Additional Info on Profile?

[Sparrowhawk]

I was just reading and responding on a bunch of threads dealing with multiplayer when I had an idea that I thought I would share.

I'm wondering if it would be possible/desirable to add another field to the user profiles where we could write a small blurb on our play styles and skill level. I think it could facilitate finding compatible multiplayer opponents - whether you were looking for someone with the same or a different style.

Comments?

 

[Becka]

Well, I know at apolyton they have space for first name and last name (which, for some reason is mandatory to be filled out and it won't let you edit your profile unless there is something in those fields so I just put some BS there so it'll leave me alone ).

So maybe TF could add additional fields if he likes.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Well, if there's a field for forum style, why not?

But may be possibly subject to abuse; deity players masquereding as regent players and so on. Oh well, such ppl gets found out pretty soon.

 

[WillJ]

I remember when I first visited this site I thought that the "Chieftain," "Warlord," etc. below everyone's name was what skill level they said they played on. And when I figured out what they really mean I thought, and still think even more now that MP is coming out, that there should be some sort of feature where users say what their skill level is. And their play style would also be useful.

 

[Thunderfall]

It's pretty easy to add additional fields. I'll wait after we upgrade the forum to vB 3.0 though.

 

[duke o' york]

Despite the fact that I don't play MP, I'm not sure that I'd want my style of play displayed for fear that someone who asked for help in Civ 2 Strategy and Tips wouldn't trust a Perfectionist Expansionist Spaceship builder to advise them on the best use of crusaders or something like that.

 

[Dell19]

Woudln't alot of players use basically every strategy so that the opposition doesn't know how they are going to play?

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Woudln't alot of players use basically every strategy so that the opposition doesn't know how they are going to play?

In Civ3, most ppl ended up using all/any/whatever tactics/strategies while getting thru the game. Builders ended up warmongering, simply to get rid of a pesky AI civ. Warmongerers ended up building 'cause no immediate enemies to fight (having killed all on the same continent). Providing such a general description Civ3-wise doesn't tell much or will have much affect, when MP comes. Everybody is going to have a significant military massed at the significant places.

When it comes to Civ3, there's simply no way to stick to the same strat thru out the game, unless you're lucky. Mostimes, war will come almost naturally.

I've known builders who can fight with the best of them out there.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

Obviously, a player's strategy will adapt to the given game, and I agree that highly competitive players are likely to vary their styles widely. That said, everyone has a general style of play, and for those of us who will be playing for the joy of the game and not so much for the win, I suspect it wil remain fairly consistent. For example... Preferred difficulty level, ICS or OCP inclinations, level of automation preferred, size and length of game, etc... And just to clarify, I'm not talking about mandatory fields with fixed options - just somewhere to type a little blurb if you feel like it that would show up on inspection of a profile. That way, even if you do randomize your play styles, you could just write 'random' in the field.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
For example... Preferred difficulty level, ICS or OCP inclinations, level of automation preferred, size and length of game, etc...

That'll be a bit too long to fit into a field size of a only a few words. I'm not even sure if I'm a warmongerer or a builder type, since I like doing both.

And just to clarify, I'm not talking about mandatory fields with fixed options - just somewhere to type a little blurb if you feel like it that would show up on inspection of a profile. That way, even if you do randomize your play styles, you could just write 'random' in the field.

Actually, you can already do it. Just put it in your sig.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
That'll be a bit too long to fit into a field size of a only a few words.

A field approximately the same size as the 'interests' field should do it.

Actually, you can already do it. Just put it in your sig.

I'm already using my sig.


Ok KD... Are you actually opposed to my idea, or are you just determined to argue its irrelevance for the fun of it? :jump:

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
Ok KD... Are you actually opposed to my idea, or are you just determined to argue its irrelevance for the fun of it? :jump:

Well, you wanted comments and it's 2.23 a.m. over here....

I don't really think it's all that helpful, since anybody depending on a certain playing style only in Civ3 is suicidal. Not esp in an MP game and when you actually announce your strat beforehand.

Furthest I'll go is whether we'd be playing a Grand alliance vs the AI or free for all, open/secret alliances. My strats I'll keep to myself....

 

[Kefka]

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
That'll be a bit too long to fit into a field size of a only a few words. I'm not even sure if I'm a warmongerer or a builder type, since I like doing both.

Try "Warmongering Builder"

Me Im a "Expansinististic Building Imperialist"
That means I like to expand fast in the begining, build a great empire and I wan't to try and control all the resources that I can. I want like three or more of each resource that what I mean by Imperialistic.

Im not sure what a Warmongering Builder would be cause those too actually cancel eachother out. Its like a Modern Republican.
anyway I think the extra feilds could be nice just to see what somepeople come up with in order to name there stlye of play.

 

[Dell19]

You could always use your location field...