Adapting what I learned from Starcraft
- Thread starter Cornstalk
- Start date
Wodan
Deity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(board_game)Oops on my part too, lol.
Apparently I have not. What is it? I am curious now.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/483
http://www.amazon.com/HAS41307-Diplomacy-Board-Game/dp/B00005EBA0
(read the reviews)
Galileo44
Great Scientist
Ooh. Diplomacy is awesome, and all strategy, no luck. I really like like it, because it is so much about playing the people instead of the RNG.
Wodan
Deity
Exactly. And nobody would dispute that the "starting positions' are NOT equal. That, plus, how to use negotiations to your benefit in multiplayer.
Maybe we should start a new thread: "Adapting what I learned from Diplomacy".
Wodan
It's not. But the point is that having an early advantage doesn't translate into a better chance to win. Now I know that sounds counter-intuitive. But having an early advantage (and using it) means that you are going to be the "top dog". Unless it's 1v1 (a different issue), any competent players are going to focus on defeating the number one player. It's just common sense. Having an early advantage can mean you simply get dogpiled. If that happens, you're very likely to lose.
Actually, you are a great ally. I want an ally that's weaker than me - if I have a stronger ally, they are more likely to win than I am.
And if there is no alliances in MP, then people are making poor strategical choices. Having an ally (or multiply allies) makes my chances of winning that much greater. If people aren't taking advantage of that fact then that demonstrates a fault on their part - one you should work to exploit.
No, let's look at another piece of your quote: so that once in MP, we don't need to think
If you aren't thinking, you aren't playing strategically. Period. Strategy requires thought.
I certainly can't speak for the MP community, but I find it hard to believe that a large percentage of them want to play "who can get to the Copper fastest", which is what non-random maps would turn into (or the equivalent). I'm not generally one to argue against having more options in a game, so if there is the demand for it, by all means, have someone whip it up. But so far, I haven't found your arguments for it very convincing.
The one that's a faster sprinter, most likely. Obviously, yes, if they are the same speed, the one with shoes has the advantage. However, there are no variables in your example.
If it's 1v1, then yes, player one has an advantage and most likely would win. But in anything beyond that, competent players are going to be able to handle the situation. There are enough options in the game to overcome an advantage - if you take advantage of them. Don't ignore options like allying with someone else to take down the front-runner.
Bh
@bhruic
Of course there are variables in the sprinter analogy. You re-quoted my original quote where one has shoes and one does not. Why would you even make such an attempt to refute my quote?? Obviously if both had the same skill and speed, the one with better equipment would win. You have refuted nothing, simply proven my point a second time.
And in MP, when everyone has the same skill, OF COURSE the person with the best starting resources will ALWAYS have the initial advantage. If they all have the same skill then everyone has the same exact ability and options to overcome advantages/disadvantages........and everyone can take advantage of them...........which of course just proves once again that if everyone has exactly the same skill level at the beginning of the game then the person with the greatest resources early will always have the beginning advantage. Once again, you haven't proven or refuted anything contrary to what I have originally said.
Why don't you make a situational attempt (scenario) to explain 6 players with IDENTICAL SKILL LEVELS playing a game where one or 2 people have a tremendous starting position (much greater available resources and production) and tell me how the players with poor starting positions can start the game with an advantage, or even on the same playing field.. Simply saying equal skill level players will be able to use different options and techniques, whether alliances/trade/new cities what have you doesn't cut it. Why doesn't it cut it?? Because as my previous paragraph already said, the players with superior starting positions have the same exact ability to use different options and techniques as the rest of the players. So once again, it comes down to starting position......Equality or not. If there is no starting equality there will NEVER be game balance, period.
You further made a reference to my quotation where I used MP and the word strategies. You then go on to say if you aren't thinking then you arent playing strategically (when you made a reference to my other quotation where I said in MP just react). Well MR. WIZARD, if I have already said I used SP to perfect my strategies THERE CAN BE ZERO DOUBT THAT ONCE I AM IN MP AND SIMPLY REACTING THAT I AM REACTING IN ACCORDANCE TO WHAT I HAVE ALREADY STRATEGIZED IN SP.
So obviously, if I had used strategy in SP, which seeing how you aren't quite grasping the concept.....SP practice comes BEFORE MP play.....so once I am simply reacting in MP, there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER, that I am implementing the STRATEGIES I had devised and perfected from SP into MP. Just in case your a little slow still, this simply means strategy is in FULL EFFECT and being carried over to MP. The emphasis was put on strategy in SP because that is where I go over every possible strategic contingency over and over again....sometimes literally 40 or 50 hours into a specific technique. Simply React was emphasized for MP because the quicker you complete and execute your tasks (the ones which you strategically devised in SP) gives you an advantage over your fellow players. Once again you haven't refuted anything I have said but simply validated them. I would say you are simply talking semantics but I have clearly made my position.....You are simply throwing in your own personal meanings, based on your own presuppositions in concern to your game play preferences. I'm not that easy , and anyone reading our post can clearly see I used the word stategy and that I continue to use it. I had corrected a previous post in reference to STRATEGY because the poster completely disregarded my use of strategy and the importance of it in gameplay. People can clearly see from my continued post that I am fully in favor of strategy and that I continue to emphasize it. Although you made an attempt to disqualify my original statement in regards to strategy and reaction they REMAIN SET IN STONE. Bottom line, my words were and still are, very clear (and yet even clearer after this post).
