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
    Ironically the metagame of Civ 6 currently revolves around short-term gains with the value of long-term investments greatly depreciated as a result. There is no point going for the long-term when they bottleneck population growth and make harvesting so powerful such that it can actually determine city placement. Why bother investing in the industry when you can just chop and why bother with investing in the economy when you can get free gold from neighborhoods?

    There's aren't many mistakes that can haunt you for the whole game in Civ 6 and conversely not many investments that can build up over the game to give you a competitive edge relative to just brainless spamming of more and more cities.
     
    PeterChu likes this.
  2. Boyan_Sun

    Boyan_Sun Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    256
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, it's not that complicated, someone like to study deep, someone just entertainment, find their own fun is the most important thing. Difference play styles is not the sources of conflict, but paranoia and arrogance are. Even if you have more talent than others, are you entitled to ridicule others? We all know the guy who is the source of the conflict. He was bragging and trolling on Chinese civilization forums for a long time before he was here. At first we thought he had some different understanding of the game at least, expecting him to come up with something of his own, but later he made a series of breakthrough the moral bottom line, and was discovered, evidence was certain, so he was banned by administrators. That's why he came over here because he was bankrupt in reputation in Chinese communications. Then we never see this kind of conflict since he left, but he brought it here. (However, he also brought some popular tricks like neighborhood gold etc - but none were his own)
     
  3. Tabarnak

    Tabarnak Cut your lousy hairs!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,968
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Québec
    I would like something better balanced too. Something between the Tall civ5 and Wide civ6 meta strat.
     
  4. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,916
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, can't say I know that much about Civ 5, but I don't think I've seen a Civ game where the default response wasn't to chop everything. In Civ 4, it didn't make any sense to keep forests even though the ratio (1:20 at first and 1:30) was not anywhere near as good as it's now in Civ 6. And again, it might of been an exception for rather bad starts with no hills but then again in those spots you're much better off pursuing something in the short term (like a military advantage) to break out because "long term" means you will lose.

    And I think that's the other issue. On higher difficulties, due to AI bonuses, you will lose if it just plays out, so the long term is actually against you.

    I mean no doubt Civ 6's balance is still out of whack, with too many tricks that give too much benefit for their cost, but even if they were to say, not make chopping scale, I'd be hard pressed to not do that thing. My personal suggestion would be to remove district scaling and lower costs in later eras. Stuff late game needs to be easier to build, not harder, or otherwise they may as well not exist.
     
    craney1987 likes this.
  5. Kruos

    Kruos Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2014
    Messages:
    139
    Interesting thread and study on the two infamous approach of gaming, 'casual' vs 'competitive'. The more you dig in the analysis and comparison, the more you realise it's not so easy to define.

    Personaly I would just says this : if you compare a game to a travel, the 'competitive' guys will be more interested by the destination and obssessed with the ETA, while the 'casual' guys (I prefere the term of 'immersive' as casual may be seen pejorative) will be more interested by the journey and all the discoveries during it.

    Psychologically it's very interesting too. One would says that 'competitive' players are obsessed with competition due to the need to constantly evaluate and reassure themselve against others, while 'immersive' players seek discoveries to fuel their creative and curious minds. Obviously it's not as simple and there is an infinity of nuances and subtilities between these twos clichés.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2018
    ExtremeGardens and tzu like this.
  6. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,310
    I'm always fighting myself over this. I love immersion sometimes and love the mechanics of optimization as opposed to being truly competitive. The only person I am really competitive with is myself. I guess that just makes me weird.
    I hate pigeon holing.
     
    acluewithout and Olleus like this.
  7. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,713
    Most typically, the side that "plays god" is the casual side. In some ways, that's a gaming draw that works better with a casual approach even.

    By necessity, the competitive gaming approach requires using empirical evidence. If you don't know something is a stronger option, why would you assert it's the stronger option? If you do know this, you presumably have evidence of some variety that backs the knowledge. From this angle, you can demonstrate whether or not someone is making an optimal choice, though games often make this choice non-obvious until later via incomplete information at the time of making it.

