Deity wins since last patch

[Muderers_Muse]

I've been lurking about for a while and noticed an increase in the number of players claiming to win on Deity since the last patch and subsequent hotfixes.

I'm just wondering what's caused this increase? Alright so the numbers are more balanced now between the victory types but surely this would make it harder to achieve a Deity win? With one victory condition not being far easier than the others the likelihood is you're going to be toe to toe with your opponents for a longer period of time...

Is it all coming down to this courthouse bug? I've seen threads discussing strategy around using this bug, and in all honesty it perplexes me beyond belief... Why would people create strategies around bugs? When they're fixed you then have to relearn the game, also where is the enjoyment of winning something when using such a massive exploit? I'm guessing just for the bragging rights of being a 'Deity Player'...

 

[starrywisdom]

I haven't seen this huge increase in which you speak of. That being said Deity is slightly easier in the last patch, and it has nothing to do with bugs/exploits.

 

[Muderers_Muse]

I haven't seen this huge increase in which you speak of. That being said Deity is slightly easier in the last patch, and it has nothing to do with bugs/exploits.

I didn't say 'huge' increase. There has been an increase, especially with regards to culture victories... I'm not saying everyone on here and there grandmothers are getting Deity victories, just that more people seem to be claiming them since the patch...

So since the last patch the fact that an annexed city produces NO unhappiness what-so-ever could have nothing to do with the increase in deity wins?

I would tend to disagree on Deity wins being easier, (unless of course you use this courthouse bug in which case you may as well play on settler,) although that would depend on your play style, I tend to play a cultural game which are now considerably slower than they were pre-patch, not that it's a bad thing.

 

[Truthy]

I haven't noticed this nor have I won on deity.

 

[starrywisdom]

I didn't say 'huge' increase. There has been an increase, especially with regards to culture victories... I'm not saying everyone on here and there grandmothers are getting Deity victories, just that more people seem to be claiming them since the patch...

So since the last patch the fact that an annexed city produces NO unhappiness what-so-ever could have nothing to do with the increase in deity wins?

I would tend to disagree on Deity wins being easier, although that would depend on your play style, I tend to play a cultural game which are now considerably slower than they were pre-patch, not that it's a bad thing.

Of course there will be an increase, as time goes by more and more people will win on diety - so pointing it out seems unnecessary.

No, I doubt that it has anything to do with the bug. If you weren't capable of winning on deity pre-patch, the happiness bug will probably not help you.

 

[ArcaneSeraph]

I would say the game has become harder post patch in Deity for fair play... meaning play that does not abuse AI weaknesses. However the patch has made one AI weakness 2x worse than it was before. So for people that know how to use those things to their advantage, the game is still just as easy as before, if not easier.

1. The combat AI is still poor. Rushing an AI player with iron units, or a UU, or even just numbers and GG will almost always be successful.

2. RAs no longer require blocking and, thanks to the PT and Rationalism, now provide the player twice the benefit the AIs get. So an already exploitable mechanism has been made worse.

3. The AI, which has a ton of money, still spends it like they are drunk on things they have no use for whatsoever. This feeds into early catch-up strategies and later on RA spam strategies.

If you aren't overly abusing these tactics, deity remains quite a challenge. I often try to play a no-RA, peaceful game myself.

 

[Muderers_Muse]

Of course there will be an increase, as time goes by more and more people will win on diety - so pointing it out seems unnecessary.

No, I doubt that it has anything to do with the bug. If you weren't capable of winning on deity pre-patch, the happiness bug will probably not help you.

Right, fair point. They seemed to be all coming through following the last patch though, more so than usual. Maybe not hundreds as you seem to think I thought, but an increase none the less... I thought it seemed a bit suspect, maybe I'm just reading into it too much. Maybe everyone is like me and has stopped playing until this bug is fixed as it's pretty game breaking so they've got more time to spend lurking the forum.

On your second point there... I guess you've never played Civ5 then? Happiness is a pretty big mechanic and in all honest having 5 or 6 hubs (even 1 is enough to make a difference) not taking down your happiness and actually INCREASING the amount of happiness your empire produces would throw you into golden ages a lot quicker... I mean... Well I guess some people just struggle to see the broader picture.

