Conflict between RPG players and numbercrunshers

[Hammer Rabbi]

so i just watched a new video about BNW (from one of the BNW threads i accidentally subbed to) and i think from what I saw that immersive players are going to get a nice boost for interest. they've retooled the culture victory entirely and thrown in some interesting new concepts, not to mention 9 new civs, new units/wonders/etc. I think the game will be entirely different, much more so than the impact G&K had.

it's on youtube here if anyone wants to see some "spoilers".

 

[Kazdum]

What I am not found of is how so many number crunchers seem to think it's the only way to play the game. It's flat out silly. I don't play that way. Clearly from this thread many others don't play that way. Even more clearly from looking at the top downloads on Steam most of the gaming community does not play that way.

It's sad, because the Strategy forum could be a useful resource for modders to improve various aspects of the game. Instead, it's just a place where you get told how you are wrong, a lot. No thanks

Yes, you basically have 5-6 civs that you can play and 2-3 strategies (all end up in the same start, workers, sell, sell, sell, sell luxuries, buy up settlers/workers, beeline CB and then NC/Universities).

 

[tommynt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hambil View Post
What I am not found of is how so many number crunchers seem to think it's the only way to play the game. It's flat out silly. I don't play that way. Clearly from this thread many others don't play that way. Even more clearly from looking at the top downloads on Steam most of the gaming community does not play that way.

It's sad, because the Strategy forum could be a useful resource for modders to improve various aspects of the game. Instead, it's just a place where you get told how you are wrong, a lot. No thanks
Yes, you basically have 5-6 civs that you can play and 2-3 strategies (all end up in the same start, workers, sell, sell, sell, sell luxuries, buy up settlers/workers, beeline CB and then NC/Universities).

obviously civ as ervery other game got a optimal way of playing it - deening or even discussing that is flat out dumb - thats just the nature of games.

At the same time u can win a game of civ again - as every other game - by not playing the optimal way.

Moderator Action: 'Flat out dumb' is a trollish way to phrase yourself, when you're implying that description may apply to other forum members.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Hambil]

Nobody is denying there is an optimal way to play the game. Personal I think that optimal way represents deep, deep flaws in the game design, forcing players to ignore 1/2 the best features of the game to win, but that's a personal choice. However, choosing to play in a way I enjoy, since it's as single player game, is hardly dumb. If someone was actually trying to kill me and I was using poor methods to survive that would be dumb. But newflash, nobody is really trying to kill me; it's actually just (gasp) a game.

 

[The Pilgrim]

What I am not found of is how so many number crunchers seem to think it's the only way to play the game.

How many?

Some lack of tolerance is evident on both sides. Pretty equally I'd say.

 

[Hambil]

How many?

Some lack of tolerance is evident on both sides. Pretty equally I'd say.

I love number crunchers. They have so much useful information to give. Unfortunately they often don't see value in what I want to do with that information (like use it to improve automation and micromanagement. E.g. A mod that automatically upgrades units (semi-smartly) or automatically fulfills I love the King Day requests if it can...

 

[The Pilgrim]

I love number crunchers. They have so much useful information to give. Unfortunately they often don't see value in what I want to do with that information (like use it to improve automation and micromanagement. E.g. A mod that automatically upgrades units (semi-smartly) or automatically fulfills I love the King Day requests if it can...

Like I said before, using such kind of info for modding is not the first thing that comes to people's mind. If you explain your intentions, you won't be told 'how you're wrong'.
People have different interests. Not everybody can fully appreciate your effort if they don't share the same interest. So what? That's just life. I'm pretty sure there are more players that appreciate mods than those turned on by prebuild technique or tight MM for perfect SP timing.

 

[Browd]

I love number crunchers. They have so much useful information to give. Unfortunately they often don't see value in what I want to do with that information (like use it to improve automation and micromanagement. E.g. A mod that automatically upgrades units (semi-smartly) or automatically fulfills I love the King Day requests if it can...

Well, I suppose that's to be expected in a forum that, for the most part, aims to help players make "better" decisions for themselves. Better automation is certainly useful for many players, but just doesn't feel consistent with what this subforum is about, since players relying on automation (whether the automation is good or bad) aren't forced to improve that part of their game. Since improved skill is sort of the point of this subforum, you're going to see frequent "don't automate" cautions and not a lot of love for automation projects. Goes with the territory.

 

[kirbdog]

I'd like to disagree. The better our understanding of the strategy, the more capable we should be of putting it into algorithmic form, to the point where the highest aim of a strategic theorist would be to replicate his strategy perfectly in instructions that could be executed by a computer. Put the opposite way, the lowest aim of a strategic theorist is to be able to play the game but not be able to say a thing about the how and why of what he did to win. The only way to escape this conclusion is to rely on the premise that a computer isn't able to make these decisions as well as a human player, which, while practically true, for the foreseeable future, is also most likely not true in the theoretical sense.

