Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by 2K Greg, Dec 10, 2010.
Oh? And what proof do you have for these outrageous claims?
You should ask the poster I replied to.
No. His post can be backed up; The vast majority who post on the subject do indeed like 1upt.
Your post, however, makes the outrageous claim of a "silent majority" who despises it. With no evidence.
Hell, there's even evidence to the contrary. People on this forum have a habit of finding absolutely anything they can find in Civ5 to complain about. I find the concept of a "silent majority" disliking a feature a quite ridiculous concept.
Yeah, well there's a large silent majority that thinks I'm awesome and I should be king of the world.
Point: "Silent majority" is a cheap way to make it seem like there's a lot more that agree with you. You should argue for your side based on factual points and logic.
Well, there have been endless claims of many how the "easy to beat" SOD has trashed the previous game for them.
Seems that a strong portion of players was facing quite some difficulties with stacks.
Actually, I agree that stacks in Civ4 didn't impose much of a threat to you.
What I don't agree to is the statement that Civ5's socalled "1upt" is of more strategical or tactical depth.
It is though, tedious to have to manouvre your army manually.
I understand that this less a problem on smaller maps, where even your opponents typically have less units.
On huge maps you will have to have quite some troops and you will have to move them from one front to the other. And this movement is not "challenging", it is just boring and badly designed.
Oh, this forum is filled with posts claiming "I like 1upt, if only civilian units could stack."/"I like 1upt if only they wouldn't block each other."
And so on.
Actually, at least a very significant minority (and my perception is that it is closer to being a majority) dislikes the previous SoD. But they see the flaws in the "1upt" system as well, and they dislike it, too.
And finally, "1upt" is not 1upt. There is stacking, for both, civilian and military and military and military units. Even a "General" had to be made a civilian unit to make the system somehow work.
This system is a farce.
Internet communications are soooo weird at times... we have some upcoming patch notes to comment about and the current thread turns into a catfight for 1upT concept tanking & what else.
It's not about staying On-Topic or not, it's about freedom of expression slowly turning into a fistful fight of opinions.
Anyhow, where were we?
Hence I called it a vocal minority. Very vocal. Like yourself. You can only hear your voice, can't you? And even that, barely.
Moderator Action: Trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
so the new happiness cap means...
(natural wonders+luxuries*5+base happiness)/(unhappiness per city) = max amount of cities without unhappiness
Maybe 80 absolute max?
So should you, my friend, so should you. There is nothing to support your statement. Or, to put it in another way, your statement is as good as mine.
You can pull Reagan-esque silent majorities if you want. It becomes clear that the one thing opponents of Civ5 are not, it's silent. I've argued before that there's a silent majority of people who are happy with the game and I've pointed to Steam play statistics, but I don't think there's any point going down this path. The point is neither one of us has evidence on what the silent people think and neither one of us every will.
Now they made hapiness local, so only unhapiness is global.
Great. What was the point of having global hapiness at all?
Be careful it's wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority
I need them to patch in some tile diversity. Tiles and their enhancements are FUBAR.
Clown College FTW.
Luxuries, natural wonders, national wonders, and world wonders. Are those examples of local happiness?
EDIT: Crap, Nixon-esque. Sorry I said Reagan. Nixon makes more sense anywhere because we're talking about the counter-cultural revolution.
No. There is not a single piece of evidence as to what the "Silent Majority" believes. All the evidence would be the posts and polls on the subject, on this and other forums. The vast majority of these show support for 1upt; They may contain small complaints, but overwhelmingly, the feeling is that it is an improvement over SoD warfare.
Once again, the very concept of a "silent majority" which finds fault with anything in Civ5 is laughable. This forum in particular is a haven for those who will find fault in absolutely everything to do with civ5; They are far from silent. Yet even many of the detractors have admitted that they prefer 1upt to SoD.
Please, back up your point with actual evidence of any kind, and your posts will be taken seriously. Until then, feel free to continue with the hyperbole as you have been doing.
Beat me to it, roi. Nixon also makes more sense because he bathed in paranoia.
I've been posting lately on games played with mods that roughly approximate the upcoming patch. In them I've found that lux-REX at Immortal seems to succeed no matter the size of your civ. But someone posted earlier about alternatively going for a science center capital right from the start, and I'm looking forward to trying that.
LOL - I thought it was Reagan too. It might be too, Wikipedia is filled with idiot know-it-alls. Coincidentally, I was wiki-reading about Nixon last night. First his enemies list, but then on into his presidency. He was not a bad president. But wikipedia might be lying again.
If anything though, I think the Silent Majority for Civ are the people who play the game and don't post on the forums. I don't know if they are hooked or not. If they like it or not. But they are the silent majority. I don't even know if the silent majority knows what 1UPT is.
I feel bad for them when the game gets changed. They might not even know that SP storing was an ethical problem, and now they are going to play and realize they can't do that anymore because some know-it-all on the boards started posting about how "wrong" it is.
I just checked, Nixon created the phrase, but Reagan used it as well (Reagan basically ran on the idea of a backlash, where all the people who thought the late 60s, early 70s went way too far).
I think there are two theories for what CFC represents. One is that we're a proportionate sample of Civ fans. In that case, the percentage of vocal people represent how every else feels. The other is we're the tips of two icebergs. We're the people who feel strongly in either direction. If the majority like the game, but don't love it enough to post that they just merely like it, they wouldn't be represented (with the exception of old timers, who were here for other games). Under this theory, whoever is the loudest about an issue doesn't necessarily represent the largest group, just the group with the stronger feelings.
Of course, using this theory, it's possible that the majority of people like, but don't love Civ5. It's also possible that the majority are ambivalent, but don't hate 1upt. Or it could mean none of these things, who knows if this theory is even right.
And one of the reasons has been mentioned in this thread (where I think this particular discussion should be continued):
First: Fixed for you.
Second: There is a silent majority that wanted to elect me Dictator for life back in '08.
Third: "A silent majority" how can Firaxis listen to a silent majority? A silent majority has NO INFLUENCE. Remember this.
I think the last sentence is key here. 1upt is definitely seen by most as an improvement over SoDs. However, I can't say that I get the impression that most people think 1upt was the best solution to the problem. I'm sure most people are quite happy to go with 1upt as one of the possible alternatives to SoDs, simply because it is something other than SoDs, but I'm also pretty sure most people would be more than happy to either alter some aspects of 1upt or go for an entirely different solution altogether.
Separate names with a comma.