Civilization 5 Rants Thread

(Regarding Carpet of Doom aka CoD)

bitula said:
2) So to avoid this - they (themselve) - had to penalize other aspects of game to artifitialy lower the number of units which could be produced.
Do you get this?
The problem is in 1), 2 is just a way to fix it - and actually the worst way. The problem itself is the carpet of doom, because if Firaxis wouldnt limit other aspects of game, you would still not build those units. You see, you yourself wouldnt build them - even if they cost 0 gold - to avoid the boring end game, which would inevitably follow. You dont even need to play the game to understand this, it logically follows from the 1UPT concept itself. So I am still really looking forward to anyone making a proper counter argument here.
Click to expand...

I must admit I don't get it yet. I haven't read all the posts yet, only quick searches over the last few pages.

If some units are more elite but took more hammers per muscle then regular units that require the same tech, and especially if unit merging was possible, I see no reason why 1UPT has to lead to CoD. High production miltiary focused civs would use the elite units because they'd be able to concentrate more muscle per precious tile when they invade, and that would be worth the extra hammers if implemented correctly.

If units cost more hammers to build depending on how many units are already fielded, that would make sense (marginal utility applied to military), and also help against CoD, but that shouldn't even be necessary if there were elite units.

Again sorry if I missed a rebuttal to this.
 
I just see it as aimless complaining.

If you need a CoD to wage a war you're doing it wrong. For offensive purposes, you don't need more than 8-10 units at any given time. In fact, to have more is just a waste of maintainace.

Surround city, seige city, take city, move on.

Hardly a carpet, just a well oiled machine! :)

CoD is basically a phrase coined by the people who hate 1upt to try and prove that its the same as, if not worse than, stacking.
 
1UPT, CoD, Sliding Puzzle game, Civ Tetris, etc. Call it what you want, it still sucks.

Hopefully the source code will be released within the next year and then modders can work with limited stacks of some kind. I wasn't really thrilled with SoD myself but to go to the opposite extreme was foolhardy. As with almost everything in life, the middle road is best.
 
Becomedeath said:
I just see it as aimless complaining.

If you need a CoD to wage a war you're doing it wrong. For offensive purposes, you don't need more than 8-10 units at any given time. In fact, to have more is just a waste of maintainace.

Surround city, seige city, take city, move on.

Hardly a carpet, just a well oiled machine! :)

CoD is basically a phrase coined by the people who hate 1upt to try and prove that its the same as, if not worse than, stacking.
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite: if you need less than 8-10 units at any given time, THEY did something wrong. That wrong they called AI.

The Carpet of Doom does not represent the human player's army, but the huge yet useless AI army... they have the carpet, and they suicide it against your tiny, 8-10 units parade core... don't you feel that something is wrong there?
 
headcase said:
Honestly, it's good to see what your favourite reviewers have to say, but if you want to know, and have time to study it, look for a fan forum like this one. This forum has a huge variety of opinions and personally I don't see a vocal minority; if you average all the opinions together, it paints a pretty good picture of Civ 5 imo.
Click to expand...

hmmmm... it's what you don't see that should worry you, me and everyone in for the long term with civ. Great voices are absent; the best modders have gone back to the "Stack of Doom" with all its overwhelming strategic details and nuances (sp?)... alpaca, Dale, Sulla, Afforess, etcetcetcetc... THAT should worry you. The "vocal minority" is what is left of the "absent majority".
 
Forgive me for interrupting the flow of rant here but I would have liked to say something in a new thread but figure it would be moved here so here goes.

All you people who bought CIV for the MP (or only play MP because SP sucks) and all you people who bought DLC content, YOU are responsible for the shoddy state of affairs. YOU are a working financial model. You pay for a bowl of cereal but only get the bowl with some old milk in, then pay more for the actual cereal. You suck. Regards MP; civ is not meant for MP. Period. Going that way permits the game to have a crap SP standard as a direct consequence. Rant over. swivvle
 
tenkk said:
Forgive me for interrupting the flow of rant here but I would have liked to say something in a new thread but figure it would be moved here so here goes.

