|
Post by coloneltreize on Jul 28, 2006 15:59:04 GMT -5
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 and prevent quitting are ludicrous (and let's not kid ouselves, its the lightning fast games that these settings provide that prevent quitting, not the ladder itself). A game called Civilization was simply not meant to be played in an hour. The ladder rankings are based on this inane philosophy, trying to make an involved 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.
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. I understand that. People should play PitBoss games or agree on the honor system 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.
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.
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 good 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 Elledge on Jul 28, 2006 19:37:48 GMT -5
So I see two points being made in your post:
"I prefer longer, more sophisticated matches. Why can't the ladder accomodate me better?"
The ladder isn't an entity, and nobody is conspiring to play shorter city elim games. The fact is, people play the shorter games because a lot of people honestly prefer to play a (relatively) quickie in one sitting over stretching out a longer match over a week or two. The ladder will always be filled with the games that people want to play; there's no other force at work.
Personally I think you're doing a cool job of recruiting people for your PitBoss game(s) and I hope you meet with success; but if you don't, I hope you don't blame an intangible "ladder" - the fault lies in the fact that most of the people here just would rather play quicker matches.
I like both. I think that you're being dismissive of the skill and fun inherent in shorter ladder-style games; a lot of the standards in ladder matches (inland sea ctons, renaissance teamers , future and modern hub) are almost like games in themselves, in that people develop interesting and elaborate specific strategies and they take particular kinds of micromanagement skills to be good at. C4 is very good at providing dozens of very different-tasting game environments in the same package; I hope you don't assume that just because one doesn't suit you, nobody likes it. We wouldn't play it if we didn't like it.
A serious suggestion I would offer up is to head to Apolyton or CivFanatics and check out their 'multiplayer' sections. Singleplayer usually caters to people who play longer games (mostly because the AI sucks at ladder-style matches which are quite military-reliant, I imagine, and so they'd never become popular) and so when those folks make the transition to multiplayer it is usually first with single-player-esque gametypes. You'll find a lot of people playing long ancient PitBoss and PBEM games there.
I hope you become more and more successful with getting people from the ladder to play them, though.
Point two:
"The ranking system should branch out to independently classify different types of games."
In an ideal world, this is definitely true. There is a huge gap between a player being #1 at a Renaissance teamer, #1 on an Earth map, #1 at an FFA, #1 at an Islands OCC, #1 at a CTON, #1 in future, et al, and on forever. Because of the huge variety in strategy, not separating game types makes the ladder ranking pretty unreliable when you want to try to get a sense for a player's skill in a specific sort of game. I agree with you there.
However, you apparently have not noticed that the ladder ranking is completely unreliable in fifty other, more obviously effective ways. It's tremendously volatile from day-to-day, multiple reports from teamers and FFAs break it six ways from Sunday, it's fundamentally based not on skill but on activity, and only the formal challenge system (which hardly anyone uses) keeps the high ranks from staying at high ranks forever without risking their status.
The rank number next to your name means almost zero. It's so close to meaningless that it's useless agonizing about it; the same is true for the other statistics, in varying amounts. You're the only one who remembers all the games you've played, and your memory is the best way to gauge your skill; rely on it, not the little numbers.
So frankly I don't think that it matters one bit whether the rank calculated itself specific to given game types or not.
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Jul 28, 2006 22:47:34 GMT -5
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 and prevent quitting are ludicrous (and let's not kid ouselves, its the lightning fast games that these settings provide that prevent quitting, not the ladder itself). A game called Civilization was simply not meant to be played in an hour. The ladder rankings are based on this inane philosophy, trying to make an involved 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. 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. I understand that. People should play PitBoss games or agree on the honor system 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. 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. 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 good 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. theres games on the ladder called epics where players play for 4 to 6 hours depending on the day and all set nother date and time to finish the game. u can set up epics right here on this fourm.
