Galileo44
Great Scientist
So this is what someone uninitiated would be hearing if they stumbled upon the strategy forum here. 
Adapting what I learned from Starcraft
- Thread starter Cornstalk
- Start date
Heh, Idlenessss makes outlandish statements in every thread just to troll, don't mind him.
Harassment is certainly valuable with very few civs, but the problem is most games have quite a few opponents. Even if you weaken your enemy more than they weaken you, you'll both be weakened compared to everyone else. Long drawn out wars have a high cost even if they never enter your borders due to war weariness and unit costs.
Harassment is certainly valuable with very few civs, but the problem is most games have quite a few opponents. Even if you weaken your enemy more than they weaken you, you'll both be weakened compared to everyone else. Long drawn out wars have a high cost even if they never enter your borders due to war weariness and unit costs.
sylvanllewelyn
Perma-newb
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,022
Starcraft is only an analogy used to discuss Civ, because it is so strategic and lends itself to more theoretical discussion. This is not a thread discussing the strategies of the game Stacraft itself.
Pillaging lots of enemies simultaneously is only good if your capital has the commerce to support so many cities later, and then catch up in tech from cottage spamming (limited by land more than workers, as you capture so many workers anyway once you take the cities). Civ is a very theoretical game, Starcraft is a clickfest, the only thing they have in common is you're not trying to build a great empire, but to win a game.
Pillaging lots of enemies simultaneously is only good if your capital has the commerce to support so many cities later, and then catch up in tech from cottage spamming (limited by land more than workers, as you capture so many workers anyway once you take the cities). Civ is a very theoretical game, Starcraft is a clickfest, the only thing they have in common is you're not trying to build a great empire, but to win a game.
Wodan
Deity
The thing about Starcraft that Civ players can learn is the strategy of building. In Starcraft, careful analysis and experienced players will know exactly what to build, in what order, and when. They take into consideration population growth and periodic limits because of supply. Rate of resource inflow and worker allocation. It really is that strategic... an exacting flowchart... not even a flowchart, because in Starcraft there are no decision points (other than the initial decision of what race/unit path you want to follow).
In Civ, this can be done too. There is more variance due to terrain etc (which I think makes Civ a better game), but nevertheless I think that Starcraft has this to teach.
Wodan
In Civ, this can be done too. There is more variance due to terrain etc (which I think makes Civ a better game), but nevertheless I think that Starcraft has this to teach.
Wodan
Agreed. For instance, what's YOUR standard build order for a new city? Mine used to be granary, forge, library, observatory, university, [insert lighthouse or harbor or both here if applicable]. I am more careful now about timing, often sacrificing initial research in a city to pump out culture if it's anywhere near an enemy city. I time lighthouse now so that it's only built when needed, and of course I improve tiles in a certain way now--before, I'd all too often have a bunch of improved hills but not enough food to work them, or a bunch of farms but not enough production-oriented tiles improved yet. And city specialization is definitely an artform.
OTAKUjbski
TK421
QFT. I second that.
I was too busy with school at the time StarCraft came out, so I never found myself deep into Battle.net against 8-year-olds with no homework, no big finals and no big school bills to worry about.
But, I was one mean WarCraft & WarCraft II player ... I used to play that shlt over modem and clean house.
In nearly every RTS, there is a VERY precise order in which the initial moves of your game MUST be carried out if you hope to survive with whatever strategy you're going with (though most strats shared the first 60 seconds worth of commands).
In WC & WCII, it even mattered where you built your buildings in relation to each other and to the resources.
Likewise, I'm finding the same "60-second" early-game logic applies to most of my CivIV games. For example:
- Hunting = Scout. First build is probably a Scout if I start with Hunting.
- Mining = Worker. First build is probably a Worker if I can tech to BW before it completes.
- 15 turns = Worker. First build is probably a Worker if I can't pump out a Scout / Warrior before Population 2.
- Pangea = 2nd city military only. First city is probably a GP factory if I'm isolated, otherwise it's a Hammer/Military factory.
I know formulas and recipes don't work in CivIV any more, but for the first 50 or so turns, you better know what you're doing before you're doing it, imho.
Syndrome Zed
Wanna see my quad laser?
Funny you should say that, since that was the thing that finally broke my SC/BW addiction. I was playing since before pros like Slayers Boxer were around, but never could compete at the highest levels. Slow hands, don't you know.
Still visit a forum or two for SCBW even. My play was always strongest right after patch releases, when my lack of APM was compensated by my ability to think tactically. I'd get pretty far up the ladder for the first couple weeks or so, then go crashing down right after that once the basic strategies had been re-worked for the new unit balance.
I still like the game and even play it (usually against 2 or 3 AI's) once in a while. The only thing that ever disappointed me was the fact that the game finally broke down into essentially a single strategy based on race matchup and map (I steadfastly refused to play Lost Temple after 2 years, and quickly ran out of opponents
). Knowing exactly what building to build and exactly what order takes a lot of the strategy out of the game and incorporates only the "how fast can you click on each thing" element. That's one of the things that Civ has an advantage over SC with - your build is going to depend on the map like in SC, but loading a map isn't a static process, it's a dynamic one. So with a different map, and different opponents with different strategies and victory conditions, there is no single "you must do this to win" strategy or build order. Now, if Blizz decided to make Starcraft 2 (they'd better, I still want to know what happened to the Brood Queen/Kerrigan
) and were able to incorporate more races and variations somehow - perhaps a scripted map generator - I'd have something to break my Civ addiction. 
