No, it really doesn't. Words like dumb and dick will inflame people. Not complicated. We could have been discussing anything and the thread would have been derailed by the same words.
Conflict between RPG players and numbercrunshers
- Thread starter BSPollux
- Start date
Wow, this thread really went downhill since last I checked it.
The only thing I will add is to remind people to keep perspective. The majority of players do not play on the higher levels and do not "crunch the numbers". This isn't only for Civ5, but goes for any game.
On the flip-side, those that tend to put more time into a game are typically the ones that end up breaking down the game and tend to become a vocal minority, since the majority are off playing other games or putting their time to other use, only coming back to play once and a while.
As awesome as it would be to create video games for a living, I really do not envy game developers. The balancing act of trying to please the different parts of their fan-base while maintaining a strong image and brand seems a near impossible task. I'd say overall Civ5 does a decent job of the balancing act, although maybe a bit too streamlined (dumbed down) for some folk. Of course now I'm just tempting all the anti-Civ5 folk to join in on this thread and create even more conflict
The only thing I will add is to remind people to keep perspective. The majority of players do not play on the higher levels and do not "crunch the numbers". This isn't only for Civ5, but goes for any game.
On the flip-side, those that tend to put more time into a game are typically the ones that end up breaking down the game and tend to become a vocal minority, since the majority are off playing other games or putting their time to other use, only coming back to play once and a while.
As awesome as it would be to create video games for a living, I really do not envy game developers. The balancing act of trying to please the different parts of their fan-base while maintaining a strong image and brand seems a near impossible task. I'd say overall Civ5 does a decent job of the balancing act, although maybe a bit too streamlined (dumbed down) for some folk. Of course now I'm just tempting all the anti-Civ5 folk to join in on this thread and create even more conflict
I thought you were referring to the use of 'optimal' not his articulation. I'll give you it was hardly the best way to pass on ones point.
whyidie
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,187
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"
Your signature is optimal. Your above post is not.
What are you attempting to optimize ? Fast turn times as in your sig ? "Fun" ? Score ? How to lose to the AI ? The optimal way to play changes depending on the desired outcome.
eris
King
I support the use of "optimal" in this context. "Optimal", "optimized", "min-max" and other terms are gamer concepts that apply to Civ as well as they do to many other games. (and some life situations) They are especially relevant here on game forums, basically a form of technical jargon, a way to describe accurately what some of us do and many of us just aspire to.
However, it is a term that describes a certain style of play. The terms and attitudes I will always object to are the ones that tend to describe people.
I do play for fun more than anything, but do not consider my play style to be optimum, just entertaining. To be honest, I am mostly too lazy to be as good as I know I could be. Not that I would come anywhere close to most people here, no matter how much I actually tried. You people are scary good.
However, it is a term that describes a certain style of play. The terms and attitudes I will always object to are the ones that tend to describe people.
I do play for fun more than anything, but do not consider my play style to be optimum, just entertaining. To be honest, I am mostly too lazy to be as good as I know I could be. Not that I would come anywhere close to most people here, no matter how much I actually tried. You people are scary good.
Optimal depends (as has been said in this thread) on what the desired outcome is. Using it to describe only _one_ measure in a multi faceted game (turn count in this case) is what causes the "issue" described in the OP.
LoneRebel
Emperor
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"
And others have already pointed out that maybe your idea of optimal isn't their idea of optimal.
I am fine with playing on Prince since that is the "normal" difficulty of the game, and even then the AI already has advantages. I have other things to do with my time than figure out ways to defeat massively cheating AIs (actually just the same 3 or 4 strategies every time). That said, I might move up every now and then, since often on Prince I have felt that the AI is about to win, only to find out after I won that they were still a long way from winning.
So if a lot of people (majority?) share your opinion - where from come all the "best civ" "best sp path" "best ..." threads this forum is flooded with?
Why is there every 2 hours another thread from some dude who think he found out a new "best way".
If people d "just play for fun" there was 0 point of even looking for a forum to discuss the game - u d just play. Instead people compare their gamestyles , ask for and give advice for improving, think about different stragtegies and some even go play mp to see how they do vs humans.
I mean I do agree that game is made for average "just want have fun" joe, but again he doesnt play opimal and he is proly not even looking into this forum.