In other words, being able to explain how to play to a person naturally extends to being able to program how to play to a computer. The latter just evinces an even deeper level of understanding, if it were to be effective.

 

[BSPollux]

obviously civ as ervery other game got a optimal way of playing it - deening or even discussing that is flat out dumb - thats just the nature of games.

Wrong.

The goal of a game is to entertain people. But diffrent people enjoy diffrent things. So the optimal way of playing any given game is diffrent from person to person. There is never one perfect way. *

You shouldnt be calling everything and everyone dumb. At least not when you are making an ovious mistake in the very same sentence.

*Edit: Thats the whole reason for this thread btw

 

[kirbdog]

Not to mention that the implied goal of the game, based on victory screens and the hall of fame--to get a high score when winning--has already been replaced as a goal by many members of the forum for another one, i.e., to get a low turn count when winning, it is no small stretch to imagine that there are other fun ways of playing the game, with differing objectives.

 

[PimpmyCiv]

Wrong.

The goal of a game is to entertain people. But diffrent people enjoy diffrent things. So the optimal way of playing any given game is diffrent from person to person. There is never one perfect way. *

You shouldnt be calling everything and everyone dumb. At least not when you are making an ovious mistake in the very same sentence.

*Edit: Thats the whole reason for this thread btw

I'd point tommynt is only 'wrong' or making an 'obvious mistake' if we are going to argue over the semantics of the use of the term optimal.

He is clearly using it in a different way than how you are. (ie. optimal is the most efficient route vs optimal being the most enjoyable route)

And if thats the reason for the thread, I find the entire creation of this thread to be amazingly ironic....

 

[Moriarte]

You shouldnt be calling everything and everyone dumb. At least not when you are making an ovious mistake in the very same sentence.

He isn't saying you're dumb. That's the conclusion you guys deducted on your own. He is saying that every game has a route, which is most optimal for fast finish time. Denying that fact, he says, is dumb. Also, it is dumb to assume there is just one way of playing this game.

It's also a doubtfully good idea to create a thread to draw an imaginary line between people who share passion for the game just to express your personal dissatisfaction with historical inaccuracy of some of the mechanics.

 

[GhostSalsa]

Oh yes, agreed. I was referring to the moderator action

Oh, sorry for misunderstanding. Leftover defensiveness from the words about intelligence being thrown around upthread.

 

[BSPollux]

He isn't saying you're dumb. That's the conclusion you guys deducted on your own. He is saying that every game has a route, which is most optimal for fast finish time. Denying that fact, he says, is dumb. Also, it is dumb to assume there is just one way of playing this game.

No, he didnt say that. he said "obviously civ as ervery other game got a optimal way of playing it"

An optimal way of playing it. Not 'best way of beating it fast', not 'most efficient', not 'most likely to win', just 'best way of playing'. He decided how the game is to be played and he decided that everyone who doesnt agree with his decission is dumb.

 

[Hambil]

I'd point tommynt is only 'wrong' or making an 'obvious mistake' if we are going to argue over the semantics of the use of the term optimal.

He is clearly using it in a different way than how you are. (ie. optimal is the most efficient route vs optimal being the most enjoyable route)

And if thats the reason for the thread, I find the entire creation of this thread to be amazingly ironic....

The fact that the two posters have different ideas of optimal, sort of proves the point of the OP.

Optimal means: Most desirable or satisfactory.

 

[PimpmyCiv]

The fact that the two posters have different ideas of optimal, sort of proves the point of the OP.

Optimal means: Most desirable or satisfactory.

And here is another:

the greatest degree or best result obtained or obtainable under specific conditions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/optimum

And here is an example of the word in use:

An example of optimal used as an adjective is in the phrase "optimal score," which means the highest score someone can get on a game.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/optimal

like I said - its a matter in semantics.

 

[Hambil]

An example of optimal used as an adjective is in the phrase "optimal score," which means the highest score someone can get on a game.

I could also say: "An example of optimal used as an adjective is in the phrase "optimal enjoyment," which means the highest enjoyment someone can get from a game."
The problem is not one of semantics, it's one of narrow and inflammatory usage.

 

[tommynt]

Now I have gotten u guys

Actually some here want argue that the optimal way isnt the most fun way to play the game. But then you should just use the word "fun" and not "optimal".

Obviously some1 can have great fun playing and beating prince ai by whatever he wants to do. But that just doesnt mean he is playing "optimal"

 

[PimpmyCiv]

I could also say: "An example of optimal used as an adjective is in the phrase "optimal enjoyment," which means the highest enjoyment someone can get from a game."
The problem is not one of semantics, it's one of narrow and inflammatory usage.

You are absolutely right. Except the narrow and infalmmatory usage completely depends on which side of the interpretation you are sitting on - again the semantics are the issue.