|
|
|
Post by coloneltreize on Jul 29, 2006 17:47:33 GMT -5
So I see two points being made in your post: "I prefer longer, more sophisticated matches. Why can't the ladder accomodate me better?"The ladder isn't an entity, and nobody is conspiring to play shorter city elim games. The fact is, people play the shorter games because a lot of people honestly prefer to play a (relatively) quickie in one sitting over stretching out a longer match over a week or two. The ladder will always be filled with the games that people want to play; there's no other force at work. Personally I think you're doing a cool job of recruiting people for your PitBoss game(s) and I hope you meet with success; but if you don't, I hope you don't blame an intangible "ladder" - the fault lies in the fact that most of the people here just would rather play quicker matches. I like both. I think that you're being dismissive of the skill and fun inherent in shorter ladder-style games; a lot of the standards in ladder matches (inland sea ctons, renaissance teamers , future and modern hub) are almost like games in themselves, in that people develop interesting and elaborate specific strategies and they take particular kinds of micromanagement skills to be good at. C4 is very good at providing dozens of very different-tasting game environments in the same package; I hope you don't assume that just because one doesn't suit you, nobody likes it. We wouldn't play it if we didn't like it.
A serious suggestion I would offer up is to head to Apolyton or CivFanatics and check out their 'multiplayer' sections. Singleplayer usually caters to people who play longer games (mostly because the AI sucks at ladder-style matches which are quite military-reliant, I imagine, and so they'd never become popular) and so when those folks make the transition to multiplayer it is usually first with single-player-esque gametypes. You'll find a lot of people playing long ancient PitBoss and PBEM games there.
I hope you become more and more successful with getting people from the ladder to play them, though.
Point two:
"The ranking system should branch out to independently classify different types of games."
In an ideal world, this is definitely true. There is a huge gap between a player being #1 at a Renaissance teamer, #1 on an Earth map, #1 at an FFA, #1 at an Islands OCC, #1 at a CTON, #1 in future, et al, and on forever. Because of the huge variety in strategy, not separating game types makes the ladder ranking pretty unreliable when you want to try to get a sense for a player's skill in a specific sort of game. I agree with you there.
However, you apparently have not noticed that the ladder ranking is completely unreliable in fifty other, more obviously effective ways. It's tremendously volatile from day-to-day, multiple reports from teamers and FFAs break it six ways from Sunday, it's fundamentally based not on skill but on activity, and only the formal challenge system (which hardly anyone uses) keeps the high ranks from staying at high ranks forever without risking their status.
The rank number next to your name means almost zero. It's so close to meaningless that it's useless agonizing about it; the same is true for the other statistics, in varying amounts. You're the only one who remembers all the games you've played, and your memory is the best way to gauge your skill; rely on it, not the little numbers.
So frankly I don't think that it matters one bit whether the rank calculated itself specific to given game types or not.I know in the rules, it specifically states 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. But I suspect some players, like myself during my first ladder game, play with these settings out of peer pressure. For example, I hosted my first ladder game and my opponent (who shall remain nameless) looked at the settings I chose and said quizzically, "I thought this was a ladder game," falsely implying that there was one correct way to play. I changed my settings promptly so as not to lose a player, plus I figured I would try playing his way, as he is a prominent member of the ladder and I thought I could learn a thing or two from him. Well, I did learn some stuff about the game, but that's beside the point. Perhaps if more players knew about PitBoss and their other options, it would become more popular. But does that say that most people here would rather just play quicker matches? 