@ElliotS vs @nj666 06.01.2018: Discussion, speculations, AAR

[Gokudo01]

This thread is amusing

 

[CrabHelmet]

I say best of 5.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

I mostly agree with what Rauer said. Considering some of Nj's posts I had expected a fairly suboptimal level of play from him, but from what I've read and seen of the games, he significantly exceeded my expectations, so for that I'll admit I was wrong and I extend my congratulations to him for winning the first game. I also congratulate Elliot for winning the second game, and I hope to see both players play with each other and with others in the future, because it's a good learning opportunity for myself to read about&watch MP games.

 

[RAuer2]

Honestly, Nj exceeded my expectations as well. I was really surprised when, as the second match was being played, I read that Elliot had lost the first one. For a moment I expected it to be a joke post, and then I scrolled down and yep, Nj really got the first one. I'd like to see a best of five like CrabHelmet suggests, but honestly I don't want to get into a "bragging rights" thing. What I mean is, if Nj lost a best of five and used feedback to improve his play, then that's constructive, right? But if he isn't open to feedback then we're just laughing about it here and that feels off to me.

I don't know, I am not sure I am making my point well and I am too tired atm to make the right words bubble up from my brain. I suppose Elliot and anyone else who was in the chat during the game would know the "tone" of it and if the matches were (and if more matches would be) constructive or not. Anyway, perhaps I misread Elliot's intentions in his post that I quoted; if so Elliot, then my bad.

 

[Gokudo01]

best of five or nothing

even 100th ATP can take one game to nadal but he can't beat him

 

[tu_79]

Honestly, Nj exceeded my expectations as well. I was really surprised when, as the second match was being played, I read that Elliot had lost the first one. For a moment I expected it to be a joke post, and then I scrolled down and yep, Nj really got the first one. I'd like to see a best of five like CrabHelmet suggests, but honestly I don't want to get into a "bragging rights" thing. What I mean is, if Nj lost a best of five and used feedback to improve his play, then that's constructive, right? But if he isn't open to feedback then we're just laughing about it here and that feels off to me.

I don't know, I am not sure I am making my point well and I am too tired atm to make the right words bubble up from my brain. I suppose Elliot and anyone else who was in the chat during the game would know the "tone" of it and if the matches were (and if more matches would be) constructive or not. Anyway, perhaps I misread Elliot's intentions in his post that I quoted; if so Elliot, then my bad.

What this game has taught us, is that human duel multiplayer has very little in common to a civ game. We're focusing on balancing gameplay for a game that is at least 20 hours long in solo mode. Trying to make every option significant and interesting. Where winning is an act of juggling several factors and many play styles are viable.

Duel maps are absourdily imbalanced towards domination.

 

[Deadstarre]

I think a pathfinder to scout zerg rush would beat either of them honestly. just pump out pathfinders, you get +%50 defense and heal every turn by the third promotion, ignoring all terrain so just dominating any warriors or archers, and can just go sit on enemies tiles so town can't work it or improve anything... its really stupid way to play civ, but if these are the settings and you want a W lol

 

[ElliotS]

I think a pathfinder to scout zerg rush would beat either of them honestly. just pump out pathfinders, you get +%50 defense and heal every turn by the third promotion, ignoring all terrain so just dominating any warriors or archers, and can just go sit on enemies tiles so town can't work it or improve anything... its really stupid way to play civ, but if these are the settings and you want a W lol

Maybe on standard speed, on epic it would take too long. Your pathfinders would get merced by horsemen much earlier.

Also it can take a bit to promote your paths/scouts aside from the first two, during which time they're lambs to the slaughter.

It might work against the AI, but I doubt even NJ would allow you to get any scouts other than your first 1 or 2 to level 2.

I mostly agree with what Rauer said. Considering some of Nj's posts I had expected a fairly suboptimal level of play from him, but from what I've read and seen of the games, he significantly exceeded my expectations, so for that I'll admit I was wrong and I extend my congratulations to him for winning the first game. I also congratulate Elliot for winning the second game, and I hope to see both players play with each other and with others in the future, because it's a good learning opportunity for myself to read about&watch MP games.

NJ 100% exceeded my expectations. After seeing the turn 174 no military post I assumed he would be playing chieftain-level builder and not super aggressive. So combine that with not really taking into account how long it would take to get sailing on epic and the lack of barbarians to discourage ancient era war and it was very easy to lose the first one.

I don't think I'll lose another unless I get seriously screwed on strategics. (Or NJ decides to focus on mistakes they make instead of claiming everything they lose to is OP.) NJ's military strategy is full of missed opportunities as is their regular strategy. Building a granary was a very poor choice for a game like this. Going sailing was as well, in a game-mode that basically boils down to "uncontested horsemen/elephants win".

 

[Deadstarre]

Maybe on standard speed, on epic it would take too long. Your pathfinders would get merced by horsemen much earlier.

Also it can take a bit to promote your paths/scouts aside from the first two, during which time they're lambs to the slaughter.

It might work against the AI, but I doubt even NJ would allow you to get any scouts other than your first 1 or 2 to level 2.

i think it works because it's epic.. theres no way i'd let opponent keep an improved horse tile. i meant like 6 or 7 pathfinders, who gives a sh*t about supply penalty even its nothing. pathfinders are only weak to barbarians and they'd level fine cause theyre healing faster too. really I wish i could try it lol but dont think my install is compatible for mp

 

[CrazyG]

i think it works because it's epic.. theres no way i'd let opponent keep an improved horse tile. i meant like 6 or 7 pathfinders, who gives a sh*t about supply penalty even its nothing. pathfinders are only weak to barbarians and they'd level fine cause theyre healing faster too. really I wish i could try it lol but dont think my install is compatible for mp

I settle directly on horses in duel, even for standard speed. Its basically just a horse race, with some opportunities to make gains by deviating to archers or spearmen

 

[Deadstarre]

I settle directly on horses in duel

that would potentially be monkey wrench in plan lmao

edit: wait a second, thats assuming horses were revealed. they dont come till you get the tech. how you know where to settle 1st city? =)

 

[Paramecium]

that would potentially be monkey wrench in plan lmao

edit: wait a second, thats assuming horses were revealed. they dont come till you get the tech. how you know where to settle 1st city? =)

I think he meant settling a second or more city on horse, like nj did in match 1.

 

[CrazyG]

I think he meant settling a second or more city on horse, like nj did in match 1.

Exactly.

Normally you might want to work the horse tile, or consider long term city positioning, but in duel the game is so short it doesn't matter

 

[Deadstarre]

I think he meant settling a second or more city on horse, like nj did in match 1.

blech, good luck getting through the wall of pathfinders by then. i can't see letting a settler escape in any possible way, no escort would keep it safe to his destination when they're all ignoring terrain. but again, these are just my thoughts on how to play that Duel and unfortunately I have no means to prove it to anyone or i would =)

 

[Rekk]

In other words, standard barbarians are a necessity?

 

[ElliotS]

In other words, standard barbarians are a necessity?

It certainly makes it much harder to do anything militarily. They're super vicious on duel, and trying to wage an early war with barbarians to your back requires a larger advantage.

I think it helps, but I've only played duel against a human twice and had it neither time.