I did not say "Rigged against the human player". I said "rigged". Period.
Yes. I can read too. But I think you might be in the wrong thread. (Not that I'm saying you can't derail the thread a little, feel free to do just that. But what I'm trying to make happen is for people who believe the game is rigged against them to ask why it would be that way. I admit I don't believe that; I actually believe it's a pretty dumb idea. But that doesn't mean it isn't worth looking at)
The point of the comment may escape you, but the way you worded your "question" makes it a dig against people who do not share your opinion.
OK. So I think the people with the opposite opinion to me have a dumb opinion. (note, not because their opinion is opposite to mine, but because of what the opinion is) I can offer you a hug if it'll make you feel better.
As a matter of fact, it is rather rude to lump them together as ""The RNG is Rigged" crowd".
No it isn't. Get over yourself. I would've listed them by name, but I don't know them all. Some of them hide behind pseudo-intellectualism (and if it's the use of the word crowd that you see as rude, which I suspect it is, get over yourself and stop trolling)
I'm honoured, I'm sure.
"Rigged"
A pRNG is not a true random generator but a pseudo RNG, which means that it emulates a RNG. It does this by being a long "string" or "list" of numbers, one of which is used for round one, then the next for round two etc etc. It is, in fact, a predetermined series of randomly generated numbers that have been checked to make certain that once in a while an Army will be defeated by a lone pikeman. Thus it is rigged!
I'm sorry, your staggering "intelligence" is confusing me.
For the bold part: of course a pikeman will sometimes beat an army. It's what random does. Nobody sat there, grinning gleefully, because they'd get to screw you over. And even with what you've said, it doesn't make it rigged, since the outcome is not predetermined in favour of one side or the other.
But the programmers have told us that they have fixed the problem of a runaway civilisation prevalent in Civ I. Have you ever played a game where you are well into the modern age and the AI civs are mostly stuck in the IA? Then you will have come across the phenomenon of being hit with a greater number of pollutions per turn in spite of having both RC & MTS built with Hoover Dam / Nuclear Power Plants and a far lesser number of pollution triangles than you had in the late IA. Furthermore, the pollutions seem to have a great affinity for tiles with resources as these seem to be hit far too frequently in relation to their actual number.
This, and similar occurrences, are a result of the checks put in against a runaway civ. As it usually is the human player who is ahead, players should be excused if they feel that the game is biased against the human player when in reality it is against the runaway civ which just happens to be the human player.
It's my understanding that the enormous waste/corruption levels are the main check against a runaway civ. I'd like to see some proof of your assertions that pollution also does that, because it's frankly untestable (even more so than combat outcomes). You may be right (I'm highly skeptical), but I'd like to see where you got the information.
The bolded part is just more cognitive bias, the same sort that produces the persecution mentality of people who think the combat is biased against them.
Lastly, are you asserting that combat results are modified against the runaway civ as well? Again, if you are (I genuinely can't tell), I'd like to see some proof.
).