In reference to your very first quotation of mine....where you begin with it's not. But the point.... etc etc. I have already easily refuted your point of view with my 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. And if you think I haven't refuted your point, then once again, I CHALLENGE you to make a scenario as i suggested in my early paragraph. There is no need to ignore options of allying someone else (although you wouldn't be able to do it in accordance with MP rules due to the fact no one plays with "allow alliances" in MP). Once again, THERE IS NO NEED to ignore options of allying someone else. WHY NOT? Because everyone, once again, everyone has the same ability to forge an alliance. Just as the players with bad starting positions make alliances........so can the player/s with extraordinary starting positions forge alliances.
HUMMMM>>>> seems that if everyone is equal skill and can use the same options as every other player, then the player with the BEST STARTING location will once again have the best beginning advantage.
If you like the greater variation allowed by map regeneration which invariable leads to greater and richer overall games.........Then I agree with that point w/out question. But if you think that players of identical skill levels who start out with horrible starting positions have the same, or have an equal chance to win the game........Then I couldn't DISAGREE with you more. All in reference to MP of course. SP is a wonderful game anyway you shape it.
P.S. Normally I like to make my point and bring in other references or even other links to show why and how I feel the way I do. In my previous post I have already provided my quotations and other posters quotations to help identify my point of view. This post has been a bit more blunt.....and I have used "refuted", many more times than normal. The reason for this is because as I already said, I have already used my own words and quotes in another post......There is no point in re-quoting my words again because to me they are crystal clear. Everything BHruic has said has absolutely no relevance to my post. He says I show no variety when I undoubtedly have. Says no strategy....when nothing could be further from the truth, simply take a look at all my post...it's very apparent- it's in there.......etc, etc, etc. Anyways, Bhruic, you just rub me the wrong way. It's as if you simply try to re-quote my words then INSERT your own meaning. I have made my meaning perfectly clear. You provide my own quotations then break down the meaning of my words to be something completely different from what they are ACTUALLY saying (this post has thankfully dealt with all your attempts to do such a thing). Basically I get irritated when someone tries to put their own words into my mouth. If you have an opinion, then please, post it. We can even discuss it. But when you post a quotation of mine which has a clear VARIATION then you go on to say that I have shown no example of a variation...then it goes to show you have little reason or desire for discussion, but simply wish to irritate me (congratulations, you have ).
RE BOTTOM LINE....To me it is not an opinion, it is a FACT that the person in MP with the greatest starting position (best resources/production) will always have the beginning game advantage if everyone has a identical skill level. As I have already said before, EVERYONE has the same abilities to use different options/tactics/alliances, therefore it comes down to raw materials. A player with copper/many hills/lots of happiness resources will always have a greater chance to win the game (and win more often they will) over players with little/no resources/little/no production. If you can relate to me how the poor starting position player/s will win more often over the good starting position player/s (keeping in mind that all equally skilled players can use the same options/tactics/alliances/whatever) then I am all ears. I have played way too many MP games!! Way too many. I would guess I have played AT LEAST 4 hours a day, 7 days a week, from 1999-2005. Unfortunately, or probably, Fortunately, lol, I have other priorities now and have little time to play. I don't know how many hours it is....but it's alot. The whole point is after having attained top 100 in the World by some rankings, I have a firm grasp what makes a game equal or balanced. Show me how Civilization 4 is TRULY MP BALANCED, and I will very humbly say,
I WAS WRONG.
Of course there are variables in the sprinter analogy. You re-quoted my original quote where one has shoes and one does not. Why would you even make such an attempt to refute my quote?? Obviously if both had the same skill and speed, the one with better equipment would win. You have refuted nothing, simply proven my point a second time.
And in MP, when everyone has the same skill, OF COURSE the person with the best starting resources will ALWAYS have the initial advantage. If they all have the same skill then everyone has the same exact ability and options to overcome advantages/disadvantages........and everyone can take advantage of them...........which of course just proves once again that if everyone has exactly the same skill level at the beginning of the game then the person with the greatest resources early will always have the beginning advantage. Once again, you haven't proven or refuted anything contrary to what I have originally said.
Why don't you make a situational attempt (scenario) to explain 6 players with IDENTICAL SKILL LEVELS playing a game where one or 2 people have a tremendous starting position (much greater available resources and production) and tell me how the players with poor starting positions can start the game with an advantage, or even on the same playing field.. Simply saying equal skill level players will be able to use different options and techniques, whether alliances/trade/new cities what have you doesn't cut it. Why doesn't it cut it?? Because as my previous paragraph already said, the players with superior starting positions have the same exact ability to use different options and techniques as the rest of the players. So once again, it comes down to starting position......Equality or not. If there is no starting equality there will NEVER be game balance, period.
You further made a reference to my quotation where I used MP and the word strategies. You then go on to say if you aren't thinking then you arent playing strategically (when you made a reference to my other quotation where I said in MP just react). Well MR. WIZARD, if I have already said I used SP to perfect my strategies THERE CAN BE ZERO DOUBT THAT ONCE I AM IN MP AND SIMPLY REACTING THAT I AM REACTING IN ACCORDANCE TO WHAT I HAVE ALREADY STRATEGIZED IN SP.
