R.i.p.

Yep, we will be addressing that last response in the first podcast.

Suffice it to say, i don't spend civBucks and I do win.. occassionally, and am in the top 10... always.

Also suffice it to say, that you can get 25 extra maze moves a day by friending the folks on your team. Yes, guilds store those up and hide them so that they can trot them out for guild games and thus get more than 25 per day in a guild game, but 25 extra moves a day isn't going to kill you if you can't be bothered. Yes, I speak from experience here too.

yes, the game is full of things that allow it to continue on as a business.

yes, there are many who refuse to play because they are now playing humans rather than an AI that rolls over and plays dead.

yes, there are teams of players out there who are ruthlessly efficient and very, very good.

yes, even they have weak spots, that the game allows you to exploit, but most prefer to quit and complain about rather than investigate.

yes, it is humbling to realize that you are not the greatest mind on the planet just because you can beat civ 4 on Deity or Noble or whatever level the folks who complain about being unable to win are used to.

You join a game with 200 players, out of which, only one will win. If you expect to win without having to work for it, there is a problem with your expectations.

If you have to win to enjoy a game, or feel that players who do win are trolls, then yes, the game is not for you. Sadly, that IS one of the reasons the game has such a small following at the moment.

But for me, I did triathlons for a decade, and never once thought the sport was stupid because I never won, or considered the guys riding carbon fiber bikes trolls because they could spend more on the past time than I could... especially when I passed them... hehehe.

And yes, this fortunately is a stale topic on the 2K forums where, the conversation has evolved to just what does it mean for the game that top players like to play with each other? Forget about civ bucks, or wall posts or anything else. When I post on the team board that my kids are going to play and are looking for some teamates, whoever is in the game my kids pick... is doomed. Are we really trolls because we enjoy each other's company and like the sight of an 8 year old on top of the leader board?

ShuShu62 said:

yes, the game is full of things that allow it to continue on as a business.

yes, there are many who refuse to play because they are now playing humans rather than an AI that rolls over and plays dead.

yes, there are teams of players out there who are ruthlessly efficient and very, very good.

yes, even they have weak spots, that the game allows you to exploit, but most prefer to quit and complain about rather than investigate.

Click to expand...

And these reasons are why I've basically given up on CivWorld. I'm starting from behind, in terms of learning the game mechanics. If I were playing a single-player game in the Civ franchise, I could dial down the difficulty and take my time in a turn-based game, to find my footing. In this game, I am competing against dozens of people who are already playing the game at a high level. It's not a turn-based strategy game; I read several of your postings in the 2K Forums where you talked about intense play over a multi-day period, and then the game is over. Simply put, I don't have that kind of time. If I can't get online when the battles are going to commence, I'm screwed. Your armies will chew through the hammers I've used to field my armies, and there is nothing I can do about it. Your comment about "an AI that rolls over and plays dead" is a little harsh, but not inaccurate.

Yes, I do like to win. That is part of the attraction of the Civ franchise games for me -- investing hours of time, and brain cells planning, and being able to win. Losing in most video games sucks, and losing to the Civ AI (with all its weaknesses and weirdnesses) is both sucky and a little embarrassing. Your attitude -- where you derive enjoyment from the chase and the struggle, and not just the victory -- is admirable. I try to have that attitude in RL, but not so much in Civ. I wanna win!

I've never really had any interest in playing the Civ franchise games in multi-player, and CivWorld is a massively-multi-player game, by definition. My hat is off to those who do enjoy multi-player Civ, and to those who have achieved skill in CivWorld. And I'm especially glad that an 8-year old can top the leaderboard in CivWorld, with the right coaching. Heck, I'd almost start playing again, just to see that happen
Almost.

You join a game with 200 players, out of which, only one will win. If you expect to win without having to work for it, there is a problem with your expectations.

Click to expand...

Wow. Just wow.

Let's see. First, it was opined that last year, there were certain 'things' people were doing that were considered trolling. But now these things are "perfectly acceptable" as high level play.

But that's only because this trolling has turned away so many players that what's left is basically dominated by the trolls - who now say that you're not willing to troll along with them, you're not really working for it.

While there may be a problem with my expectations (what... a strategy game that doesn't need a cheat button?), you may have a problem with your intellectual honesty.

