I started up and played three games at noble now and every game has gone the same shitty way. I thought noble level was no handicap which would mean the computer should be struggling with the same problems I do. Well, how then do they expand like grasshoppers with obviously no negative effect on economics/research and then they just start war and attack me relentlessly (with same jolly economics as it seems) until they break me? Something is not right. Sure I can stand firm to fight a standstill war with Shaka from BC until 1800 AC...and watch my lead go from top to helplessly last and what do Shaka care? He wasn't in it to win anyway, right? As long as he had himself a good meaningless, resource-draining fight. Great fun. And sure, I can build all-out cottages to see production at a standstill instead. And just wait for the hordes to run me over sooner or later with their fantastic production capacity, double or tripple promoted units while expanding their kingdom and pulling healthy research.

Am I the only one feeling like breaking this game in two right now?

Yay a gripe thread!

Seriously, Noble means that the AI will not recieve any handsome monuses. They get some WW reduction and a glimpse of some of the map. The reason why they can sustain larger empires than you could be one of these:
Their traits are better suited,
Their land is better developed (larger :commerce: potential),
Your land is not being utilized properly (forgetting to switch from :hammers: to :commerce: tiles, lack of improvements),
They have certain maintenance reduction that you do not have (Courthouses, Ikhandas, Rathauses, Ziggurats, State Property),
Your cities are too small (lack of :) and :health:),
You are running your slider too high,
You are not pillaging even if possible,
You are not dedicating enough focus to your economy,
You have :mad: citizens which needs to be fed without providing any benefits,
You have too many units that are not in use,
You are not trading your excess resources for money,
They are trading their excess resources for money,
The war is on their land (WW for you, support for you)*.

... That said, sometimes the AI doesn't think properly when DoWing. This goes especially for people like Ragnar and Montezuma who are just nuts. Shaka is a bit more sane, but still blatantly aggressive. The problem you might have is not counting on the war, hence not building enough troops (lowering your Power, making you a viable target), which can cost you cities (and that makes youa ngry/frustrated, then you lose focus and start bashing the monitor). The AI tendancy of attacking to make you lose instead of making itself win can be combatted in two ways: The easy way (TROOPS) or the hard way (Diplomacy). Remember to take care of Diplomacy. Denying Shaka a worthless tech might seem cool, until he is steamrolling you. Tributes and gifts grants you 10 turns peace and a diplomatic bonus instead of a diplomatic negative. Also, take care of religious issues as well as everyones worst enemies.

Lastly, you cannot befriend everyone every game. If for some reason most of the AIs hate Spain, dont stand up for them. Cancel deals with them once you get asked. The new patch allows you to see what civs thinks that the AI you are talking to is their worst enemy. A brilliant example is Gandhi in the succession game in my signature below, ICS4. Take a look at it. A fair trade of Monarchy for Currency turns into a complete suicide once you learn that three civs get a negative on you for trading. Sure, Monarchy is nice, but it is not as important as holding on to your life. Same goes when the AI demands something. If they are a danger, let them have it.

EDIT: *: Ideally, you want to fight in enemy lands, if you can take their cities. If you are not concentrating 100% on the war, you will not be able to take any of their cities. An indecisive war on the offense is worse than a dedicated war on the defense. Remember that. And remember always to be dedicated to a war, even if it was the AI who DoWed. Its not like the problem will go away if you ignore it. It will go away when it is killed.

Sure I can stand firm to fight a standstill war with Shaka from BC until 1800 AC...and watch my lead go from top to helplessly last and what do Shaka care?

Shaka is not the best example to use when complaining about all this. His UB not only allows him to beef up his military but it also reduces the maintenance costs of his cities by 20%, which he can also start using right away. This gives him a huge advantage when it comes to expanding his empire. Plus he's a bloodthirsty backstabber that just likes to build lots of units and beat on everyone. Overall, he's probably one of the worst neighbours to end up with because of all that. There's times that I won't even play a game if he ends up being my neighbour because he can be such a pain in the butt.

Julius attacked me with literally dozens of catapults when my army might've been twenty units.

Noble means that the AI will not recieve any handsome monuses. They get some WW reduction ... That said, sometimes the AI doesn't think properly when DoWing.

