Giant Death Robot in Civ !?

[Buccaneer]

That's not how statistics work.

Cheers, LT.

Methinks he ought to look up statistical sampling in wiki.

 

[StittsvilleJame]

I believe Firaxis when they say GDR's are in the game for balance.

If you think about 1upt, and the tactical nature of war, and the fact units don't die super easy, if you didn't have one unit which would turn the tide of the wars, the game would turn into an endless grind of throwing cannon fodder at one another until the turn timer ran out.

Spending hours waging wars that can't be won by the time the turn timer runs out is no fun.

I fully support the inclusion of the unit.

I also feel that even the people who voted to remove the unit realize this fact, and are only against the GDR because of it's name, and it's graphical representation.

Nobody is against having unrealistic things in the game. Not in a game in which victory conditions include faster than light travel (space victory) , world peace(Utopia wonder), or elected world government (UN wonder).

All the victory conditions are fantastical. The Conquest victory now also includes a fantastical thing.

 

[Perfection]

So Zhahz is wrong but you are right, right?

I think so. People are looking at the unit cost and thinking it's huge, and in a way it is, but remember, units in general are more expensive. It's not that much more expensive then modern armor (IIRC that's 400)

So they decided they needed a more powerful late game assault type unit? Ok i can understand that, but why in the hell does it have to be a Giant Death Robot? Why not something like "Future Armor"?

Because it's/I'm awesome!

 

[migkillertwo]

As you may know, one of the new units in Civ 5 will be a robot unit called "Giant Death Robot" (GDR).

My problem with this is that the game is becoming too SF. I did play Civ 2 where you had a lot of SF things and I enjoyed at that time but I also remember after a while I wanted to have the SF parts of game out of my Civ.

Robots can be really fun in Civ scenarios and mods... but why in the main game !?

I think the GDR will destroy future era combat experience, and that was the part I liked the most in CiV 3 and Civ 4. I like all types of victories and all stuff in Civ but in the end, my favorite part is Conquest and Wars, but not any wars... future era wars, when you have all techs and you can do wars like in real life.

So imagine I invade a country for oil D), I prepare my tactics very well, sending all types of modern units with different promotions for different situations, and when my Modern Armors are ready to step in what I find ? An enemy GDR ! lol. .. it's like I'm invading Aliens. GDR has 150 strenght... I mean come on !

So my idea about it is that, in Custom Game, you should have an option to take GDR out of game if you want to... it;s simple to add and I believe that will make everyone happy. And that way I'm sure I will add it sometimes for extra fun...


A small option that can change the game experience and make everyone happy.
What do you think ?

I think that if they're going to do a future era, they should have more than just one unit to represent it. Either they were just doing it for s**ts and giggles or they were just lazy in designing a future era.

But anyway, I dont think it's too big a problem to have Giant death robots. If you surround it and bombard it with a bunch of siege units, it can be destroyed, so I can easily see AI sending it out unsupported, and newbs doing the same because they think it's some kind of ultimate death machine.

I see GDRs being used like tanks are today, they're used in conjunction with fire support to easily and quickly force a breach in the enemy's lines, followed by infantry to flank behind the enemy.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Methinks he ought to look up statistical sampling in wiki.

I disagree - his conclusion is essentially correct. He said that "x% of all civ-players are confirmed. . ." Which is essentially true - since he is only referring to the number of people who participated in the poll. This poll cannot be used to say anything about any group other than the people who chose to vote in the poll. It says nothing about CFC-ers as a whole, and nothing about all civ-players.

This is a self-sampling poll from an already self-selected minority of all civ-players. The only statistically relevant data that can be drawn from the poll is that "x number of people are for. . ." or that "x number of people are against . . ." it would be un-supportable to use the poll data to say "x% of all civ-players (or even all CFC-ers) are for/against. . ."

We now return you to our regularly scheduled thread. . . .

 

[12agnar0k]

Atleast one person has brain matter ^>^, I ignored their comments so I didn't start a flame war .