So obviously, if I had used strategy in SP, which seeing how you aren't quite grasping the concept.....SP practice comes BEFORE MP play.....so once I am simply reacting in MP, there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER, that I am implementing the STRATEGIES I had devised and perfected from SP into MP. Just in case your a little slow still, this simply means strategy is in FULL EFFECT and being carried over to MP. The emphasis was put on strategy in SP because that is where I go over every possible strategic contingency over and over again....sometimes literally 40 or 50 hours into a specific technique. Simply React was emphasized for MP because the quicker you complete and execute your tasks (the ones which you strategically devised in SP) gives you an advantage over your fellow players. Once again you haven't refuted anything I have said but simply validated them. I would say you are simply talking semantics but I have clearly made my position.....You are simply throwing in your own personal meanings, based on your own presuppositions in concern to your game play preferences. I'm not that easy
, and anyone reading our post can clearly see I used the word stategy and that I continue to use it. I had corrected a previous post in reference to STRATEGY because the poster completely disregarded my use of strategy and the importance of it in gameplay. People can clearly see from my continued post that I am fully in favor of strategy and that I continue to emphasize it. Although you made an attempt to disqualify my original statement in regards to strategy and reaction they REMAIN SET IN STONE. Bottom line, my words were and still are, very clear (and yet even clearer after this post).In reference to your very first quotation of mine....where you begin with it's not. But the point.... etc etc. I have already easily refuted your point of view with my 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. And if you think I haven't refuted your point, then once again, I CHALLENGE you to make a scenario as i suggested in my early paragraph. There is no need to ignore options of allying someone else (although you wouldn't be able to do it in accordance with MP rules due to the fact no one plays with "allow alliances" in MP). Once again, THERE IS NO NEED to ignore options of allying someone else. WHY NOT? Because everyone, once again, everyone has the same ability to forge an alliance. Just as the players with bad starting positions make alliances........so can the player/s with extraordinary starting positions forge alliances.
HUMMMM>>>> seems that if everyone is equal skill and can use the same options as every other player, then the player with the BEST STARTING location will once again have the best beginning advantage.
If you like the greater variation allowed by map regeneration which invariable leads to greater and richer overall games.........Then I agree with that point w/out question. But if you think that players of identical skill levels who start out with horrible starting positions have the same, or have an equal chance to win the game........Then I couldn't DISAGREE with you more. All in reference to MP of course. SP is a wonderful game anyway you shape it.
P.S. Normally I like to make my point and bring in other references or even other links to show why and how I feel the way I do. In my previous post I have already provided my quotations and other posters quotations to help identify my point of view. This post has been a bit more blunt.....and I have used "refuted", many more times than normal. The reason for this is because as I already said, I have already used my own words and quotes in another post......There is no point in re-quoting my words again because to me they are crystal clear. Everything BHruic has said has absolutely no relevance to my post. He says I show no variety when I undoubtedly have. Says no strategy....when nothing could be further from the truth, simply take a look at all my post...it's very apparent- it's in there.......etc, etc, etc. Anyways, Bhruic, you just rub me the wrong way. It's as if you simply try to re-quote my words then INSERT your own meaning. I have made my meaning perfectly clear. You provide my own quotations then break down the meaning of my words to be something completely different from what they are ACTUALLY saying (this post has thankfully dealt with all your attempts to do such a thing). Basically I get irritated when someone tries to put their own words into my mouth. If you have an opinion, then please, post it. We can even discuss it. But when you post a quotation of mine which has a clear VARIATION then you go on to say that I have shown no example of a variation...then it goes to show you have little reason or desire for discussion, but simply wish to irritate me (congratulations, you have
). RE BOTTOM LINE....To me it is not an opinion, it is a FACT that the person in MP with the greatest starting position (best resources/production) will always have the beginning game advantage if everyone has a identical skill level. As I have already said before, EVERYONE has the same abilities to use different options/tactics/alliances, therefore it comes down to raw materials. A player with copper/many hills/lots of happiness resources will always have a greater chance to win the game (and win more often they will) over players with little/no resources/little/no production. If you can relate to me how the poor starting position player/s will win more often over the good starting position player/s (keeping in mind that all equally skilled players can use the same options/tactics/alliances/whatever) then I am all ears. I have played way too many MP games!! Way too many. I would guess I have played AT LEAST 4 hours a day, 7 days a week, from 1999-2005. Unfortunately, or probably, Fortunately, lol, I have other priorities now and have little time to play. I don't know how many hours it is....but it's alot. The whole point is after having attained top 100 in the World by some rankings, I have a firm grasp what makes a game equal or balanced. Show me how Civilization 4 is TRULY MP BALANCED, and I will very humbly say,
I WAS WRONG.
You must be deliberately misunderstanding, because it's fairly obvious - there are no variables in a sprint. You start at point A and run as fast as you can to point B. Period. That is nothing like Civ. In Civ, you have a variety of different path options in multiple facets of the game (research path, building options, diplomacy, etc). Therefore, you cannot use a simple analogy like sprinting to prove/disprove anything about a game like Civ.
Well, that's good, because I wasn't attempting to disprove that. In fact, I agreed with it. My point was never that someone doesn't have an initial advantage, it's that having an initial advantage does not automatically translate into winning.
Yes, considering the level of antagonism you bring to the discussion, I'm sure my example would just be blindly accepted by you.
Again, you seem to be obsessively talking about game issues and completely leaving the human element out of it. If the guy with the great start takes advantage of it (which he obviously would), then he is going to quickly appear to be winning the game. At that point, he actually loses some options, in that the other players in the game aren't going to (if they are smart) want to help him in any fashion. And smart players are going to want to band together to take said player down. Having a great starting location isn't necessarily going to give you enough power to face 2:1 odds (or worse).
You can say the sky is green, but that doesn't make it true. If you are practising something that ends up not requiring you to think to do it, it's not strategy. It's merely rote memorization. Strategy requires you to think. Strategy requires that you analyze the situation and make intelligent choices. If you can't understand that, then you don't understand what strategy really is.
I'm not that easy
Yes, unfortunately you continue to use it incorrectly.
You really don't seem to get it, do you? Yes, the player with the extraordinary starting position has the "possibility" of forging alliances. What they don't have, assuming the other players are any good, which we are assuming, is the reality of doing so. Because it would be stupid, unless you are playing for second place, to make an alliance with such a person.