    The problems start coming in when others start calling this "gamey", "immersion breaking", or "insert other non-substantial "argument" with standards that are not applied consistently even in the framework of that one person's opinion". This person weights their immersion > others' immersion in making such arguments, and is in effect asserting via changes that constrain how the game "should be played" that others are approaching the game wrongly. This cognitive dissonance can be pretty crazy in practice. A player will ask "what should I do?", then get answers optimizing their strength of position. Then they complain that these are "too gamey" or some such nonsense. That response is incoherent...if one wasn't asking to optimize to game conditions, then they should state what they are attempting to optimize or pick whatever gives them "immersion" via their own arbitrary standards!

    The competitive crowd needs none of this. They're attempting a game defined victory condition, and using evidence to reach it to the best of their ability. If they're not, the "competitive" label is just lip service.

    The competitive side does have crass players who look down on what people do in their single player experiences, and that's similarly not constructive. When casuals turn up in MP/play with competitive players, however, that's where the problems start. In essence, you have two players playing different games. However, there is only one game in reality: the one with the rule set and objectives agreed upon when the game started (possibly updated later if everyone wants). When a casual player starts complaining about immersion in this context, it's a hypocritical complaint.

    When a casual player intentionally plays a different game than the one they implicitly agreed to play at the outset with other people, they are the ones in the wrong, even as they claim someone is min maxing too much. It's a tiresome complaint and I see it too much.
     
    Unconquered Sun likes this.
  8. Kyro

    Kyro Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    599
    Case Study time on what causes conflict between different types of players.

    One side accepts that victory and empirical evidence based on the existing metagame cannot be the sole basis by which to respect another player's views.

    The other asserts that any achievement not predetermined by the game has no value whatsoever simply because they are too diverse to be properly measured, and therefore it would be irrational to credit or respect such play styles.

    The questions to ask are:

    a: Is victory all that matters? If not why do players discount the views on that basis alone?

    b: Is the person supporting tolerance and acceptance playing God, or is the person supporting exclusivity playing God?

    c: Which type of environment/community actually provides freedom for both types of players to have fun?
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2018
  9. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,713
    The stated object of the game is pursue a victory condition. When playing the game with others, absent agreed upon deviations the expectation is that players actually play the game. If they're not going to play the game, why did they agree to play it?

    Of course not everyone can win. Everyone can try to win.

    Most often, it's the casual players claiming wrong-play that wind up "playing god" in the context you used it. They want either how the competitive players play to change, or the game itself to change. Most typically, the reasoning given for this change boils down to "emotion without supportive reasoning".

    Competitive players also do it, but more rarely. They are more likely to point out mistakes in optimization, which are objective mistakes in the context of playing the game. That is only inappropriate if the competitive player is inappropriately optimizing for something different than was agreed upon, or if given advice when none is wanted.

    A community that consistently functions with rationality. So probably none.

    If casual players want to pick freely among options, even bad ones, only a small percentage of "competitive" players will care if they do so in single player, and those "competitive" players can be safely ignored. If these same casual players complain that they lose and demand changes to the game that would have a negative effect at competitive levels, it's not surprising such demands are held in disdain.

    And they should be held in disdain. If someone is intentionally picking known-suboptimal choices, that's fine. It's their choice. If this same person is then complaining that they're losing as a result of making poor choices and that this is a problem with somebody other than them, said person is incoherent. I don't care if one person is doing this or three million people are doing this, they should be ignored regardless. There is no reason to prefer one set of incoherent reasoning to others.
     
  10. Crenickator

    Crenickator Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not incoherent to ask for balance. It's not at all unreasonable to expect a presented option to be the equal of another. A game as large and diverse as Civilization should have lots of of ways to prevail.

    Thing is though, there isn't a thing the casuals can demand that will negatively affect the competitive levels. Yes, it will screw with the meta for a while, but the competitive players will just find the new optimum and go with that. It's at worst, an inconvenience to have to locate the new meta. Pretending they've got some kind of authoritative stance just because they've crunched the numbers makes the game boring for everyone.
     
  11. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,713
    First of all, you're applying generally to a qualified statement, which is not a fair representation of what you quoted.

    Competitive players are inclined to want balance too (how many long-term successful competitive titles lack balance?). What matters is what the suggestions actually do.

    Generally speaking, suggestions made along these lines do not "ask for balance". Balance itself is vague, what exactly are you balancing? Expected win rate of VC attempts in competitive PvP? Win date under optimal play?

