1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Conflict between different types of players.

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Kyro, May 20, 2018.

  1. Kyro

    Kyro Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    599
    I've been working on some game design theory recently so I thought I would share my two cents on why conflicts occur. (Why so serious?)

    I think it is important to recognize the fundamental differences between Casual Gaming and Competitive Gaming as well as the different psychological processes that drive each kind of gaming.

    The attitude towards competitive gaming is one of seriousness and stems from the desire to better oneself by being pushed to the very limits. It is accompanied with a somewhat ruthless sense of efficiency (being tested to the limits demands that sort of efficiency) that is completely dependent on what the game has predetermined to be "most efficient". This is also what is known as the "metagame", or "meta" for short because what is "most efficient" is determined by game balance and game balance is always changing. (Meta being Greek for Changing)

    Despite the the transient nature of the metagame, one thing remains true always. That is whether intentional or not, the metagame tends to kill diversity by narrowing down through competition the most overpowered(efficient) route available in the game. In other words, depending on the community you are in, your freedom to play the game can be deeply affected by what the metagame has determined to be the most effective at winning the game. What you want to do and what is most efficient will often be at odds because of this phenomenon and unfortunately, players may find out the hard way when they are "corrected' or even ridiculed for doing something that is not considered "meta" or most efficient.

    In truth many a times those less efficient choices aren't stupid. At least they are not according to the precepts of the game. This in Civ 6 may include choices like conserving bonus resources/features instead of harvesting them, building certain wonders, spacing out cities, playing peacefully etc. They just aren't powerful enough to justify their usage in the context of efficiency.

    Unfortunately, humans are creatures of comparison and there is no better mirror of that then competition. In competitions, results always matter the most, or at least that is what humans are pre-wired to think.
    This by default gives extra weight to the opinions of competitive gamers who often leverage on their balance-determined results to define right and wrong in the game for others. (Pride being an inevitable result of "winning" the competition.) This is when conflict enters many discussions because one side has attempted to play god.

    Which brings me to the other side of the spectrum, Casual Gaming. Often used as a derogatory term by competitive gamers, players of this spectrum are not interested in pushing themselves to the limit under tight constraints. That is not to say they are not interested in bettering themselves, it only means they value one thing much more than competitive gamers; the freedom to choose, to explore, to experiment. That same freedom is responsible for nearly all the innovations and inventions of reality. Such a freedom is not compatible with the highly exclusive nature of the metagame and one can then see now how conflict arises when a casual gamer and competitive gamer get together, both to talk or to play.

    Personally, I don't find it alluring to restrict the way I play solely for efficiency because I know that the ones who control that can change "right" and "wrong" at a whim. Nor do I appreciate the drive that some have to end the game as quickly as they can. To me, I find it important to manipulate the experience that releases the dopamine such that it is unnaturally prolonged, much like how Cats play with half-dead mice. They never seem to be in a hurry to kill them off do they? Why that is so is perhaps worth considering for you "efficiency-mongerers" out there.
     
  2. Arent11

    Arent11 King

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2016
    Messages:
    988
    Well, the solution is obviously a large random element that simply dominates playing "efficiently". You can often see this in children's games: They have simple rules and a big random element, so children can win against adults. Later on, games become more strategic & you have to play more efficiently to win. So, you can simply balance both sides through chance.

    However, in civ 6 I think the problem is another one: I simply don't want to use certain loopholes because they result in extreme amounts of work/micromanagement. And sorry, but I have already work that I'm being paid for.
     
    Frostburn, Xur and tzu like this.
  3. Olleus

    Olleus Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    England
    I'm pretty sure that meta means "beyond" rather than "changing". In the sense, the metagame is the game of how best to game the game. I also don't believe that competitive gaming has to kill diversity.

    Randomness has its part, but even chess has several strong opening moves. The best way to introduce randomness IMHO, is to make the most efficient course of action for the player depend very strongly on what the other players are doing - the randomness is due to the unpredictability of others. You could take rock-paper-scissors as the key example of that. The metagame is to play as randomly as possible while trying to find out what pattern your opponent is playing to. Although that might look like a single optimal metastrategy, it results in every playthrough being unique.