The problem you might have is not counting on the war, hence not building enough troops (lowering your Power, making you a viable target),

Tributes and gifts grants you 10 turns peace and a diplomatic bonus instead of a diplomatic negative.
Good advise all of it although I feel I have a reasonable check on most of these issues. Not all though.

What is WW?
What is DoWing (I assume being the aggressor)?
Enough troops? Well, this is very interesting because what is that? More than 5 units per city? The more units I build just to show off, the more upkeep it costs and it stresses the economy out. This is a dilemma for me for sure.
Does a tribute no matter how small result in a 10 turns guaranteed peace? Never heard of before and it seems like a very important piece of information. I note that smallish tributes don't result in better relations though, it seems like a tribute needs to be fairly sizable in order to gain diplomacy plus. And I'm often pretty short for resources myself. Maybe if i have 2 rice I can give that away but never cash. That is always stretched as it is.

God i hate it when i lose my GG unit to pissant units when i have a 95% chance to win.

Good advise all of it although I feel I have a reasonable check on most of these issues. Not all though.

What is WW?

War Weariness


What is DoWing (I assume being the aggressor)?
Declaration of war

Enough troops? Well, this is very interesting because what is that? More than 5 units per city? The more units I build just to show off, the more upkeep it costs and it stresses the economy out. This is a dilemma for me for sure.

Not really, In the end game I'll have an army of about 40-50 units, and a small naval fleet complete with aircraft carriers.





My only advice for you is to watch the noble's club games.

What is WW?

War Weariness

What is DoWing (I assume being the aggressor)?

Declaration Of War

Enough troops? Well, this is very interesting because what is that? More than 5 units per city?

You need to keep your eye on the Power graph in your Demographics screen. If you're towards the bottom then the other civs will see you as weak and quite possibly declare on you. You need to keep your Power rating in the top third at least in order for the other civs to think twice about attacking you. Being the most powerful is the best of course and will even discourge warmongers like Shaka. Usually. And the number of units isn't the only thing this graph considers. Structures like Barracks, Walls etc. are also added to it. So you can boost your Power rating without really adding anything to your economy.

The more units I build just to show off, the more upkeep it costs and it stresses the economy out.

Then build more Cottages.

Maybe if i have 2 rice I can give that away but never cash. That is always stretched as it is.

See above.

Being the most powerful is the best of course and will even discourge warmongers

Unless his neighbor is Monty. He'll still DoW you even if he's last and you're first.:lol:

Anyway, I'd suggest build more cottages, and start using city specialization. You also might want to read some of the guides in the war academy section of the CFC.

Also, don't just declare war when you're sure you can win. Declare war when a opponent starts to get too powerful. Taking some of their border cities in the early game can cripple them for the rest of the game. Just make sure it doesn't backfire.

Unless his neighbor is Monty. He'll still DoW you even if he's last and you're first.:lol:


You'll notice I added "Usually". Even Shaka is rather crazy when it comes to that. Most of the Aggressive civs for that matter, though normally they have to be fairly close to your Power rating before they'll have a go at you when you're on top. Monty is by far the worst of the bunch though. He's more than just crazy, he's insane.

AI gets reduced maintanance costs on all levels of difficulty. Noble just means it doesn't get a bonus to research and production.

AI gets reduced maintanance costs on all levels of difficulty. Noble just means it doesn't get a bonus to research and production.

Not true. The AI gets no reduction in maintenance costs for cities or units at Noble or below. The AI does get a few bonuses relative to the human player at Noble, but they aren't to maintenance. They to pay only 50% for unit supply, but that is an extra cost applied to units that are outside your territory (and which is generally negligible. They also get bonuses to inflation, war weariness and unit upgrade costs, but not maintenance.

//...moan moan moan...//

I don't mean to diss you (too much) and I do actually understand your frustrationbecause I felt the same when i was new to the game. I can only recommend reading some of the tutorials here about city specialization etc., because the problems you are experiencing can only stem from the fact that you are not enough familiar with the game. In a short time you will look back on what you wrote in this thread and laugh.

Practice helps. :) There have been a few times where I've gotten a large starting location to myself, so I saved the map and replayed it a few times, just to practice the art of expansion.