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? Moreover, 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 don't at all assume I have the majority opinion on this. Basically, my beef is that I'm a slow player who gets frustrated when I can't finish all my moves in blazing speed, while the other guy claims he's bored waiting for me. I just don't see how so many people are able to enjoy the blazing speed and sim turns all while still being able to micromage, plot and scheme in the time alotted. ;D In most blazing games, I cannot complete all my moves before my time is up. I will take your advice and spread out a bit. I got a ton of good game advice from the CivFanatics site, so we'll see what kind of MP games they're up for. In fact, I have read the other posts stating emphatically that the ranking system is flawed. My complaint has less to do with the calculation of the statistics, and more to do with aspects of competitiveness and fairness within the game, which I'll explain. Regarding my second point, while I hardly expect to have a game style named after me, I'd like to point out that there is a fundamental difference between simply ranking different playing styles differently and what I'm talking about. With settings like sim turns, blazing speed, etc. Civ 4 is basically no longer a turn-based game, but another game altogether, more like an RTS. Some people can play an RTS. I cannot, which is why I like Civ 4. I believe that regardless of the ladder ranks, I would be able to play more games with a fair chance. Naturally, if I cannot keep up with blazing speed and if I lose more games because of it, then the game becomes less fun. I sincerely believe that I could beat more people if they played without the time constraints. Turn limit is fine, though. Fast thinkers shouldn't have an unfair advantage over micromanagers in a game that spans millenia. I even dare say that many fast players want to keep it that way. Cton complained about something that affected her rank and made the game less fun for her and others (being rank-hounded). She was influential enough to have a game style named after her. I hardly think or want a game style named after me, but my reasons for complaning are similar and valid. I think you mis-paraphrased me. I don't even know if it's possible for the ranking system to branch out to independently classify different types of games. I don't think it is. Like I said, I don't know what the solution should be, I just think that more attention should be payed to it. Another point to chew on: 3. 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 either. 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. Thanks for your support, btw, and I look forward to seeing you in our game. I like your pic, ghost (big fan of The Simpsons). I'll take your advice and look at epic games as well. Thx.
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jul 29, 2006 21:25:50 GMT -5
Moreover, 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 don't think so. You really don't empathize with the feeling of satisfaction that comes from finishing a game in a single sitting? Playing for three hours and coming to a conclusion is usually just generally more fun than playing a game for three hours and adjourning it to a later date. Nothing happened to correspondence chess. Lots of people play it, myself included. That analogy doesn't click at all with me, because you can spend hours analyzing a given chess position; the extra time to think actually changes the flavor of the game a lot. Personally, after hundreds of civ games, I instinctively almost always finish all my micro and planning on a blazing timer; sometimes I don't, but if you gave me five minutes per move, I wouldn't play any differently than if you gave me five hours per move. By the way I feel that just improves with experience. Frankly, I think it would be for the good of the game if everything were played on a "fast" timer; sometimes blazing literally isn't enough time during a war, even if you click like a machine. But 95% of my moves are complete on a blazing timer - that means worker actions, changing citizen placement in my cities, military movement, it's all doable. After enough games it really becomes very natural and you don't have to remind yourself "ok, what was this worker doing again?" or "what was i going to build in this city?" So... I empathize with the fact that you feel rushed, but it gets better. Plus, I actually enjoy the time pressure as an added aspect of the game. When you're faced with the challenge of moving around and doing all your stuff in 40 seconds against an opponent who has the same limit, it's another point of skill differentiation in who can manage their time the best and plan clearly on a deadline. I don't think it's at all like an RTS, because it's possible for everyone to do almost everything on a blazing timer with experience, and once you're at that point being faster or better doesn't help. (Although I dislike the act-react reflex military tactics; I think non-simultaneous turns would really be a boon there.)