 

[starrywisdom]

On your second point there... I guess you've never played Civ5 then? Happiness is a pretty big mechanic and in all honest having 5 or 6 hubs (even 1 is enough to make a difference) not taking down your happiness and actually INCREASING the amount of happiness your empire produces would throw you into golden ages a lot quicker... I mean... Well I guess some people just struggle to see the broader picture.

I didn't say the bug was big, I said that if you couldn't win on diety pre-patch you probably can't post patch. There is more to deity then happiness. In fact, I never have EVER had a problem with happiness on any difficulty. Deity isn't hard because of happiness, in fact if you have trouble with said mechanic on deity - you probably aren't going to win on deity. Unhappiness is very...very easy to overcome and the extra happiness granted from the current courthouse bug can help you into golden ages quicker - but it's not going to magically make your grand strategy good enough to win on deity if you couldn't pre-patch. That being said, golden ages aren't going to make/break you, I would guess that the bug MIGHT generate 1 extra golden age later in the game(cumulative) but that is hardly going to make an unwinnable situation winnable.

 

[ColinTH]

Of course there will be an increase, as time goes by more and more people will win on diety - so pointing it out seems unnecessary.

I am sure the game designers take note of what they read on this forum and with every patch I am sure they try to produce a Deity level that only the truly elite players could possibly win, unfortunately for them they have left a very exploitable bug thus allowing many of us to jump on the band-wagon! The courthouse subject has been covered very extensively in the thread started by Mikkow, and one or two forum members are sugesting the bug has been there since before the patch but has only truly come to light post patch.
As far as the Golden Ages are concerned I am sure the op was not infering they are the be all and end all but merely an added bonus!

Arcane Seraph - I agree that if we get PT & Rationalism, then RAs are probably less micro management than pre patch. As far as I am concerned the game has been designed this way, and for us to make best use of RAs is not abuse!
AI combat might be very poor, but on Deity you may have to withstand quite a few of their rushes before you get your chance, and if you are playing Pangea or continents you don't have much of an option, so again not abuse!
I totally agree - The AI don't know how to spend their money.

Murderers_Muse - I have also seen a few posters highlighting their first Deity wins which have been achieved post patch. I personally can't get a Deity cultural victory post patch, I either get conquered and loose or have to settle for a Tech victory! It does seem that some forum members have no problem with a Deity culture victory!

 

[ArcaneSeraph]

Arcane Seraph - I agree that if we get PT & Rationalism, then RAs are probably less micro management than pre patch. As far as I am concerned the game has been designed this way, and for us to make best use of RAs is not abuse!

I guess I consider getting 6 - 8 free techs every 30 turns basically for exchanging your excess luxuries, strategics, and open borders for gold kind of exploitive. What kind of to ratio is that anyways? Like 20 : 1? The fact that you can use this kind of tactic to launch the space ship or build the UN 200 - 300 turns before the natural end of the game also seems exploitive considering if you had to hard tech your way through you'd never do it anywhere near as close.

AI combat might be very poor, but on Deity you may have to withstand quite a few of their rushes before you get your chance, and if you are playing Pangea or continents you don't have much of an option, so again not abuse!

Watch the LPs of either MadDjinn or Wainy. Wainy takes over 2 empires with pretty much nothing but bowmen by 0AD, with just 1 self built very small capital. He got a very late NC and didn't rush to education, was DoWed several times but still was keeping up reasonably well in all categories. An easy win. MadDjinn similarly conquered how many different empires with nothing but a handful of legions and I think a ballistae or two. Despite the fact the AI had better tech and he was fighting against mohawks and Siam's elephants. They had equal or superior troops and in greater numbers but they fell quite easily.

Not to take anything away from them by any means but were their tactics somehow brilliant? Not really. They just advanced slowly, took out what they could without great risks and conquered in a short period of time. No mixed troops or fancy manuevering or countering enemy units or any of that.

So whether either of these two problems are abuse or not is up to the player themselves. I find any random game when I employ either one of these two tactics quite trivial so thus I consider them abusive myself.

 

[snarzberry]

...The fact that you can use this kind of tactic to launch the space ship or build the UN 200 - 300 turns before the natural end of the game also seems exploitive considering if you had to hard tech your way through you'd never do it anywhere near as close.