These days, I can frequently outexpand the Emperor-level AI, and sometimes find myself #1 in GNP, production, food, and land area during the BC era. :)

You need to keep your eye on the Power graph in your Demographics screen. If you're towards the bottom then the other civs will see you as weak and quite possibly declare on you. You need to keep your Power rating in the top third at least in order for the other civs to think twice about attacking you. Being the most powerful is the best of course and will even discourge warmongers like Shaka. Usually. And the number of units isn't the only thing this graph considers. Structures like Barracks, Walls etc. are also added to it. So you can boost your Power rating without really adding anything to your economy.
Now this is good stuff. I haven't had a look at that at all. I'm not new to the game at all and I have won a 7 civ game on noble before on Terra map. But sure, I don't know everything so these pointers are good to think about. Also, I tend not to specialise cities. Maybe I should have a look at that? About specialisation I have sort of always felt "naah, what if I lose a city and that is specialised? Better then to lose a 'one of many' type city. Much easier to recover from."

Try being more aggressive earlier on. If you'd like to do that a good civ to play as is the Romans who have a ridiculously powerful unique unit, which with city raider promotions will slaughter Shaka even in small amounts and you don't even need siege weapons.

You can also try something like sending Warriors into their territory early on(just declare war and fortify em in forests and on hills), scaring their workers and settlers inside the cities and they can't develop.

Shaka's AI is expansive just like he's been since the first game. He builds a ton of cities and he even has a building that makes it easier for him to do so. Gotta do something about him early and quickly, or else he is gonna do that. It's really annoying.

To make money a cool thing to do is combine Bureaucracy and Hereditary Rule so your capital city becomes an economic powerhouse. And remember to build cottages, but it's not really that important on Noble. You are in a more flexible situation than you think.

And remember, luck can have a lot to do with things.

And remember to build cottages, but it's not really that important on Noble.

Certainly it is. Cottages are important no matter what level you're playing at.

I mean you don't have to worry about getting so many of them. On Noble you can be a little more relaxed, you don't have to work yourself into a cottaging mindset.

But you should build them, they come in handy for money and especially later with Universal Suffrage when they help your production too.

But on Prince and below I like to screw around and do all sorts of crazy stuff. You have more flexibility than on the higher ones.

Does anyone see a problem with playing against an AI that has more than double the amount of cities than you and equal or higher research? I do, at least in the medium to long term. Still that is what some AI:s pull off early in the game on noble level. Say 8-10 cities when I got 4 and I’m struggling with my economy at 80% research although having the financial trait. If I elect to do only cottages I would manage a little better… for a while. Having 1 hammer or so because of this soon lands me the weakest by far in power graph and attacked by an aggressive neighbour. Game over. Was Peter freed from all maintenance costs associated with expansion I wonder? In one game I even got more than 200 gold from villages at the start. A very powerful benefit (I thought), but I ended up the backwater anyway. Or did Peter run a deficit and the other civs continuously gave away their technologies to him because he controlled a large land area? Something is not right.

My strategy has always been to stretch as hard as I can for more land at the start without killing my research. I can accept as low as 50% research (but reluctant to go below 70%) if I have to in order to get first to the land before everything is taken and then try to work my economy back on its feet. By then someone has almost always invaded me of course. And I cannot have enough troops in every city if I want to grab land quickly when spreading the troops between cities and building settlers and collecting gold instead of hammers. Is it better to sit calmly with half the number of cities as your neighbours in order to keep research high and economy flourishing?

Maybe too obvious of an answer, but why don't you try lower difficulty to get familiar with the game? There's no shame in adapting the difficulty level especially since winning on warlord is way more satisfactory than (repeatedly) losing on noble.

another note. I noticed you metnion things like "economy flourishing", "killing research", "reluctant to go below 70%", etc.

This is quite ambiguous. A few examples...

What do you see as a flourishing economy? +1GPT? +10 GPT? Maybe -3GPT as long as you can afford it is ok too? What do you need the surplus money for in the beginning anyway? Are you gonna rush-buy? No, because you can't. Are you gonna money trade/bribe? No, because you can't. So when you research is stable and you have 6 cities at +/- 0 GPT, or even -2GPT (hey, with 200g that'll cover you for quite a bit) isn't that a good situation? I would say it is.

You think you need to have 70% or above for good research? First off, 70% in the beginning in general is ambitious. Plus, 70% alone means nothing. 70% of 0 commerce is 0, right? 20% of 100 commerce is 20, correct? do you see where I am going with this?
Cottages are your friend. Lacking hammers? The whip is your friend too.

