How good do you think the average Civ player is?
- Thread starter Athenaeum
- Start date
consentient
Domination!
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2014
- Messages
- 3,361
Of course I made the statement about clicking assuming everything else is equal. In fact, MP doesn't HAVE to be played with simultaneous combat. In the few frustrating games I've had that ended prematurely, me and my friend set it to hybrid, so that we take our turns during combat. This made sense as it then stays turn based.
So, even though MP is mostly the domain of unemployed people who have 4-14 hrs spare to finish a game (not to mention those people have a lot of luck not to experience technical difficulties), those same people play on Quick speed and simultaneous turns because they cba to wait for each other.
Moderator Action: Speculating on the employment status of MP players is unnecessary and off topic.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
So, even though MP is mostly the domain of unemployed people who have 4-14 hrs spare to finish a game (not to mention those people have a lot of luck not to experience technical difficulties), those same people play on Quick speed and simultaneous turns because they cba to wait for each other.
Moderator Action: Speculating on the employment status of MP players is unnecessary and off topic.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
reddishrecue
Some dude on civfans
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,213
Average civ players are usually good except when they're caught by another player who knows how they play or what the player is going to do. Good players can catch other players doing the same repetitive moves that makes patterns that average players often fail to recognize.
Spoken like a truly ignorant and prejudice SP player only player. You insult/fear what you can not understand. MP is fine, Simu-turns are fine you just never learned how to deal with them.
Unemployed? Really now? Your arguments really have digressed into stupidity. Most people play AFTER work and all other responsibilities have been cleared from their schedules. Admittedly this may be next to impossible if you have a nagging wife and kids but a job is quite easy play around since it has a clearly set end time.
Moderator Action: Please refrain from name calling SP players.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I would. There's no way 90% of the people here win at Immortal, as I highly doubt 90% of people here play at Immortal, either because they wouldn't win or because they don't want to. For myself, I play at Emperor, not because I'm not good enough to win at Immortal/Deity, but because I like to mess around and try different things, whereas certain options and strategies because much less viable to higher up you go.
Anyway, I would honestly say the "average" is about King for the casual player, which this forum average because around Emperor.
ETA: I say this as someone who's been playing since Civ 2. On my own, and without this forum, I would have never progressed past Prince/King on any Civ game, and that was simply due to a lack of knowledge of game mechanics and best practices.
According to steam
14.5% have won as prince, same for warlord and chieftan
6.5% of people have beaten king
3.7% as emperor
1.9% as immortal
1.6% as deity EDIT- 0.3% deity!
so that shows two things, firstly a lot of people buy the game but dont finish a game, and secondly that most people never go past king?
14.5% have won as prince, same for warlord and chieftan
6.5% of people have beaten king
3.7% as emperor
1.9% as immortal
1.6% as deity EDIT- 0.3% deity!
so that shows two things, firstly a lot of people buy the game but dont finish a game, and secondly that most people never go past king?
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,395
Well, more players have thrown a nuke than won a game on chieftain difficulty.
My personal belief is that they realize that the most glorious moment in the game, end their session in awe, uninstall the gmae and write a positive review about how wonderful their experience was before recommending it to all their friends (who probably already own the game themselves.
My personal beliefs may or may not represent reality.
My personal belief is that they realize that the most glorious moment in the game, end their session in awe, uninstall the gmae and write a positive review about how wonderful their experience was before recommending it to all their friends (who probably already own the game themselves.
My personal beliefs may or may not represent reality.
reddishrecue
Some dude on civfans
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,213
I had a friend use nukes when I let him borrow civilization 4 back in 07 but recently i've seen tmit's Byzantium where many nukes were used. I was surprised, never thought that possible.
docbud
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,518
^^I agree with CraigMak. I know I don't finish a lot of games because the outcome is already certain. If I know I'm going to win a cultural victory in 30 turns, why bother continue to play? Or if I need one part left for my spaceshape, and no one is even close: Why continue playing?
johnnybaseball
Chieftain
In these situations, I finish mostly because I like watching the map replay at the end.
I'd try the DCL games, but I don't have all the DLC. I pre-ordered Vanilla all those years ago, but have only recently gotten BNW and am missing some Civs/map packs ... maybe some other people are in the same boat.