@zed
I still here rumors SC2 will come out sometime....I think the last rumor I heard was surrounding a summer date for the test version. There is already a "type" of map generator which can be used in some leagues....it randomly draws and loads the map which the players will use to fight one another. Of course I get the impression you are talking about a "truly random map" generator, which IMO, is the very VERY worst thing that any game can have (CIV IV SO INCLUDED) because it completely destroys "game balance". Although I don't have many post, I have read the forum for quite some time, and it seems that my opinion on random map generation is the small %. Yes truly random maps lead to more potential variances and thus could definitely contribute to richer game play, but at the cost of "game balance". Game balance is important to me. I'll relate it to reading a book. If the book I am reading has for example, excessive spelling errors, then the emphasis of the story has been replaced with grammatical trama. The same can be said of a game. If there lacks balance (Big issues in MP; SP I will regenerate) then overall gameplay is sacrificed.
Some would argue; Just use "balanced" resources. And I would say, "That's no good because it only effects the resources around your immediate Capital........therefore has no influence on resources outside the 5 square radius, not to mention one person could have great hills for production while another has Zero."
But overall I am very pleased with the game. Oddly enough I used to play lots and lots of MP, but am slowly beginning to play SOLEY SP. There is simply too much luck involved when using a "truly random map generator". There is no balance (besides the balance that all players could be screwed equally, lol
). So...... it's SP and REGENERATE!!
I still here rumors SC2 will come out sometime....I think the last rumor I heard was surrounding a summer date for the test version. There is already a "type" of map generator which can be used in some leagues....it randomly draws and loads the map which the players will use to fight one another. Of course I get the impression you are talking about a "truly random map" generator, which IMO, is the very VERY worst thing that any game can have (CIV IV SO INCLUDED) because it completely destroys "game balance". Although I don't have many post, I have read the forum for quite some time, and it seems that my opinion on random map generation is the small %. Yes truly random maps lead to more potential variances and thus could definitely contribute to richer game play, but at the cost of "game balance". Game balance is important to me. I'll relate it to reading a book. If the book I am reading has for example, excessive spelling errors, then the emphasis of the story has been replaced with grammatical trama. The same can be said of a game. If there lacks balance (Big issues in MP; SP I will regenerate) then overall gameplay is sacrificed.
Some would argue; Just use "balanced" resources. And I would say, "That's no good because it only effects the resources around your immediate Capital........therefore has no influence on resources outside the 5 square radius, not to mention one person could have great hills for production while another has Zero."
But overall I am very pleased with the game. Oddly enough I used to play lots and lots of MP, but am slowly beginning to play SOLEY SP. There is simply too much luck involved when using a "truly random map generator". There is no balance (besides the balance that all players could be screwed equally, lol
). So...... it's SP and REGENERATE!!
Wodan
Deity
A good point, 30+, but I disagree with your conclusion. The CIV4 map generators (most of them) actually do a VERY good job with map balance. By no means are they "truly random". For example, you may not have a lot of happiness resources, but you will get something: strategic or health resources. So maybe you don't need to build aqueducts in all your cities, and you can focus on theatres and colosseums (which you otherwise probably wouldn't bother with). It's the end result which is balanced gameplay.
Yes, before you respond, I admit that you can get those "polar paradise" starts, and also you can get some near-tundra or near-desert starts, and those are less good starts than other civs on the same map will get. Nevertheless, by and large, the map generator does an excellent job.
Here's a principle even MORE important than game balance: replayability. A huge part of replayability is variety. If the game is the same over and over and over, then most people will play it a few times and then put it down. What's the point of having perfect game balance if nobody plays it more than once or twice?
Wodan
Yes, before you respond, I admit that you can get those "polar paradise" starts, and also you can get some near-tundra or near-desert starts, and those are less good starts than other civs on the same map will get. Nevertheless, by and large, the map generator does an excellent job.
Here's a principle even MORE important than game balance: replayability. A huge part of replayability is variety. If the game is the same over and over and over, then most people will play it a few times and then put it down. What's the point of having perfect game balance if nobody plays it more than once or twice?
Wodan
Jerrymander
Epistemologist
This reminds me of when I got AoM, and I played with my friends. He got pissed off at me, because I spent the first 5 seconds fixing my headset (and not pushing ".", "C", click, "Home", "V", "Q")
Oh, and Protoss is awesome, if you don't get rushed early. Terran is the most versatile race in Starcraft, though. Granted, I was never a good player.
But the Impi rush looked cool. Good jorb.
Oh, and Protoss is awesome, if you don't get rushed early. Terran is the most versatile race in Starcraft, though. Granted, I was never a good player.
But the Impi rush looked cool. Good jorb.
OTAKUjbski
TK421
I tend to enjoy & replay the 'bad' start games far more than the lush ones. I figure if I can win with a crappy start, then it's probably time for me to knock the level up a notch.
@ Woodan
Agreed and Disagreed with your last post ^^. You may very well get different resources/tiles/textures (what have you) allowing you advantages and disadvantages...but in my main problem is with MP, and in my previous post I used lack of production vs. an opponent who lacks for no production. Having greater resources which can be used further down the line does very little if no good at all in MP......which is played on Noble with a HUGE 6 happiness cap which allows all kinds of early production before those advantageous resources will come into play. After all, in MP, it's about early production and WARmongering until the game settles down and the remainding players find an equalibrium with one another, one which allows for commerce growth/tech growth/and unit growth, all the while maintaining and expanding your empire (any and every inch you can gain whenever you can gain it).