This seems wrong to me as if left to their devices the deity AI will often win a peaceful victory at around this time, turn 300, which is similar to the range that you mention. If the AI wins the game that fast surely it could hardly be fair to say it's bad form for the player to do so.

...Watch the LPs of either MadDjinn or Wainy. Wainy takes over 2 empires with pretty much nothing but bowmen by 0AD, with just 1 self built very small capital. ...MadDjinn similarly conquered how many different empires with nothing but a handful of legions and I think a ballistae or two. Despite the fact the AI had better tech and he was fighting against mohawks and Siam's elephants. They had equal or superior troops and in greater numbers but they fell quite easily.

So whether either of these two problems are abuse or not is up to the player themselves. I find any random game when I employ either one of these two tactics quite trivial so thus I consider them abusive myself.

What exactly are you saying is exploitative/abusive? War?.

 

[Eyedea]

I'm fairly new to Civ V, but I went straight from winning on King to winning on Deity and it happened on the latest patch, it was also my first attempt and I couldn't compare it to anything.

 

[ColinTH]

Watch the LPs of either MadDjinn or Wainy. Wainy takes over 2 empires with pretty much nothing but bowmen by 0AD, with just 1 self built very small capital. He got a very late NC and didn't rush to education, was DoWed several times but still was keeping up reasonably well in all categories. An easy win. MadDjinn similarly conquered how many different empires with nothing but a handful of legions and I think a ballistae or two. Despite the fact the AI had better tech and he was fighting against mohawks and Siam's elephants. They had equal or superior troops and in greater numbers but they fell quite easily.

1 - These guys are the Elite players of their particular style of play, I don't watch their LPs, not because I don't need to, but because fully learning their tactics would take something away from the personal satisfaction I gain from playing Civ through the years. Maybe this is the answer to the OPs note that deity players are popping up and announcing themselves more frequently of late.

Texas Holdem poker (for real money) has been radically altered by Elite young players broadcasting their ideas and bullish play styles on the internet. Some of the old timers have fallen by the wayside because they havn't adjusted to the new style of play. I am an old timer Civ player, and frequently get lambasted on this site because I don't play the game in the same style as they have learned from the LPs they watch.

2 - A guy called vexing is another Elite player on this forum and he sees nothing wrong in using the RAs or Policy saving to full advantage. As snarzberry has said, Deity is there to be beaten and we have to take advantage where we can (if we don't we will fall by the wayside).

 

[LostInTime]

Wasn't there a CiV game with difficulty "Sid" above Deity? Maybe we need that back

If what you say is true, it's not necessarily a fault with Deity itself, but that there is room for another notch of difficulty.

 

[Eyedea]

Wasn't there a CiV game with difficulty "Sid" above Deity? Maybe we need that back

If what you say is true, it's not necessarily a fault with Deity itself, but that there is room for another notch of difficulty.

Yeah, it was a difficulty on Civ III, I believe..

 

[MadDjinn]

heh... Calling the 'AI combat mechanic' exploitive is a bit much there Arcane.

It's borken and has been for a very long time, but post-patch seems worse once you get past the initial rushes. (fail upgrade mechanic) That's not an exploit, that's a whole section of a game that needs a lot of (re)work.

So not fighting the AI would be a bad plan. (sorry, I know you aren't very bright, so I won't get in your way when you take my cities...)

RAs aren't exploits either. beaker/gold ratios only work if they have meaning. Given the AIs more aggressive play, they're a bit harder to keep as well, unless you're on an archi. map.


@ColinTH - you may want to watch the LPs before calling 'elite' Just because people put up games on YouTube channels != 'elite' play. (I never play optimally, for example)
- edit 2: oh, and I purposely put up LPs for people to 'learn' a little, or at least have a laugh. The grand plan is to have better competition once MP works and people get bored of SP.

back to the OP -

Is there more people claiming Deity wins post-patch? Not that I've seen. (I've seen more people have trouble with Deity and drop a level or so until figuring out the patch changes)

Is a culture win easier to get than any other win? Yeah. takes a bit longer, but it's the easiest win condition. (Sit in corner, make culture, use little bird to hit end turn)

So keep that in mind when you see those claims. Also, Duel map vs. Huge map is a big difference.