All you people who bought CIV for the MP (or only play MP because SP sucks) and all you people who bought DLC content, YOU are responsible for the shoddy state of affairs. YOU are a working financial model. You pay for a bowl of cereal but only get the bowl with some old milk in, then pay more for the actual cereal. You suck. Regards MP; civ is not meant for MP. Period. Going that way permits the game to have a crap SP standard as a direct consequence. Rant over. swivvle
Click to expand...

Your entire argument is one of those stupid things you hear at the comments section of a random news site. Why are you suddenly shifting the blame of it to the people who enjoy the MP? You seem to hold a very personal opinion of MP. Other don't feel the same way you do. Essentially, this entire 'rant' is an extremely opinionated piece of drivel inspired by someone's anger, probably at things utterly unrelated to Civ 5, since I am baffled how someone can generate such hatred multiplexer a small niche of people who enjoy a random game for Its multiplayer.

It seems extremely peculiar to me that you have absolutely no regard that this is not the first time that Civ makes you pay for expansions. It seems to me just the fact that such a large variety of maps and the like strewn across the screen overwhelms your senses to the point where you can no longer comprehend that not only are the amount of maps you are receiving in larger quantity than the ones you could use in Civ 4(You must be mindful that there was no official map for the Fertile crescent and the map for East Asia was ludicrously sub-par, as well as maybe 10 other maps never given to you before). The concept of a DLC may suck in some way to you, but ultimately, it is very easy to enjoy the game without them. Those that buy them show a certain amount of extra dedication to Firaxis and Sid Meier, as they would buy these to enhance their gaming experience.

Really, why would the buying of a game for the sole purpose of multiplayer in any way effect the quality of single-player? The two are not mutually exclusive and come in a bundle. If they buy it for the MP experience, they are still making money for Civ 5 in a way which is neutral. It's not as if they buy only Multiplayer. The shoddy state which single-player is in is most likely a result of different factors, though, by my opinion, it's not shoddy at all.

Moderator Action: Please keep the tone civil in your replies.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
tenkk said:
Forgive me for interrupting the flow of rant here but I would have liked to say something in a new thread but figure it would be moved here so here goes.

All you people who bought CIV for the MP (or only play MP because SP sucks) and all you people who bought DLC content, YOU are responsible for the shoddy state of affairs. YOU are a working financial model. You pay for a bowl of cereal but only get the bowl with some old milk in, then pay more for the actual cereal. You suck. Regards MP; civ is not meant for MP. Period. Going that way permits the game to have a crap SP standard as a direct consequence. Rant over. swivvle
Click to expand...

:confused: How can 5-10% of an audience can change the whole ''affair''? They didn't pay 500$ to get a copy of civ5...

I myself wouldn't pay to play this game only in sp mode. Today, every game has a multiplayer platform.

Mp mode is more fun to play because you don't face a stupid AI with massive bonuses and because they can't handle 1upt very well(most rants come from this fact btw) and you don't have to build only 4-5 units to kill hundreds of them. Don't try to do this in mp mode, you will lose.
 
General Pilates said:
Really, why would the buying of a game for the sole purpose of multiplayer in any way effect the quality of single-player? The two are not mutually exclusive and come in a bundle. If they buy it for the MP experience, they are still making money for Civ 5 in a way which is neutral. It's not as if they buy only Multiplayer. The shoddy state which single-player is in is most likely a result of different factors, though, by my opinion, it's not shoddy at all.
Click to expand...

Considering the sorry state multiplayer was in at the launch of the game, there's no way one can reasonably argue that "multiplayer killed the radio[/i] singleplayer star" for Civ V.

When it comes to DLC, I'm not a fan. Not so much of the greater effective cost or because it nickles and dimes you, but because of the "individual bite size" philosophy of it. It's going to be civilizations, maps and scenarios; small, discrete units of content with no interdependency or synergy between them.

I don't think we'll see the kind of larger, fundamental, thorough changes and expansion of the game mechanics that we got in Warlords or Beyond the Sword made available as DLC, if at all. To me personally, that's the only thing that's interesting: new civilization and maps is nice, but in the end it's mostly just fluff. The meat of an expansion was always the underlying changes and additions to gameplay -- and frankly, Civ V needs underlying changes and additions to gameplay.
 