As far as replayability goes.....I of course don't agree. Take a look at Brood War as an example, o_O. BW has the largest PRO-GAME scene in the World, and has consistantly been one of the most played MP games in history. It has great game balance which leads to a wonderful combination of game symmetry; map balance, resource balance, race balance (leader balances if you would), timing, micro and macromanagement, and speed...all of which leads to a majestic game which is rich and beatiful, lol!! And once again, none of this could be gained w/out "balance"
So, like I said in my earlier post, I seem to be the small % when it comes to "random map generations"........but imo, it completely destroys MP. Without balance there can be no equallity in respects to build orders/timing/strategy/tech/commerce/science/and EVERYTHING else.
Simply put, if a player is fortunate enough to have the best starting location and surrounding land, if everyone else is at the same exact skill level, the player with the better resources and land in the beginning will WIN the VAST MAJORITY of the time, period. So at least in my eyes, balance is very necessary.
But of course, the AI don't play as well as human players, therefore I can regenerate, or if I am in the mood, play any start I want (currently playing Immortal now), because I know that I will have the time to settle at least one ore two more good cities and let my superior strategy and gameplay make up for a weak start (something which you will not be afforded in MP).
So, SP is still rather AWESOME for me, especially since I have played mostly MP till recently.........which means I will begin playing other victories besides Domination/Conquest only, which will of course allow me to enjoy other aspects of the game I have yet even attempted.
One last edit.........Civilization has many many game options ranging from map, water level, speed, leaders, difficulty, etc.........THEN WHY NOT HAVE A PATCH THAT HAS ONE MORE AVAILABLE OPTION WHICH COULD BE IMPLEMENTED INTO SP AND MP......of course that would be maps which do not change, just like Brood War. They would need to be SP as well, because us MP users need to be able to practice over and over again our strategies in SP, so that once in MP, we don't need to think, simply execute, thus greatly improving our speed and overall gameplay.
After all, in MP, the two complaints I see all the time, especially during the game are something like this: "OMG, my capital sucks a$$!, I have horrible resources and one "F"ing hill, Jesus this blows" Then the second complaint you here is, "OMG, that guy was a total noob, can you believe he just quit the game because he didnt like his capital. I have played 4 games tonight, and so far, at least 2 people out of 6 have left because they didn't like there start. Sorry quitters...it's hard to even get a game started."
I see that alot. Too much. I personally will stay with my horrible position, knowing full well I am going to get totally owned.......but I do make a plan to make all out WAR with only 2 cities and at least cripple or take out one person before I die, lol. Anyways, balance would be nice for MP.
Agreed and Disagreed with your last post ^^. You may very well get different resources/tiles/textures (what have you) allowing you advantages and disadvantages...but in my main problem is with MP, and in my previous post I used lack of production vs. an opponent who lacks for no production. Having greater resources which can be used further down the line does very little if no good at all in MP......which is played on Noble with a HUGE 6 happiness cap which allows all kinds of early production before those advantageous resources will come into play. After all, in MP, it's about early production and WARmongering until the game settles down and the remainding players find an equalibrium with one another, one which allows for commerce growth/tech growth/and unit growth, all the while maintaining and expanding your empire (any and every inch you can gain whenever you can gain it).
As far as replayability goes.....I of course don't agree
. Take a look at Brood War as an example, o_O. BW has the largest PRO-GAME scene in the World, and has consistantly been one of the most played MP games in history. It has great game balance which leads to a wonderful combination of game symmetry; map balance, resource balance, race balance (leader balances if you would), timing, micro and macromanagement, and speed...all of which leads to a majestic game which is rich and beatiful, lol!! And once again, none of this could be gained w/out "balance"So, like I said in my earlier post, I seem to be the small % when it comes to "random map generations"........but imo, it completely destroys MP. Without balance there can be no equallity in respects to build orders/timing/strategy/tech/commerce/science/and EVERYTHING else.
Simply put, if a player is fortunate enough to have the best starting location and surrounding land, if everyone else is at the same exact skill level, the player with the better resources and land in the beginning will WIN the VAST MAJORITY of the time, period. So at least in my eyes, balance is very necessary.
But of course, the AI don't play as well as human players, therefore I can regenerate, or if I am in the mood, play any start I want (currently playing Immortal now), because I know that I will have the time to settle at least one ore two more good cities and let my superior strategy and gameplay make up for a weak start (something which you will not be afforded in MP).
So, SP is still rather AWESOME for me, especially since I have played mostly MP till recently.........which means I will begin playing other victories besides Domination/Conquest only, which will of course allow me to enjoy other aspects of the game I have yet even attempted.
One last edit.........Civilization has many many game options ranging from map, water level, speed, leaders, difficulty, etc.........THEN WHY NOT HAVE A PATCH THAT HAS ONE MORE AVAILABLE OPTION WHICH COULD BE IMPLEMENTED INTO SP AND MP......of course that would be maps which do not change, just like Brood War. They would need to be SP as well, because us MP users need to be able to practice over and over again our strategies in SP, so that once in MP, we don't need to think, simply execute, thus greatly improving our speed and overall gameplay.
