|
Post by drspike on Nov 4, 2005 3:21:25 GMT -5
I have to say that I'm with Eyes - if the game isn't a good duel game then that's a shame for MP. I'm really hoping it is, but Eyes has been whinging for days now and (with the possible exception of Fried just above) the responses haven't exactly convinced me that strategic depth is there in duels. Fried/Canuck, do your best, I want to be convinced. If my copy arrives later maybe I can even try and see.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Nov 4, 2005 7:46:06 GMT -5
Eyes just got beat by clever and advanced strategy last night, DrSpike. He just dismissed it as a buggy game because he didn't like the result.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Nov 4, 2005 9:20:55 GMT -5
LMAO
|
|
|
Post by StarlightDeath on Nov 4, 2005 11:49:07 GMT -5
Drspike you will see the same lines over and over about strategic depth and how you can do this and that, but when you get right down to it their replies are pretty baseless. I should have copied and pasted some of my chats with canucksoldier but I was afraid that maybe he was revealing too much and he'd get in trouble with his non-disclosure or any other legal means they're using to keep beta testers in line. In the private chats with him he sounds very meek and his replies are to the effect that this game was rushed and 1v1 isn't going to work in this game and that hopefully there will be a patch to fix some of the gameplay problems and if not a mod can be used.
|
|
|
Post by StarlightDeath on Nov 4, 2005 11:50:31 GMT -5
By the way Ghost, I am StarlightDeath. We played and you lost pretty bad. You agreed with alot of the things I said about this game. I have many names on the civ2 server.
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Nov 4, 2005 12:22:23 GMT -5
I don't think any admins and beta testers are denying that there are bugs.
Discover constructive criticism.
|
|
|
Post by StarlightDeath on Nov 4, 2005 12:41:04 GMT -5
I have had constructive criticism, but the fact is I have no power over the game because I'm not a beta tester. I could probably fix the RTS implemented issues in a flash, I know them like the back of my hand. I could fix the slow game play and the problem of players not being able to gain leads. It doesn't matter though because I don't think they want to fix them. I think this game is like this for a reason and I think it has to do with sales figures. Who would you rather appeal to, a hardcore gamer like me or the 500 people sitting in games with titles like "BLAZING FAST HUGE GAME NO QUITTERS"? I think the answer is clear. Sure it's a piece of nuts as far as strategy goes, but strategy doesn't sell.
|
|
|
Post by mike8472 on Nov 4, 2005 13:11:33 GMT -5
Well from my MP experience in CIV IV which is limited but i only play with a number o players not 1 vs 1 (boring) well for now it is. I want to compete against mainy human players all learning trying different tactics.
If a military situation is a stalemate, then like in a real world situation use a bit of cloak and dagger. Try and subvert his cities to your relgion. Use diplmacy to create a war on muliple fronts by multple enemies. Use the ocean and land mass invasion fleets behind his lines.
Ive also used catapults in combination with other units to greate effect. Even powerful cities builts ontop of hills, will walls andl ots of units can be brought to its knees.
If 1vs1 is not giving youm uch pleasure then try other bigger games. Ive got a good bunch of mates who play other games reguarly like hoi 2 (Hearts Of Iron 2). Now these games go for months so even epic civ games on a huge manp will only go for a few weeks at most, maybe only days. Its far more enjoyable playing this way.
If you only want the quick win to get some points for a ladder, well you will never enjoy civ as it should be enjoyed. Expand your horizons and vary your game setups its alot more fun.
|
|
|
Post by drspike on Nov 4, 2005 14:37:03 GMT -5
Fried/Canuck I think you have to tackle Eyes' points a bit more, and not just score the easy wins teasing him about his oversized head. Also, there is a difference between bugs and a lack of strategic diversity. Bugs can be fixed much more easily. Maybe it will help if I ask instead of him. 1) In your opinion are there sufficient counters to an overly defensive building stategy in duels 2) Is the game built such that the better player will most likely be able to pull clear during the game Because, regardless of his attitude, Eyes is right in that if these two questions are answered by a no or even a maybe then Civ4 MP still needs to be looked at. Of course, I can form my own opinions soon, but before I sink a lot of time into MP duels I'd like to know it will be worth it. PM me if you prefer.
|
|
|
Post by ozzykp on Nov 4, 2005 15:40:06 GMT -5
It seems to me like there are more options to fight a heavily defended city in Civ4 than there were in fighting a city built on a mountain with city walls and pikemen in Civ2.
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Nov 4, 2005 16:17:15 GMT -5
Even if civs are too defensible atm, we have the capability to mod, like we did in Civ3. I'm almost positive that there'll be at least 2 expansions -- like most games these days -- that will add even more features to this game.
As of right now, my 2 main concerns with civ4 are:
1. The MP lobby -- which we've heard will be addressed 2. The lack of early rushing capability (contrary to what certain ppl might think, it's easy to defend an early Civ3 jag rush, that granary can't be the first darn thing you build. Instead of adapting, I feel that some people that "hated early rushing" had too much sayso in regards to civ4).
|
|
|
Post by StarlightDeath on Nov 4, 2005 17:15:06 GMT -5
lol Ozzy, that statement just goes to show how poor you were at civ2. It was really really easy to take cities in civ2, especially ones with city walls because there was this thing called a diplomat that could sabotage city walls. Then you just bring in veteran catapults with veteran pikes and bring in a settler to build a fortress so your stack won't die. Catapults beat fortified veteran pikes on mountains very easily. The fact is you don't like rushing Ozzy, you said it yourself that you don't like playing with the idea that someone could hit you early. You'll find a whole array of beginning players who agree with you and thus civ4 was born.