Horrible starting positions? Depends on your definition of horrible. If someone started with all ice tiles, for example, then no, there's no realistic way they are going to win. But that's not going to be the case. There are almost never "horrible" starting positions in Civ. Sometimes you get a better one than other times. But most of the time, you are going to get a semi-decent one. Especially if you play with "Balanced" bonuses on, which I would assume to be a requirement for MP.
Bh
My original quote:
Your quote:
Here is the dictionary definition for VARIATION: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/variation
As anyone can see for themselves, the amount,act,process,rate,extent, and degree of any change are all part of the definition for variation. Please, try to twist my words from an official meaning of a word (good luck). A sprint is not simply starting at point A and running to point B. There are other aspects involed. Take the 100 Meter sprint in the Olympics. They have starting blocks, a starting line, shoes, shorts, shirts, and players raw ability. Give one person starting blocks, another person a 5 meter head start, so on and so forth. There could literally be 10,20,30+ (sexy name) different combinations of variations in a single sprint. Obviously, if one person has track shoes, and the other does not, there has been a variation added to a sprint. Bottom line, according to the dictionary and the rest of the world, if one player has shoes and the other does not, that is a variation. Do you see why it's difficult to discuss anything with you? The only person deliberately misunderstanding is you.
your quote:
We mostly agree on this point. In all my post (I believe) I state something to the fact that I do in fact believe the person with the best resources and best start will go on to win the vast majority. Simply put, they will win more often than they lose.
your quote:
I have already made this clear in my previous post, but once again, you seem to deliberately disregard any attempts I have made to clarify. If everyone is equally skilled everyone will be equally smart. Our Hero, who started out with a great starting position could easily face 2 other players who decide he is getting too strong, but of course, our Hero has the same opportunity to make alliances for himself. It goes to say that other players will realize that if 2 other parties team up to conquer the Hero, they will both be much much stronger, maybe too strong, therefore other players would be more than willing to team up with the Hero to counteract that possible outcome. It comes down to the my post which your above quotation was formed from. All players will be equally smart and make decisions they think will give them the greatest chance to win. Everyone can choose from the same variety of game options. Once again, it comes down to "game balance" and starting positions. Civilizations does not do a great job in map balance in MP, if it did, you wouldn't have some players with 3 happiness resources, 1 copper resource, and 4 hills versus a player with 2 fish resources, one ivory, and one hill (all hypothetical of course, but well within the range of "random map regeneration). Unless every single player has "identical" starting positions there will always be "variances" wich invariably allow some players a much greater start and greater chance to win than to lose.
your quote:
You reacted similary to the "variation" paragraph. You keep putting your own meanings to already set definitions. In my previous post I continually talk about contingencies and adaptation. Do you honestly think planning how to implement 100's of different scenarios is merely memorization? I assure you that when I am practising in SP I am utilizing strategy which will then be implemented in the most effecient way possible during MP;quick reaction, which accelerates game turn time, which makes me faster and more effecient, which of course is part of the strategy. Do you think that somehow all the time used during SP to perfect your strategy is somehow lost when you apply it to MP? Where did the countless hours of precise analysis wander off to? Tell me, where does the strategy go? Did it simply dissappear? When I use the words "simply react" does my strategy fall through some crack....is it lost? Of course it doesn't. Once again, I give you the mirror......you continue to delilberately make your own meanings, and you are chosing to be difficult.
your quote:
Ironically enough, the count is 3-0 in my favor. You are the one who continues to blindly use it..... Every paragraph and every sentence I have used in regards to your reference has consistantly included and supported strategy. Perhaps, if you change the definition of strategy you will have a greater chance to prove your point. But then of course, maybe the sky would actually be green then, seeing how we would have to be in your world.
your quote:
I have already addressed this point in a number of my previous post, including this post too, however, I will re-address once again. Everyone has the same ability to use all available game options, alliances included. Why on earth wouldn't another player want to ally with our Hero? If 2 players joined and attacked another person, then those 2 players would be much strengthened. Now you would have 2 strong players in the game, not just one. So a person could easily say if you didn't ally with our Hero, then they are in fact stupid, and they are playing for 2nd place. Bottom line again, we can all choose from the same game options, but the person with the extraordinary staring position will always win more than they lose. Are you gonna make a valid point anytime soon?
your quote:
I want to address your last sentence firstly. You use the word "assume" to be a requirment. Do you currently play MP? Most games in MP that I have played do not use balanced bonuses. No need to take my word for it...just long on and start playing some games. You will see a huge number of players prefer standard setting to emulate a more realistic game setting. As example, some civilizations really did have more access or at least a greater chance to have certain resources over others....due to geographic constrictions. Lots of players like the idea of having to strategically defend or attack key resources. I enjoy this in SP, but not MP, due to my already stated preference for a "truly balanced" start. A random map generator is just that, random. Sometimes you get semi-decent, other times, horrific, and yet again, other times amazingly beautiful and unbelievable starts. I have gotten 3 golds/2 copper/2corn/5hills before, with the rest river and grassland. Other times I have gotten only 2 fish resources, 1 ivory, no hills (and thats with a starting civilization without fishing as a starting tech!!). So overall, it's my opinion that the random map generator is horrible. If it wasn't you would never get such huge gap in good to bad locations. Besides, I dont' care about "most" times. I want a perfectly balanced start every single time. I want an identical map and terrain for everyone. I want every single tile that everyone has on the entire continent/s to be exactly the same so no one has an advantage over anyones. Once again, this encompasses MP only. SP is fine. The AI is always easier to manipulate (currently on Immortal settings for SP.....Emperor not challengins enough). You still haven't challenged me with a valid point to change or even reconsider my view in regards to MP.