After all, in MP, the two complaints I see all the time, especially during the game are something like this: "OMG, my capital sucks a$$!, I have horrible resources and one "F"ing hill, Jesus this blows" Then the second complaint you here is, "OMG, that guy was a total noob, can you believe he just quit the game because he didnt like his capital. I have played 4 games tonight, and so far, at least 2 people out of 6 have left because they didn't like there start. Sorry quitters...it's hard to even get a game started."
I see that alot. Too much. I personally will stay with my horrible position, knowing full well I am going to get totally owned.......but I do make a plan to make all out WAR with only 2 cities and at least cripple or take out one person before I die, lol. Anyways, balance would be nice for MP.
Wodan
Deity
30, interesting comments & thoughts.
Re: MP
First of all, about MP. MP has a dynamic which SP does not: human diplomacy. Assume that player X sees a weaker neighbor and also a stronger, vis-a-vis their starting locations (as you posit). Also assume that all players recognize and desire to go to early war, to gain an advantage (also as you posit).
There are two possible scenarios:
1) Player X forts up against the stronger one while he goes to war to wipe out and absorb the territory of the weaker.
2) Player X joins together with like-minded players (such as the weaker one), all who realize that the stronger player is going to win unless they join together and take him out first.
For #1, this is simply not going to happen. The stronger player will see player X send half (or more) of his units in the opposite direction. How nice! Come to papa.
For #2, this is the smarter, more experienced move. Utilize your diplomacy. It's called multiplayer for a reason.
This is simplistic, and there are a lot more subtleties that can occur of course. However, it illustrates that in MP it does not boil down to "player with the better resources and land in the beginning will WIN the VAST MAJORITY of the time, period."
----------------------------------------------
RE: Starcraft
You are correct of course that Starcraft (and Brood War) is and remains one of the most successful and played games. It has a lot of replayability.
My claim was that the semi-random maps of Civ4 enhances the replayability of Civ4. The logical conclusion would be that a game without semi-random maps (such as Starcraft) would have a downgraded replayability.
I stand by that. I think Starcraft would be even better if it had semi-random maps. You ask why does Civ4 not have an option for static maps? Well, I ask why does Starcraft not have an option for semi-random maps.
So, why does Starcraft have as much replayability as it does? The superb MP interface, for one. For two, any realtime game is going to naturally be more adaptable to MP and live online play; that's just the nature of the beast. Nevertheless, we have to wonder how much more replayability Starcraft would have if it was exactly the same, but also we have a built-in map generator exactly akin to Civ4.
-----------------------------------------------
Re: quitters because of poor start location
People play SP with poor starts because of the challenge. Why not MP? Are they so afraid of losing (and with total strangers at that) that they will simply quit? Is it not "worth their while" unless they actually have an advantage over their fellow players? That's what they're saying... they want a primo start loc.
That kind of behaviour is what I would call juvenile. It's the same type of person who in Starcraft MP will backstab simply for the fun of it. They are the people who turned me off online play. Not because I couldn't hack it... as I said, who cares, these are total strangers. Rating? Who cares, it's just a game. I'm not doing this for money like they do in South Korea. I'm here simply to while away a few hours on a Thursday night. So, to that end, the BSers simply disgust me, plain and simple. It's childish, disgusting behavior, just like vandalism or anything like that.
Same thing in Civ MP. Quitting because of a poor start loc... not only is it juvenile, it's plainly not true. If you have a poor start location, isn't this the perfect rationale to present to other nations that you are the perfect ally? After all, you have "no chance to win". Thus, you are no threat to your potential ally. And, together you can join together and rule the galaxy as father and son!!
(Sorry for the Star Wars quote... couldn't help myself.)
Wodan
Re: MP
First of all, about MP. MP has a dynamic which SP does not: human diplomacy. Assume that player X sees a weaker neighbor and also a stronger, vis-a-vis their starting locations (as you posit). Also assume that all players recognize and desire to go to early war, to gain an advantage (also as you posit).
There are two possible scenarios:
1) Player X forts up against the stronger one while he goes to war to wipe out and absorb the territory of the weaker.
2) Player X joins together with like-minded players (such as the weaker one), all who realize that the stronger player is going to win unless they join together and take him out first.
For #1, this is simply not going to happen. The stronger player will see player X send half (or more) of his units in the opposite direction. How nice!
Come to papa.For #2, this is the smarter, more experienced move. Utilize your diplomacy. It's called multiplayer for a reason.
This is simplistic, and there are a lot more subtleties that can occur of course. However, it illustrates that in MP it does not boil down to "player with the better resources and land in the beginning will WIN the VAST MAJORITY of the time, period."
----------------------------------------------
RE: Starcraft
You are correct of course that Starcraft (and Brood War) is and remains one of the most successful and played games. It has a lot of replayability.
My claim was that the semi-random maps of Civ4 enhances the replayability of Civ4. The logical conclusion would be that a game without semi-random maps (such as Starcraft) would have a downgraded replayability.
I stand by that. I think Starcraft would be even better if it had semi-random maps. You ask why does Civ4 not have an option for static maps? Well, I ask why does Starcraft not have an option for semi-random maps.
So, why does Starcraft have as much replayability as it does? The superb MP interface, for one. For two, any realtime game is going to naturally be more adaptable to MP and live online play; that's just the nature of the beast. Nevertheless, we have to wonder how much more replayability Starcraft would have if it was exactly the same, but also we have a built-in map generator exactly akin to Civ4.