Aristos said:
hmmmm... it's what you don't see that should worry you, me and everyone in for the long term with civ. Great voices are absent; the best modders have gone back to the "Stack of Doom" with all its overwhelming strategic details and nuances (sp?)... alpaca, Dale, Sulla, Afforess, etcetcetcetc... THAT should worry you. The "vocal minority" is what is left of the "absent majority".
Click to expand...

That doesn't worry me. I said the average opinion on this forum matches my opinion on the game. Whether some people (even a "majority") would rather play a game that has had more time in the oven has no impact on my opinion at all.

I played 4 with all the fix-ins for a year before 5 came out (and a few months after since 5 was awful at the time). Now I enjoy 5 more, and it's not even completed (hell, it's still full of bugs). Just another member of the vocal minority, I suppose.
 
tenkk said:
Forgive me for interrupting the flow of rant here but I would have liked to say something in a new thread but figure it would be moved here so here goes.

All you people who bought CIV for the MP (or only play MP because SP sucks) and all you people who bought DLC content, YOU are responsible for the shoddy state of affairs. YOU are a working financial model. You pay for a bowl of cereal but only get the bowl with some old milk in, then pay more for the actual cereal. You suck. Regards MP; civ is not meant for MP. Period. Going that way permits the game to have a crap SP standard as a direct consequence. Rant over. swivvle
Click to expand...

I can play :bts: in both MP and SP mode and have fun games at it. So having a usable MP mode does not mean you forgo the SP mode. You do have to learn the game some way, and that is normally done in SP games first. The fact that both are not that good right now, is a terrible indictment of the state of the game.
 
Naokaukodem said:
I have an idea : because AIs are programmed to win, and because they act all like 1 against the player (chain denounce, chain declaration of war), why not make all the AIs (CS included) declare war on you on turn 1 ?
Click to expand...

You are late. That was Civ 1 :lol:

Seriously, the code had a specific if statement that compared the standing of the HUMAN player, and if he was winning, the statement said something like "Declare War on Human".

A long, looong way from that... or are we? :rolleyes:
 
Naokaukodem said:
What I don't understand is that if AIs play to win, they should declare turn 1, because first we play the game for winning and are a menace since turn 1. They should ally and kill us very soon, but hey it's just an AI so give it overwhelming bonuses too.
Click to expand...

Well, this "AI" playing to win has to be one of the greatest myths about this game... to me it does not, it doesn't even get close to something similar to "trying to win"... were the myth started, I have no idea. But it is just that: a myth.
 
Aristos said:
Well, this "AI" playing to win has to be one of the greatest myths about this game... to me it does not, it doesn't even get close to something similar to "trying to win"... were the myth started, I have no idea. But it is just that: a myth.
Click to expand...


the myth started from firaxis themselves, they touted from release that the AI was there to win ... personally i have not seen this

quote from the "official" civ5 website
Negotiate with some of history’s most cunning rulers, each with a well-crafted plan for victory. Successful diplomacy will depend on players carefully managing relationships with other leaders, trading items, plying them with gold, and deciding if they are friend or foe. City States will present a new diplomatic battleground on which the major powers of the world will vie for supremacy
Click to expand...
 
The "well-crafted plan for victory", AI version 383+:

" - Hey guys, let's do really stupid things, so that this Human wise-behind gets bored to death, sleep-quits, and whooala! We win!"

Perfect plan. It works against me, anyways.
 
Aristos said:
Well, this "AI" playing to win has to be one of the greatest myths about this game... to me it does not, it doesn't even get close to something similar to "trying to win"... were the myth started, I have no idea. But it is just that: a myth.
Click to expand...

My posts were mainly to underline the fact that the AI is programmed in one block, and don't really have any personnality from one civ to another.

Example: mass denounce. In that game, when you put your little finger up, you get denounced by everybody.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
CIV 5 Cocoa and Bison
Replies
2
Views
692
Actic_Civ
A
D
Hi gang - it's been awhile 😊
Replies
3
Views
315
raider980
raider980
bengalryan9
Civ Discussion - Antiquity Age Summary/Tier Lists
Replies
14
Views
1K
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
B
Civ 5 is disappointing
Replies
5
Views
4K
Bonyduck Campersang
Bonyduck Campersang
Navelgazer
What are your priorities for Commander Promotions?
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
uppi
U
Back
Top Bottom