Agree to disagree.
late P.s. I'm gonna toot my chain here (which I know you don't care, but the accomplishment speaks for itself).....I didn't reach top 300 in the world out of 15,000 players in brood war (albeit many years ago in the originally Gamei) without having a strong grasp of strategy and MP (no assumption necessary). Maybe you're one of those people who simply likes to argue....so be it. My post have shown continuous melody with one another and at least to me, with emphatic certainty, shown much more articulation and reason than your post. I'll let you have the last word in any additional post. You don't seem to listen to anything I have to say anyways.....you merely insert your own version and contort what was already crystal clear (variation being my favorite, ). Notice I keep referring back to "variation", lol. If I cannot have a straight forward discussion with you about something so easy to understand as a simple variation between 2 sprinters, then how in the world can I or anyone else for that matter, discuss a topic which possesses much more depth.
Agree to Disagree
Your quote:
Here is the dictionary definition for VARIATION: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/variation
As anyone can see for themselves, the amount,act,process,rate,extent, and degree of any change are all part of the definition for variation. Please, try to twist my words from an official meaning of a word
(good luck). A sprint is not simply starting at point A and running to point B. There are other aspects involed. Take the 100 Meter sprint in the Olympics. They have starting blocks, a starting line, shoes, shorts, shirts, and players raw ability. Give one person starting blocks, another person a 5 meter head start, so on and so forth. There could literally be 10,20,30+ (sexy name) different combinations of variations in a single sprint. Obviously, if one person has track shoes, and the other does not, there has been a variation added to a sprint. Bottom line, according to the dictionary and the rest of the world, if one player has shoes and the other does not, that is a variation. Do you see why it's difficult to discuss anything with you? The only person deliberately misunderstanding is you. your quote:
We mostly agree on this point. In all my post (I believe) I state something to the fact that I do in fact believe the person with the best resources and best start will go on to win the vast majority. Simply put, they will win more often than they lose.
your quote:
I have already made this clear in my previous post, but once again, you seem to deliberately disregard any attempts I have made to clarify. If everyone is equally skilled everyone will be equally smart. Our Hero, who started out with a great starting position could easily face 2 other players who decide he is getting too strong, but of course, our Hero has the same opportunity to make alliances for himself. It goes to say that other players will realize that if 2 other parties team up to conquer the Hero, they will both be much much stronger, maybe too strong, therefore other players would be more than willing to team up with the Hero to counteract that possible outcome. It comes down to the my post which your above quotation was formed from. All players will be equally smart and make decisions they think will give them the greatest chance to win. Everyone can choose from the same variety of game options. Once again, it comes down to "game balance" and starting positions. Civilizations does not do a great job in map balance in MP, if it did, you wouldn't have some players with 3 happiness resources, 1 copper resource, and 4 hills versus a player with 2 fish resources, one ivory, and one hill (all hypothetical of course, but well within the range of "random map regeneration). Unless every single player has "identical" starting positions there will always be "variances" wich invariably allow some players a much greater start and greater chance to win than to lose.
your quote:
You reacted similary to the "variation" paragraph. You keep putting your own meanings to already set definitions. In my previous post I continually talk about contingencies and adaptation. Do you honestly think planning how to implement 100's of different scenarios is merely memorization? I assure you that when I am practising in SP I am utilizing strategy which will then be implemented in the most effecient way possible during MP;quick reaction, which accelerates game turn time, which makes me faster and more effecient, which of course is part of the strategy. Do you think that somehow all the time used during SP to perfect your strategy is somehow lost when you apply it to MP? Where did the countless hours of precise analysis wander off to? Tell me, where does the strategy go? Did it simply dissappear? When I use the words "simply react" does my strategy fall through some crack....is it lost? Of course it doesn't. Once again, I give you the mirror......you continue to delilberately make your own meanings, and you are chosing to be difficult.
your quote:
Ironically enough, the count is 3-0 in my favor. You are the one who continues to blindly use it..... Every paragraph and every sentence I have used in regards to your reference has consistantly included and supported strategy. Perhaps, if you change the definition of strategy you will have a greater chance to prove your point. But then of course, maybe the sky would actually be green then, seeing how we would have to be in your world.
your quote:
I have already addressed this point in a number of my previous post, including this post too, however, I will re-address once again. Everyone has the same ability to use all available game options, alliances included. Why on earth wouldn't another player want to ally with our Hero? If 2 players joined and attacked another person, then those 2 players would be much strengthened. Now you would have 2 strong players in the game, not just one. So a person could easily say if you didn't ally with our Hero, then they are in fact stupid, and they are playing for 2nd place. Bottom line again, we can all choose from the same game options, but the person with the extraordinary staring position will always win more than they lose. Are you gonna make a valid point anytime soon?
your quote:
I want to address your last sentence firstly. You use the word "assume" to be a requirment. Do you currently play MP? Most games in MP that I have played do not use balanced bonuses. No need to take my word for it...just long on and start playing some games. You will see a huge number of players prefer standard setting to emulate a more realistic game setting. As example, some civilizations really did have more access or at least a greater chance to have certain resources over others....due to geographic constrictions. Lots of players like the idea of having to strategically defend or attack key resources. I enjoy this in SP, but not MP, due to my already stated preference for a "truly balanced" start. A random map generator is just that, random. Sometimes you get semi-decent, other times, horrific, and yet again, other times amazingly beautiful and unbelievable starts. I have gotten 3 golds/2 copper/2corn/5hills before, with the rest river and grassland. Other times I have gotten only 2 fish resources, 1 ivory, no hills (and thats with a starting civilization without fishing as a starting tech!!). So overall, it's my opinion that the random map generator is horrible. If it wasn't you would never get such huge gap in good to bad locations. Besides, I dont' care about "most" times. I want a perfectly balanced start every single time. I want an identical map and terrain for everyone. I want every single tile that everyone has on the entire continent/s to be exactly the same so no one has an advantage over anyones. Once again, this encompasses MP only. SP is fine. The AI is always easier to manipulate (currently on Immortal settings for SP.....Emperor not challengins enough). You still haven't challenged me with a valid point to change or even reconsider my view in regards to MP.