-----------------------------------------------
Re: quitters because of poor start location
People play SP with poor starts because of the challenge. Why not MP? Are they so afraid of losing (and with total strangers at that) that they will simply quit? Is it not "worth their while" unless they actually have an advantage over their fellow players? That's what they're saying... they want a primo start loc.
That kind of behaviour is what I would call juvenile. It's the same type of person who in Starcraft MP will backstab simply for the fun of it. They are the people who turned me off online play. Not because I couldn't hack it... as I said, who cares, these are total strangers. Rating? Who cares, it's just a game. I'm not doing this for money like they do in South Korea. I'm here simply to while away a few hours on a Thursday night. So, to that end, the BSers simply disgust me, plain and simple. It's childish, disgusting behavior, just like vandalism or anything like that.
Same thing in Civ MP. Quitting because of a poor start loc... not only is it juvenile, it's plainly not true. If you have a poor start location, isn't this the perfect rationale to present to other nations that you are the perfect ally? After all, you have "no chance to win". Thus, you are no threat to your potential ally. And, together you can join together and rule the galaxy as father and son!!
(Sorry for the Star Wars quote... couldn't help myself.)
Wodan
Syndrome Zed
Wanna see my quad laser?
30 - I understand your POV, but I have to disagree with one thing: The Pro Gaming scene isn't based on replayability, but reproducability. Sort of like the way the NFL draft (I hope you're American or at least know what I'm talking about ) is weighted not towards the players on-field results, but towards their abilities in the combine (basically just speed and strength tests). Same few maps, everyone knows exactly where the starts, resources, etc. are, and it boils down to figuring out when the first scout rolls around what race you're up against (assuming they go random, if not then you know that too). The Pro Gamers have made the challenge different - it's no longer a strategic challenge, it's a speed challenge. When you know your opponent is Zerg on Lost Temple and you're Terran you race to tanks (don't know if that's even the right strat to use anymore, it's been a loooong time ). Same strat, no matter who the opponent is, as long as the map/race combo is the same.
If Pro Gaming was played on randomly selected maps with forced random races, it'd be a different story. But for me, replayability is about the strategic thinking aspect of the game rather than the speed/outrace opponent. Which is why I've drifted to Turn-based strat games and save the mouse-ifying for Quake 4 or Half-Life 2 (or even Return to Wolfenstein, which holds up well despite its years).
Don't get me wrong, I love SC and still consider it one of the best games ever created, and with all the maps they give you plus the better homebrew jobs, there's still a ton of replayability. And I hope SC2 can live up to its predecessor, if you're right and there really is an SC2 in the works (with WoW I'm amazed they have the time for it). I just think Wodan is right in that adding a scripted semi-random, Civ-like map generator to SC would make for some very fun games.
) is weighted not towards the players on-field results, but towards their abilities in the combine (basically just speed and strength tests). Same few maps, everyone knows exactly where the starts, resources, etc. are, and it boils down to figuring out when the first scout rolls around what race you're up against (assuming they go random, if not then you know that too). The Pro Gamers have made the challenge different - it's no longer a strategic challenge, it's a speed challenge. When you know your opponent is Zerg on Lost Temple and you're Terran you race to tanks (don't know if that's even the right strat to use anymore, it's been a loooong time ). Same strat, no matter who the opponent is, as long as the map/race combo is the same. If Pro Gaming was played on randomly selected maps with forced random races, it'd be a different story. But for me, replayability is about the strategic thinking aspect of the game rather than the speed/outrace opponent. Which is why I've drifted to Turn-based strat games and save the mouse-ifying for Quake 4 or Half-Life 2 (or even Return to Wolfenstein, which holds up well despite its years).
Don't get me wrong, I love SC and still consider it one of the best games ever created, and with all the maps they give you plus the better homebrew jobs, there's still a ton of replayability. And I hope SC2 can live up to its predecessor, if you're right and there really is an SC2 in the works (with WoW I'm amazed they have the time for it). I just think Wodan is right in that adding a scripted semi-random, Civ-like map generator to SC would make for some very fun games.
Hello, Everyone,
I've been reading these forums for over a year and never felt compelled to post until I read that quote from 30+. I played and enjoyed SC just like everyone else on this thread, but quickly tired of it because it came down to click..click..click. Lather, rinse, repeat.
"we don't need to think, simply execute, " sums up Zed's comments in a nutshell. No thinking in a strategy game!! That's not replayability but repetition. Try lather, rinse, repeat in Civ4 (SP or MP) regardless of map and you won't last long.
Thinking about the game is what MAKES Civ4
@woodan
In MP 95% of the time there is no tech trading and no alliances, and along with this, very little information is shared. Player X and player Y would have no idea what the remainding players adv/dis-adv were in the early going. There is very little cooridination invloved (unless you play team, something I do not). So the bottom line will still remain: Whoever has the best starting location and surroundings will always have the advantage (if all equally skilled). So contrast to what you are trying to say, there is NO DOUBT, beginning resources and surrounding land will always have a HUGE effect on the outcome of the game. To kick a dead horse again, if everyone is equally skilled, the person with the best resources and terrain available to them will have the early advantage. I don't see how that's even debatable.
Without a doubt there would be a downgraded replayability. No question about it. But with more emphasis on equal starting positions and "game balance" there would be a much deeper game playability. You don't have to worry about random luck in resources and production. Everyone would have exactly the same initial start. Take playing Zerg vs Zerg as an example. Identical units/capabilities/upgrades/etc. Everything is 100% equal. There is no doubt that the best player will win more games in the long run (of course the occasional mis-scout or unlucky event could happen).
