Competitive Gaming

S

Shadovv01f

Chieftain
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
3
Hey! Amongst my friends I am known for making games fair. I think it is because I'm competitive and don't want anyone to have an uneven chance of winning. My friends and I have been playing civ together for fun but it's starting to get a little challenging. I started looking into rules that ban players from abusing AI but could only find rules from the No Quitters group. I'm just wondering if their are rules set to make the game as fair as possible.

One thing we are interested in is a way to ban civs or have a draft. Do you guys think the game is balanced enough because I honestly wouldn't know. Thanks for the tips, Shadovv01f
 
You can also ban atomic/nuke bombs, sthealth units(paratroopers/Xcoms, stealth bombers). Since that these units are really neat to finish off a civ banning them will just make things more balanced. Frigates can be really strong too so maybe a rule like no frigates under X turns.

You can also ban gs bulbing(only academies). Yoruus posted a game or 2 with no gs bulb.
 
Moderator Action: Moved to Multiplayer
 
the point of this game is that its not fair. it depends on so many things, variables, that you cant even calculate an optimum path that would work everygame
its about seeing and taking opportunities as they come

i know some people play duel on symmetrical map, which is considered to be "fair", but personally i dont like it..
i like the randomness of this game. when playing 6 players, 1 will always have an awesome start while others wont be as lucky. But diplomacy is part of the game, you got to make a coalition against the top players and that's what make the game fun.
 
Shadovv01f said:
Hey! Amongst my friends I am known for making games fair. I think it is because I'm competitive and don't want anyone to have an uneven chance of winning. My friends and I have been playing civ together for fun but it's starting to get a little challenging. I started looking into rules that ban players from abusing AI but could only find rules from the No Quitters group. I'm just wondering if their are rules set to make the game as fair as possible.

One thing we are interested in is a way to ban civs or have a draft. Do you guys think the game is balanced enough because I honestly wouldn't know. Thanks for the tips, Shadovv01f
Click to expand...

The game is 100% NOT balanced. If you want to have some semblance of fairness you will first have to ban some god tier civs. Civs like Babylon, Attila, Poland, Korea, Shoshone, Spain, Inca, Maya, Etheopia, China, Mongolia, Arabia, Shoshone, Egypt are all OP.

Of course if you don't use them correctly they are not but these civs are widely considered unfair.

You could also try banning some OP wonders such as Great Wall and Terracotta Army.

You could then move on to banning some over powered beliefs such as +4 faith from Natural wonders.

Also ban things like making deals with the AI, Better yet don't use AI's at all because they are not smart, Pillage/repair, repeatedly making peace and attacking a CS and completely re-roll the game if a NW like fountain of youth pops up.

It really takes a lot to try and get a game of civ to be completely fair. Even so, skilled players still win most of the time.
 
You would allow all players to choose their civ. OP civs might overcentralize the game, but you don't need to ban them. Considering there are 14 civs in that list, which I think is 1/3 of the civs in the game? That's a really good turnout as far as top tiers go, for anything.

Except Spain. There's no good reason for competition with Spain. Ban that ****.
 
Horseshoe_Hermi said:
You would allow all players to choose their civ. OP civs might overcentralize the game, but you don't need to ban them. Considering there are 14 civs in that list, which I think is 1/3 of the civs in the game? That's a really good turnout as far as top tiers go, for anything.

Except Spain. There's no good reason for competition with Spain. Ban that ****.
Click to expand...

With those civs banned the game revolves more around skill than using super cheesy civ abilities to gain overpowered advantages. Do I need to explain to you why each civ on that list is overpowered? If you don't think they need to be banned then you don't have much experience with the game.

The worst is Babylon with double everyone's science and Attila with auto win vs anyone that is unfortunate enough to spawn near them. Horse archers can not be defended against if the Attila player isn't noob and a free ram from a ruin is LOL. 2 shot a cap GG.

Arabia and Mongolia with move attack move units are free win mode. You can clear an entire continent with a handful of camels or kesheiks and they never get retaliated against.

If a non-noob has one of these top tier civs and you don't you're pretty much going to lose unless your territory is far better than theirs. You seriously don't have a chance against these civs if skill levels are equal.
 
CraigMak said:
If a non-noob has one of these top tier civs and you don't you're pretty much going to lose unless your territory is far better than theirs. You seriously don't have a chance against these civs if skill levels are equal.
Click to expand...