|
|
|
Post by coloneltreize on Jul 31, 2006 17:19:14 GMT -5
After reading one of your other posts here: civ4players.proboards44.com/index.cgi?board=mmsftl&action=display&thread=1146976657it occurs to me, Elledge that you are a more complex Civ 4 ladder player than you let on. Basically my complaint was born of disguised, yet misguided competitiveness, since the ranking system is not to be taken seriously. Aside from the fairness-in-rank issue, provided every game is a friendly one, I just feel rushed in a blazing game, is all. Since anyone can play what ever game they want to play, this amounts to a discussion about our likes and dislikes. Okay, I relent that I am biased toward a certain playing style in Civ 4. I do enjoy playing games that are finished in one sitting. However, not with Civ 4, unless that sitting lasts an entire 460 turns with a regular turn timer, lol! Regarding correspondence chess, I was just citing an anecdote to illustrate my feelings about our modern, fast paced society, as opposed to a strict analogy relating to my complaint. In other words, I didn't mean to say I needed 5 hours to complete a turn. For example, I'm playing a PBEM game right now and I only need 5 minutes max. to make all my moves (and that's when I've got to manage 10 or more cities and a HUGE army). I'm glad people still play that, though. This is precisely what I mean by "pseudo-RTS" You did say, and I quote: This is exactly what I'm talking about. The reason IMHO, is that they would get bored to tears in a game with limited or no combat. I think it's been said before, but the ladder, because of the ranks which some people take very seriously, (I don't know who those could be : is very combat-driven. It's specifically those players I have in mind when I say that I could beat them easily given a five-minute turn timer. Those players use a blazing timer not only because they are impatient, but because they don't want to give other players enough time to think, in order to compensate for their own lack of intelligence. Then again, a player who can micromanage and think on their feet can trump them in any case. Note that I am not saying that you fall into this catagory or that all ladderites do, I'm just referring to that group, whomever they may be. and: and: and: I also agree with you on these points. I guess the bottom line is that if I want to play against good players (i.e. ladder players), I will have to adapt and improve my speed game with practice. Meanwhile, Elledge, I have moved the thread of my game because it is now an epic as well. It is here: civ4players.proboards44.com/index.cgi?board=egames&action=display&thread=1154321278I respect you, I welcome any ideas you have for different ladder games and I hope to see you in our game!
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jul 31, 2006 19:08:13 GMT -5
colonel pls stop spreading your idea in every section - u got enough replies allready i think - either u get that most people dont have more then 3 hours to play a game or not
I can guarantee u that i m very analytical and thinking my moves very well when playing civ - i love ironman epic - and never lost a epic mp civ4 game (as far as i remeber) but the mp reallity is just a differnt civ due to time - also tend long games to be decided fast and everything what happens after some time is just a long dragging
|
|
|
Post by coloneltreize on Jul 31, 2006 21:08:11 GMT -5
Again tommy, I object to your insinuation that I have posted in every section indiscriminately. The only thread I started on this topic is this one in the appropriate section, and I responded to others in the thread called "Ladder match types." My posts in that thread are relevant to the conversation. If you don't like what I have to say, you don't have to read it. Unless you're a moderator, I'm sure you have better things to do than to police everyone's posts. This is the second time you have publicly chastised me. Please save your further complaints for private messaging to me or a moderator. P.S. That's sounds like you're taking me a little personally, like you have something to defend against.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Aug 1, 2006 18:44:58 GMT -5
no but i m a avaerage ladder player andu should not think that u r better in analytical civ thinkin then a average ladder player
|
|
|
Post by coloneltreize on Aug 2, 2006 1:02:28 GMT -5
I'm gald you are analytical and you enjoy longer games like ironman and epic, and I respect you for that. But like you said, the average player doesn't have time for those styles, so you are by definition not average, like me.
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Aug 9, 2006 13:49:04 GMT -5
tommy u conceeded an ironman liarrr!!!!!!!!!!!1 i was right enxt to you ^^
|
|
|
Post by Polydeukes on Aug 10, 2006 3:59:41 GMT -5
tommy u conceeded an ironman liarrr!!!!!!!!!!!1 i was right enxt to you ^^ Not true. He subbed in for germ and he conceeded cause we need a player for the med teamer.
|
|
|
Post by Polydeukes on Aug 10, 2006 4:02:08 GMT -5
no but i m a avaerage ladder player andu should not think that u r better in analytical civ thinkin then a average ladder player Hehe average ladder player ;D really modest and btw when will you join the wl crowd. We miss you
|
|
|
Post by Fairchild on Oct 7, 2006 23:55:28 GMT -5
I identify with coloneltreize's dislike of the uber-fast gamestyle of most ladder games.