    Centralized metas are awful in competitive settings, as are turtle metas. There is at least a subset of suggestions that could make playing the game as-is worse. Competitive and casual players alike can make mistakes in terms of anticipating consequences of a suggested change.

    No. Crunching the numbers is paramount to balance. How can you make a credible case a game has achieved balance without substantive data to back the claim? Balance doesn't happen out of thin air. You need a reason to believe one set of rules is balanced and another is not.

    Absent numbers, what makes you conclude a given rule set is balanced?
     
  12. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,916
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not all that matters, but it does override everything else. It doesn't matter if you take over the world if I go to space. Likewise, let's put it this way. I'd never advise a strategy to anyone that doesn't end in victory. That's just irresponsible. It's also the only objective metric the game chooses to judge your performance by as to everyone else, well, they're just making up their own rules and have no power. The fact that they cannot alter my game no matter what they say is proof.

    Depends on the attitude. Some people seem to like to declare wins invalid if they don't like the settings used or method of winning as if their opinion overrides the game rules. It doesn't. It's pretending to be a god when one is merely a human.

    One where people are willing to put aside personal preferences and emotional attachments for the greater good of the community and the game. One where people realize it's just a game. That sadly doesn't exist, and trying to portray groups of players whose interests are mutually exclusive when they are not only exacerbates the problem.

    Ah yes. I mean, here's some examples of frustration

    "Oh no Shaka attacked. This game is broken!"
    * Sees not a single military unit*
    "Well, you could whip some units"
    *I'll be hopelessly behind! I don't want to whip"
    "But if you whip, you won't die and can take his stuff!"
    "I don't like whipping! This game is broken"

    And of course

    "How dare you rush with dragoons! You feel like you can't win in a long Macro game!"
    *Next*
    "How dare you use Dark Templar! You scrub"
    "Well, I mean you could have just built a turret"
    *Incomprehensible rambling*
    So next game no rush and build carriers.... same thing.

    But again, it's fine to complain about boring/stagnant gameplay. It's just that people keep making up new rules as we go along and it's actually why I think a lot of games are in a poor state..... suggestions like those.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2018
  13. Joe Marzen

    Joe Marzen Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2018
    Messages:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Edgerton, Wisconsin
    I literally came to the forum today to find a specific post I’d seen recently and insult the author. That person had written that they were upset that it’s difficult to follow a specific “efficient” path through the tech tree in Civ VI. I read that particular post days ago, but, the very notion, was still bothering me this afternoon as I began a new game. I guess I clearly have the characteristics of one of the two extreme “types” of Civ players. To the other extreme I say... Why not just let the AI control your character while you watch? I think following some sort of unwavering “efficient” path through the tech tree is lazy, perhaps, shameful, to say the least... I could go on regarding the subject but I’ll spare everyone.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2018
    Crenickator likes this.
  14. Crenickator

    Crenickator Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Does it work? Yes, it's more subjective, but it's also a much wider picture than numbers.

    Sid Meiers himself said "A game is a series of interesting choices." and along with that his philosophy of "Double it or cut it by half". Make the choices worthwhile. If they aren't, don't hem and haw, just boost it or cut it, quickly and cleanly. Produce tangible responses. If this produces a bloodthirsty Samurai army, then BANZAI. Samurai still won't be the be-all end-all of the game. It will be an interesting choice for a Japan, or an interesting opponent for anyone else.
    Number crunching is just the antithesis of this, and you can get bogged down in so many small efficiencies that there cease to be interesting choices at all, such that you're forgoing a Unique Unit because it doesn't upgrade into the "right' unit. Trying to balance the cost/damage ratio of a Samurai versus comparable units by 10 hammers at a time might arrive at some sort of mathematical "balance", but it's done nothing to make Samurai interesting. Crunching the numbers comes later. Make the game first, then crunch the numbers. If you crunch the numbers first, you're making a spreadsheet.

    That also angers me, as well as when one complains that such and such unit/building is tied to an "out of the way" tech or civic. Is that a good example of the "competitive" side's complaints?
    What is one for the casual? "I'm kinda dubious about building a city nowhere near water and chopping to a metropolis larger than any the ancient world had ever seen. Feels like cheating."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 2, 2018
    Joe Marzen likes this.
  15. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,713
    No no, do go on about how attempting to optimize is "lazy" and "shameful", while picking choices more arbitrarily isn't. It should be interesting.