Agree to disagree.
late P.s. I'm gonna toot my chain here (which I know you don't care, but the accomplishment speaks for itself).....I didn't reach top 300 in the world out of 15,000 players in brood war (albeit many years ago in the originally Gamei) without having a strong grasp of strategy and MP (no assumption necessary). Maybe you're one of those people who simply likes to argue....so be it. My post have shown continuous melody with one another and at least to me, with emphatic certainty, shown much more articulation and reason than your post. I'll let you have the last word in any additional post. You don't seem to listen to anything I have to say anyways.....you merely insert your own version and contort what was already crystal clear (variation being my favorite,
). Notice I keep referring back to "variation", lol. If I cannot have a straight forward discussion with you about something so easy to understand as a simple variation between 2 sprinters, then how in the world can I or anyone else for that matter, discuss a topic which possesses much more depth.Agree to Disagree
Wow. I don't understand how you can completely miss the point. Yes, of course one person having shoes and the other not having shoes is a variation. My point was that the rules of sprinting do not allow for any variation. You cannot, for example, decide that you are going to run from point A to point C and then point B. Well, I suppose you could, but you'd be disqualified.
The rules in Civ allow for a great deal of variation. I gave some good examples, which you promptly ignored. Thus, once again, trying to use sprinting as an analogy does not work.
Obviously that's what you've said, because that's what we are arguing about. I was merely pointing out that while I disagree with what you said above, I don't disagree that starting in a better position gives you an advantage.
No, it's merely that your attempts to clarify have been unsuccessful.
Ok, there are two points there, let's deal with the first one first.
In 99% of the cases, having a better starting position in no way enables you to handle 2 other players of equal skill. It's just not feasible. Any attempt to move against one of them would leave you open to the other. Even if you did manage to beat them both, the cost in doing so would leave a 4th person the ability to fly ahead in technology, and then they would win.
As for your second point... Really, how many times do I have to explain that one? How can you not grasp the fact that the player in the lead does not have the same ability to make alliances that the "weaker" players do? People do not want to ally with the strongest player because they can be sure the strongest player would then win - and who wants to play for second place?
Wait, so now you're changing your argument? Well, that's progress I guess. Now you're saying that two people with weaker starting positions become stronger than someone with a good starting position. Glad to see that you've finally caught up.
To address your point, however, (A) how do people know that anyone has made an alliance against the "Hero"? If you choose to communicate privately with another person about an alliance, no one is going to know about it until you choose to act on it. (B) It's also likely that other people might choose to attack the "Hero" instead of the 2 allies, because that gives them an option to try and steal some land from the obviously weakened opponent. (C) Even if the "Hero" does manage to get an ally, it's not likely going to happen before the other 2 have managed to weaken him, and remove his initial advantage.
And once again, I've shown that it does not. Starting positions can give an advantage, but it's not one that can't be overcome.
Why not? I'd happily play either of those starts. The both have distinct advantages that could be exploited. I'm assuming you think the first one is superior - so I'd be happy to take the second. The extra food I'd be pulling in over you (thanks to the fish) would enable me to do a great deal of whipping that you wouldn't (you didn't start with food resources, and no pre-Calendar happiness bonus gives extra food).
If you think that those are examples of greatly dissimilar starts in Civ, you haven't been exploring the full strategical range of the game.
No, I just insist on actually using the definition that exists.
You can assure me all you want. That doesn't change the fact that you claimed to be able to play MP without needing to think. If you aren't thinking, then you aren't playing strategically. No "assurances" from you are going to alter that fact.
Now, if you want to change your original statement to indicate that you are thinking during MP, then I'd be perfectly willing to accept your claims of strategic play.
Sadly, like the rest of your arguments, you are once again incorrect.
Because the "Hero" is winning? Why would you possibly want to ally and make stronger the strongest person in the game? You're not going to be able to beat them at that point, because they are stronger than you. It doesn't make sense to do it.
Are you going to understand one? You definitely seem particularily clueless in this regard.
Yes, I used the word assume. Want to know why? Because you've been whining in this thread about Civ not providing for good MP because of imbalanced starts. If the only reason you are seeing that is because you don't take advantage of one of the options built into the game, then you sir, are a fool. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren't an fool.
Yes, but a random generator that balances out the major resources is not random. You've got that option open - use it. If the majority of MP games aren't using it then one thing seems obvious - the majority of MP gamers aren't interested in balance. Since you have been advocating the idea of non-random maps to help MP, it seems you are in the minority, as I already believed.
Well guess what? It doesn't appear that other people want that, because they aren't using the already existing "Balanced" setting (according to you).
That's a laugh. You're implying that because you have quick reflexes and played a lot of Brood Wars that somehow that makes your opinion on Strategy and MP in a turn-based strategy game superior? And this when you don't even have the slightest clue what my qualifications in a similar area would be?
Trying to show off by being an "internet expert" is easy. It doesn't make your opinions any more valid.
I'd have to agree - you really don't possess the necessary understanding to have a discussion about this.
Good luck in your future MP games.
Bh
Wodan
Deity
First, I disagree that the 2nd and 3rd players will be in a much stronger position. They will be weakened by the conflict. Given sufficient time they can recover from this, because presumably they now have additional resources (in the form of that primo spot the Hero formerly occupied). Nevertheless, this will take time. Before that time, these players will be susceptible to attack. Smart 4th and 5th players will position their armies to take advantage of the 2nd and 3rd players' preoccupation. The rear borders will have little defensive forces, as they would need these units to take down the Hero. So, once the 4th player sees the Hero is just about to be conquered, he declares war on the 2nd and grabs a city or two.