Oh, and unlike in this game, having your own catapults in your city wasn't going to win. In addition, in civ2 you had far more capability in going to other cities. It was much much harder to defend in civ2 than it was in this game. I mean hell, you can see 4 squares out from your city what is coming and you can see everything inside a guys city. Everywhere I look I see this game has been dumbed down.
|
|
|
Post by TheGoddess on Nov 4, 2005 17:23:09 GMT -5
Zhenon,
I agree with you about the early rushers. Seems some people were quite concerned about being eliminated early or had been eliminated early too many times in the past. Definately a negative here.
As for the other poster saying that there are many more ways to attack a well defended city, that may be true. However that works both ways so its a stalemate.
I dont think anyone is upset about the "units" in CIV. I think we all like the diversity of the units, not too keen on the attack value only, I think that was a huge mistake as well as the 3D graphics.
The feel of the game is not the same, its akward, sluggish, difficult to discern opposing civ units, and not clear inregards to building units or buildings. Those little icons are too similar, the Civ3 interface was much more enjoyable and concise.
Yes its overly defensive, that is its most visible flaw.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Nov 4, 2005 17:23:12 GMT -5
Everywhere I look I see this game has been dumbed down. Well I am all for people having their opinion so heres mine. Either Moron up or shut up!
|
|
|
Post by TheGoddess on Nov 4, 2005 17:25:32 GMT -5
Yeah I forgot to mention that really dumb aspect EoN. Being able to see inside another persons city is really a stupid idea. May we inquire as to whom dreamt up this brilliant gem?
|
|
|
Post by StarlightDeath on Nov 4, 2005 17:25:34 GMT -5
Thankyou random for proving me wrong in all my arguments. You have left me completely defenseless now as you have whittled me down to nothing. You are truely a man of genius.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Nov 4, 2005 18:03:53 GMT -5
Defensive vs. Offensive - I have answered this clearly in another thread. EoN assured me that he had an answer for every possible attack, missing the point that a proper opponent would never allow the defender a perfect position, or would do something to disrupt it, or have a technological advantage, etc,etc - OF COURSE a defender with vast, nearly unlimited resources, heavily promoted units, and a big tech lead is going to win a war - it's the resources, units, and technology that do it, not the fact that he's the defender.
Better player/worse player - last night I made a really horrid mistake and lost my second city to barbs. My opponent had godly land and scored three wonders before I had three towns. I still won. That answer the better player/worse player question?
Rushing - I've had a game go 9 minutes. I've killed players very quickly. I've won roughly 1/2 my games by Sledge, 1/4 by Castle, and 1/4 by Dagger - that was a stylistic preference. I've watched people's Military indicator and known I can do it a lot faster. Duel maps sometimes place players 8 tiles apart to start. If you can't rush at 8 tiles, there's not much any Civ game can do for you.
I would say that pretty much every player that has said they don't like the game has
A) Had a graphical problem which is serious, and that's understandable - but they should wait for the first patch. (Many players here.)
B) Discovered it isn't a clone of C3C with better graphics, discovered their old strategies don't work, and don't want to try and learn new ones, making a snap judgement against it. (Goddess to a lesser degree, EoN to a large degree.)
C) People with extreme frustration over new lobby interfaces and what not. These are legitimate, but again, be patient. Firaxis knows and is working on these - the first patch will make you happy.
The game is legitimate and good, if you let go of what you WANT it to be, and accept it as what it IS. Every reviewer - those who went in without preconceptions of what they wanted it to be - sang the game's praises. To the people with graphical problems, I apologize, that sucks, and please give it time.
To the snap judgers... well. You're either going to give it a fair break or not. It's not C3C, and never will be.
|
|
|
Post by StarlightDeath on Nov 4, 2005 18:11:28 GMT -5
You keep making this argument but it's really a poor one. Especially considering that in Age of empires 2:TC I was known throughout the community for my out of the ordinary play and use of civs that weren't commonly used with unorthodox strategies. Creating strategies is my favorite part of computer games. I got good at civ2 by creating new strategies, not following old ones. In addition, not once have I tried to use an old civ2 strategy. Typical fanboy response from a typical fanboy.
Citing reviewers as positive press is pretty dumb considering they give good reviews to pretty much every game. In addition, no reviewer plays the game long enough or competitively enough to really get into the game. ALl they do is look at the new features and the eye candy and start wowing over what a genius sid meier is. If we started accepting what civ is and not what we want it to be then there would be no need for criticism now would there? Then again, I think you'd be just fine with that now wouldn't you?
I've been using tiny maps, maybe this is my problem?
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Nov 4, 2005 18:14:31 GMT -5
If you're looking to rush, yes, that is your problem. It's called a "duel" map for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Nov 4, 2005 18:15:53 GMT -5
The city defence bonus is too extreme with expanded boarders and walls you get 70% defence, thats just too much. Imagine having to bring 70% more units than the defender...
|
|