    Of course, someone complaining about their attempts to optimize is silly.

    What basis do you use to conclude "does it work?". Let's set aside the unambiguous fail mode junk like the game UI. What makes you conclude one mechanic "works" and another "does not work", aside from the literal sense like "UI lies" or "game desyncs every other turn in MP"?

    Still not getting away from number crunching. Most of the trivial choices are such because the numerical ROI is consistently disparate in favor of one or a few options over alternatives.

    Some people consider the small efficiencies interesting too. They smash deity dozens of turns earlier than typical players believe possible.

    If you crunch numbers poorly, you do poorly. The decision of whether to use UU or not under optimal play is determined by whether it confers more benefit than alternative investments. Bad upgrade paths can make the cost prohibitive or limit the return, but if this is the sole basis for the decision you can miss a window of strong usage.

    What "makes the samurai interesting"? You can make something interesting, then balance it...assuming it matters enough to the person doing the work.

    People make that complaint because they want something to be viable, but it isn't because of where it's placed. As such pursuing it can harm their position...why make a known poor choice on purpose? Variant play and not much else.

    Players do often say something "feels like cheating". This is not the mark of a casual player. It's mark of an irrational/incoherent player, as they virtually never understand even their own framework for what is cheating, or even what feels like it. I've even seen such players claim some things "feel like cheating" while other things that confer a significantly greater benefit are fine in their book. It's a necessarily incoherent position.
     
  16. Crenickator

    Crenickator Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    I think perhaps some of us think the tech tree seems to be, or ought to be, a little more situational, such that there is no optimally efficient path through its entirety. It's lazy just to rush feudalism every game, and shameful to think that's good game design and see nothing changed.

    Like I said, it's more subjective. It requires a goal that we were aiming for to begin with. Since we're talking about the Samurai, let's go with that. If they're just there to add Japanese flavor, I suppose they suffice. If they're supposed to add some uniqueness or flexibility to Japanese playstyle, I think they sorely fail, and tweaking their stats isn't going to change anything.

    You number crunch after the fact, and try to cut down on the disparities. The point is always: Do not start with the number crunching.

    And? You just seem to be implying that these are somehow the authoritative Civ players.

    The insults do you no favors. Again, you act as though this is the authoritative style, and there is only one logical choice, and the rest of us are stupid for not agreeing. It's that attitude that's so infuriating to folk like me and Marzen. It does sound as if you're handing off the game to a calculator and watching the result. Would the game not be richer if there was no true optimum?

    Their UU passive really doesn't. It was killer the entire Civ in 5, but barely a flash in the pan for one unit. They need something else. But we'll have to think of it before there are numbers to crunch.

    Nah, see here, you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. The so-called casuals want that stuff to be viable as well, but get looked down upon for doing it anyway. The optimizers want the game changed to fit their playstyle, but this is apparently fine, and completely different from what the filthy casuals want.
    Variant play. You make it sound like such a bad word. We should be encouraging it, to make as many variants as viable as possible.

    Nah, again. People have opinions, and they're not irrational just because you don't agree with them. But I guess I really should expect this from a guy called "TheMeinTeam".
     
  17. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,713
    I doubt good competitive players are making a serious case the game should be centralized and see no reason to expect a divide between casual and competitive players when it comes to obvious options.

    You need to crunch numbers all along, to make sure the ideas dreamed up work in practice at some values.

    If you're talking about giving advice within the context of optimizing the game as-is, they are by the only objective measure; they can show you why something is a false choice. They're also likely to immediately identify false choices in proposed mechanics, and that's useful to prevent false choices.
    Your words, not mine. No inventing insults just to call someone else out for using them.

    Sometimes there really is one logical choice, if you're playing the game to reach a victory condition efficiently rather than playing something else.

    In any given scenario, there should be a correct choice. In good games, this choice isn't obvious, varies depending on the circumstances it is presented, and sometimes depends on investment into otherwise incomplete information.

    If this stuff is backed by numbers there's no real divide in the player base there.

    Variant play is neither good nor bad. It's inventing rules the game does not establish on its own and optimizing around those...sort of like a structured version of casual play.

