Difficulty levelvel

[Deadly Dog]

Quite the debate here. Count me as one of those players who despite years of play still finds deity difficult, and as one who played deity regularly on 1-4 I do get annoyed sometimes when I see people complaining Civ6 is too easy. It's really hard not to take that personally when you've just come off a frustrating experience getting flattened by AI or barbarians.

This thread is helping clarify a few things. First, it helped me remember how, at deity level in earlier civ versions, I would eagerly engage in tedious exploits like ferrying units on transports 1/2 round the world in 1 turn, or going from last to first in tech in 1 turn by getting first contact with another continent and trading maps and tech. I don't think there's anything I do in civ6 and there wasn't much in 5 either that requires me to click through dozens of diplomacy screens or manage (peaceful) unit movement so precisely. So obviously I have much less patience for min/maxing, at least in some areas.

Also really significant to me is hearing the people who find deity easy also find it boring. That makes sense now, because for me I've found civ 5 and 6 both to be way more challenging, in that I need to find and employ different strategies for different map/civ combos. Opposite of boring. But if winning at deity means ignoring at least in part the uniqueness of your civ or map for the early game, and ignoring religion and wonders, this makes a lot of sense. I just can't stop myself from doing the some of the interesting things that lie off the path of optimal play, like getting a religion.

That said, just below the difficulty level I can't master is the one I can't believe other people struggle with. Well, not really, I can understand, but there's my point I guess. I can make the easy levels more challenging to an extent by using advanced setup settings, and I can make the harder difficulty level a bit less difficult/boring by doing the same. I prefer the second option as my games will generally still snowball later hence feel very uncertain for longer. And so to me, the highest difficulty levels are really challenging for getting the civ I want up and running, and any boredom comes not from the ease of success but from the frustration of failure. (Another barb scout I can't catch? Guess its gonna be 20 turns of figthing off an invasion...)

If the players who are unchallenged by deity would just say they found the game "boring" rather than "easy", because you have to ignore religion or wonders or buildings or districts, etc, it would go over a lot better with me and perhaps a few other players.

Cheers all.

 

[oSiyeza]

how about simpliest answer i have not seen here? iq.
i teach children, some of them excel at anything they do. some can achieve goals only in very specific areas. soma are unable to do math no matter what. some do math with incredible easy.
i know people who can not succeed in any game of any genre. but some players are top with their games.
some games require high reaction of brain, very fast decision making, other games require cognitive capacity. some people excel at one, some at other, but there are people who can not do almost anything on par with both before.

i would say - king is best for enjoyment. but prince is where average person should start. other people will be better to start at settler. and tiny proportion of people can start right away with deity.

I dont think difficulty levels are actually related to iq. While it is truth that smarter/skilled players will have an easier time and learn faster, you can just learn the game systems or strategies. Most players can probably learn how to win deity if they want and care and dedicate themselves to the goal. And also you can decide it is more fun for you to ignore that, and have fun managing an empire.

Dont think iq will be a good metric in this discussion, at all.

BTW, from a psychologist perspective. IQ does not measure any capacity in an objective way. Only how you do certain tasks compared to the people of your age. So actually, you would have a much stronger case if you just said:

"How about simpliest answer I have not seen here? age."

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Dont think iq will be a good metric in this discussion, at all.

Agree on all accounts. FWIW, IQ measures test taking ability (how well you perform in a standardized, high-pressure testing environment) and conformity (how well you have internalized the established measures of education, for example how well you do in algebra), that's the conclusion I have come to after a long while of thinking.

I think I agree with others when they say that what difficulty you play on is largely a result of what you're looking for in a game. Those who want challenging games will always play Deity, and by virtue of playing on Deity, will obviously master Deity. It's that simple imho.

 

[Xoon]

It seems there's really two types of player. One who reads and studies strategies, theory games, and min/maxes to try to squeeze that one extra production out of a forest chop and then the other type who randomizes their leader, has no real victory condition in mind, maybe checks their city status when a new project is built and just wants to try to beat up on a couple of neighbors.

For the first group, deity will be easy. For the second type, it will be a challenge and you'll probably find Emperor to be your sweet spot for fun.

I'm not much of a min/maxer but I can't see how anyone can say deity is simple without reservation. There's always the chance that a nearby barbarian camp pops with horsemen on turn 4 and there's no help for it.

