A new low.

[Pyrrhos]

@ Lord Emsworth:

The problem with your screenshots is that we only have your word for it that they are genuine. For all we know, you might as well have gone into the editor and done something like this:


Not saying that you have done so, only that you MIGHT and that we have no way of telling...

 

[Optional]

Yeah, for Lord Emsworth it was SO important to prove that settlers could start on hills that he manipulated pictures, absolutely!

 

[Spoonwood]

OK, there is an element of personal luck in this game with the RNG and I have developed a reputation for having really (incredibly) bad luck.

Should I fall on the floor laughing here? Seriously, if you and I sat down on the same computer and had "random seed preserved" on and we fought the same battles in the same order, we'd get the same results. The computer doesn't have an awareness of who pushed the keystrokes. Additionaly, your statement here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=305949 Darski reads:

I got an SGL for two early techs in a row (one of which was maths) so there was my Pyramids and then SoZ.

Contradiction? You'd better believe it.

This example was extreme even for my bad luck but the point is that it is all about luck and does not involve complicated formulae.

Random number generators use "complicated formulae" to *act* randomly. They simply don't work on a nondeterministic, "random" basis literally. They *could* work as biased in that some numbers come as more probable than others (in other words the distribution of numbers generated by equations might have more 3s than 2s). But, simply put random number generators, aren't random... they *behave* random, because you can mimic randomness through certain means. Hence, they called PRNGs... or *psuedo* random number generators. Take a look at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generator

* A town is not flat land
* A fortification is not the same as being fortified
* A TOWN is pop 1-6
* If you have pop 7, it's a CITY

He didn't say a town is flat land, nor needed that assumption. By "fortification" he means "being fortified" whether that's your prefered terminology or not. The last two parts only consist of picking at names. He already said "size 7 or walls."

We still don't know if Paris stood at size 7 (or 13) or had walls. We don't know if all the battles came in the same turn, or if it healed in between battles. Heck... we don't even know if all those battles came against the same spear really.

I don't doubt Lord Emsworth has given us a real screenshot from his game here. But, for the sake of argument at least, could you post us a save Lord Emsworth?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Oh stop trolling Pyrrhos ...

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I don't doubt Lord Emsworth has given us a real screenshot from his game here. But, for the sake of argument at least, could you post us a save Lord Emsworth?

No, not yet. HoF game in progress. But to make up for it, check out this game:
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=2418
There are even 3 starting locations out of 12 on a hill, including my own.
Paris and Persepolis:

And Heartland:

The screens are from saves on my HD, but the 1000BC and 10AD saves from the HoF should be enough confirmation.

 

[Spoonwood]

Thanks Emsworth. Now *even if* he faked his first screenshots, we have evidence that cities can happen on a hill in Vanilla and it's there for you to see Pyrrhos. Got it?

 

[Marsden]

...when we don't give equal credence to the times we inflict just as unlikely losses to the AI.

What if we never inflict those unlikely losses on the AI?

I got 2 sgls in a row once, is that why the AI archers always kill my pikeman in one shot?

 

[TheOverseer714]

I had a healthy Cavalry retreat (while attacking) from a Longbow on grass, no river. 6 attack vs 1 defense should be a shoo-in, but not that time. It just happens, I grump about it and move on.

 

[capnvonbaron]

I had a healthy Cavalry retreat (while attacking) from a Longbow on grass, no river. 6 attack vs 1 defense should be a shoo-in, but not that time. It just happens, I grump about it and move on.

*shudder* Longbows Those things always make me hesitate attacking them due to my personal experiences with them. I either hand them crushing defeats, or for some reason they seem to defend with a 4 rating. Not much in between.

Same with Xerxes' Immortals. For some reason, those things always seem to defend better than they should. With that 2 defense rating, I think they're somehow related to spearmen...

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I think it HAS changed. Settlers cannot start on a hill in Conquests. And there's more terrain where you never start off. I've never seen a mountain, jungle or marsh start. I'm not so sure about tundra.
I don't know WHEN they changed it, but those pictures you posted couldn't come from the most up to date version of civ.

I have not seen mountains either, but you can't settle there anyway. Isn't that the same with marshes? So, it isn't really surprising there are no such starts. I don't know about jungles or tundra atm, but I see no reason to hardcode no hill starts. But, ok, just because there's no reason to doesn't mean it wasn't changed.

And yes, that is really not Conquests, it is Vanilla 1.29b2, the latest Mac Vanilla patch version.

 

[capnvonbaron]

I have not seen mountains either, but you can't settle there anyway. Isn't that the same with marshes? So, it isn't really surprising there are no such starts. I don't know about jungles or tundra atm, but I see no reason to hardcode no hill starts. But, ok, just because there's no reason to doesn't mean it wasn't changed.

