Are you trying to reach higher levels?

[1889]

Do you consider every game as practice so you can advance up the difficulty ladder and some day achieve a deity victory or are you just playing 'cuz its fun, trying different strategies but quite happy to stay at your current level or maybe just a little higher.

I enjoy building but at the higher levels (immortal now) the game begins to narrow into just an intense war game. Still fun and challenging but takes much more concentration. I bet that after I get my deity victory I'll probably never play above Emperor Level again.

So are you playing to beat the game on the highest level or are you more interested in other goals?

 

[cthom]

I play hoping to get any victory other than time! Currently on noble, moving up is still a distant dream...

 

[drkodos]

So are you playing to beat the game on the highest level or are you more interested in other goals?

I am no longer that interested in getting any better because there is really no payoff for doing so. Civ skills do not parley into any other activity. I've beaten the game at higher levels several times and do not find it as satisfying as I thought it would be.

I am more consumed with interesting games and developing new tactics and strategies and helping out the meat of the bell curve players.

 

[ShaLouZa]

No, I find achievement in playing better, increasing my understanding of the game and building empires working well without exploits, unhappiness or unhealthiness. And I like to play every civ' in the game and understand his pros and cons too. Victory or defeat doesn't matter that much, and I flat out dislike "exploits" like chopping or stomping a poorly strategic AI to take an edge. That's why I play at Noble and won't change for a while, even if I win every game : that's just not the point to me. If I want challenge, I try to finish a game sooner than before or stuff like that, the challenge is versus myself more than versus a AI with more advantages every time.

 

[shmily_dana]

Just started playing Noble pre-patch. I'll notch back down a level for a few games to get used to the changes and go back up.

 

[drkodos]

No, I find achievement in playing better, increasing my understanding of the game and building empires working well without exploits, unhappiness or unhealthiness. And I like to play every civ' in the game and understand his pros and cons too. Victory or defeat doesn't matter that much, and I flat out dislike "exploits" like chopping or stomping a poorly strategic AI to take an edge. That's why I play at Noble and won't change for a while, even if I win every game : that's just not the point to me. If I want challenge, I try to finish a game sooner than before or stuff like that, the challenge is versus myself more than versus a AI with more advantages every time.

How is chopping an exploit? I am curious.

Since it is neccessary if you wish to improve tiles that have trees and now the game engine even chops out wonders.



I agree that in general playing and winning solely through exploits is bland and tasteless. But popular!

 

[caramac]

I'm currently stuck at noble and I enjoy challenging myself at prince sometimes to see if I have improved. I've not got far yet ! I don't want to be stuck here forever... . I think I'll need to start micromanaging.

 

[ShaLouZa]

Before Warlords and the patch 2.08, chopping was exploited to have settlers and workers faster than the AI. Now that the AI does that too (at least I guess so seeing how fast the AI switch to esclavage in the early game), I guess it's less an exploit. I don't have anything against normal chopping to work a tile or even build a wonder faster, it's the "get worker, chop worker, chop settler" strategy I consider to be an exploit on a AI that doesn't do that.

 

[drkodos]

Before Warlords and the patch 2.08, chopping was exploited to have settlers and workers faster than the AI. Now that the AI does that too (at least I guess so seeing how fast the AI switch to esclavage in the early game), I guess it's less an exploit. I don't have anything against normal chopping to work a tile or even build a wonder faster, it's the "get worker, chop worker, chop settler" strategy I consider to be an exploit on a AI that doesn't do that.

But it does come at a cost, does it not? The trees are no longer there to provide health bonuses anymore and if a worker is chopping then it is not able to perform another improvement simultaneously.

It is a programmed part of the game, designed by game developers to be used advantageously.

An exploit is more along the lines of taking advantage of a hole in programming that provides an unintended advantage, isn't it?

 

[Bongo-Bongo]

I always try and improve. I dont see much point in playing unless I look to get better and play at harder difficulties. Wheres the fun in winning all the time?

 

[King Flevance]

I am currently trying to beat a game on diety. But it will be my first and last if I do. However, I voted no. Because that game gets put on the backburner the most. Ideally, I would try to beat the highest level if Blake's AI gets to its best. He has some great ideas in the works. If Diety meant the computer was on level playing ground with the human but used strong strategy, I would be working my way up as fast as I could. But that isn't the case.
I mostly go between Prince, Monarch, and Emporer depending on my mood. I haven't played Emporer for a while since I started that deity game though. So, mostly I play either prince or monarch. Playing at higher difficulties just means you go out of your way to micromanage to be able to hang with the AI as it is.

 

[drkodos]

I always try and improve. I dont see much point in playing unless I look to get better and play at harder difficulties. Wheres the fun in winning all the time?

Winning is not the only reason to play or partake. What is wrong with simply enjoying the experience, regardless of outcome?

It's never really boosted my ego to beat a game. And since there is always a point of diminishing returns to the idea of continual improvement in a computer game, I gave that up a long time ago.

Now, if this same philosophy is applied to something more tangible in the real world that has actual benefits to other living creatures, and in particular human beings, why then I jump on that band wagon immediately.

But working to continually get better at a game is a purely narcissistic endeavour.


Feel free to disagree, since my stating it does not make it so, and it is not meant as an offense to anyone, but just food for thought. If some people took all that gaming energy (especially young people), and applied it to something besides a game, that would be a far greater thing and would probably serve to make them feel alot better about themselves.