From the point of view of players who are pretty good and can beat civbuck guilds 30-50% of the time, I'd like to say that these 'things' come across as "I WIN" buttons and the only reliable way (i.e. >75%) you can beat a civ spamming the "I WIN" button is to spam the "I WIN" button yourself. From your point of view, this is high level strategy. From our point of view, which you clearly don't want to respect, listen, or even acknowledge exist, this is deforming the game to the point where using "I WIN" button usurps all other strategy (attacking civs with obsolete wonders, city placement, unit production, DOW timing, etc).

Now Shushu, I don't really need to say I have 250 civbucks all earned from winning games and contests. I don't really need to say I also end up in the top 15 most of the time - and that's STILL without resorting to your so-called high level strategies. So do me a favour and pretend you just didn't brag about being a high-ranking troll lording it over the remnants of a Facebook game that's abandoned/mothballed by its designers.

vorlon_mi said:

And these reasons are why I've basically given up on CivWorld. I'm starting from behind, in terms of learning the game mechanics. If I were playing a single-player game in the Civ franchise, I could dial down the difficulty and take my time in a turn-based game, to find my footing. In this game, I am competing against dozens of people who are already playing the game at a high level. It's not a turn-based strategy game; I read several of your postings in the 2K Forums where you talked about intense play over a multi-day period, and then the game is over. Simply put, I don't have that kind of time. If I can't get online when the battles are going to commence, I'm screwed. Your armies will chew through the hammers I've used to field my armies, and there is nothing I can do about it. Your comment about "an AI that rolls over and plays dead" is a little harsh, but not inaccurate....

Click to expand...

Vorlon, your response is very different from Illusio's. Your paragraph summarzes the current state of the conversation.

Firaxis definitely needs to stratify games by expertise allowing players to play up but not allowing them to play down. Interestingly, they have exactly the opposite paradigm at the moment.

I can't tell you how many experienced players have told me they have given up the game because they could not afford the time. That is a very real problem with the game. I can't even get my dad to play because of it. Interestingly, it is easier to blow off a battle when you are playing by yourself. It is impossible to do when you have teammates you might be letting down. Of course, my teammates have not skipped a beat when I have been offline... hmmmm.

This topic will definitely be part of the podcast conversation.

Illusio said:

Wow. Just wow.

Let's see. First, it was opined that last year, there were certain 'things' people were doing that were considered trolling. But now these things are "perfectly acceptable" as high level play.....

Click to expand...

Yes. Infiltrating civs, taking civs over, farming civs, running multiple civs, throwing battles and basically anything that involves misdirection and internal conflict was what I was talking about. You are the one who assumed your personal axe to grind was what I was reffering to.

Illusio said:

...Now Shushu, I don't really need to say I have 250 civbucks all earned from winning games and contests. I don't really need to say I also end up in the top 15 most of the time - and that's STILL without resorting to your so-called high level strategies.....

Click to expand...

So it sounds like you are disproving your own statements here. If I read correctly, you are saying that you win despite other players playing the 'I win button'. But if you win, the 'I win button' didn't work. If the 'I win button' didn't work, then it really isn't an I win button is it.

Illusio said:

... So do me a favour and pretend you just didn't brag about being a high-ranking troll lording it over the remnants of a Facebook game that's abandoned/mothballed by its designers.....

Click to expand...

Well, if you had posted your personl argument that the 'I win button' doesn't actually guarrantee a win, I wouldn't have had to. Now that you have, the argument is twice as strong.


P.S. I am not high ranking. I beat your won civBuck total, but my fame totals and achivements wall are very unimpressive. I rarely beat civ 4 on huge emperor and yet even I can counter the 'I win' button. So thankyou for making my point... again.

I'll admit, I haven't played enough CivWorld to truly observe which players/guilds/Civs are using CivBucks, and which aren't. But let me re-phrase Illusio's objections in a different way.

1. CivBucks buy harvests
2. Facebook mechanics can give extra moves and swaps

In the Civ franchise games, which brought many of us to CivFanatics, a turn is a turn is a turn. Even in multi-player Civ, each AI or human player gets the same access to the empire management and military tools as the others do.

Broadly speaking, CivBucks and Facebook posting allow a player (or guild) to get more moves per "turn" than the others do. It's an investment of a resource from outside the game, to change the play mechanics in the game. To be fair, there are many FB games which use this technique. I play some of those games, but I categorically do not spend any RW currency in them. My daughter and I play a game where you build amusement fairs, and you must ask other players for certain resources. We ask each other for them; when she doesn't play for 4 days running, my game makes very little progress. Players are rewarded for building a chain of fellow players.