And yes, that is really not Conquests, it is Vanilla 1.29b2, the latest Mac Vanilla patch version.

Relating to that, I have vanilla 1.29 as well, and I can say with certainty that there are never mountain starts. I have never seen a start on tundra, desert, or jungle that I can remember, but then, I usually reject starts if there is a number of those tiles in the fat cross. Plains, hills, or grasslands (in vanilla) I think are all that are possible.

 

[Pyrrhos]

Thanks Emsworth. Now *even if* he faked his first screenshots, we have evidence that cities can happen on a hill in Vanilla and it's there for you to see Pyrrhos. Got it?

I just love the reasoning of the immature mind:

* Because it can happen in Vanilla, Darski's example Paris must have been on a hill
* Paris has to have had walls or be pop 7 (or even 13)
* The attack had to have come across a river
* Darski hasn't told us "enough"
* Darski might be lying or cheating, but it impossible that Lord Emsworth might because he shares my opinions and pet beliefs.
* And if that's not enough, we can always stick her with "cognitive bias"

I HATE the way immature children - proof "Stop trolling Pyrrhos" - try to twist everyting into a win-lose in their favour by any means. It doesn't matter if the child is 14 or 40, in fact I know or have known many a 15-year old who is way more grown-up than many of the posters here.

Now I remember why I stopped posting for a while. It was not the Civ blahs alone...

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: Alrighty then people....let's keep it a little more civil.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Spoonwood]

Because it can happen in Vanilla, Darski's example Paris must have been on a hill

This didn't get claimed nor implied. If you believe it got claimed, then quote the instance and give us a post number. If you believe it got implied, then *show* how it got implied by a statement.

Paris has to have had walls or be pop 7 (or even 13)

Hasn't gotten claimed or implied either.

The attack had to have come across a river

Didn't get claimed or implied either.

Darski hasn't told us "enough"

Darski *has NOT* told us enough to calculate the probability of her succession of battles. Nothing immature here Pyrrhos, just a cold hard fact. Did Paris have walls or sit at size 7 or 13? We don't know. So, we can't calculate the probability of her succession of battles.

Darski might be lying or cheating, but it impossible that Lord Emsworth might because he shares my opinions and pet beliefs.

As of this moment Lord Emsworth has provided us with a link to saves that provides evidence that cities exist on hills in Vanilla. Darski hasn't provided us with any evidence of her Paris game.

And if that's not enough, we can always stick her with "cognitive bias"

She has *demonstrated* cognitive bias AND shown no awareness of it. She literally claimed the RNG as literally biased against her

OK, there is an element of personal luck in this game with the RNG and I have developed a reputation for having really (incredibly) bad luck. This example was extreme even for my bad luck but the point is that it is all about luck and does not involve complicated formulae. It is all a crap shoot each and every time.

and then *less than an hour later* claimed in another thread

I assume this is about incredible good luck. I had a game a couple of days ago where I founded my cap right next to Ivory. I got an SGL for two early techs in a row (one of which was maths) so there was my Pyramids and then SoZ.

Not only does the RNG NOT work such that it involves *personal* luck, but it DOES involve complicated formulae. And she *has* had improbable events where things have gone her way. But, in general, she still claims that the game disfavors the human player. That comes as cognitive bias *in spite of evidence to the contrary*.

I HATE the way immature children - proof "Stop trolling Pyrrhos" - try to twist everyting into a win-lose in their favour by any means.

So what? You think any of us like the way you've acted here Pyrrhos?

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: That's enough.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Aabraxan]

Geez, Pyrrhos shows up again and it looks like I missed all the fun! Welcome back, Pyrrhos!

I haven't been following this thread all that closely, but here are a couple of things I'd like to add, for what they're worth (which may be very little):

• I've never played vanilla or ptw, only C3C.
• I cannot recall ever starting on a hill, mountain, or marsh.
• I'm fairly certain that I have had a start location in tundra and desert.
• I do not recall any jungle starts, but I can't claim with any sort of certainty that I've never had them.
• I'm not a statistician.
• Nor do I want to be.
• My units do generally seem to behave as I'd expect them to, given their A/D/M values.
• I also seem to lose the occasional battle that I "know" I should win.

 

[Pyrrhos]

Hello again Aabraxan, and thanks for the welcome back! Nothing changes, eh? Pyrrhos posts and WWIII breaks out.

@ Spoonwood - just read the topic again and it will become clear that every "claim" you put forth in reply #74 is a blatant lie!

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: Thread closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889