    Generally, I believe that the best way to get rid of the play-to-win vs play-for-immersion conflict is to merge them. In a given situation, the immersive thing to do should also be the most efficient. Considering immersion in Civ is more or less acting like a historical leader, that isn't hard to do. The immersive player will want to do what a good ruler would do in a similar situation; and a good ruler would pick a course of action that is well suited to achieving his goal. The 'only' thing for the game designer to do is therefore to align the goals of the game with the goals a good historical ruler would have had. Now this is difficult because in 6000 years of history the goals of national leaders have changed drastically. Still, the era points are a perfect example of bringing the two styles of play close together.
     
  4. Unconquered Sun

    Unconquered Sun Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,462
    There isn't one most overpowered route in Civ, because each map is different and calls for different solutions.
     
  5. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,922
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm a bit confused here. How does the metagame restrict the freedom of casual players? On lower difficulties you can do mostly anything. Higher difficulty levels are more or less a contrivance for those that want more of a challenge and naturally the amount of decision making becomes stratified. I mean one can still beat higher difficulties with all kinds of unconventional strats. Exactly what would stop them? Random nobodies on the net telling them that they're "playing it wrong"?

    As for the concept of diversity, unfortunately to most competitive players, there is no difference between worst and 2nd best. When you're playing against dumb bots, there's no room for trickery or using unusual strats to confuse the opponent. This is just the natural outcome of playing Chess with a monkey that starts out with extra pieces. You just lose out on the nuances. Furthermore, given the high luck factor present, there's no sense in comparison unless you start out on precisely the same starts and settings.

    Now that doesn't mean the balance of the game mechanics should be ignored or that there are options that should be given more love and others not as much. But this is going to happen and changes to diversify things may not even change high level gameplay.


    In the end, everyone makes their own rules, and it's entirely subjective too. Which is why I generally ignore people making up their own rules when talking about the game. The only things we have in common are the rule set provided by the game itself, and I sincerely doubt this game was balanced around deity level play, or if most consumers even care. And ultimately I think that's what gets lost in these discussions-- people on both ends take games way too seriously. As a casual or not-so-casual player, the only point of me going through what's good and what's bad is for solely my own purposes. So if I find an efficient method that gives me what I want, I'll take it, and if I think it's too much of a tryhard and no longer feels like a game anymore, then I just won't.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2018
  6. Rosty K

    Rosty K King

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2017
    Messages:
    961
    Gender:
    Male
    It doesn't. The conflict in question occurs on the Internet, not in the game :D Meta doesn't restrict me in any way in the game, but it does open me up to some fire on the internet if I start posting a lot of screenshots of my way-less-than-optimal district placements for example.
     
  7. Arent11

    Arent11 King

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2016
    Messages:
    988
    (1) Placing districts early because they become more expensive over time
    (2) Chopping woods to build your spaceship
    (3) Embarking helicopters instead of flying over water
    (4) Placing neighborhoods over farms to get insane amounts of money
    (5) Asking your little brother to declare war on you in multiplayer, so you get +100% production as Australia

    -> A good ruler will pick a course of action that is well suited to achieve his goal :)
     
    Frostburn likes this.
  8. Kyro

    Kyro Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    599
    I can see where this is leading so I'll answer your question in two parts. The first part deals with the experience in the context of the game, the second part deals with the experience in the context of the community. (I may use the word "you" as a form of discourse but the contents are not directed at you*)

    Firstly, the common argument that the "meta" does not affect diversity in Civ 6 because it is predominantly a single-player game is akin to burying one's head in the sand. The metagame is a catalyst and mirror. It does not directly change the game, it exposes the most efficient ways to win, the exploits and the overpowered aspects. Which means, regardless of whether a game is single or multiplayer,
    because victory and by extension results are important, and because reception to certain choices is highly dependent on results, and because humans compare the results of choices by nature; the inevitable result is a gravitation towards the choices that produces the most results. (More results = More Dopamine, the brain chemical that makes you happy.)

    Example: Invest in Productivity vs Magnus Chops (Pre-nerf, maybe consider overflow cheat)

    The former requires much more thinking and many turns to yield results, the latter accomplishes much more in a few turns. As a player looking to win, which is the more efficient choice? One should also consider what is potentially lost in not going the more efficient route.

    Thus, the combination of sub-par results and incurred opportunity costs makes it punishing to make choices that aren't meta. Depending on how good you are at ignoring the repercussions of your actions this can affect how you enjoy the game. Saying it is all psychological and doesn't matter is simply hiding from the truth and nobody should have to hide from the truth to enjoy the game.

    Secondly, there is a significant role that the community plays in determining how one plays the game because humans are social creatures who desire acceptance. It's in the biological makeup and saying you don't care what other people think is really fallacious because the fact that you are here discussing topics implies an innate desire to be involved someway or the other in the community and you can't separate "how other people think" from "acceptance", neither can you separate "acceptance" from "community".