 

[Vizurok]

It seems there's really two types of player. One who reads and studies strategies, theory games, and min/maxes to try to squeeze that one extra production out of a forest chop and then the other type who randomizes their leader, has no real victory condition in mind, maybe checks their city status when a new project is built and just wants to try to beat up on a couple of neighbors.

For the first group, deity will be easy. For the second type, it will be a challenge and you'll probably find Emperor to be your sweet spot for fun.

I'm not much of a min/maxer but I can't see how anyone can say deity is simple without reservation. There's always the chance that a nearby barbarian camp pops with horsemen on turn 4 and there's no help for it.

Okay, now we are really talking specifics but a barb camp next to you is nothing but free XP. Barbs can't conquer your capital so you are free to expand to the other three directions.

 

[Xoon]

Has that always been the case because I'm almost certain I had a city leveled by barbs at some point.

Regardless, replace that with Gilgamesh and it's the same result.

 

[PenngwynXVII]

Barbs can't take your capital, they can take other cities.

But Gilgabro? He's your bro, bro! He would NEVER take ANY of your cities!! (Unless you forget to ask him to be friends as soon as you meet him... Then he will probably be mad at you.)

 

[agonistes]

I really don’t agree with this.

You can play the game rote, but only in the sense that in principle you can grind out success using a particular formula. But play the game well and or playing fast actually requires you to adapt to the map quite a lot. I find it impossible to have a consistent build order or diplomatic strategy or even first Governor. And when I do stick to a particular strategy regardless of context , I find my outcomes vary widely meaning my strategy is only good in some situations.

The late game is a different beast, and it can be quite passive and feel a bit meaningless. But I think that’s more a product of FXS not really having any vision for the End Game other than “get it over with”. Seriously, RnF and GS have us units for just rush the end of the game eg Royal Society, GDR, Rockbands; and now NGP just gives us a more blunt end game timer in the form of Comets.

Anyway. No worries if you disagree. I’m not going to debate the point - I’ve had this conversation too many times - and many share your views.

I think if you combine your post with @Icicle ’s you (together) hit the nail on the head, and sum up the gameplay of civ generally and civ vi specifically pretty well.

Quite the debate here. Count me as one of those players who despite years of play still finds deity difficult, and as one who played deity regularly on 1-4 I do get annoyed sometimes when I see people complaining Civ6 is too easy. It's really hard not to take that personally when you've just come off a frustrating experience getting flattened by AI or barbarians.

This thread is helping clarify a few things. First, it helped me remember how, at deity level in earlier civ versions, I would eagerly engage in tedious exploits like ferrying units on transports 1/2 round the world in 1 turn, or going from last to first in tech in 1 turn by getting first contact with another continent and trading maps and tech. I don't think there's anything I do in civ6 and there wasn't much in 5 either that requires me to click through dozens of diplomacy screens or manage (peaceful) unit movement so precisely. So obviously I have much less patience for min/maxing, at least in some areas.

Also really significant to me is hearing the people who find deity easy also find it boring. That makes sense now, because for me I've found civ 5 and 6 both to be way more challenging, in that I need to find and employ different strategies for different map/civ combos. Opposite of boring. But if winning at deity means ignoring at least in part the uniqueness of your civ or map for the early game, and ignoring religion and wonders, this makes a lot of sense. I just can't stop myself from doing the some of the interesting things that lie off the path of optimal play, like getting a religion.

That said, just below the difficulty level I can't master is the one I can't believe other people struggle with. Well, not really, I can understand, but there's my point I guess. I can make the easy levels more challenging to an extent by using advanced setup settings, and I can make the harder difficulty level a bit less difficult/boring by doing the same. I prefer the second option as my games will generally still snowball later hence feel very uncertain for longer. And so to me, the highest difficulty levels are really challenging for getting the civ I want up and running, and any boredom comes not from the ease of success but from the frustration of failure. (Another barb scout I can't catch? Guess its gonna be 20 turns of figthing off an invasion...)

If the players who are unchallenged by deity would just say they found the game "boring" rather than "easy", because you have to ignore religion or wonders or buildings or districts, etc, it would go over a lot better with me and perhaps a few other players.

Cheers all.

*applause* Wonderful post!

Boring and easy are not the same thing. Boring can result from easy, but not necessarily.

For what its worth, I play now with no victory conditions turned on. For me, I search for that one great game that plays out perfectly and which never ends (which is why I tend to ascribe unusual values to different mechanics/abilities - for this type of game, long term investment always trumps immediate gain, i.e., amenities and food over choral music, no chop starts).