I take it there's a strict ordering where each one of those 14 civs will outright beat even ones below it in this ordering, in the manner you've described? Because otherwise what you're saying is symmetric. Maybe I want to take on your Babylon with Attila. If Attila isn't fair, and I dared you to do whatever it took to win, you'd just pick Attila instead, right?
 
Everything is situational in a game of Civ. In your case Attila will destroy Babylon with horse archers before they have a chance for their science to yield a large advantage if they are near each other. However if Babylon is isolated from Attila then they will get an insurmountable tech advantage that Attila will not be able to deal with in the late game.

If you are neither of these civs in the same FFA playing a normal tier civ you are dead if near Attila and flat out, out teched by Babylon if not. You have no chance what so ever. If everyone is an OP top tier civ as I said the game is less about skill and more about abusing cheesy OP advantages. It is not Civ but who can cheese the hardest. Dumb game.
 
f you are neither of these civs in the same FFA playing a normal tier civ you are dead if near Attila and flat out, out teched by Babylon if not. You have no chance what so ever. If everyone is an OP top tier civ as I said the game is less about skill and more about abusing cheesy OP advantages. It is not Civ but who can cheese the hardest. Dumb game.
Click to expand...

this is nonsense. Even in an easy and old game as civ5 skill differences are still HUGE and way more important as civs
I played numerous of games (FFAs aswell) where i did just kill all the op you mention in one game before turn 100
 
Play sequential turns, then Huns and Arabs are not as gamebreaking.
Or edit out chariot archer type units but that is as far as i know impossible.

Even when playing proper civ though - no, the game is not balanced, it is really really flawed.

Vanilla civ 5 was, for all its problems, a lot more balanced than bnw, and the tech tree there makes a lot more sense.
 
CraigMak said:
Everything is situational in a game of Civ. In your case Attila will destroy Babylon with horse archers before they have a chance for their science to yield a large advantage if they are near each other. However if Babylon is isolated from Attila then they will get an insurmountable tech advantage that Attila will not be able to deal with in the late game.

If you are neither of these civs in the same FFA playing a normal tier civ you are dead if near Attila and flat out, out teched by Babylon if not. You have no chance what so ever. If everyone is an OP top tier civ as I said the game is less about skill and more about abusing cheesy OP advantages. It is not Civ but who can cheese the hardest. Dumb game.
Click to expand...

So Civ V, played with free choice of civs by competitive players, becomes contests among ~14 civs (the others not being viable among their like), which itself is sometimes then decided by uncontrolled factors like terrain with only a minimal complexity in the strategy used by each player (such minimality being yet the maximally effective effort).

And when it is not decided by terrain, it is decided by minimally complex exploitation of the traits of the civs in question. So for that reason, you're saying the gameplay observed in high competition in this setup is 'cheesy and shallow', and that it is dissimilar from some prototypical or representative Civ gameplay. Is that right?

Well, I couldn't care less how similar it is to a different game or a hypothetical nonexisting game, but a shallow game is indeed a waste of time.

Still I wonder, if the terrain could be forced to be ones that do not decide the game themselves, and/or the economy and rush outliers that vary with terrain were banned while the rest remained, really how simple could the game be? You still have to do some civ-like things, placing cities, fighting barbs, doing math. The contest , after such a weaning period where the incapable will surely fall behind, may be a ludicrous battle of extremes, a battle of "OP" things, but like I said, that's symmetric. Overpowered fighters going at it is a Marvel Vs. Capcom game - it's still competitive.
 
Horseshoe_Hermi said:
So Civ V, played with free choice of civs by competitive players, becomes contests among ~14 civs (the others not being viable among their like), which itself is sometimes then decided by uncontrolled factors like terrain with only a minimal complexity in the strategy used by each player (such minimality being yet the maximally effective effort).

And when it is not decided by terrain, it is decided by minimally complex exploitation of the traits of the civs in question. So for that reason, you're saying the gameplay observed in high competition in this setup is 'cheesy and shallow', and that it is dissimilar from some prototypical or representative Civ gameplay. Is that right?

Well, I couldn't care less how similar it is to a different game or a hypothetical nonexisting game, but a shallow game is indeed a waste of time.