    To properly explain part two I will use a common example, it's really a classic in the shelf of "bragging rights". (Bragging Rights being a design term used to describe how players share their achievements, be it toxic or otherwise.)

    I chose this because it highlights all that's toxic about bragging rights, all the assumptions that undergird it and how it restricts the freedom to play the game by forcefully imposing "right" and "wrong" in the game.

    Player X: I cannot fathom why players are unable to beat the game in less than 200 turns. A similar statement in other cultures would be; Person Y: I cannot fathom how people can eat meat when it is actually murder!

    What is it about both statements that make them so inflammatory? The common factor is this, that the person has chosen to exalt him/herself by means of demeaning those whom he or she believes to be inferior in whatever aspect. The "exalting" is done by distancing oneself from the subject through the words "I cannot fathom", i.e I am so above it that I cannot even imagine what's it like to be the subject. While the demeaning is done through an inferred accusation that because it is inferred they can then hide behind "I did not say you are so and so" when they are confronted. In the case of Person Y, the accusation is that whoever eats meat is a murderer. In Player X's case, the accusation is that any player who doesn't beat the game by 200 turns must be really weak because it is so easy.


    With regards to the contentious "meat" example, one can easily denounce it as a purely subjective opinion that nobody has to take seriously because there is no defendable objective standard by which to justify that statement.

    With regards to Player X unfortunately, that person actually has an objective standard to justify his highly exclusive claim; namely turn times which the game provides as a measurement. The confrontations that proceed usually go like this:

    Player X: I have results, you don't. Therefore I am right when I say this.
    That is just a sandbox strategy and therefore an inferior opinion.
    You can't take that person's opinion seriously because he doesn't have turn time results.

    In other words, whenever discussions occur players like these often make uncomfortable sweeping statements based on the meta and leverage on their "results" to define right and wrong for others.

    So how does all that restrict diversity? The problem lies not in whether people can present alternative ways to play the game. The problem lies in the fact that when interesting alternatives are presented, they are often trivialized by the Player X archetypes with the common argument that there is nothing objective about those alternatives because there is no way to measure them. It doesn't help that it is far more difficult to defend your way of playing against such accusations because really, it is very difficult to find the necessary evidence when all Player X has to do is quote turn times/results. One will then have to engage in a philosophical argument of how turn times aren't everything which is an uphill task because they can say their measure of determining superiority is sanctioned by the game while yours is not. This superior defensible position by which Player Xs trivialize the playstyles of others is why the metagame always emerges as the predominant playing style mostly because its is the one most heard and most easily defended.


    There are a few meanings for that word actually, when used in the word "metaphysics" for example it does refer to "beyond". Meta can also mean "change" in the word "metanoia" which is translated as a change of mind.

    I agree that that by right there never should be a conflict in the first place between the play-to-win vs play-for-immersion. However that will only happen in a very well balanced game where all choices have equal power. Unfortunately the developers seem to favor certain aspects of the game over others and many of the imbalances are actually intentionally created to enhance that bias.

    I would argue against randomness evening the playing field because although it introduces unpredictability it also obstructs strategical thought because you cannot plan for something in the long term if the future is too unpredictable. That may mean playing the game like a tactical one where decisions are strictly based on a turn to turn basis rather than the big picture.

    I'm sorry to pop the bubble but that is actually false even as much as I wished it were true.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2018
    ExtremeGardens and Boyan_Sun like this.
  9. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,922
    Gender:
    Male
    But of these options, the only negative feedback, aka lack of proper dopamine release, would be the ones that end in defeat. If it results in victory, then the method was sound. The game does not care about stuff like turns it took to win or how much you had at t100.

    While I'd agree the Magnus meta greatly dumbs things down, I don't see necessarily see either method as inherently more intelligent than the other. It really is just a diffrent set of skills.

    And how do casual players, that don't understand basic mechanics of the game, become even aware of this? I mean even experienced players won't know basic things about the game (like me) and there are others that will just write about things that are blatantly untrue and these aren't anything resembling noobs either. There's really no point balancing mechanics around people that won't even use them.

    All I can say is speak for yourself. Of course to some degree when you interact with other people you certainly do care for the opinion of others. But there is a difference between that and being a slave to public opinon. And of course we haven't really dealt with the simply fact that the grand majority of users do not discuss things on the internet. Even if you were to correctly pinpoint this kind of psychoanalysis on people here or on me, it is by and large just a drop on the bucket.

