Some great tricks. In learning times i have been stroke by some of them. Especially the #14. Today, i will DoW a player(often the richest) without attacking him just because i don't want to have some cs stolen while i'm at war with another guy(and know that i will need extra happiness when cities will fall).
In-Game Etiquette, how far is too far?
- Thread starter Tyrus
- Start date
Some great tricks. In learning times i have been stroke by some of them. Especially the #14. Today, i will DoW a player(often the richest) without attacking him just because i don't want to have some cs stolen while i'm at war with another guy(and know that i will need extra happiness when cities will fall).
General stealing land with citadels is pretty much a fail design.
They shouldnt be able to steal land with it, their offensive capability should be their leader aura, and their defensive capability their citadel in friendly land. If anything the great merchants or artists etc should be able to steal tiles, not the generals.
The way generals work it leads to lots of frustration with chain citadels, chain stealing of citadels and abusing of faster movement to build the citadel before the general gets killed, happens all the time. It would be better if stealing tiles would be tied to another unit alltogether.
They shouldnt be able to steal land with it, their offensive capability should be their leader aura, and their defensive capability their citadel in friendly land. If anything the great merchants or artists etc should be able to steal tiles, not the generals.
The way generals work it leads to lots of frustration with chain citadels, chain stealing of citadels and abusing of faster movement to build the citadel before the general gets killed, happens all the time. It would be better if stealing tiles would be tied to another unit alltogether.
Silverfuturist
King
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 684
For sure! This makes war with civs like China even more frustrating, because they will be able to out-citadel you. If generals are able to steal land, I think it should only be neutral land. Chain citadels also exploit Venice viciously, just plant a city in their face and citadel to their capital... as they cannot create new cities they are citadel-sitting- ducks, and their capital's tiles are especially important. Having units in your capital LOSE hitpoints from enemy citadels is just so crazy.
I'm more interested in having a good game than winning as soon as possible.
In my opinion, those who think "winning is everything" act that way because they are losers and "winning" is a luxury for them. (It is a bit childish too.)
Also exploiting fail game design like citadels and anything of the like would make me just not ever play with that person again.
In my opinion, those who think "winning is everything" act that way because they are losers and "winning" is a luxury for them. (It is a bit childish too.)
Also exploiting fail game design like citadels and anything of the like would make me just not ever play with that person again.
HorseshoeHermit
20% accurate as usual, Morty
You're demonizing the people who disagree with you. That is hasty and foolish.
There will always be fundamental disagreements between those who play a game competitively and those who play it casually. Competition may not be your cup of tea. That is fine. No one can tell you what makes your life enjoyable for you. But in that same way, do not judge those who use a game in a different spirit to have a different experience from you, just because it isn't what you would choose for yourself.
My opinion is apparently radical, but I don't understand what is irrational about thinking that casuals and competitive players simply need to carry their "id cards" openly and give each other space. I am competitive toward this game, and can therefore judge you and I simply shouldn't play this particular game with each other, but I don't have to hate, judge, or mock you. Isn't that rational?
I will judge somebody however I want.
The topic is on how you think about people who use "infuriating" tricks online, and my opinion is that people that only care about winning are silly.
Exploiting obviously bad game design to win is dumb, because when you do so... it means you care more about winning than playing a well made/played game.
Me and my group of players are competitive.
But we have a set of unwritten rules that we all follow, they stop players from abusing obvious flaws in the game that just ruin the gameplay experiance. If somebody doesn't like that.. We don't play with them. We don't care what others think about that, and we don't care for others telling us how to think about that.
Silverfuturist
King
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 684
Civilization is one of the greatest game concepts ever made... however the game has a lot of moving parts and details, and game balance is completely out of whack. In my opinion, if you get to play the Huns and start next to me and I am stuck with Venice, that is an "exploit" worse than everything above combined! OR if you have a desert/hill start with mining resources and I have grassland/calendar resource start, you get the desert faith pantheon and Petra and therefore 20+ extra yield and 100+ extra gold for covering map in religion (plus 4 extra great people later in game from faith) while I have no production, no resources that can generate faith... you can make wonders in a few turns, me over a dozen turns... you have an exploit much bigger than everything above as well!
If modding was available, a lot of these "exploits" would vanish as players restored more game balance... but the nature of this game is that some game elements would always be controversial. This debate about "the spirit of the game" comes up a lot in tournament Scrabble, which also has many moving parts, details and admin rules.
What the competitive groups do is agree on a set of rules (like banning certain things), or agree that "anything goes." If "anything goes" than all players have = access to the "exploits" listed by the original poster and they play accordingly.
