Sid Meier intended." I think a true ranking should be based on multiplayer games played the way Sid Meier intended in order to allow slower players who prefer other victory conditions to have a chance to be number one. My point about the ladder is that people shouldn't be ostracized for wanting to play a longer, complete game, and if you don't understand that, then I feel sorry for you. Btw, everyone knows domination is harder than conquest because you have to hold the cities militarily and pay the maintence costs, while expanding yet further. It is easier in that you do not have to eliminate everyone totally. I'm not splitting hairs, here, it is a different victory condition with subtle nuances. You really should try it sometime. And of course its easier to complete any victory condition after you've conquered everyone! Guys, my point overall is that players who are more analytical, like to take their time, think out their moves and go for a more realistic game with all the victory conditions can't compete with impatient players who just speed through the whole thing at a dizzying pace. Of course no one has enough time in one sitting to play an entire game. People should play PitBoss games or agree to stop and play again another day, like you would do in single-player mode. Civ 4 was meant to be a turn-based strategy game. With simultaneous turns and blazing turn timer, that is clearly not the case. In fact, people who play Civ 4 like an RTS should be classified differently in the ladder for fairness to slower players. Cton complained that she was being ganged up on, thus affecting her rank negatively (the solution called cton, I maintain did not fully solve the problem). This is an issue regarding fairness in rank, kind of opposite to the one cton brought up, because not enough ladderites will play against me in a complete game with normal settings for me to achieve a significant rank. For that reason, I humbly feel that it should be taken into consideration what kind of game (pseudo RTS or turn-based) is being played in determining rank. I cannot say how this should be done, I'm just asking that the problem be looked into.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Jul 28, 2006 18:08:53 GMT -5
CT, while the ladder supports PBEM, Pitboss and Epic games, the fact of life is that the average MPer that comes online for a few hours simply does not have time for the style of games your promoting. The 2-6 hour turn limited, X city elim games on fast or blazing, are the only way to get a fun experience in that time frame. You personally may not enjoy them but many do, and they'll alway be the foundation of ladder games.
CS
|
|
|
Post by coloneltreize on Jul 29, 2006 15:44:19 GMT -5
I acknowledged that no one has alot of time in one sitting and offered some ideas like continuing another day or something like that. They're not perfect ideas, I'll be the first to admit, but neither was cton, and it's a start.
I also implied your second point about these settings being the foundation of ladder games, saying that it's difficult to find players.
But what does that say? That the rankings of the Civ 4 ladder, advertised as having the best players in the world, are really based on one dominating style of play, particularly faster, shorter games that more closely resemble an RTS?
Or, on a philosophical note, does that say something about our fast-paced society at large which prefers instant gratification to long-term gains? I remember watching an episode of Dennis the Menace in which Mr. Wilson was playing a a game of chess-by-mail. Whatever happened to that? Of course, Dennis knocked over the chessboard "by accident". But do people really need results so quickly that they are willing to forgo some of the finer aspects of the game? I maintain that it is possible to play 2 hours of three ongoing games instead of one 6-hour game and still enjoy and make full use of your time.
I believe that ultimately the reason the ladder is able to brag that it doesn't have any quitters is the settings used in games, not the ranking system, which most players believe is flawed in one way or another anyway. As a result, anyone non-ladder playing a MP game can use these settings and probably not end having quitters. I would have been impressed if normal speed settings were used and serious players played a duel over the course of days. But as it stands currently, any casual player with a few hours on his hands can rank in the ladder. If the ladder is truly going to represent the best players in the world, then it can't, by definition, be accessible to the average, casual player, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Jul 29, 2006 18:09:33 GMT -5
Many when playing epic matches will have predetermined benchmarks so that an epic match may actually be 3 reports. As for one style dominating play..yes alot of ctons and teamers this being said most of our number 1 rank players have no problem playing ironman epics in CCC time.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Jul 29, 2006 18:36:39 GMT -5
I don't think that the ladder has ever officially said we are the best civ players in the world. Although our performance in the C3C ISDG would indicate that we are in the group of the best civers. The ladder was designed to prevent quiting so that games could be completed, and therefore fun, by not being ruined by quiters. That is all the adminstration has done. The rest of the ladder culture is at the hands of the players. What types/styles are played are completely at the whims of the players, so I can only imagine that the games being played are what the general population wants to play. We as the admins do not dictate what games are played just that the rules are followed when playing these games. You can propose that the average ladder game is not the "whole" civ game as designed by Firaxis, but in fact there is no such game. Civ is what ever each person wants it to be. You can propose that simu turns are RTS like, well I've played RTS games and what we play here is no were near that click fest. I've played true turn based MP back with Civ2MGE and waiting for 5 people to each play there turns each time is no fun at all. Feel free to continue promoting your pitboss/pbem or you can try our Epic games, which I enjoy very much myself. But what is played in the lobby is what the players want, to criticize that is too try changing human nature, good luck with that CS
|
|