And yes, city specialization is key. Not every city needs massive amount of hammers, since a shrine city is here to rake in cash, not to build barracks, units, and what not.
A military production city on the other hand wants the hammers, since the cash comes exactly from that other city. and so on...

I can recommend Sisutil's Strategy Guide for Beginners, a truly worthwile read: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165632

cheers,
wannabewarlord

I try harder levels on any game to learn faster. Not the other way around because that usually makes me think I'm a champ when I'm not.
I never play any game on lower level than "normal" and noble is said to be the most default/balanced level and that translates to "normal" level in my eyes. I will rather take a beating and beg for help (like here) rather than go easy level :)

A flourishing economy would be 100% research (at the start of course) without minus or even better say +3 gold which is what seems to cost on average to found a new city. When I wrote it was good I had over 200 gold right from start, I was intending to use them to enable a deficit expansion at maintained research levels. But it is not important to define a "flourishing economy". The thing is that my rivals out-tech me at the same time they expand faster. And that is some weird stuff for leaders that don't even have the financial trait.

Your point about 70% of what is a good one. I'll have that in mind and look at the number of science-icons instead. But the important indicator is the comparison how far my opponents have gotten. I'm not a beginner (unless that is the title of anyone who is not aware of the majority of the most intricate details of this game such as how many beakers are required for next technology (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=146163) or how the calculations behind corporate maintenance (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=249397) goes) but I’ll have a look at the guide if there might be something I missed out on. Thanks.

So when you research is stable and you have 6 cities at +/- 0 GPT, or even -2GPT (hey, with 200g that'll cover you for quite a bit) isn't that a good situation? I would say it is.I agree. I haven't been able to to that though and at the same time be able to defend my homeland.

One cannot simply change levels and expect to do things the same way. You cannot play a handicapped AI the way you play an AI with significant bonuses. There are multiple threads and guides on the strategies that work at higher levels. A few months ago, I began winning on Prince, so I moved to Monarch. I was getting my a** handed to me each and every game. I began research threads, experimenting with different economy types - SE, FE, CE - and over time, I was able to begin winning. I'm sure I will go through the same process as I move up from Monarch.

Keep plugging, and don't give up.:D

Though you say you are not new to the game it looks like you need to go back to basics a bit and read the various strategy documents. Its not a tip to look at the power graph its essential if you are srtuggling, and fun when you are not. You say you cant play against someone with double your cities and equal tech. You will find if you were to last a bit longer those civs will really struggle tech wise and 20 cities with longbows is just 20 cities you don't have to build, e.g. you take them, when you have rifles...

Look at the Wonder Economy thread, just 4 cities for some time, even until you are almost at liberalism can be game winning if they are really good cities as they are specialised. It doesn't make sense not to build specialist ones for fear of losing them, why build at all, you still might lose them.

With some city specialisation, tech trading, diplomacy, and some strategy articles under your belt, and a bit more time, you will be fine!

No one said it was going to be easy, but with some patients noble should eventually be

I love Civ 4, but we all have our moments - here's my contribution to the anger and frustration thread.

I'm in my 2nd Monarch level game, playing as the Khmer (random civ draw). So far ...

* Beaten to Hagia Sophia by Mansa (1 turn)
* Beaten to Liberalism by Joao (1 turn)
* Beaten to Angkor Wat by Mansa (2 turns)

I think Mansa also beat me to the U. of Sankore by 4-5 turns, but I can't remember exactly. It wasn't as brutal as those others. :)

dowski

I love Civ 4, but we all have our moments - here's my contribution to the anger and frustration thread.

I'm in my 2nd Monarch level game, playing as the Khmer (random civ draw). So far ...

* Beaten to Hagia Sophia by Mansa (1 turn)
* Beaten to Liberalism by Joao (1 turn)
* Beaten to Angkor Wat by Mansa (2 turns)

I think Mansa also beat me to the U. of Sankore by 4-5 turns, but I can't remember exactly. It wasn't as brutal as those others. :)

dowski

The upside is that you got a pile of cash, which is useful for upgrades, tech trading, deficit research spending for some time, etc.

The upside is that you got a pile of cash, which is useful for upgrades, tech trading, deficit research spending for some time, etc.