In addition, who's to say the 2nd and 3rd players won't have a falling out and bicker over this primo spot? They both have their armies right there. The element of surprise would probably enable whichever one did the backstab to kill off a good number of units of the other. Which now puts him in the position of "Hero".... Rinse and repeat the whole scenario.
Next, I disagree with your implication. You imply that the 4th or 5th players would simply help the Hero win the game. Why would they do that?
It is conceivable that these players might give minor aid the Hero... not to help him win, but simply to not be overwhelmed. e.g., the 4th player might allow the Hero to lose a city or two, and THEN jump in to "help" by taking those cities himself or simply razing them, and to give minor aid in defense to prevent the Hero from being eliminated altogether. What's the net result? The Hero is no longer in a dominant position... in fact, he's probably ranked in last place now.
So, they would simply help him to not be overwhelmed and/or they would attack the 2nd/3rd players from the other side. Regardless, the Hero is no longer the leader in the game. It's a giant cluster**** and all players have equal chance to do well. Whichever one survives the chaos.
So we must ask the question: Did the Hero's primo location give him a greater chance to win? No.
Actually, all it did was make him the first target.
Which one of your examples do you think is better? Frankly, the happiness doesn't matter very much until you get Plantations. In fact, that is a suboptimal resource to have in your capitol. After plantations, all players will have had the chance to spread and find city spots with happiness.
The copper is nice, and that's a definite bonus for that player. The hills can give good production, but that assumes he has the food to work it.
The other spot, meanwhile, has a happiness resource you can work early game... plus, it's a good hammer tile. In addition, the 2 fish will allow you to whip like crazy.
So it's interesting to me that you used those two spots as examples. Personally, I think they're about equal.
Now here's an example that is unbalanced to me: 2 gold, 3 floodplains, river, copper, 2 cows, and horses. Versus 2 jungle silk, coal, aluminum, and crabs.
Anyway that's all moot. We're not talking about inequality of starting positions, we're talking about player interactions. Everyone agrees that the map generator doesn't generate equal starting spots.
I totally disagree. One player's ability to utilize an alliance depends upon having a second player who also wants to do that.
Therefore, all players do NOT have the same ability to utilize all game options.
As I mentioned above, those 2 players would actually be weakened. Only in the long term can we unequivocably say that they would be strengthened. And, the 4th and 5th players would be idiots if they let them have that time to recover.
Let's look at it a different way. Let's go ahead and assume that they would be strengthened. Fine. They are now in the position of being the "Hero". Repeat the whole scenario. The weaker players will gang up to defeat them. If they don't, they deserve to lose.
This whole scenario and line of thinking is the very essence of multiplayer. It's what it's all about. Players in MP do not exist in a vacuum. It's player interactions, not what resources your capitol gets, that determines who wins.
Wodan
@Woodan
First off, I appreciate that you continue reading and discussing this post with me. Also much appreciated that you show unbiased responses when using my quotations. In other words, you easily understand my point of view and aren't trying to conjure up some rediculous definitions in order to rationalize your own point of view, unlike some others. Onward......
The key element you and others continue to miss is that every single equally skilled player will have the exact same options available at their disposal in every single game. There will undoubtedly be 100's of different scenarios which can affect all players such. Yes Player A and B can ally, then C and D and E can ally, then player A, C and B can ally vs player D, etc, etc. But this just goes to show that all players have the same ability to forge situations they think will benefit them the most. Any group of people and players can make decisions they think will help them win. It's not something which is exclusive to players who start with a resource and production disadvantage.
Simply saying the Hero would be at more of a disadvantage and have fewer options being in the lead is completely false. There will always be other players in a weak position who think they need more time to survive and be given a chance to rebuild in hopes of competing......players like these would jump at a chance to ally with the Hero. What do you think will happen to the weak player who just watches 2 random players gang up and destroy the once Hero? He will be next of course. Someone said human players are smart, and they are right. That little guy would be more than happy to help the Hero survive because by doing so they prolong their own survival and can hope to make a comeback. People keep telling me that You aren't getting it, look what happens if two people gang up on one person.....they die. No one will ally the Hero. Bah! Not true. The different scenarios can keep coming and coming, but one thing is for sure......the one who has the best start has the best chance to win.
So once again, the player or players who draw good fortune and have a great resource advantage will have a much greater % chance to win..and therefore will win more often. If you want to experience more varation in MP, as most people do, random map generator is fine....but, if you want "true balance", where equal competition is the goal, then everyone needs to have exactly the same playing conditions, which of course includes resources/production/etc.
First off, I appreciate that you continue reading and discussing this post with me. Also much appreciated that you show unbiased responses when using my quotations. In other words, you easily understand my point of view and aren't trying to conjure up some rediculous definitions in order to rationalize your own point of view, unlike some others. Onward......
The key element you and others continue to miss is that every single equally skilled player will have the exact same options available at their disposal in every single game. There will undoubtedly be 100's of different scenarios which can affect all players such. Yes Player A and B can ally, then C and D and E can ally, then player A, C and B can ally vs player D, etc, etc. But this just goes to show that all players have the same ability to forge situations they think will benefit them the most. Any group of people and players can make decisions they think will help them win. It's not something which is exclusive to players who start with a resource and production disadvantage.
