At least 80% of the time liberty is superior to tradition. Even in a big FFA, getting those settlers out first snags the resources you want while tradition players can not place cities well. You can build a settler and get a free settler to surround a tradition player early. Their game is essentially over if boxed in. Cities being made earlier means they are making units and money earlier. You have more of everything. Liberty also gets the + 1 production which is big for those small early cities. Let's say you decide to rush a wonder. Liberty winds up with a free city placed and a wonder as well as possibly a free worker working efficiently, tradition winds up with just a wonder, no worker yet and future workers very slow. Tradition is only good with no competition nearby, no unique luxuries or no place to build. Even if you only get 3 - 4 cities up liberty gets them so much earlier that tradition is still placing cities while liberty is on to better things like building an army.
Tired of Trad - But what other options?
- Thread starter FilthyRobot
- Start date
Silverfuturist
King
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 684
I have noticed - that the "culture" of the gaming group heavily influences tradition vs liberty! For example, on pangea, if the players have a mind-set of early land grab, then what CraigMak says often happens. In the NQ culture, the map is often set to low-sea level, meaning land-grabbing less vital, and the style is to sit back with 4 cities tradition and grow - if there is only one player going liberty perhaps that 1 person is at a disadvantage. Also, the culture is to gang up on the player that displeases the other players, and liberty's land grab can trigger that.
Yes, NQ games are a dreary simcity fest. I have played a few and they were some of the most boring games I ever encountered. Nobody did anything the whole game. I went liberty, got some nice land, took a couple cities from my most annoying neighbor who by the way was the aggressor, and was promptly triple teamed by other players. They insisted I give the cities back and I insisted they mind their own business. All they wanted to do is sit around the whole game playing simcity. I am not sure why anyone would want to waste precious hours of their life with such a boring endeavor. But yes, liberty is at a severe disadvantage when it is triple teamed for making any kind of move. I wouldn't really consider 4on1 to be a fair scenario though. In a duel or teamer I can't say I have ever seen tradition prevail over liberty.
The solution to this, of course, is to create a military alliance with several other players *before* going to war, to make sure that such a gang-up does not happen to you...
You know, use diplomacy...
You guys can toss around the terms "teamers" and "simcity" but they're just attempts to discredit good strategy and diplomacy. The best type of war to fight is one that is totally one-sided and won in under 10 turns.
You know, use diplomacy...
You guys can toss around the terms "teamers" and "simcity" but they're just attempts to discredit good strategy and diplomacy. The best type of war to fight is one that is totally one-sided and won in under 10 turns.
Noobs like to toss around the term "diplomacy" as a means to justify teaming up against players of superior skill. The best type of competition is fair competition. If you want to beat people, get better. Ever seen a 3vs1 tournament? NO!
IMO getting involved in some one else's war is severely rude and unsportsmanlike.
Free for alls are not about fair fights. They are about winning by whatever means possible, which includes plotting with others. Ignoring diplomacy is ignoring one of the greatest tools available to you.
If you want to avoid the possibility of more than one person fighting a single person, why would you play a game with more than two people in it? FFAs are different than 2v2s, 3v3s, and duels, where fairness is involved and diplomacy between players is non-existent.
This idea of a fair 1v1 within a free for all is absurd. Losing to several people in a free for all does not make you bad. Nor does being part of the several people destroying someone else.
If you play a free for all to try to have a miniature 1v1 tournament within a single game, sure, good luck. I hope nobody sees you as a threat and joins against you in one of your "honorable" wars in order to eliminate a powerful opponent and maximize their own chance of victory. But this is not what a free for all is about. Look at the title of it. It says "free for all." It does not say "1v1 tournament." Treat it like that! Seriously, people.
I know your opinion is quite common, and I've encountered it before. But it still blows my mind that people can play in a free for all and get upset when multiple people attack them, because its "unfair." Do you honestly want people to just sit back and wait to lose, instead of teaming up for mutual advantage?
I suppose you would call France "severely rude and unsportsmanlike" for its role in the American Revolution
If you want to avoid the possibility of more than one person fighting a single person, why would you play a game with more than two people in it? FFAs are different than 2v2s, 3v3s, and duels, where fairness is involved and diplomacy between players is non-existent.
This idea of a fair 1v1 within a free for all is absurd. Losing to several people in a free for all does not make you bad. Nor does being part of the several people destroying someone else.
If you play a free for all to try to have a miniature 1v1 tournament within a single game, sure, good luck. I hope nobody sees you as a threat and joins against you in one of your "honorable" wars in order to eliminate a powerful opponent and maximize their own chance of victory. But this is not what a free for all is about. Look at the title of it. It says "free for all." It does not say "1v1 tournament." Treat it like that! Seriously, people.
I know your opinion is quite common, and I've encountered it before. But it still blows my mind that people can play in a free for all and get upset when multiple people attack them, because its "unfair." Do you honestly want people to just sit back and wait to lose, instead of teaming up for mutual advantage?