Good point. In my case, I used the cash from the Hagia Sophia to tech 100% to Liberalism ... :cry:

But you're right, it isn't like I'm left with nothing.

dowski

* Beaten to Hagia Sophia by Mansa (1 turn)
* Beaten to Liberalism by Joao (1 turn)
* Beaten to Angkor Wat by Mansa (2 turns)


I should note, I noticed after the fact how I could have played slightly differently and not lost out on any of these. Like other posters have mentioned, setbacks are common when moving up a level (for me, from Prince to Monarch).

dowski

I love Civ 4, but we all have our moments - here's my contribution to the anger and frustration thread.

I'm in my 2nd Monarch level game, playing as the Khmer (random civ draw). So far ...

* Beaten to Hagia Sophia by Mansa (1 turn)
* Beaten to Liberalism by Joao (1 turn)
* Beaten to Angkor Wat by Mansa (2 turns)

I think Mansa also beat me to the U. of Sankore by 4-5 turns, but I can't remember exactly. It wasn't as brutal as those others. :)

dowski

everytime that happens i just wanted to punch a baby.

I try harder levels on any game to learn faster. Not the other way around because that usually makes me think I'm a champ when I'm not.
I never play any game on lower level than "normal" and noble is said to be the most default/balanced level and that translates to "normal" level in my eyes. I will rather take a beating and beg for help (like here) rather than go easy level :)
I'm not quite sure I understand your reasoning here. Why get mauled trying to learn the basic game mechanics at a level where a new player has a very slim chance of winning? It doesn't matter what game you play, there is a learning curve, and sometimes you have to take baby steps to learn what you need to learn. You sound frustrated yet you are reluctant to play at a lower level (like Warlord for example) where you have a slight advantage over the AI. It's got nothing to do with being a "champ" when you're not. It's about enjoying the game as you learn, and having fun. I'm not saying you should start at Settler if you don't feel comfortable, but why beat your head against your monitor trying to figure out the game at a "normal" level if it's causing you frustration?

Civ is a very complex game and it requires some learning and effort to master, and no, I am not a master at it. I'm not even close. I can barely touch some of the talent that posts in these forums, but I follow their advice and tips, and I read as much as I can, and I started slow. It took me ten tries to win my first game on Warlord, many more before I could win regularly. And I learned a lot. I worked on my game and my strategy and then I went to Noble. And I got my a** kicked! Then a couple of more times! But you know what? I enjoyed myself.

I want to be very clear that I am not dissing you. I just think that you should allow yourself to dial back the difficulty level a bit and have a little fun. If you don't, you might get so frustrated that you'll walk away from the game, and I think you'll really miss out on a lot if you do.

Sometimes even if you have a slight tech lead you chould not to bother building certain wonders if there is another industrious civ that is just a little bit behind in tech. the additional +50% is huge, and the industrious players often wonder/great specialist spam into a single city. If this is the case then use your hammers to generate an army and go take it!

In one game I stole a single (capital) city off the Ai in 1100AD that had 10! Wonders in it with 3 settled priests and one setlled engineer.

I can accept as low as 50% research (but reluctant to go below 70%) if I have to in order to get first to the land before everything is taken and then try to work my economy back on its feet.
A food-rich city or two with science specialists can often make up for 20-30% research in the early game. It's not the % research, it's the number of beakers that counts.

A food-rich city or two with science specialists can often make up for 20-30% research in the early game. It's not the % research, it's the number of beakers that counts.Yeah, true, wannabewarlord pointed that out too. I'm going through the beginner strategy guide now and there are some good things in there that I didn't think of:thumbsup:.

A couple turns into my invasion of Elizabeth I open up Diplomacy screen and she says something like "Now I have Mechanized Infantry!" and my best unit was a tank. I was really frustrated then cause I had to invade her, she had aluminum which I didn't and a bunch of good wonders too. She even got the Internet and filled in a bunch of techs she was lacking. I thought I was done for and a really good game I wouldn't be able to win.

BUT I GOT HER!! Cause my best city Washington had 6 great generals or so and I acquired the Pentagon from Elizabeth so I was pumping out CR3 Combat I Tanks able to stand up to that mech infantry and other defenses. And I had Flight+radio for fighters and bombers which she didn't. By the time she got the techs she needed it was too late! My fighters and Bombers were able to survive her machine guns and mech inf and the mega tanks could take em out quick in cities.