Simply saying the Hero would be at more of a disadvantage and have fewer options being in the lead is completely false. There will always be other players in a weak position who think they need more time to survive and be given a chance to rebuild in hopes of competing......players like these would jump at a chance to ally with the Hero. What do you think will happen to the weak player who just watches 2 random players gang up and destroy the once Hero? He will be next of course. Someone said human players are smart, and they are right. That little guy would be more than happy to help the Hero survive because by doing so they prolong their own survival and can hope to make a comeback. People keep telling me that You aren't getting it, look what happens if two people gang up on one person.....they die. No one will ally the Hero. Bah! Not true. The different scenarios can keep coming and coming, but one thing is for sure......the one who has the best start has the best chance to win.
So once again, the player or players who draw good fortune and have a great resource advantage will have a much greater % chance to win..and therefore will win more often. If you want to experience more varation in MP, as most people do, random map generator is fine....but, if you want "true balance", where equal competition is the goal, then everyone needs to have exactly the same playing conditions, which of course includes resources/production/etc.
Wodan
Deity
No sweat. I'm perfectly willing to be converted. Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.
Agreed.
However, as previously stated, for Player A and Player B to ally, both A and B have to agree.
If it is against B's best interest to ally, then no alliance. No matter how bad Player A wants the alliance, it's not gonna happen.
And, if Player C, Player D, and Player E also have their own reasons for not allying with Player A, then Player A is not going to have any allies. Period.
As a result, Player A does not have the same options available to him as the other players. The very nature of his advantage gives all the other players an inherent reason to not ally with him.
Is this making any sense at all?
Okay, let's look at that for a minute. You're saying that there are reasons for some player, let's say Player E, to actually overcome their inherent reason for the leader to be taken down. That is, E has a reason to want A to go down, but E also has a reason that he doesn't want it to happen. You're saying this second reason is so much stronger than the first reason, that E decides to take action and ally with A.
So, Player E wants to ally with Player A. The reason Player E wants to do this is NOT to "save" A, but because E thinks there's something in it for him.
E does NOT want for the present situation to continue. He would be perfectly happy for A to lose a city or two, for A to have a lot of casualties, or for A to be eliminated. It's like Checkov in Star Trek: "Yes, Captain, and we all move up in rank!" Instead of being 5th place, E is now in 4th place.
However, E's fear is that B and C will become more powerful. As I said yesterday, B and C will actually be weaker because of this war. They will be stronger only after they capture and then take the time to assimilate A's territory, plus take the time to rebuild killed units, plus modernize their troops (as necessary due to elapsed time while fighting the war).
So, E thinks he will get something. Presumably a city or two from B or C's territory. Otherwise he is simply fighting for the status quo, and that's a fool's errand.
E is going to have to go to war. He can't just declare and then sit there, because that won't have the effect he wants. He's either going to have to send troops to invade B or C, or else he's going to have to send troops to A's territory to help defend and kill the invading stacks.
So, E is definitely incurring a cost. He's suffering wartime penalties with high commerce costs for each unit in another player's territory, plus the happy penalties for declaring war and fighting in another player's territory. In addition, some of these units are going to die. So, E is suffering hammer costs too.
Honestly, the only way I can conceive that E is going to benefit from this is by backstabbing B or C. That is, while they're busy invading A, E jumps in and invades one them from the rear. The net effect is that B and C have more limited success against A. With luck, they take a couple of cities and then have to declare peace with A, to the net effect that A is weaker, B and/or C stay about the same, and E gets stronger.
But this gets back to the main point: whatever happened to A?
Answer: A is weaker. A is no longer the leader. In fact, he's probably 3rd place in the game right now, if not worse.
Wodan
Morgrad
Attack Rodent
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 367
30+, I think the biggest problem I have with your entire position is that it's based on complete rubbish. (I'm not trying to be a jerk, just pointing it out - but this is a point that will be really hard to make without sounding like a big fat jerk).
Your entire arguement is based on players with the exact same skill level playing against one another. That completely impossible, so your whole arguement is moot. The arguement that "the better player will usually win" is far, far stronger than "starting positions determine the winner".
I suppose you can bandy it about as a hypothetical, but that's significantly less interesting than arguing reality.
Your entire arguement is based on players with the exact same skill level playing against one another. That completely impossible, so your whole arguement is moot. The arguement that "the better player will usually win" is far, far stronger than "starting positions determine the winner".
I suppose you can bandy it about as a hypothetical, but that's significantly less interesting than arguing reality.
but these players would not ally with the hero if they are equally skilled. here's why: i would gladly ally with the hero if i know i can beat him in the long run (i do that all the time when i play SP, team up with the biggest AI), but since we are equally skilled, the chace of me mounting a late game comeback is slim to none. An "equally skilled" hero is not going to let his ally grow too strong, so i am better off gang up on the hero with the others.
"ONCE HERO." The little guy is not helping the hero because he's the hero, but because he's not the hero anymore and needs help surviving from the attacks of the new hero group made up by the two random players.
towards 30+
I agree with nearly everything you are saying. Your examples work just fine. It's very simple to see that the only way to achieve a pefect game balance would be for everyone to have identical starts. It's also very easy to see that the best starting position would always have the best chance to win. Your post have more correct points than the others. Don't take players like bruic serious. Pretty easy to see he keeps stammering the same things over and over again which hold little if any merit. He seems like he is just trying to piss you off. Just ignore.
One big point I do not agree with you is the reason for game balance. You would have better balance if things were changed your way but you would be missing the most important thing. FUN.
I agree with nearly everything you are saying. Your examples work just fine. It's very simple to see that the only way to achieve a pefect game balance would be for everyone to have identical starts. It's also very easy to see that the best starting position would always have the best chance to win. Your post have more correct points than the others. Don't take players like bruic serious. Pretty easy to see he keeps stammering the same things over and over again which hold little if any merit. He seems like he is just trying to piss you off. Just ignore.
One big point I do not agree with you is the reason for game balance. You would have better balance if things were changed your way but you would be missing the most important thing. FUN.
Similar threads