    Oh. But here's the thing here, and I'm going to toss this line of logic back at you. If this person's opinion is not of value and you think they're just babbling gibberish, then why discuss them at all? But clearly it's threatening or offensive enough to deserve this text block. Now, could there be some degree of truth when someone bluntly poopoos some choices in the game? If you can filter out the hyperbole you might actually learnj something, and yes I have, despite the fact I don't like the manner of speech. But honestly, let's not thinly veil passive aggressive statements about other folks as nobody is being fooled. ;)
     
    AlannaT likes this.
  10. Kyro

    Kyro Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    599
    So you're saying the truth doesn't matter because functionally it makes no difference. Whether or not it makes a difference is debatable, but I'll have to disagree on tethering the value of the truth to its consequence. Ignorance isn't bliss when you're being lied to. Does it not bother you that if Civ 6 was predominantly multiplayer all these problems in hiding will immediately surface like pustules in the flesh?

    Also, not balancing game play based on the pre-conceived notion that most people won't notice anyway is very irresponsible as a game developer and I hope you would not seek to advocate such behavior as acceptable.


    Ah but the point of contention wasn't on whether it was intelligent or not. The point was that it restricted a player's choice simply by being overpowered.


    You only have the freedom to say that you are not a slave to public opinion now because now, the community and the metagame can be separately discussed. Perhaps you should consider what happens should the developers succeed in pushing Civilization into the multiplayer realm. The community and the metagame will then be so intertwined you simply cannot say you can ignore the metagame and still be part of the community because the involvements then will all be about what is competitive.

    Try playing a non-standard strategy or build order in Starcraft/Dota/Command and Conquer in a multiplayer context and you will soon see that the problem isn't that you are slave to the opinion of others, you are slave to the metagame and so is the community which you are in.

    Again, not saying the problem only exists in the multiplayer context, I'm saying it exists now and is only made extremely clear once competition kicks in full force. I recognize that you don't mean we can ignore game balance just like that but saying it doesn't matter because it's "all opinion" is detracting from the point I am actually making which is that game balance should be done in such a way where efficient gaming should not result in highly restricted play styles for a game that is all about making choices.


    You have made 2 assumptions about me here which I will point out. The first is that I am making this post because I care too much about what other people think.

    The second is that I am being salty about particular persons and using this as an opportunity to be passively aggressive.

    Neither of which are true and I really don't feel like explaining why I'm not in this overgeneralized box that you have attempted to put me in.

    Would you defend yourself if someone spreads blatant lies about you? Perhaps going by your logic you would choose not to give the person's opinion weight by not saying anything about it. When the truth remains silent evil is given free rein.
     
  11. Olleus

    Olleus Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    England
    That's an example where the game doesn't follow the principle of "most effective thing to do is also immersive". Mostly because of highly counter intuitive game rules. I would take that as an example of bad game design.
     
    Kyro and Arent11 like this.
  12. Unconquered Sun

    Unconquered Sun Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,462
    You're not in position to do anything. I don't know who you are and how much you understand the Civ series, but they lack the rigid meta others have.

    This is most evident in the most competitive Civ games ever played (you may think they would be the ones with the most rigid meta, but no) and I could give you a hundred examples. Let's start with a well-documented example from the past, the BotM10 game of the month. Dozens of people played it, only a few won, and I won more decisively than anyone else by a wide margin. How did I do it? By adapting to the exact specifics of the map by using my overall knowledge of the game to customize an economic development plan that worked best for that map in particular, but won't necessarily be the best for any other map.

    Virtually all highly competitive games (on Deity when it used to be hard or MP pitbosses of note) featured tailor-made approaches to map specifics to gain leverage. Now, Civ6 Deity singleplayer isn't competitive (approximates to Monarch on CIV) and I presume the MP scene is predominantly fast-paced timers, so it might appear to you one and the same strategy gets good results in any situation, but it is only so because of the lack of competition in SP and time in MP. The moment actual challenge is reintroduced, your illusions of "meta" will crumble and it will be evident the best players customize their strategies to the map working from a very large toolbox of knowledge.
     
    Civrinn and ZubieMaster like this.
  13. Kyro

    Kyro Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    599
    Oh I'm not doing anything, I'm just stating what a metagame does to the variety of choices as a statement of fact. Find me a game where that is not true and I can give you 100. The only reason why the Civ series doesn't have a rigid meta is because it hasn't been exposed to the intense competition that other games have. And I'm not claiming Civ 6 has a rigid meta, I'm saying there are issues that a rigid meta will immediately expose.