Illusio claims that the use of outside resources creates an "arms race" of sorts; do you try to match the advantages of CivBuck-spenders by spending some of your own? ShuShu claims that superior skill, and some good teammates/guildmates can be an effective counter. I can believe that, but (speaking for myself) I have no guildmates and no good way to find them. I have rudimentary skills, and don't see a good way to improve them. I'm going to be playing at a nearly-permanent disadvantage in this arms race, unless I can improve my skills without getting shredded.

I appreciate ShuShu's argument that skill in the market can be game-changing; I also note that requires investments of time, much like the traders in the RL securities markets. Buying/selling GP is quite clever. His guildmates (or Padawans ) can carry on without him, which is the mark of a good coach. Maybe the podcasts, or some stratified games will help the situation.

A last comment, on ShuShu's triathlon analogy. Yes, there were athletes riding carbon fiber bikes, because they were willing to spend extra money for better equipment. But in a triathlon, you are competing with the clock first and foremost. Those carbon fiber bikes were not equipped with spikes to damage *your* bike, nor were the other runner's shoes spitting out oil that makes *you* slip and fall. In CivWorld, the players who are ahead in the arms race will steal your wonders, will destroy your shields/troops, and actually impede your progress. To me, that's a key difference.

vorlon_mi said:

...A last comment, on ShuShu's triathlon analogy. Yes, there were athletes riding carbon fiber bikes, because they were willing to spend extra money for better equipment. But in a triathlon, you are competing with the clock first and foremost....

Click to expand...

Thankyou. I have been trying to put my finger on the way to phrase it, and you have just done so:

Many people come to civWorld thinking that it is a competition against an opponent. But civWorld is a facebook game, and as such, it is a competition against the clock, not an opponent.

There are so many little things to learn and get good at in civWorld, losing a wonder because a bigger fish takes it is relatively unimportant. It is a paradox in the game, that new players get upset at inconsequential losses and leave, preventing them from realizing that the loss was in fact inconsequential. I went through that in my first game as well, and almost gave up the game. I posted a thread on this topic but did not get much traction on it.

How to learn and get better is definitely a podcast topic for the first broadcast. I am curious to hear what the others have to recommend. My simplest answer is... learn from others...especially since many of the top players in the game are willing to accept teammates and answer any questions.

P.S. The civilizations always use civbucks against most of us in civ4 why don't people get upset at that?

vorlon_mi said:

... I have no guildmates and no good way to find them. ....

Click to expand...

They will find you.

It also occured to me, as I was driving home from work, that I had missed a fundamental point. (Not sure what that says about me, that I'm thinking about CivFanatics while I'm driving, but ... )

CivWorld, like FarmVille, Mafia Wars, Ravenwood Fair, and Airport City, is a *social* game. It's built on the FB platform, and is intended -- by design -- to involve people working together. Here I was, going on and on about how I prefer single player games. Well, that's pretty silly -- I should not slam CivWorld for doing what it was designed to do. Firaxis / 2K did not set out to transfer the single-player Civ experience to the FB platform; they set out to make a successful FB game, a socially-connected and multi-player game, that has Civ elements and concepts. They took concepts from all across the Civ franchise ( trading in specific commodities from Civ2, buildings that increase production from Civ2 & Civ3, great people from Civ4) and added mini-games from the FB universe to make a new, massively multiplayer game.

It is perfectly logical that guilds who work together effectively will prosper in a social game. It is also logical that many CivFanatics who play their Civ Franchise games in single-player, at home, will find this concept foreign. It will seem also seem foreign to play against the clock, when they have been accustomed to playing in sessions of their own choosing, on their own timetable.

Well, shoot, now you have just stolen my first 15 minutes in the podcast.

When the game was new, and we were all just learning it felt a lot like playing as an individual. The whole moving up the ranks internally, also 'seemed' to encourage individual play.

But at this point, It is a social endeavor, even when I am playing as a one man civ.

Interestingly,that is more realistic,than the other civ games, as all real-world processes are social processes. Random_user and I are having a little NT chat on the other forum. He feels he has learned everything there is to learn about the game... and he is probably pretty accurate from the software perspective. I come to it from the wetware perspective... there is NO coming to a final understanding of that.