Civ 3 Tournament Proposal

[Aeson]

About goody huts:

I don't know how most people feel about them, but I'd prefer they weren't in our competitions. When creating the scenario I think we can opt for no huts at all in 1.21f right?

Huts are fun, but a Settler early on completely throws the balance out of whack. It basically gives the player a 15-20 turn headstart, and when playing towards fastest finish goals this would give luck too much power over the outcome IMO.

Just want to hear what everyone thinks on the subject...

 

[Badluck]

Even if i really like goody hut i agree with you aeson for obvious reason.

 

[Grey Fox]

Great Point.

Huts will be disabled.

 

[Grey Fox]

New Players Joined!

Elite
- Daetor

Veteran
- Crunchy
- pauleden

Regular
- rev.man
- Comen
- jedi_brad
- Ecco
- cpeatro


Total amount of Players: 125

 

[Bildbert]

Originally posted by Aeson
I talked to Chiefpaco today, and it sounds like he will have a 1.21f version of MapStat up and working very shortly. We shouldn't have to turn off Domination if everyone has access to a quick and easy tile counter.

It's a possibility to turn off the Cultural victory condition, as it seems counterintuitive to have to avoid. Selling off cultural improvements just to avoid winning...

I don't see what this discussion is all about. Of course all other victory conditions should be turned off! The tournament should be about trying to reach the set goal, not trying to avoid winning in another way.

As you say, it's counterintuitive to have to sell cultural improvments.
But it's just as ridiculous to avoid conquering a city just to avoid domination. Or not building a hospital to avoid getting a too large population. Or to decline a good deal in order to keep your treasury down.

Besides, I don't want to have to download a special program to play in the tournament. My computer is old and slow, so the fewer programs I have to install the better.

/Bildbert

 

[Grey Fox]

The idea of leaving all victories on is to make it harder.

To avoid one victory type makes the game more interesting, and you will also have to avoid the enemy from doing the same thing.

How fun is it to try and win in the space ship if you have already wiped out every other civilization from the map?
You could always spare the enemy one city, but still.

If you leave Cultural on, the enemy can still win on that. Even if your aim are not to win culturally.

 

[marshalljames]

I notice a few leaders from the democracy game have signed up for the middle div.maybe they should be bumped up to elite.
Afraid of being the bottom 25%?

Edit:disabling goodie huts is ridiculous.Luck plays a key role in the fortunes of any civ.even the best laid plans of mice and men fall into ruin.If skill were the only factor the world would be a different place.we've all heard the expression right place at the right time.=LUCK.
Do not destroy the luck factor because some of the elite players are worried about wasting time milking the game only to lose anyways.

 

[Pearman]

I must say, on this matter I agree with marshalljames. Yeah, settlers you pop give you a HUGE advantage, but thats not "unfair" per se. Maybe someone will get lucky and pop a few settlers, and be able to beat Sir Pleb for once!

My real argument is that luck is a big part of this game, as it should be. Luck is a big part of the sucess of real civilizations. What if George Washington had broken his foot before a battle with the British, and the leaderless American Army was defeated? Luck plays a big factor in the sucess or failure of civilizations, and so I think huts should stay

 

[Grey Fox]

What kinda skill is it to win by luck? When you can win by skill?

By removing the huts, you would remove one of the factors that make the game different for the players.

The huts are to big of a luck factor, and this contest would be better with as little luck as possible.

Luck can also mean Bad Luck remember.

 

[Badluck]

GreyFox: Really?



Hut is a fun part of the game but only a small sacrifice to make the game more fair for everyone.



Also, will in the tourneman artillery be able to kill unit ??


i didn't play yet with patch 1.21 but if i remember well we have the ability to change Long range troop to make them able to kill.

 

[Falcon02]

I don't think we should change any of the ground rules. I don't like the fact artillery can't kill, but we need to stick to what Fraxis gives us for fairness. At least that's IMHO.

 

[DrSpike]

I'm in.

I think the games should be predominantly quests for the earliest finish in whatever victory condition is chosen for that map. A civ score is just an indicator, and no matter how you tweak the system to prevent milking players will be aiming for score. The skill we should be trying to test is a players civving ability, not his or her ability to take advantage of whatever scoring system is chosen.

 

[Hagbart]

I want the goodie huts! They're fun!

 

[Bamspeedy]

About the goody huts....

The only problem I have with this is the expansionists civs. If we are an expansionists civ it will be harder, but if we have expansionists opponents it will be easier. Without goody huts, being expansionists is almost completely worthless. But I guess it doesn't matter a whole lot since everyone will be on a level playing field.

 

[D9phoenix]

I have no real opionon either way when it comes to goodie huts, it's nice having them but if where setting this up for skill then i guess they would unbalance it. Luck does play a big part in the real world, but this isnt the real world and more of a controled experiement. If we want the best results possible we need to remove as many random variables as possible to be certain that the possible outcome is achievable by all people.

Now forgive if this was buried in the thread somewhere ( i didn't have time to scan through 20 pages) But what lvl will the barbarians set to ?

If i remember right with 1.21f you can turn them off completly but that also unexpectedly turns off goodie huts to ? ( just d/l the patch and installing after this)

 

[Bamspeedy]

If you select No Barbarians then there are no goody huts.

 

[Pearman]

My personal preferance would be to have bombard able to kill, and to make it so that the random seeds don't reset when you reload. That way people wouldn't be able to keep reloading until they win a battle.

 

[donsig]

What the heck kinda civ game would we be playing if there were no huts?

Come on guys you're takin' this competition way too far. And I can't believe that all the number crunchers out there haven't said anything about luck evening out over the seasons! Who cares if one guy gets a settler early on in one of his games? He won't be that lucky every game. Isn't the whole point of having several seasons to enable the good players to rise to the top despite luck?

 

[Falcon02]

I say we keep the Huts. Yes it adds a larger degree of luck, but remember it's the best 3 out of 4 here. Even if one game a player is really lucky, he may be hurt another game by the huts, and another he may be uneffected. Anyway, luck is part of the game. We shouldn't eliminate the Huts, IMHO.

 

[whb]

I think we should keep the huts because they are "part of the game". Removing the huts removes some of the incentive for exploring other nation's natural expansion territory, especially early on. I've tended to find that those two or three warriors roaming around searching for huts do make a difference to my expansion plans -- I've got three less warriors to attack someone with early on for starters!

"Hut-finding" is as much a part of civ3 as anything else, and removing it changes the way people play.