Acken
Deity
No map DLC should be required for DCL. Only civs and the wonders one I think.
Socratatus
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,636
Just be aware that when you ask questions like this, it`s prudent to also ask, `How many of you also Reload to win, especially on Diety?`
Then I think you`ll find not so many people are as good as they claim.
I will add that civ 5 is an easier game compared to the previous 4, though.
ToothedBomb
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2012
- Messages
- 344
Wouldn't you want to see the pay-off at the end? At least for your very first game/victory?
Personally I would play until the end every time I dialed up the difficulty.
reddishrecue
Some dude on civfans
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,213
To me its the opposite. Games I find that I can easily win particularlyin more difficult levels I continue because i would feel happy to know that I was able to beat the game at a certain difficult level.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
I don't know why everyone thinks only mathnerds would ever be good at this game
The advantage is markedly less than you got from Civ IV (it's not hard to find competitive teams/players in subforums that use an excel spreadsheet for micromanagement), but crunching numbers is still advantageous in Civ V. You rely less on micro optimization to win, but it's still there and it still confers an advantage. If you do it well, you can afford more mistakes elsewhere.
DarkestOnion
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2014
- Messages
- 533
The mathematical law of averages suggests that the average Civ player most likely plays Below Prince and enjoys spamming Wonders that they like (but perhaps not what they should build). So I am going to go with rating the average Civ 5 player at Chieftain, sorry folks.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
I can't help but suspect there might be some sampling bias
.How you define a "civ player" is crucial to the issue. How much must they have played, and how recently? Do you want to count people who played Civ II but never again? What about people who own Civ V but have 0 minute playing it? What about someone who played it for three hours in vanilla and then never touched it again?
Setting the inclusion criteria to "all people who own or have played civ" would knock the average level down profoundly. Setting it to "people who have played at least ten hours in the past week" would bias it pretty high in the other direction (given the game's age, this would likely push the average level above prince).
For the purposes of determining which average is useful, I will assert that players who have not/never will reach their potential should be factored out...not because they aren't valid, but rather to gain some usefulness from the calculation. If you want to know which difficulty causes the "average" person to hit a wall when they're trying to play the game and is thus the current limitation of their ability in the game, counting people who are obviously not trying to play the game in its present form will skew your data.
jshelr
Warlord
I recall the nice thing about earlier Civs, Civ II, Civ III, etc., was that high levels of play got you wiped out quickly -- so you could restart. After 10 restarts or so, you would get lucky and survive while the AI wiped each other out. Then you could announce that you beat Diety, when actually Diety beat you 9 times in two hours, and you beat Diety once in 10 hours.
Great players can speak for themselves, but I suspect that those who play the highest level don't mind losing when things don't go their way. Instead, they are looking for the "thrill of victory" to come along once in awhile when they play perfectly and the game gives them a few breaks.
Great players can speak for themselves, but I suspect that those who play the highest level don't mind losing when things don't go their way. Instead, they are looking for the "thrill of victory" to come along once in awhile when they play perfectly and the game gives them a few breaks.
DarkestOnion
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2014
- Messages
- 533
I can't help but suspect there might be some sampling bias
How you define a "civ player" is crucial to the issue. How much must they have played, and how recently? Do you want to count people who played Civ II but never again? What about people who own Civ V but have 0 minute playing it? What about someone who played it for three hours in vanilla and then never touched it again?
Setting the inclusion criteria to "all people who own or have played civ" would knock the average level down profoundly. Setting it to "people who have played at least ten hours in the past week" would bias it pretty high in the other direction (given the game's age, this would likely push the average level above prince).
For the purposes of determining which average is useful, I will assert that players who have not/never will reach their potential should be factored out...not because they aren't valid, but rather to gain some usefulness from the calculation. If you want to know which difficulty causes the "average" person to hit a wall when they're trying to play the game and is thus the current limitation of their ability in the game, counting people who are obviously not trying to play the game in its present form will skew your data.
I admit to sampling bias as my statement comes factoring in all players who have played at least one hour of Civ 5. If I take out of consideration players with less than say 25 hours in game however, I would say Prince or maybe King as an average.
Similar threads
- Locked