While people are free to play whatever style of civ game they like, a certain amount of the strategy of the game is sacrificed for the speedier settings. There's a "strategy layer" feature in the game... ever heard of it or used it?
However, I don't think the ladder need to incorporate a more sophisticated ranking system to take into consideration this arguably 'better' gamestyle. I don't play ladder for the rank - anyone who does is vain and will never be happy with any changes unless it helps them get to #1. I play ladder because players are required to complete their games and behave appropriately.
I also agree with everything Elledge said in his first posting in this thread; particularly, his point that a rank in the ladder means absolutely nothing. Ladder players are not 'good' players. Those at the top of the ladder aren't the 'best' in the world. The only thing any ladder player is is written in the rules: well-behaved non-quitters. I'd like to add that even IF people in the ladder attach a high importance to rank, then they are still not allowed to act on that belief as ladder players cannot refuse to play another player because of their low/high ranking - it's in the rules, check it out.
I have to agree with coloneltreize when he said:
It seems that there are certain universal game settings in the ladder: 120 turn limit, 2 city elmination, blazing, quick, etc. I'll never forget this one game I hosted, a high ranking player entered the stagging room and asked for the above settings. I said I didn't want those settings and he advised me "no serious ladder player will play you without these settings." I realize for the most part he is correct - anybody looking to 'climb the ladder' by necessity has to play lots of quick games everyday to do so. But I question his decision to call these people "serious players" as their goal is merely to have the bragging rights of a high rank - pure vanity.
The reality is I don't get to play much on the ladder because of the overwhelming dominance of uber-fast settings, which is unfortunate.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Oct 8, 2006 4:42:57 GMT -5
the thing is that even so soooo fast 120t blazing timer setting can easily lead to a 3-4 hour game. Also good players are able to advance in this so "ueber short" setting more then half of the tech path. In addition the design of civ4 is like that, that usually some1 having a tech lead ll easily be able to hold it (for example if you are 1. to buerocracy u ll very likly be 1. to liberalism then 1. to republic and printing press and so on).
So it s a kinda very good setting to play a real game of civ, and to find out the best in it in a timeframe which is every1 able to do.
But then i agree that different settings should be played and i try to do so myself.
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Oct 8, 2006 13:09:31 GMT -5
Tommy when tech trading is on tech lead doesnt mean much
|
|
|
Post by Bonez on Oct 8, 2006 22:45:31 GMT -5
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. This is an issue regarding fairness in rank, I'm just asking that the problem be looked into. Well, I understand completely... even not being an "active" member of this community. In civ3 we have a group of players that play epics and meet on Saturday mornings to start them. While playing 1 game until completion or an obvious winner emerges, it can take 8-12 hours, or even longer. We came to believe we are playing this game in it's full glory, the way that it was meant to be played (our opinion only of course). In te course of this time... it is true that you could have played 6-10 "regular" length games, thus hurting your chances to move up in the traditional ranking system. We at civ3 don't seem so obseesed with ranking, it seems to me, as you are in civ4. We play ladder for good competition and games without quitters. Plus we are a community in which we like playing with people we know, rather then anonymous names. Thats why we are ladder... but I feel your solution may be simpler... start a club ladder.... (of course if this isn't a conflict of interests with admins, not trying to suggest a competing ladder), where only these epics gamers report their epics... so while u fail to rapidly move up the traditional ladder, you could still climb the epic club. Just my suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Oct 8, 2006 23:32:48 GMT -5
or use the epic reporting system
8. To reward multiple victories the benchmark will be game years. Wins will be awarded at the following years: 2000BC, 500BC, 500AD, 1000AD, 1500AD, 1800AD, 1900AD, 1950AD, 2000AD, 2050AD
9. This will give up to 10 possible victories in one game. If a player is completely destroyed he/she reports the final losses, and then no longer has to report again. The multiple scoring opportunities are to make epic game play more rewarding for ladder players, while providing a new experience in contrast to the ‘short’ elimination games
|
|