 

[ArcaneSeraph]

heh... Calling the 'AI combat mechanic' exploitive is a bit much there Arcane.

It's borken and has been for a very long time, but post-patch seems worse once you get past the initial rushes. (fail upgrade mechanic) That's not an exploit, that's a whole section of a game that needs a lot of (re)work.

So not fighting the AI would be a bad plan. (sorry, I know you aren't very bright, so I won't get in your way when you take my cities...)

Isn't that the very definition of an exploit? To take advantage of an element that you can use to garner profit from? Or one could say to exploit a game mechanic to one's advantage?

So fine... it's broken but not an exploit. Not really sure what the difference is but okay.

And I never suggested there was something immoral about it or for some reason let them take my cities over. I'm suggesting that it is extremely easy to conquer them for your own advantages. It's a great return on investment.

RAs aren't exploits either. beaker/gold ratios only work if they have meaning. Given the AIs more aggressive play, they're a bit harder to keep as well, unless you're on an archi. map.

I'm not sure I understand how saying you can get approx 20 research for 1 gold doesn't have meaning? It's by far and away the most efficient method of getting research there is. It costs you a heck of a lot more than 1 gold to get 20 research any other way.

But don't listen to me. Ask the top players:

"the PT is most important wonder you can get"
"Get 4 of 5 rounds of RAs"
"I usually grab that after my 4th round of RAs"
"You need 57 gold per turn to support those RAs"
"Don't build renaissance era buildings as they are inefficient and won't be around long enough to be profitable"
"Don't build happiness buildings, temples, etc as they are inefficient and won't be around long enough to be profitable"
"Any city that won't be around long enough to generate a GS isn't going to be useful"

Any mention of hard research? No... beyond the early game it's a tertiary factor.

So you can use 1 concept to completely overcome all the combined benefits the AIs have: larger empire, more population, more gold, more military, more production, more research.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the way people are playing. If you are having fun, that's great. What I am saying is I find it very boring to win routinely on the hardest difficulty using these tactics. All I want is a challenging game and using those methods does not produce one.

I remember in Civ IV one of the tactics you could use on higher difficulties went something like this. You got an early prophet and used him to rush civil service. You switched to the caste system to help you generate a second prophet while trying to spread your religion by establishing trade routes. You also tried to build things like the great lighthouse and the oracle, if you could, to speed this stuff along. You founded the center of religion and put all your gold buildings in there while continuing to establish trade to other empires to get them to like you (shared religion) and increase your gold / science profits. And even with all those synergistic elements, it was still a challenging game.. you still had to play really well to have a chance of winning.

What's the equivalent here? Build 7-8 of an early UU or 4 - 5 of iron and take over your neighbour. Or build the PT, open Rationalism, and use GSes and RAs to do 90% of your remaining research.

I miss the old days

 

[_hero_]

Isn't that the very definition of an exploit? To take advantage of an element that you can use to garner profit from? Or one could say to exploit a game mechanic to one's advantage?

I've always considered an exploit as using a game mechanic in a way that isn't intended by design. If simply doing something that you can "garner profit from" is exploitative then it would be impossible to win even on Chieftan without using "exploits" since population growth, building units or buildings, exploring, researching techs, adopting policies, earning gold each turn and winning battles are all elements of the game that "garner profit."

In the case of the combat, you don't really have many options to make it go differently other then using bad tactics. If you simply use good tactics (I.E. use the terrain, get proper upgrades, keep weak units in the back and heal them) then you'll win. You can't call it exploitative for simply doing what you're supposed to. Not the players fault that the AI is ********.

 

[MadDjinn]

Isn't that the very definition of an exploit? To take advantage of an element that you can use to garner profit from? Or one could say to exploit a game mechanic to one's advantage?

So fine... it's broken but not an exploit. Not really sure what the difference is but okay.

And I never suggested there was something immoral about it or for some reason let them take my cities over. I'm suggesting that it is extremely easy to conquer them for your own advantages. It's a great return on investment.

I consider something more 'exploit' when it's a mesh of properly coded functions/features that 'brings forth' the exploit. You also tend to have to 'find' the exploit before being able to use it.

broken means that an entire mechanic needs a full rewrite. It tends to be right there in your face.