Agree with Tommy on this one. Dragging out various dictionary definitions of "optimal" is just not productive or relevant in a Strategy & Tips forum. Some folks in General Discussions are asking questions about how to have more fun with the game, but most posts here are from folks looking for tips on how to be more efficient and effective in their game play, which usually means getting more done, more quickly. By this standard, optimal play is efficient play, and efficient play should translate into earlier finish times.
As for the point made in an earlier post about score being the game's own yardstick of success rather than finish time (just try sorting the in-game HOF table by finish time), there clearly are folks who are driven by score, rather than finish time, but IMO deliberately stalling an otherwise quick victory to increase one's score is not optimal (i.e., not efficient) play. Others will disagree, as is their right and privilege.
As for the point made in an earlier post about score being the game's own yardstick of success rather than finish time (just try sorting the in-game HOF table by finish time), there clearly are folks who are driven by score, rather than finish time, but IMO deliberately stalling an otherwise quick victory to increase one's score is not optimal (i.e., not efficient) play. Others will disagree, as is their right and privilege.
whyidie
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,187
More semantics, but its a sub-forum. Strategy and tips are separate from General discussion for a reason. I don't got to that forum to ask about how to better immerse myself in the game world. I go there when I want to understand the game mechanics better. Even on that point its not necessarily to have faster turn times.
Not necessarily. The commonality is we want to understand a mechanic. The difference is to what end. I rarely see someone prefacing a post in General Discussion with "I want faster turn times". Its more of "how do I stop AI waging war" or "how do I make my population happy".
I want huge pop capitol. Optimizers like it because big pop means big science, which means lower turn times. I want it because I want a huge bleeping capitol. I know, I'm a ding dong. I don't really have a plan. Its just get big pop. Bigger than the AI.
Diplomacy is confounding. Optimizers want to understand it so they can figure out how AI relations can help them with turn times. I want to understand it so I can get Egypt to wipe out England. Or so I can wage war without being a warmonger. Not much in terms of planning, but its what I want to do in that game.
Religion. Optimizers again want to understand how it can be used to finish games faster. I'll read Browds dissection of it because I want to make my people happy so I can go as tall and wide as I possibly can. Or maybe the next game I want to have the entire world following my religion.
So yes, the majority of posters want to understand more about how the game works. But I don't think they go into it with the goal of "so I can finish my game quicker".
The Pilgrim
Deity
While I agree about S&T and really hope it'll maintain its identity as a subforum dedicated to pure strategy and 'crunching numbers', the scope of this discussion is broader than just S&T. Optimum simply does not exists without specific goal and fast finish is just as arbitrary goal as size 100 capital.
whyidie
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,187
Completely agree. When I want to know what people think general discussion fits the bill. When I want to know what people know S&T is the place to be.
Ok, I'd like to come back to one of my original questions:
Do you think that it is a good thing that Civ is trying to satisfy everyone?
Right now it seems they try to make a 'normal game' that is somewhat realistic, but ignores real depth in favor for a well adjustable AI. Here I'd like to remind you to the threads in which people say something like "sounds like a nice possible feature, but I doubt the AI will know how to use it".
Would Civ be better if Firaxis decided to go for one direction instead? Either realism/narrative gameplay or strategical challenge?
Do you think that it is a good thing that Civ is trying to satisfy everyone?
Right now it seems they try to make a 'normal game' that is somewhat realistic, but ignores real depth in favor for a well adjustable AI. Here I'd like to remind you to the threads in which people say something like "sounds like a nice possible feature, but I doubt the AI will know how to use it".
Would Civ be better if Firaxis decided to go for one direction instead? Either realism/narrative gameplay or strategical challenge?
I believe it would be better.
More strategy way would please strategy players, more RPG would please RPG players.
Are there players who like a little RPG and a little strategy?
Of course the goal of the seller is to sell more. But never forget that some vocal minorities can be
very important: they help to sell the next product.
More strategy way would please strategy players, more RPG would please RPG players.
Are there players who like a little RPG and a little strategy?
Of course the goal of the seller is to sell more. But never forget that some vocal minorities can be
very important: they help to sell the next product.
The Pilgrim
Deity
Not exactly. Game mechanics questions still belong to GD. How to use the mechanics efficiently (in a sense Tommy and Browd use) belongs to S&T.
Good for Firaxis, bad for me.
whyidie
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,187
True.
Similar threads