So even though I was really frustrated at a time you can still win if you just keep pressing sometimes.

A food-rich city or two with science specialists can often make up for 20-30% research in the early game. It's not the % research, it's the number of beakers that counts.

it took me a bit to get used to this but it is very true! my last game (augustus, huge, tectonics, monarch) i ran a specialist economy from the start and expanded till my reserach was 0% and i barely broke even. for every 3 gold i made, i build another city, as the land was decent (fresh water!)
steadily increasing the cities that had a library and had 2 scientists in it all the while.
once i had 3 of those i was outteching all the AI while still being on 0% research.

i build an army and invaded babylon. all the while at 0%.
once done with babylon, i was in trouble and traded money for techs to keep going and avoid stike.

in the end i ran 2000 years on 0% and had a tech lead on most of the AI.
specialists and the great people you generate are worth as much as any percentage you get into research. lightbulbing techs is so awesome with great scientists!

A lot of these complaints I see represent a poor understanding of manual-granted game knowledge. I saw somewhere in the thread "economy struggling at 80% science". 80% science is meaningless - what matters is the actual beakers you're generating for example. Although not extra clear in the regular manual, it's there - and the guides on this forum should paint such simple game mechanics quite clearly!

If the gripe thread is to make you feel better then great, but if you actually intend to improve I suggest reading the guides available to you on this site, and working out some understanding of the game mechanics. From there, you can actually work on your strategy game to game, but not before.

Specific questions on game details serve a lot better than "why do I keep losing". In addition to science specialists, more commerce generated = more science, even if the slider goes down.

50% of 200 is more than 80% of 100, for example.

One idea that took me a long time to realize is that you cannot just let your cities do whatever it thinks is best when working tiles. Most of the time people target their own buildings so I am assuming you are choosing what to construct.

What I am talking about is deciding which tiles to actually work, which *IS* very important. Consider a city on the coast which has forest nearby. Toward the beginning of the game when you have not built up cottages everywhere it is sometimes better to forgo working on a forest that will give 2 :food:+1:hammers: each and with a city of size 4 and instead work two of the coastal tiles which would yield 1 :food: and 3 :gold: each (depending on the leader). Also, the maintenance of a city is based on the number of people so there are benefits there as well.

Another good example where this happens is near rivers. The AI by default will almost always work a forest grassland before a bare grassland next to a river. The difference being 2:food:+1:hammers: or 2:food:+1:gold:.

Depending on your situation this can make all of the difference, especially if you do not need the production because you are overproducing units or just need the gold to support the units that are fighting. This of course is just an example but for the first few hundred turns it can really make the difference as 6 :gold: is around 5-10% of your economy.

A flourishing economy would be 100% research (at the start of course) without minus or even better say +3 gold which is what seems to cost on average to found a new city.

That's your problem: your definition of a flourishing economy. I would say a flourishing economy is one that is increasing in beakers output (it even shows the number beside beaker slider). You shouldn't care where your slider is, but what your output is.

Maintenance is hard to overcome completely, without seriously stifling your expansion and with the existence of a shrine. You will end up having negative GPT at 100% science.

Here's how you should think instead when expanding: will this city bring me more output than maintenance? Sometimes some cities will end up doing that right off the bat (when you settle), showing that you really need to expand more.

Suppose I'm at 100% science and at 0GPT, let's say that it's my only city. Settling another city will bring 2 maintenance (-2GPT at 100% science) and bring me 5 commerce right off the bat (from city, tiles, trade routes...). Your science slider will have to go down, but you have to agree, you are at a benefit here! You can cover the 2 maintenance with 2 of the commerce to produce gold, and the rest 3 commerce can go into beakers: 3 more beakers than you had before.

Now add to that logical strategy. You have to take into account future potential, such as a city having more maintenance than commerce at the beginning, but will end up being profitable in the long run. You have to take into account strategic resources and placement. You have to take into account expanding a bit faster at a bit bigger deficit in order to end up with more land than your opponents (not taking into account the possibility of taking their land by war). And so on...

Bear in mind all of this does not factor in the benefit of hammers. You might end up having a hammer-rich city that is running at a deficit, but end up worth it.

Hope this helps.

Aah now I know why things went to hell. I had a bad advisor that I put 100% trust in. Namly, this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhSnHwPKrsw)

Thanks everyone providing input