Civ just not made for "hardcore" players?

[tommynt]

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:

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.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Play chess.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Play the Civ5 League... http://www.civplayers.com/

 

[Aristos]

You may want to check civ4BTS online community and MP... you might be in for a surprise. You may find the hardcore right there.

 

[Derpy Hooves]

And then the mp part, are all clever gamers playing starcraft and civ is for the "dumb" (excusse me) only?

Pretty much yeah.

 

[Tabarnak]

Why don't you try to put a LP video on youtube tommy? I understand your point though.

But only a few minority really try to put this game at a really high peak level of play. What is more rare is players that have masterized both sp and mp mode.

civplayers is really where you will find your opponents. For sure you already know that, but it's the true. Not on civfanatics. Not fanatics enough i guess.

 

[w a i n y]

Tommynt, your whole post basically boils down to complaining that other people aren't as good as you. Personally, I couldn't care less. You've managed to insult almost everyone in the civ community in a few short paragraphs.

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"

Here you cherrypick one of the less-helpful threads to suggest that the strategy section is not high-level enough. Guess what? It is. There's loads of incredibly useful information, and it really can be said to be a pooling of ideas from the best minds in civ.

The "learning play videos" are nicly done but still full of well - just not clever decisions and lack the "perfection I try in games.

Here you insult Maddjinn and me (and possibly other LP makers, but you've been most upfront about criticizing the two of us). I resent the suggestion that we're not 'clever' enough, and that we're just helping people "learn" to play rather than showcasing high-level deity play in its own right. I dare you to show your own 'perfection' by making your own LPs and showing all your attempts, with no reloading. Until we can see you play, this is all just empty bluster.

It seems to me that like 95% of players dont even see the game design flaws (and how to use em to your best).

What is this even supposed to mean???

 

[Derpy Hooves]

Wainy, I would'nt respond to him seriously, all this thread is is a badly hidden "look at the size of my e-penor" rant.
If you look at his post, he's got a major hardon for winning, or to be a bit more precise it probably validates his ego.
Just ignore him and feel smug and superior knowing he needs and can't get his ego fix.

 

[tommynt]

Wainy, I would'nt respond to him seriously, all this thread is is a badly hidden "look at the size of my e-penor" rant.
If you look at his post, he's got a major hardon for winning, or to be a bit more precise it probably validates his ego.
Just ignore him and feel smug and superior knowing he needs and can't get his ego fix.

sry this is just "dumb", as my whole post is about the lack of "competition".
And I just dont get why, civ should be a game meant for the "clever" guys, but then I see people playing horrible and dont get the reason.

I know there are these clever guys out there, whatever f.e. tabernalk and vexing post on these forums (and they post a lot) seems very clever. Playing league games vs top player isnt a run in the park. I just dont see the reason why there arent more of them.

 

[Gwenwyn]

Maybe, just maybe, it's down to the all-pervading tone of arrogance in your posts.

I played Civ 2 back in the day, took a long break, and returned to the series just before Civ 5 was released. In the meantime, I played a lot of Starcraft and WoW. Returning to Civ (and finding CFC) has been eye opening - to discover such a great, dedicated bunch of people who take the time to theorycraft, to make videos and to help each other out in a (normally) constructive and friendly way has been awesome.

Having been a long-time WoW player, I'm sick to death of the whining and epeen waving in that 'community' these days and sorry to say, but that sort of attitude comes across in your posts.

If I did play multiplayer to your 'standard', I'd avoid you like the plague purely because of this. Maybe I'm not alone and this explains the lack of responses to your thread. A little politeness and tact might help gain a few more players.

(And if I wanted to play a clickfest with trashtalk, etc I'd be playing SC2, not CiV, but that's another story).

 

[Strategist83]

I'm not going to participate in this whole arrogance-or-not debacle. But OP is right, Civ doesn't have a competitive e-sports community like StarCraft II does. To answer the question: No, civ isn't made for hardcore players. The game simply is nowhere near good enough nor finished enough for that. You don't create a succesful e-sports game by launching a game with dysfunctional multiplayer. Civ 5 will never be a 'serious' game. The fortunate aspect of that fact is Civ won't have SC II's terrible, terrible kind of community, either.

 

[Becomedeath]

Sorry, but if I were looking for someone to play against, your post would definately put you in my "not worth the effort" box.

Try flexing your epeen less and focus on what you DO want rather than listing what you don't.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Not a productive thread. Started with a borderline trollish OP, predictably failing to generate discussion worth keeping the thread open for.