    When players state something that is self-inconsistent, the position is irrational. That's not a matter of opinion. This is a very common occurrence with "x feels like cheating". When asked what criteria one uses to establish why something feels like cheating, players tend to either fail to capture x or state criteria that bans standard gameplay. No matter how you slice it, that's not coherent reasoning.
     
  18. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,916
    Gender:
    Male
    I think the term casual, as well as gamer, have become such joke terms due to misuse and overuse. I usually roll my eyes when someone self-identifies as either. Especially when people pass them off as casual players when they're really not given how serious they are about not succeeding. I mean, in the end, nobody likes to lose all the time, and these two things aren't really mutually exclusive. So yea, I know people won't be happy when I tell them it's not that great to do something, but I know they'd even be more unhappy when their capital is surrounded by knights! It's very irresponsible to tell players to do things because of your subjective idea of fun that they may not share.So you should back up what you see with some factual information, and you don't get more factual than actual numbers. Don't just tell people "Oh build IZs, because production!"

    It's kinda disingenuous when we know the average casual player plays games for a bit and moves on to the next, and most accounts have not beaten Warlord difficulty. I mean, that's why the series has always gotten away with poor AI. Most players literally do not care about many problems we bring up daily. A lot of my casual civ friends just mess around and don't finish games, much less care about finish times. And certainly not enough to write long diatribes about being suboptimal and being oppressed by elitists. I mean this is a game, not a job so their perspective is honestly more healthy at times.

    I mean this is just true with so many games Bringing them up is just absurd, and really boils down to the fact that this is NOT about hardcore vs casual, but rather hardcore vs hardcore except one side isn't happy that they aren't getting their way and apparently feels like assertions don't need to be supported by facts like I dunno.... numbers. Really now, everyone that sees me post knows I'm wrong a good chunk of the time, but that's why I don't pass everything I say as fact and I do take things into account when someone more knowledgeable comes along instead of going "oh no muh pride is now shattered and threatened by scary numbers!"

    I mean, holy crap, apparently winning isn't good enough these days. If you're really complaining about not being able to immerse yourself optimally (?) on high difficulties (of which nobody forces you to play on), then take a break.

     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2018
  19. Crenickator

    Crenickator Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Sigh. The number crunchers feel that the numbers are the only things that matter and that they are the authoritative source for how the game works, ignoring everything, and everyone, else as if they're all incoherent, emotional, and irrational. To the rest of us, that sounds like trying to play a spreadsheet. It's not discarding facts, it's recognizing there's more to the game than numbers. If it seems otherwise, it's because there are few things more concrete than numbers to argue with.
     
  20. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,916
    Gender:
    Male
    That really depends on what you're counting the "rest of us" as some kind of singular group. Some might care, some may not, some get angry and post long rants about these spreadsheets. I may shift between the 3 depending on mood, but many may not.

    I am well aware that Microsoft Excel is not a best selling video game for some reason, despite the people that are into it. It's true that numbers aren't everything. What that is, and why one think that is, is important though. And as far as I know, some options seem to be much more easier to argue than others. If you can't agree on the same foundation though, then we're really not playing the same game.

    When you want to argue the value of something, such as units on leaf techs, the burden of proof is going to be on the end of the person suggesting it has value, and naturally it would be compared to other options. Namely, say, going to these techs instead of just teching anything else.

    Not all choices are equal, and not should they be equal, in a game that is about decision making. That doesn't mean there's only one right answer, but there can certainly be wrong ones. But of course, as long as one is getting the proper feedback from the game, it's not that big of a deal. I just don't think many people like seeing rhe defeat screen as feedback, and work within that premise unless directed otherwise.

    I get that narrowing the choices becomes a game where choices become fake and that gets boring. But on the other hand, I would also say that many nations in real life have had to "adapt the meta" or be eliminated. You certainly weren't going to get anywhere bringing a sword to a gunfight, even if guns did diversity and that would break my immersion otherwise.

    Though you know, the sword is still a good weapon.....

    Anyhow, even if the game were made deeper and allowed more choices, I think the conflict between these two groups (and there are more than two groups honestly). will continue somehow because there will always be a best way. Asking otherwise is literally asking Firaxis to patch humanity itself. Now that is a bit unreasonable.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2018

Share This Page