    Foreknowledge of a map before it is played is the equivalent of a maphack the average player does not have in the average game so the example you give is not a fair one. Some people on Deity don't even scout the map beforehand because they can simply chop their way to victory. The limitations of the map don't seem particularly game-changing given the power that players have to overcome them. You hear people talking about how adjacency bonuses don't really matter for city locations as much as the amount of woods and resources you have to harvest, why is that? Because whether you accept it or not there remains a fact that some aspects of the game are far more overpowered than they should be.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2018
  14. Unconquered Sun

    Unconquered Sun Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,462
    You're confused. There wasn't prior knowledge of the map. Explore and adapt on the fly.

    Chopping for yield is part of the series and depending on overflow mechanics it has often been powerful, including at the time/civ of my example. It was not something that could by itself give you victory against CIV Deity, not by a long shot. Neither will it be enough in an intensely competitive game of Civ6.
     
  15. DJ_Tanner

    DJ_Tanner Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,076
    From your example that wouldn't mean anything about the game having or not having a meta. Meta in any game is not THE best strategy, it is the best strategy vs the most, or most common, situation(s). Basically if I can know my strategy before knowing anything at all about the situation and that strategy will win more often than not then the meta is pretty strong.
     
    Kyro likes this.
  16. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,922
    Gender:
    Male
    This is a strategy game which involves decision making. If players have not understood the game well enough to at least make a serious attempt at discerning what's good and what not, then they simply are out of the meta. Metagame discussions require you to make various assumptions like what the player is supposed to do by a certain time . The entire model falls apart because you cannot make assumptions whatsoever. It'd be like discussing opening moves in Chess when your opponent opens 1.f3 every game. It's just not the same discussion.

    I'd almost argue there is no point at balancing at the casual level. If players have trouble, they can simply get better. And if the getting better part is not satisfactory enough for whatever reason, then we can talk.

    One example is a civ like Egypt. This one is balanced more for peaceful building as per its role in the previous 2 games. This is a legitimate role but is devalued in Civ 6 because it is easier to capture cities. And it's also weakened due to a peculiarity with its designs (cannot upgrade to knights) which completely cripples its place in the metagame. Now the question about this is that it only applies if you're regularly executing a chariot to knights rush every game with the intention of finishing the game faster.

    Now missing 1 1/2 units I would consider an objective flaw regardless of any other criteria and should be addressed. The rest though I'd consider a bit subjective.

    In some alternate universe where Firaxis cares about balancing (unlikely, since Civ 4's civs were mostly the same yet they still failed to balance that), it's possible. But as is, we're crushing an ant and then arguing over how efficiently you're crushing said ant. A meta against an opponent that does not seek victory is a problem, no matter what and until that is fixed, nothing will change.

    Take encampments. They're not in the single player meta, but much more useful against other players due to the later being much better at war.

    As opposed to what? The "Hammer the Nail that sticks out" seems to be the most popular method these days where knee jerk nerfs are made because people are unwilling to find other solutions.?We have this in our very game here where IZs were overnerfed into Obiviion and England was also cut down. And to this very day you have people sprouting stuff like England + Venetian Arsenal + Free Inquiry +5435346534 other things that have to fall into place is overpowered which just makes the game worse, or at best its direction misguided.

    And as I implied above, games should be balanced around the highest level of play, to minimize this kind of distraction. Even as sure sounding as I am, I certainly do look for the opinions of players better than myself, because I know that my picture isn't the best, or most complete.

    That's the same thing. Basically, dumbing it down means you really only have one reliable course of action, thus the illusion of choice.

    I'll worry about that if they remove the single player buitton. Until then, Big Brother isn't watching to see that I'm moving Magnus seemlessly around. But honestly, that's simply not going to be Civ for me anymore anyways, and I'll be finding something else for my needs. But this also brings up intent-- Firaxis probably doesn't want to create an esport and they know their player base much better than you and I. And if Civ 10 should only be multiplayer elitists, then I shall rest in comfort that I still have this and 4 to play.