It is true that 0.004% of potential Civ5 players have been confirmed to want a remove GDR button, this is a fact, a mathmatical certainty, and one that will be ignored completely.


Moderator Action: Flaming. See 2 posts down...
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Psyringe]

Umm. The math is correct, but the approach would be frowned upon by any serious statistician. You want to have a low number that suits your argumentation and you achieve that by comparing a subset of a small sample to a large total. Parts of that large total will have to be expected to share the opinion of said subset, but you hide that behind the word "confirmed" so that you can still present your very low number.

Mathematically this may be correct, but statistically (i.e. the level on which "sensible interpretation and presentation of data" are concerned) it's a very simple sleight of hand that makes me want to cry. Number games like this are a specialty of marketing departments and politicians, their actual practical merit is very limited.

 

[12agnar0k]

Its also stastically correct, but I wanted to avoid commenting on silly posts saying its not a true representation of the Civ Customers opinions, well I know that, thats my point. This poll and its results and this topic with people pleading for the little button doesn't deserve to be listend to, its outrageous enough that we small very small fraction of the Civ franchise's customers impacted their development with the implementation of the GDR, although I don't really mind them looking and adapting good ideas like the GDR its when small minded tiny fractions try to persuade the franchise to install an obsolete and pointless button is what I would like to stop.

By saying that "a small number taken from a big number isn't a statistic" is simply agreeing with me, (that the 100 confirmed to think as such of the 3 million or 0.004% of customers shouldn't have a say in the matter) so I don't really see your point.
You should note I never said only 100 people out of 3 million want the GDR removal button, I wouldn't make such an assumption, their are bound to be more than 100 stupid customers. .

Moderator Action: To keep the discussion civil and polite, please do not suggest or imply that people with different opinions to your own are stupid.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Bkeela]

I was getting pretty excited about Civ 5 until I saw a video that featured the Giant Death Robot. I feel kind of cheated, like the entire integrity of the game has collapsed.

I love the science fiction setting - Alpha Centauri was perhaps my most enjoyable gaming experience ever. I would much rather be anticipating Alpha Centauri 2 than yet another Civ iteration. Thus I'm not against future technologies at all. My problem with the Giant Death Robot is it is too unrealistic.

The Giant Death Robot is just a nod to certain nerdy geeks of this forum who baked up this stupid idea. Since I don't want their pathetic sensibilites invading my leisure time, I think I'll spend my time and money with StarCraft 2 instead. At least in that game Science Fiction is done right.

<snip>

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Perfection]

Other then possibly the bipedalism, the addition of robotic military is already present and going to increase in the future. It's probably a little unrealistic , but it's not that unrealistic (and no more so then other future stuff in previous civs). I think you'd be missing out on a lot for what is just the slightest smidge of silly fun.

 

[adam_grif]

So 121 out of 3 million is 0.004% of customers are confirmed to want the button in the game,

You just made my day bro. Thanks.

No. I didn't say anything about game balance. GDR provides:
- Nuke use limit.
- More strategic choices.
That's what I said.

Yes, but the point is if those things are "necessary for balance", then the game must be unbalanced without it (this is the essence of the "it's needed for balance!" argument). If true, then the game isn't balanced before GDR, and if false, then the game is balanced with the option to remove it just fine.

If the former, then they have no right to complain about the game being unbalanced with its exclusion since by everybody's admission, these will be very rare to see on the battlefield. They have essentially made a unit that is necessary for balance but that will hardly ever be used because it's so costly.

But if the game is balanced normally, than the argument "it's needed for balance" does not hold any water.

You're "limiting strategic options" by removing exactly one unit. So what? Everybody in this thread has been shouting things like IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T BUILD IT, but that's exactly what this is, an optional checkbox to make sure that nobody can build it! So "limiting strategic options" isn't a good argument against it either. People who DO like it won't play "No GDR" games, and they will have those strategic options!