There is no need to have an "advantage" over players in MP as you say, but rather, "equality". It's not too much to ask for. And of course everyone wants to win. There would be no point in playing a game if you couldn't be the winner! Losing sucks. Sure you learn from mistakes, as you will in every game, but eventually, you want your skill to shine, and OWN everyone you play. Give everyone the same chance with the same resources. Make if fair!
Lol, and it's not juvenile. The goal should be balance and equality. And if you are in MP, and are a weaker civilization, you won't be a good ally for anyone. Once again, in MP, 95% of time there is no tech trading and no alliances. You will simply die faster.
Obviously, I disagree with most of your points. They don't focus or strive for a balanced game and that's all I'm asking for. Oh yes, I am sure Brood War would have more players if they had a random map generator as does Civ. Nothing wrong with having more options. I for one have never played a single tutorial or brood war scenario. I began by watching replays and devising my own build orders/tactics to win in multiplayer. Nothing is more satisfying than beating another player....its the top of the top.
@syndrome
replayability and reproducibility might as well be Twin Brothers. They go hand in hand and have similar meanings: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reproduce http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/replay
You can't have one w/out the other. They are both made possible by what is probably the best "game balance" offered to any gamer via Brood War.
You further say no strategy but only a click fest? My response is HUH?? and RE HUH???? Kidding right? Below is the dictionaries definition of strategy.
1. Also, strategics. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.
2. the use or an instance of using this science or art.
3. skillful use of a stratagem: The salesperson's strategy was to seem always to agree with the customer.
4. a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result: a strategy for getting ahead in the world.
So you need to use skill, planning, and specific methods.......Not like I needed to actually cut and paste the definition....anyone reading this (God help them, lol ) would be able to discern for themselves that Strategy is HUGE in any game, Brood War included. I don't care how fast you click your little or big fingers, if you don't do it strategically, you will lose.
GRANTED, there is lots of repeatablility in strats, wheter it be Terran vs Terran or different race matchups, however, you have to strategically implement the use and perfect timing of these strats at precisely the right time in order to maximize your results (and that time is different every single game). YES, speed and a click fest are very important in Brood War, but they still need to be used in conjunction with the rest of your game. Besides, I worked countless hours of random, incoherent, meaningless (seemingly), and boring clicks in order to speed up my actions and greatly improve my game. That was part of my Strategy!! Get faster hands so I can create a larger skill difference between me and my opponent, therefore giving me an even bigger advantage to crush them, gogo!
@seth (cool name by the way)
You say
Why don't we take a look at the BIG PICTURE?? In a previous quote from me that you have quoted in your post I said the following:
Let's take a look at this piece of my quote: MP users need to be able to practice over and over again our strategies in SP
MMMMMMmmmm, correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe the word strategies is in there? The whole point of all the practice as already stated, is to perfect our strategies. There is lots and lots of boring and repeatable exerecise that goes into perfecting a strategy. You have to allow for literaly 10's and 20's of different contigincies. If he does this how will I adapt my strategy? If he does this what will I do then, etc etc etc. So there are ALL KINDS of strategy, literally hundreds of hours could be poured into A SINGLE STRATEGY. So as you can see, once I am actually involved in a real life MP game, I will have all the contingencies thought out (at least the ones I thought I would encounter) and can simply REACT and EXECUTE, which of course will allow me to exploit superior game play mechanics/speed/what have you to further the skill gap between my opponent and myself, therefore affording me the opportunity to utterly own him. There will be times where my strategy fails for whatever reason, maybe even to a contingency I didn't originally forsee..........this puts me back to the strategic drawing board in SP so when I once again enter the MP realm I can REACT and EXECUTE.
Anyways, just wanted to show you w/out any doubt, that I used the word strategy.........after all, didn't you see it, it is in the quote you posted from me??! Anyways again, your post showing my quote simply validated the exact thing I had already said. You didn't refute anything, but rather proved my point a second time, Thanks.
Oh, a quick Edit. I have already stated I know I am the small % in my thinking about map regeneration.....probably due to the fact 80% of Civ players play predominantly SP (including myself recently) and enjoy a far greater variety in gameplay. I have ZERO issues with SP, and like the variety which occurs, but in MP I just can't get past the "balance" issues. To me, they are horrible and destroy the ability to compete equally. So just food for thought (cough, Non-random maps as an option, for MP/SP(to practice for MP), cough!, lol!!).
So to wrap up, I have played way way WAY too many hours of MP games online, and in my own mind, I have an absolutely perfect grasp of what is and what is not balanced, lol (besides, there can be no balance if MP players begin with different resources/production/commerce tiles). So until someone makes a valid point in reference to MP and game balance, I suppose I Agree to Disagree with you guys.