    Well, can only speak of Starcraft (though I do gather MOBAs tend to be rather toxic), and haven't played multiplayer for years, but bunker rushes or some kind of early but not completely all in aggression will generally earn you a win from the unaware and probably a bunch of profanity too. But a game like Starcraft simply proves my point too. The first one has had an ever changing meta nearly a decade after the last balance patch was released (expert players sorted it out) [Its relative Age of Empires II could boast the same] and the 2nd was contrived to be an esport of which balance was also directed towards the highest level yet both games also enjoy a massive casual user base. And of course this and many other games below expert level, it rarely comes down to actual strategy but rather better mechanics, namely macro, multitasking, and the ability to handle the interface. I say if you could keep all your buildings not idle without getting supply blocked, you would defeat the grand majority of players. And obviously a Korean pro would probably beat any of us here with just workers because of the difference in these mechanics, and strategy would not matter at all. Now obviously, Blizzard are probably one of the masters of balancing competitiveness and fun so it's no surprise to see why their metagame is sane.

    Heck, I mean even Civ 4's meta changed quite a while after the last balance patch too.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2018
  17. Karpius

    Karpius King

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    623
    "Desired" results matter the most, which in the competitive sphere is generally 'winning'. When I enter a competition I naturally wish to win and will employ the most efficient means in that venue to do so. In Civ6, however, *my* desired results are not restricted to the most efficient win, or necessarily a win at all. My desired results will vary from scenario to scenario based on my whims. No, that is not objective at all. It is all about what I want to do at the time.

    It only gives weight to those opinions when those opinions matter to other individuals. I see no conflict here unless someone were in a position to force me to play a style they deemed more efficient, but one which I did not enjoy playing. Otherwise, why should I be concerned about such opinions?

    I really don't think the efficiency mongers need to consider any other way of playing beyond how they want to play.

    I have never felt restricted into playing by someone else's measure of "right" and "wrong".

    All competitive "games" must have objective metrics governed by objective rules to determine the outcome. Such metrics and rules will, by their very nature. create a "most efficient" path to victory. In that sense, it is quite reasonable to critique and analyze those factors and how well they were employed in any single contest. In such competitions, victory is the goal...not creativity.

    Civ6, however, can also be a sandbox for those of us who like sandboxes. There are enough features and options for me to create my own challenges which often have very little to do with efficiency. The typical "Player X" would likely throw up if they watched me play. They might pull their hair out if they knew why I placed a city here instead of there. Why didn't I attack that neighbor while they were still weak? Why run that trade route to there? My style would likely baffle many other players...especially those "Player X" types. And yet, somehow, in my own personal arrogance, I remain utterly at peace with that.
     
    King Rad and Archon_Wing like this.
  18. halfhalfharp

    halfhalfharp Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    517
    Indeed exploiting every resources and every possibility to maximize effectiveness is an admirable skill level. This I totally agree.

    To me to play as a civ is to substitute myself into the role, taking myself as a leader of a nation and treat the AIs with humanity.
    This is a role playing strategy game afterall.
    "Role playing" and "game" comes first. And within this setting, I then start to plan my victory.

    But again I do not let myself to become a "pure technical" type of player. I tend to play as the civ design demands me.
    Say when I am France, I build late game wonders, grab riversides for chateux and maximize the use of spying.
    Say when I am Mongolia, I prepare all the trade routes and set up my cavalry army for a decisive but unstoppable strike.
    Say when I am Japan... emmm I try to maximize adjacency bonus?
    Even when I am Egypt, I stubbornly go building wonders at the riverside and plant sphinx around.

    It is not my way to sacrifice these elements in exchange for a larger advantage. Maximizing the potential of the kit design to the fullest is my primary goal instead.
    For choosing a victory type, I usually follow the direction that the kit design leans towards. Or switch when I sense its not going to work.
    To me its the enjoyable part to play as a particular civilization.

    Surely there is nothing concerning "efficacy" in my playstyle. But isn't enjoying the uniqueness of those civs the main attraction here? If we only go conquest forever, why shouldn't we just all play a "blank civ". But, again, I respect skillful and competitive player as well.

    (I suppose thats why I can rarely get myself through Immortal though lol, but I handle well on emperor.)
     
  19. God of Kings

    God of Kings Ruler of all heads of state

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,345
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  20. Tabarnak

    Tabarnak Cut your lousy hairs!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,968
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Québec
    In multiplayer there is a sort of meta game that you have to respect to stay alive but it's not as tight as singleplayer competitive games. Maybe because humans are unpredictables. Sometimes you start with a plan and you have to change under way.

    Singleplayer is more about long term gains and how to exploit the AI. Multiplayer is more actions/reactions about what you have in your face.
     

Share This Page