Just sayin.

 

[Murky]

There's more to life than becoming a Civ IV grand master guys.

 

[StarWorms]

I play for fun but the game becomes less fun once it's no longer a challenge - at which point it's time to step up a level.

 

[Ray Patterson]

In civ II I used to alternate between chieftain and prince. Great fun to play low-level sometimes and still try to play the best game possible. I have the idea that in civ IV that becomes quite tricky, as infinite city sprawl doesn't work. So to really leverage your advantage at settler level... I tried it once but didn't feel the game was much easier than on noble. That's probably because I didn't figure out a really good settler strategy yet.

At the moment I'm having fun on monarch, and I will probably play emperor sooner or later. But that's really that. If I win this first monarch game I'm playing I don't think I'll stay at the same level or move up; I'll move down at least to noble and try and see how much better I'll pull that off with what I've learned.

 

[ShaLouZa]

But it does come at a cost, does it not? The trees are no longer there to provide health bonuses anymore and if a worker is chopping then it is not able to perform another improvement simultaneously.

It is a programmed part of the game, designed by game developers to be used advantageously.

An exploit is more along the lines of taking advantage of a hole in programming that provides an unintended advantage, isn't it?

True. But chopping obviously wasn't meant to be an all-powerful beginning strategy as it was pre-Warlords : that's why they nerfed it with Mathematics required to get the full bonus. The healh bonus forest give is light compared to the huge production and development bonus won by chopping settlers against an AI unable to use that trick. As so, chopping gave an unintendedly huge advantage in the early game, qualifying it as exploit in my book. But that's just me, I'm over-sensitive on fair-play and don't like strategies which give you an assured victory if you're the only one able to use it.

 

[SpartanEvolved]

Yeah, I play to have fun. Noble suits me fine.

 

[drkodos]

But that's just me, I'm over-sensitive on fair-play and don't like strategies which give you an assured victory if you're the only one able to use it.

Wait a minute. So if you have a combat win percentage of 99.9% do you then not attack? What if you have a tech advantage....do you wait until your opponent catches up in order to be more "fair"?

Anyone, computer engine or human player, can use the tactic of chopping.

According to your argument, it seems that anything that would give an advantage would be unfair and you would classify as an exploit. Building the Great Library (or any other wonder) would be an exploit since only one nation could do so.

And to address the final point in your statement that I quoted, I suggest that chopping does not come anywhere close to assuring a victory or even an definite early game advantage. It is just one tactic amoung many. If you chop to produce scouts, how would that fit as an exploit? The player still has to make decisions on what the chopping is for, when to chop, and when to not.

This makes chopping a legitimate tactic, and a viable part of any larger strategy because it still all comes down to how it is used.

 

[ShaLouZa]

Yeah, I've seen so many threads about chopping scouts, that's obviously a popular strategy...

I don't know if I couldn't make myself clear because of my poor english or if you don't want to understand. The key words are "if you're the only one able to use it" : if you chop settlers against an AI which has no idea of how and why it should do that, it's a sure path to victory, since you'll pump 3 settlers for each the AI gets. Anyone can try to build the GL, even the AI, that's no exploit : only one ends it, that's the game. If the AI is programmed to chop settlers like some players do, it would be fair. Except for those who don't chop, naturally. Having 99% odds or a tech more is just a game mechanic : chopping too, but abusing chopping in specific ways an AI can't is an exploit.

And no, at the time I'm talking about, pre-Warlords, the AI didn't chop, at last not specifically to increase production.

 

[drkodos]

Yeah, I've seen so many threads about chopping scouts, that's obviously a popular strategy...

I have chopped scouts several times, and often build them off chop overflows.

I don't know if I couldn't make myself clear because of my poor english or if you don't want to understand. The key words are "if you're the only one able to use it" : if you chop settlers against an AI which has no idea of how and why it should do that, it's a sure path to victory, since you'll pump 3 settlers for each the AI gets. Anyone can try to build the GL, even the AI, that's no exploit : only one ends it, that's the game. If the AI is programmed to chop settlers like some players do, it would be fair. Except for those who don't chop, naturally. Having 99% odds or a tech more is just a game mechanic : chopping too, but abusing chopping in specific ways an AI can't is an exploit.

I think your english is just fine, but I am trying to pin you down and understand your definition of what exactly an exploit is.

You made the assertion that chopping was an exploit. I am merely asking you why. You make statements that it is "unfair" and I am not able to see this persepctive, so I ask for further explanation, but instead you merely reiterate your initial statement.

How exactly can a human player abuse chopping? I am honestly interested in seeing how this perspective could be valid.

Pumping out Settlers is NOT a clear path to victory. You posit the idea that a three to one ratio of settlers is a game winning strategy, but that is just not the case for several reasons. Perhaps at Settler level it is, but it is definitely not at Prince level where the extra cities will stultify one's economy, cause units to be disbanded and could actually hasten one's defeat.

And no, at the time I'm talking about, pre-Warlords, the AI didn't chop, at last not specifically to increase production.

Well, that was well over half a year ago, so forgive me for not realizing you were referring to that time in the past.

If a player was still playing unpatched to take advantage of chopping then I would agree that is an exploit. But since that is not what is being discussed, I humbly suggest that you are wholly incorrect in you assertion that chopping is an exploit and is "unfair."