That's also funny, because even if I wanted to accuse you of something, I couldn't. I don't know anything about you or the way you play. But you do, so who am I to argue with your feelings?
If by biased you mean that I have an opinion, you got me again. Without lump sums my play will take hit too, perhaps even more than yours. But I don't care, because I think that they ruin the balance and turn trading into blatant milking of the clueless AI, i.e. getting free cash without giving anything in exchange. I didn't hear much of a disagreement on this, btw.
At least we agree on something. I hope that's what HoF stuff will remember next time when they face bashing and ranting about what they should or should not do.
Exploitative is a strong word in this context, but even if honored lump sum deals are very unbalanced. You give up essentially nothing (you don't need spare luxuries) and get something you do need - cash. AI gives up cash it needs and gains nothing because it doesn't need your luxes more than you do. It's better with strategics and even worse with gpt
Nope.
Put it in spoiler. Banning Petra and FoY/El Dorado is really easy, static deals are harder. Not impossible, but again, I just don't see HoF mod altering the core rules too much. Anyways, we'll see how and if BNW affects the balance and then we can talk specifics what it should and should not include.
Nope.
No sarcasm. I thought you felt like sharing. I'm not watching the show, so I have no idea what you're talking about but I'm curious.
Rush buying university is beneficial, settling additional city is beneficial, entering GA one turn earlier is meaningless. AI can't use the cash in efficient way, this is indeed a problem, however, it doesn't change the fact you gain x10 more from such trade.
. So, it's the question of keeping all aspects of the game intact and achieving t.190 science vic., or, removing chunks of game features to try to make the game longer (not harder) for everyone, yet less enjoyable, as these [removed] bits we will miss.. Both ways presume level playing field against each other, as everyone is using the same instruments, whatever the limitations.
We can't fix it to the level it matches humans, but we can and should strive to make it better. And not to insist on keeping it as bad as it currently is just because we're used to capitalize on its weaknesses. Of course lump sums make the game easier, not only shorter. If all you want is short game, play quick speed. But that's not it, is it? And to ease on players with their dilemma, I'd love to see the change in code rather than self imposed rules.AI is clueless in regards to every aspect of the game, so, despite it's 3x bonuses on production and everything else (slight exaggeration), we can still beat it in science, military, and, eventually, everything else. The way i see it, we can't fix AI: apparently no one can, because of the reason why human will always outsmart the calculator
So, it's the question of keeping all aspects of the game intact and achieving t.190 science vic., or, removing chunks of game features to try to make the game longer (not harder) for everyone, yet less enjoyable, as these [removed] bits we will miss.. Both ways presume level playing field against each other, as everyone is using the same instruments, whatever the limitations.
I see no glory in challenging yourself with higher difficulties and then robbing the AI of its bonuses that essentially create the challenge. It makes no sense.
Is someone suggesting that better AI and more balanced gameplay will ruin the competition between humans? Interesting theory.
How can we strive to make AI better if we have no tools to make it better? All we can do right now is invent limitations on ourselves, not 'strive to make AI better'. AI will stay bad at war, diplomacy and god knows what else after proposed gold restrictions, so, i can understand why posters above me came to conclusion that these changes can inspire even more re-rolls. By the way, re-rolls is the reason i don't play gauntlets anymore. ). For sure i am going completely offline in my SP games if proposed changes will ever be realised. I can see where your cause is noble, i just think the problem is too deep to be solved, so i enjoy it as it is. And, hopefully, we'll be dealing with completely different game in July. Just my opinion, Pilgrim. With all due respect.But the second someone completely missed the point about "human-to-human" balance and kept throwing his comments forming into a dreadful story of the only intention of the first someone, "the intention to keep his lovely unfair advantage over the AI".... to disable rush-buys completely, disable any other "lump sum" depended stuff (such as RA) and finally to remove the gold from the game entirely (you don't needif you can't spend it)
Of course we have. It's called customer feedback.Hold on a second, sir.
How many times should I repeat that I think these rules be better hard coded rather than self imposed or enforced by HoF staff for you to believe me?
The problem is indeed deeper than just lump sums. However, Civ has come a long way since its release and still has a lot of room for improvement. For example, ability to move and shoot and better use of combat odds calculation will do wonders to combat AI. And be sure I'll promote those with the same enthusiasm I'm promoting lump sums removal.However, i like the challenge presented by the HoF, so i play deity exclusively lately (to restrict myself from reloading and for a good feel of accomplishment
Firstly, the only intention behind protecting the poor fellow AI is making the game more enjoyable for all someones involved. Yes, I'm convinced that enjoyment is tied to balance. And I have hard time believing someone thinks otherwise.
If you want a real "human-to-human" balance, you need to play MP. If you choose to play SP, AI is still a factor and any attempt to prevent from it to become better leads to the above conclusion.
A deal that has been honored is less exploitative than a deal that has not been honored, which is less exploitative than repeatedly broken deals etc. Better?