Another P.S., lol. Seems the big difference myself and some of the other posters have is I want to play in a MP environment where every single person starts with exactly identical resources/tiles/etc so that NO ONE has a beginning advantage in any way, shape, or form. I want equality and balance. Other posters are in favor of more variety, diversity, and unknown values which undoubtedly lead to far superior overall depth of the game. I believe that can be achieved in SP just fine. I just don't see how this fits into MP. To me the greatest aspect of MP is COMPETITION. In order to have a fair and even matchup everyone needs to start with the same rules/laws/equipment/or Resources (tiles). How can you possibly have a fair competition if someone has a greater initial advantage before you do?? Take 2 sprinters. One of them gets track shoes, the other does not. Who will win? Take MP Civilization. One player gets Copper/2 gold/2 corn/4 additional hills. The other player gets 2 fish/2 forest/no hills. Bottom line for me is..........at least in MP, I definitely prefer everything starting exactly equal and balanced. Give me an even and fair competition in MP........give me diversity and variety in SP. GG no re
And.... LOL, just to throw more fuel to the fire...........After serving in the U.S. Army for 11 years, and being raised by conservative grandparents, I am proud to SUPPORT G.W. Bush, our troops, and the War, and of course, let us not forget
THE LORD JESUS CHRIST , and PRO-CREATION (6,000 year old Earth). Nothing depresses me more than to see people with immoral values push their agenda.....this would encompass Pro-Choice, Gay Rights, and anti-war Liberals (well really, anyone liberal). So if you had some ill feeling that you just didn't quite get along with me, or thought something was aloof.....hopefully everything is now cleared up (as I am fond of Literal Biblical Values)
God Bless America
P.S. If I have offended anyone please forgive me, I am not perfect. If you're liberal and break your leg I will still help you get to the hospital and buy you lunch, just don't ask to date my daughter
Agree to disagree
In MP 95% of the time there is no tech trading and no alliances, and along with this, very little information is shared. Player X and player Y would have no idea what the remainding players adv/dis-adv were in the early going. There is very little cooridination invloved (unless you play team, something I do not). So the bottom line will still remain: Whoever has the best starting location and surroundings will always have the advantage (if all equally skilled). So contrast to what you are trying to say, there is NO DOUBT, beginning resources and surrounding land will always have a HUGE effect on the outcome of the game. To kick a dead horse again, if everyone is equally skilled, the person with the best resources and terrain available to them will have the early advantage. I don't see how that's even debatable.
Without a doubt there would be a downgraded replayability. No question about it. But with more emphasis on equal starting positions and "game balance" there would be a much deeper game playability. You don't have to worry about random luck in resources and production. Everyone would have exactly the same initial start. Take playing Zerg vs Zerg as an example. Identical units/capabilities/upgrades/etc. Everything is 100% equal. There is no doubt that the best player will win more games in the long run (of course the occasional mis-scout or unlucky event could happen).
There is no need to have an "advantage" over players in MP as you say, but rather, "equality". It's not too much to ask for. And of course everyone wants to win. There would be no point in playing a game if you couldn't be the winner! Losing sucks. Sure you learn from mistakes, as you will in every game, but eventually, you want your skill to shine, and OWN everyone you play. Give everyone the same chance with the same resources. Make if fair!
Lol, and it's not juvenile. The goal should be balance and equality. And if you are in MP, and are a weaker civilization, you won't be a good ally for anyone. Once again, in MP, 95% of time there is no tech trading and no alliances. You will simply die faster.
Obviously, I disagree with most of your points. They don't focus or strive for a balanced game and that's all I'm asking for. Oh yes, I am sure Brood War would have more players if they had a random map generator as does Civ. Nothing wrong with having more options. I for one have never played a single tutorial or brood war scenario. I began by watching replays and devising my own build orders/tactics to win in multiplayer. Nothing is more satisfying than beating another player....its the top of the top.
@syndrome
replayability and reproducibility might as well be Twin Brothers. They go hand in hand and have similar meanings: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reproduce http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/replay
You can't have one w/out the other. They are both made possible by what is probably the best "game balance" offered to any gamer via Brood War.
You further say no strategy but only a click fest? My response is HUH?? and RE HUH???? Kidding right? Below is the dictionaries definition of strategy.
1. Also, strategics. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.
2. the use or an instance of using this science or art.
3. skillful use of a stratagem: The salesperson's strategy was to seem always to agree with the customer.
4. a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result: a strategy for getting ahead in the world.
So you need to use skill, planning, and specific methods.......Not like I needed to actually cut and paste the definition....anyone reading this (God help them, lol
) would be able to discern for themselves that Strategy is HUGE in any game, Brood War included. I don't care how fast you click your little or big fingers, if you don't do it strategically, you will lose.GRANTED, there is lots of repeatablility in strats, wheter it be Terran vs Terran or different race matchups, however, you have to strategically implement the use and perfect timing of these strats at precisely the right time in order to maximize your results (and that time is different every single game). YES, speed and a click fest are very important in Brood War, but they still need to be used in conjunction with the rest of your game. Besides, I worked countless hours of random, incoherent, meaningless (seemingly), and boring clicks in order to speed up my actions and greatly improve my game. That was part of my Strategy!! Get faster hands so I can create a larger skill difference between me and my opponent, therefore giving me an even bigger advantage to crush them, gogo!
@seth (cool name by the way)
You say
Why don't we take a look at the BIG PICTURE?? In a previous quote from me that you have quoted in your post I said the following:
Let's take a look at this piece of my quote: MP users need to be able to practice over and over again our strategies in SP
MMMMMMmmmm, correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe the word strategies is in there? The whole point of all the practice as already stated, is to perfect our strategies. There is lots and lots of boring and repeatable exerecise that goes into perfecting a strategy. You have to allow for literaly 10's and 20's of different contigincies. If he does this how will I adapt my strategy? If he does this what will I do then, etc etc etc. So there are ALL KINDS of strategy, literally hundreds of hours could be poured into A SINGLE STRATEGY. So as you can see, once I am actually involved in a real life MP game, I will have all the contingencies thought out (at least the ones I thought I would encounter) and can simply REACT and EXECUTE, which of course will allow me to exploit superior game play mechanics/speed/what have you to further the skill gap between my opponent and myself, therefore affording me the opportunity to utterly own him. There will be times where my strategy fails for whatever reason, maybe even to a contingency I didn't originally forsee..........this puts me back to the strategic drawing board in SP so when I once again enter the MP realm I can REACT and EXECUTE.