Still I wonder, if the terrain could be forced to be ones that do not decide the game themselves, and/or the economy and rush outliers that vary with terrain were banned while the rest remained, really how simple could the game be? You still have to do some civ-like things, placing cities, fighting barbs, doing math. The contest , after such a weaning period where the incapable will surely fall behind, may be a ludicrous battle of extremes, a battle of "OP" things, but like I said, that's symmetric. Overpowered fighters going at it is a Marvel Vs. Capcom game - it's still competitive.
Click to expand...

The point is that it is boring and not skill based to duke it out with OP civs. In duel tournaments the top tier civs are all banned. You will see people going truly mediocre civs in these games with mirror maps which balance the terrain.

The OP civs make the game very 1 dimensional, for example if you have Arabia their sole goal is to survive until camel archers then it's free win mode. The other guy wants to rush Arabia as hard as possible to prevent him from getting camel archers.

With Babylon all you need to do is keep your free academy from being pillaged and you gain a massive tech advantage and get xbows ages before anyone else.

With Attila all you do is spam horse archers because they are the strongest unit in the game until xbow tech. If you get a free ram from a ruin it's 2 hits for a cap, GG. And so on.
 
tommynt said:
this is nonsense. Even in an easy and old game as civ5 skill differences are still HUGE and way more important as civs
I played numerous of games (FFAs aswell) where i did just kill all the op you mention in one game before turn 100
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm assuming all players are roughly equal in skill. Obliterating noobs does not count.
 
Some civs are on its own in term of power. Inca, Babs and Mayans are pretty strong whatever the map played. But sometimes the map plays a large factor and will lead a strong player to victory whatever civs opponents have gotten.
 
nimling said:
Play sequential turns, then Huns and Arabs are not as gamebreaking.
Or edit out chariot archer type units but that is as far as i know impossible.

Even when playing proper civ though - no, the game is not balanced, it is really really flawed.

Vanilla civ 5 was, for all its problems, a lot more balanced than bnw, and the tech tree there makes a lot more sense.
Click to expand...

Sequential turns actually makes camels and kesheiks even worse. This makes it so that you have zero opportunity to attack them back. In simultaneous you at least have a chance to hit while they are close to attack temporarily.

It will have pretty much no effect on horse archers unless you are having trouble getting first moves to heal or retreat etc.. Horse archers come to a dead stop after attacking anyways.
 
Well yeah, ranged units are way OP, and camels/keshiks lack a counter or even an equivalent.
Last I knew Camels expended their movement on attack, maybe I was wrong about that? Flooding the enemy with cover melee troops can work, even better with cover 2. In simul turns, melee has no function because merely moving into range is auto-death.

If the game didn't have ranged units the way it does, it would be a lot more playable, in SP and MP. Archers that can bombard over continents are not how the game should be.
 
nimling said:
Well yeah, ranged units are way OP, and camels/keshiks lack a counter or even an equivalent.
Last I knew Camels expended their movement on attack, maybe I was wrong about that? Flooding the enemy with cover melee troops can work, even better with cover 2. In simul turns, melee has no function because merely moving into range is auto-death.

If the game didn't have ranged units the way it does, it would be a lot more playable, in SP and MP. Archers that can bombard over continents are not how the game should be.
Click to expand...

Camels move after attacking, that's why they are mega op. You can't retaliate against them.

I agree that ranged is the way to go most of the time. Chariots, Composites and xbows are the bulk of most armies for the first half of the game.

There are timings where melee units are strong though. For example swords are decent before xbow tech. Also, muskets with cover are quite effective. Once you get to muskets and then rifles, xbows are horribly outclassed. Their upgrade, the gatling gun sucks too. But, then soon after, artillery take over as the staple of your army with cavalry to clean up.

Then when great war infantry and infantry come out, melee is king until rocket artillery which are a looooong ways out.
 
don't forget great war bombers can do a decent job against infantry. Although I agree that artillery can't do anything against them at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
43 Civ Multiplayer?
Replies
3
Views
3K
Yitz
Y
superslug
ANNOUNCEMENT: The Rules Stand
Replies
2
Views
147
superslug
superslug
H
Xbox Cloud Gaming
Replies
3
Views
1K
shapecharge
S
PPQ_Purple
A bunch of disconnected questions
Replies
12
Views
1K
PPQ_Purple
PPQ_Purple
S
World Congress Review: Part 2 (WC Proposals)
Replies
7
Views
720
Anarcomu
Anarcomu
Top Bottom