 

[Perfection]

If the former, then they have no right to complain about the game being unbalanced with its exclusion since by everybody's admission, these will be very rare to see on the battlefield.

I don't admit that. I suspect that they'll be fairly common.

 

[Psyringe]

I don't really see your point.

That much is obvious.

I questioned neither the math of your calculation, nor your intention. I did question the manner in which you interpreted and used your calculation, because you're using the same methods that less-than-trustworthy sources tend to use when they want to make a number as small as possible so that it fits their argumentation. But I think my previous post already explained that.

Additionally, in response to your latest post, I add to my criticism of your approach that said approach is self-refuting. Or, to be a bit more direct, you've just shot yourself in the foot argumentation-wise. Here's why:


1. You're arguing that a small minority of "confirmed" people with a given opinion should not be given influence over a larger majority.

2. You claim that "only 0.004% of potential Civ5 players have been confirmed to want a remove GDR button", which is a small minority, hence the majority shouldn't allow itself to be influenced by it.

3. You say that you want to stop this attempt of a minority to gain influence over a majority.

4. While there are many people in this thread arguing for or against GDRs, you are the only one who has argued on such a principle level of minorities gaining influence over majorities.

5. To date, 258 people have participated in this vote. Since you are the only one argued about minorities influencing majorities, this opinion represents 0.4% of the people in this thread, i.e. a very small minority.

6. Since this opinion is only held by such a small minority, it follows from your premise in (1) that your opinion should not be given influence over the majority of people in this thread.

You just refuted your own position.

Of course, you could say now that my above argumentation makes use of a sleight-of-hand trick with its usage and interpretation of the numbers. But since i used exactly the same trick that you used in your original argument, you can't debunk the above line of reasoning without debunking your own original argument too.

I think you caught yourself in the pitfalls of your own attempted trick.

 

[Perfection]

Only people who cared about GDRs went to see it, it was poorly worded so a significant portion misvoted (myself included), it represents mostly civ veterans not new to the franchise folks, ETC. ETC. ETC.

In the end it tells us practically nothing. So let's just drop the stupid contest of who's less wrong about statistics.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yes, but the point is if those things are "necessary for balance", then the game must be unbalanced without it (this is the essence of the "it's needed for balance!" argument). If true, then the game isn't balanced before GDR, and if false, then the game is balanced with the option to remove it just fine.

Even if I talked about different things, this statement is wrong too. Let's talk about balance (while I don't like this word - it's misused often). One of the balance meaning is equal chances for different civs. Let's assume we have diplomatic penalties with city-states for using nuclear weapons (I'm 80% sure in this assumption).

This way we have civs widely using city-states relations (especially ones going for diplomatic victory) and those who don't care about them. Second group could use nukes freely, for the first group it's almost useless. GDR changes this, since diplomatic civs could beeline to it and use instead of nukes.

There still could be a period of having nukes and not having GDR, but since nukes require Manhattan Project (which can't be rushed), it could be rather small.

 

[IdleEnergy]

I'm pretty lukewarm on the whole GDR thing-- but 2050 is a long time from now. 40 years ago we were 3 generations of fighter planes behind where we are today and we were still using tanks that had been designed during WWII and Korea. I have no problem with them coming up with something more interesting than "future armor." Besides, if you haven't won the game by the time those things are lumbering onto the field, you've done something wrong.

 

[Thyrwyn]

. . . and 100+ years ago we believed that cars would never replace the horse because the human body could not tolerate speeds in excess of 40 mph.

 

[Perfection]

. . . and 100+ years ago we believed that cars would never replace the horse because the human body could not tolerate speeds in excess of 40 mph.

Did we?

 

[Thyrwyn]

It is true. Knowledge is a funny thing. . .

 

[Perfection]

It is true.

Is it?

Knowledge is a funny thing. . .

Yeah, like I know that 100+ years ago, there were numerous trains that could go over 100mph.