I'm not sure I understand how saying you can get approx 20 research for 1 gold doesn't have meaning? It's by far and away the most efficient method of getting research there is. It costs you a heck of a lot more than 1 gold to get 20 research any other way.

But don't listen to me. Ask the top players:

"the PT is most important wonder you can get"
"Get 4 of 5 rounds of RAs"
"I usually grab that after my 4th round of RAs"
"You need 57 gold per turn to support those RAs"
"Don't build renaissance era buildings as they are inefficient and won't be around long enough to be profitable"
"Don't build happiness buildings, temples, etc as they are inefficient and won't be around long enough to be profitable"
"Any city that won't be around long enough to generate a GS isn't going to be useful"

Any mention of hard research? No... beyond the early game it's a tertiary factor.

So you can use 1 concept to completely overcome all the combined benefits the AIs have: larger empire, more population, more gold, more military, more production, more research.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the way people are playing. If you are having fun, that's great. What I am saying is I find it very boring to win routinely on the hardest difficulty using these tactics. All I want is a challenging game and using those methods does not produce one.

I remember in Civ IV one of the tactics you could use on higher difficulties went something like this.

What's the equivalent here? Build 7-8 of an early UU or 4 - 5 of iron and take over your neighbour. Or build the PT, open Rationalism, and use GSes and RAs to do 90% of your remaining research.

I miss the old days

Civ 4 - Tech trading. Done.

Great Scientists are far more versatile and useful than RAs. They are no risk and you don't need AIs/MP players to be at peace with you.

beakers for gold is a relative thing. 20 beakers for 1 gold? A university in a tall city can give you more than that.

RAs are rather powerful. You can't exploit something that's coded to do what it is intended to do. (as seen above) They even got changed to be less powerful than they were before.

Realistically, RAs are there to have the AI be able to keep up with the player after Renaissance. If they didn't use them, the player would GS bulb there way beyond the AI and out tech them by that point, no matter what the AI tries to do.

Besides: Don't blame the features that actually work for your lack of fun. Blame the ones that don't work yet (diplomacy/combat/happiness/etc) and therefore throw the balance of the game out the window.

 

[ArcaneSeraph]

Civ 4 - Tech trading. Done.

Except that you couldn't get massively ahead of the AIs with this. You still required your own research. Also its very hard to generate that many great scientists every 30 turns. You could never win by merely tech trading in Civ4. At best you could 'keep up'.

But this is all semantics anyways. Is it an exploit? Is it broken? What difference does it make? It's also the old argument: Do we lower the powerful concepts to bring balance or do we improve the weak ones to make them viable?

We have a differing opinion on what throws the balance game out of the window. I consider RAs that cost the same all the way through the game and replace need for most other science completely kind of odd... especially considering every other source of science comes an increasing cost all the way through the game. Consider the fact that players will even give gold to the AIs just to sign RAs with them. Does that not indicate that they are very cheap at the moment? If RAs were scaled and cost more, then that would fix many of the gold trading, balance issues IMO. A very simple fix. Whereas improving everything else would be much more challenging.

Realistically, RAs are there to have the AI be able to keep up with the player after Renaissance. If they didn't use them, the player would GS bulb there way beyond the AI and out tech them by that point, no matter what the AI tries to do.

Really? How many people didn't just say that you need to use RAs to keep up with AIs bonuses. Now they are using them to keep up with the player? And even if the player did, as you suggest, bulb their way through renaissance they'd still have to hard tech the rest of the way. It becomes progressively harder to generate GSes. RAs... well... not really.

Try the Deity Challenge 2. There are so many agressive AIs that no one is signing RAs. Yet the AIs are quite ahead in tech of the player.

Besides: Don't blame the features that actually work for your lack of fun. Blame the ones that don't work yet (diplomacy/combat/happiness/etc) and therefore throw the balance of the game out the window.

I'm free to blame whatever I choose to, actually, just as you are. Some people like a warmonger game and hate building. Others love building and hate war. Is one of them right and the other wrong? Of course not. I don't like RAs. You do. That's fine... but it doesn't make me wrong.