I would really start a discussion about this topic, as I truly start wondering if I am playing the totaly wrong game.
I am a dedicated gamer - I just like competition, I like testing myself - I like the thrill of winning something "hard". In the past this was possible in sports - now I am old ...
started this thread in mp forum:
I got FEW repsonses - maybe like 4-5 outside league of whom 2 been total "noobs" and 2 knew the basics of civ.
I also started these HoF and GotM "competitions"from civfanatics.
It seems that there are like 2 "good" players out there and rest is struggeling at King level.
I have had a look into the "strategy" section of these forums and there are questions of the caliber of "how do I get a size 60 city"
The "learning play videos" are nicly done but still full of well - just not clever decisions and lack the "perfection I try in games.
It seems to me that like 95% of players dont even see the game design flaws (and how to use em to your best).
So, the question which comes up to me more and more is:
Is civ just not made to be played "good", is ai that bad cause game designer wanted easy wins?
And then the mp part, are all clever gamers playing starcraft and civ is for the "dumb" (excusse me) only?
I just wonder as civ doent seeem to be a "kids" game - no fancy graphics - slow action, should be more for the chess like players.
Maybe I didnt put my point too well.
I am a dedicated gamer - I just like competition, I like testing myself - I like the thrill of winning something "hard". In the past this was possible in sports - now I am old ...
started this thread in mp forum:
Looking for DECENT duel players
Since it feels allmost imposible to find players to play with which are worth my time I m trying out this way:
I am looking for:
- some1 good
- I like players with some ego - gaming is more fun that way - but you should also be able to say gg after u lost or won and possibly play another
- some1 good is: some experience in SP -i.e. feels confident enough to win deity lvl
some experience in MP - i.e. used to rush strategies but also able to keep up in buildup
Me: playing civ online since civ3, was leading Civ3, Civ4 and Civ5 League for month and Years and winning several ccc (team championship), won several civfanatics GOTM
thats kinda it - I got some days off in next weeks and am around on weekends a lot (got steam running usually also when not playing)
I play ANY era (I m happy to not play anc all over if your are either)
I am not interested in a watermap setting - at least if I am not 100% sure that you ARE worth my time (not interested in playing 3 hours teching to Astro to see when landing 1 size 20 City and some XBows or so)
I also prefer not to play french guys - just a matter of bad experience (seems they dont like loosing to germans)
just contact me in Steam, via this Forum or go register at www.civplayers.com
and go to the room
I got FEW repsonses - maybe like 4-5 outside league of whom 2 been total "noobs" and 2 knew the basics of civ.
I also started these HoF and GotM "competitions"from civfanatics.
It seems that there are like 2 "good" players out there and rest is struggeling at King level.
I have had a look into the "strategy" section of these forums and there are questions of the caliber of "how do I get a size 60 city"
The "learning play videos" are nicly done but still full of well - just not clever decisions and lack the "perfection I try in games.
It seems to me that like 95% of players dont even see the game design flaws (and how to use em to your best).
So, the question which comes up to me more and more is:
Is civ just not made to be played "good", is ai that bad cause game designer wanted easy wins?
And then the mp part, are all clever gamers playing starcraft and civ is for the "dumb" (excusse me) only?
I just wonder as civ doent seeem to be a "kids" game - no fancy graphics - slow action, should be more for the chess like players.
Maybe I didnt put my point too well.