Anyways, just wanted to show you w/out any doubt, that I used the word strategy.........after all, didn't you see it, it is in the quote you posted from me??!
Anyways again, your post showing my quote simply validated the exact thing I had already said. You didn't refute anything, but rather proved my point a second time, Thanks.Oh, a quick Edit. I have already stated I know I am the small % in my thinking about map regeneration.....probably due to the fact 80% of Civ players play predominantly SP (including myself recently) and enjoy a far greater variety in gameplay. I have ZERO issues with SP, and like the variety which occurs, but in MP I just can't get past the "balance" issues. To me, they are horrible and destroy the ability to compete equally. So just food for thought (cough, Non-random maps as an option, for MP/SP(to practice for MP), cough!, lol!!).
So to wrap up, I have played way way WAY too many hours of MP games online, and in my own mind, I have an absolutely perfect grasp of what is and what is not balanced, lol
(besides, there can be no balance if MP players begin with different resources/production/commerce tiles). So until someone makes a valid point in reference to MP and game balance, I suppose I Agree to Disagree with you guys.Another P.S., lol. Seems the big difference myself and some of the other posters have is I want to play in a MP environment where every single person starts with exactly identical resources/tiles/etc so that NO ONE has a beginning advantage in any way, shape, or form. I want equality and balance. Other posters are in favor of more variety, diversity, and unknown values which undoubtedly lead to far superior overall depth of the game. I believe that can be achieved in SP just fine. I just don't see how this fits into MP. To me the greatest aspect of MP is COMPETITION. In order to have a fair and even matchup everyone needs to start with the same rules/laws/equipment/or Resources (tiles). How can you possibly have a fair competition if someone has a greater initial advantage before you do?? Take 2 sprinters. One of them gets track shoes, the other does not. Who will win? Take MP Civilization. One player gets Copper/2 gold/2 corn/4 additional hills. The other player gets 2 fish/2 forest/no hills. Bottom line for me is..........at least in MP, I definitely prefer everything starting exactly equal and balanced. Give me an even and fair competition in MP........give me diversity and variety in SP. GG no re
And.... LOL, just to throw more fuel to the fire...........After serving in the U.S. Army for 11 years, and being raised by conservative grandparents, I am proud to SUPPORT G.W. Bush, our troops, and the War, and of course, let us not forget
THE LORD JESUS CHRIST , and PRO-CREATION (6,000 year old Earth). Nothing depresses me more than to see people with immoral values push their agenda.....this would encompass Pro-Choice, Gay Rights, and anti-war Liberals (well really, anyone liberal). So if you had some ill feeling that you just didn't quite get along with me, or thought something was aloof.....hopefully everything is now cleared up (as I am fond of Literal Biblical Values) God Bless America
P.S. If I have offended anyone please forgive me, I am not perfect. If you're liberal and break your leg I will still help you get to the hospital and buy you lunch, just don't ask to date my daughter
Agree to disagree
Wodan
Deity
30, you've never played Diplomacy, have you?
Wodan
Wodan
Heh. In MP, no.....sides, it would take seemingly forever to actually have all the players agree for such a setting. Usually you get flamed for having settings on anything other than Blazing speed/simultaneous turns/no tech trading/no barbarians/no alliances.
I have only just begun to learn in SP. I have never tried to achieve any victory besides domination/conquest because most of my SP games have been geared towards applying what I have learned towards MP. That's why I had a very hard time with Emperor in SP at first. I didn't understand how SE/FE (just as an example) could work.....and it didn't make it any easier with the settings I used in SP initially; no tech trading/no barbs (following similar MP settings so I could use what I learned in SP towards MP once again). Of course, once I started to use tech trading I realized how very very easy it is to manipulate the AI to get what you want.
Even now, in my current Immortal SP games, I don't use large amounts of Diplomacy. I simply trade for techs and bribe AI's to war when needed. Seeing how my opinion of MP has drastically changed the more I play it, I might actually start reading some space victory threads and find out how do I begin building a space part (I have no clue...what are they even called?).
I have only just begun to learn in SP. I have never tried to achieve any victory besides domination/conquest because most of my SP games have been geared towards applying what I have learned towards MP. That's why I had a very hard time with Emperor in SP at first. I didn't understand how SE/FE (just as an example) could work.....and it didn't make it any easier with the settings I used in SP initially; no tech trading/no barbs (following similar MP settings so I could use what I learned in SP towards MP once again). Of course, once I started to use tech trading I realized how very very easy it is to manipulate the AI to get what you want.
Even now, in my current Immortal SP games, I don't use large amounts of Diplomacy. I simply trade for techs and bribe AI's to war when needed. Seeing how my opinion of MP has drastically changed the more I play it, I might actually start reading some space victory threads and find out how do I begin building a space part (I have no clue...what are they even called?).
Wodan
Deity
By "Diplomacy" I meant the board game. Sorry.
Wodan
Wodan
Similar threads