I suppose you would call France "severely rude and unsportsmanlike" for its role in the American Revolution
Silverfuturist
King
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 684
Here is the thing about alliances - when there is a point system for how you place (1st, 2nd, etc.) the game changes. Right now, most players know most other players in the organized groups, and grudges are very common. It might not be a hate grudge, but a desire not to let a player win because they don't want him to win.
In a point/reward system, your ranking tanks if you keep finishing near last. This gives players an incentive to put their grudges aside, and go for a higher finish and be less concerned about who finishes ahead of them and more concerned about finishing higher in the game. Everybody ganging up on #1 changes when somebody else becomes the leader, and grudges are put aside as people look out after their best interest.
In a point/reward system, your ranking tanks if you keep finishing near last. This gives players an incentive to put their grudges aside, and go for a higher finish and be less concerned about who finishes ahead of them and more concerned about finishing higher in the game. Everybody ganging up on #1 changes when somebody else becomes the leader, and grudges are put aside as people look out after their best interest.
thats why ffa... makes NO SENSE AT ALL?
its obvious ppl end up teaming
and even if they dont do intentionally their action end up helping 1 side or the other
ffa in civ is just the quintessence of king making i still dont get why so many ppl are fixated with it
how can this solve the main problem?
lets assume there isa ranking system and no one wants to be last
HOW that could prevent me and my friend joining to kill you?
because majority of players is bad (sadly) and in a game where they dont have to do anything apart making a alliance with their neightbour they still dont die.
Every good player gave up on these FFAs after some time - so its just a huge noobfest - good thing is that latly teamers are a bit more active again - but the crowd to pick off is still too small.
Its just sad that a big community isnt able to teach their players to get better ...
But maybe it doesnt even want to, as more good palyers = less noob ffa players.
Silverfuturist
King
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 684
Yes it is good that there is teamer action going on. These games are not league games and don't start through the league chatroom, they organically spring up when players who are known to play competitive teamers start messaging each other.
There is a mix of skill right now, but none of the players in these teamers are noobs (although calling players who make blunders "you noob" is not unheard of.) But imbalances happen by who starts in the front and the back - say you have a 3x3, and each team has a player who has not reached a higher level of battling skills yet. Who in the front pretty much determines the game, if there is a non-battler in the front, the other team rolls over the non-battler. If you get a game where both non-battlers are in the back, you get a more competitive game.
I am more than willing to play with non-battlers who can build and are team players, granted we reroll if they are in the front. Of course there are different levels of battlers, I wouldn't pretend to be as strong as Merle for example. He is a Euro player, a lot of North Americans haven't had the pleasure of playing with him because of the time of day he plays.
There is a mix of skill right now, but none of the players in these teamers are noobs (although calling players who make blunders "you noob" is not unheard of.) But imbalances happen by who starts in the front and the back - say you have a 3x3, and each team has a player who has not reached a higher level of battling skills yet. Who in the front pretty much determines the game, if there is a non-battler in the front, the other team rolls over the non-battler. If you get a game where both non-battlers are in the back, you get a more competitive game.
I am more than willing to play with non-battlers who can build and are team players, granted we reroll if they are in the front. Of course there are different levels of battlers, I wouldn't pretend to be as strong as Merle for example. He is a Euro player, a lot of North Americans haven't had the pleasure of playing with him because of the time of day he plays.
Free for alls are not about fair fights. They are about winning by whatever means possible, which includes plotting with others. Ignoring diplomacy is ignoring one of the greatest tools available to you.
If you want to avoid the possibility of more than one person fighting a single person, why would you play a game with more than two people in it? FFAs are different than 2v2s, 3v3s, and duels, where fairness is involved and diplomacy between players is non-existent.
This idea of a fair 1v1 within a free for all is absurd. Losing to several people in a free for all does not make you bad. Nor does being part of the several people destroying someone else.
If you play a free for all to try to have a miniature 1v1 tournament within a single game, sure, good luck. I hope nobody sees you as a threat and joins against you in one of your "honorable" wars in order to eliminate a powerful opponent and maximize their own chance of victory. But this is not what a free for all is about. Look at the title of it. It says "free for all." It does not say "1v1 tournament." Treat it like that! Seriously, people.
I know your opinion is quite common, and I've encountered it before. But it still blows my mind that people can play in a free for all and get upset when multiple people attack them, because its "unfair." Do you honestly want people to just sit back and wait to lose, instead of teaming up for mutual advantage?
I suppose you would call France "severely rude and unsportsmanlike" for its role in the American Revolution
In most FFA games I play people fight 1 person at a time. If some one is in a war already no one engages a war with them until it is over. There are exceptions to this such as when they are pinning you in, they are the only person available to attack, did something dirty themselves already or if they are head and shoulders above everyone else. However it is all too common that 2 or 3 noobs join a game together with the intention from the beginning to team up, troll and otherwise grief the game regardless of the strategic implications.
Join one of my games, add me on steam.
Similar threads
