Lakes ridiculously overpowered in early game, plz nerf

[nj666]

just play defensively for a while, until you can recover. Recover you might.

Recover how? All odds are against you. Lake player got early population boom, spammed settlers, built lots of cities early on, took most territory and luxuries. And he is ahead on production and gold so he can get more army. And then he will snowball more.
If players are of equal skill, non-lake player has no chance. He can only choosr between surrendering now and surrendering / being crushed a bit later.

 

[ElliotS]

I understand it but in our games L29Ah gets superior starting conditions in most games, while I get inferior conditions such as starting in tundra much often than average. It's an objective fact.

First off it's not an objective fact. You've yet to present me a list of 50 starts where he had a much better one 20 times and you 5. This is still an anecdote.

Also you're not talking about who you're playing. Civs have start biases, and if you're playing civs with worse start biases you're going to consistently get worse starts. Big surprise.

Finally the biggest problem with your claim is that people can't be lucky. That's superstitious bullcrap. If you flip a coin 50 times and it's heads all 50 times, the next flip is still 50% chance to be heads.

I'm 100% sure it's a combination of your lack of skill at the game, confirmation bias and poor choice in map scripts that's to blame.

Also once again you're arguing about an 8 lake capital. That's a commutas issue apparently, not a VP issue.

Lake Pantheon might be OP, but lakes aren't.

 

[CrazyG]

If players are of equal skill, non-lake player has no chance. He can only choosr between surrendering now and surrendering / being crushed a bit later.

Did he take the lake pantheon? Because that thing is busted if you get enough lake tiles. I really couldn't disagree with your OP more, lakes are fine themselves but with that pantheon starting on a 7-8 tile lake really is too strong

 

[matlajs]

and again. we should nerf something because another lost game of someone...... lakes have their power spikes at certain points,which fades of as quickly as they come. they can be workable for someone like aztec with pantheon + imperialism. but that's it. w/o that pantheon, lakes are production light, so if you don't get enough hills/ productive resources along you are not in any extra shape. yep early growth is great, but you also have to deal with greater unhappines. i would definetely not touch them.

 

[nj666]

You've yet to present me a list of 50 starts where he had a much better one 20 times and you 5.

Ok I asked our playmates so that we screenshot territory around every player's capital and attach then to our game statistics when game ends. Not sure if they accept it.

Also you're not talking about who you're playing. Civs have start biases, and if you're playing civs with worse start biases you're going to consistently get worse starts. Big surprise.

We are playing random civilizations. Yes I also often get civilization that is unsuitable to starting locations, i.e. I get peaceful civ and am surrounded by tons of warmonger AIs ( which is an issue if we play on Emperor ), or I get warmonger civ and spawn alone on continent.

people can't be lucky

Why? Can you prove that?

If you flip a coin 50 times and it's heads all 50 times, the next flip is still 50% chance to be heads.

Yes, 50% chance. In theory. In practice you can't use this '50%' value at all. It's useless.

Did he take the lake pantheon?

No, FFS. I repeat over and over that situation I'm talking about is without pantheon. Pantheon makes it worse, but only by 25%. So let's not discuss pantheon here. Lakes are problem in early game. Maybe we could change it so that they produce 2 food until second era, and then 3 food. Also is realistic because ancient people were stupid and couldn't catch fish efficiently.

but with that pantheon starting on a 7-8 tile lake really is too strong

Sry, I repeat once again - even without pantheon 7-8 tile lake near capital means (almost) guaranteed victory. Unless player is really really stupid and fudgs things up.

we should nerf something because another lost game of someone

No, because lakes create situation when other player is left far behind and can't do anything about it.

yep early growth is great, but you also have to deal with greater unhappines. i would definetely not touch them.

I'm talking about very early game. Lakes give serious boost to population, population gives boost to production ( more tiles worked on ), production boosts early expansion or early infrastructure/wonders or early warfare. Later, yes, bonuses of lake are not that significant, but lake player is ahead because of great start, and others have to catch him up somehow, which is not always possible.

 

[Gazebo]

“It works 40% of the time, every time.”

 

[ElliotS]

Why? Can you prove that?

I don't need to prove anything. I'm claiming luck doesn't exist as a force or attribute that can predict things. You're the one claiming there is some intangible existential force that can alter the outcome of things based on an undetectable attribute.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Yes, 50% chance. In theory. In practice you can't use this '50%' value at all. It's useless.

You're literally just ignorant on this subject and repeatedly discrediting yourself. I can prove this one to you however.

1. Grab a coin.
2. Flip it until you get tails 10/20/50 times in a row. (Depending on how much it takes for you to feel it's 'enough' and how much time you have.)
3. Write it down.
4. Flip it again.
5. Record the result.
6. Repeat at least 50-100 times.
7. Have your worldview destroyed.apparently

 

[nj666]

I'm claiming luck doesn't exist as a force or attribute that can predict things.

If you claim, then you carry the burden of proof.

You're the one claiming there is some intangible existential force that can alter the outcome of things based on an undetectable attribute.

I just describe what I see. Some people are more lucky (on average) than others. I'm personally am slightly unlucky, so I'm good in games that involve less luck and I perform worse when there's more luck ( random, rng ) involved. Civ5 is a very random-dependent game, so I don't win much. It has nothing to do with lack of skill. I don't make more mistakes than other players, I just get less likely outcomes from random-based events, such as starting conditions, behavior of AI, etc.

based on an undetectable attribute.

Of course it's undetectable. Imagine two people bet 1BTC and do a coin flip. Do they have equal chances? Hell yes. But only one wins. Why? Undetectable force decided it to be so. Is it really so difficult to understand?

• Grab a coin.

• Flip it until you get tails 10/20/50 times in a row. (Depending on how much it takes for you to feel it's 'enough' and how much time you have.)

• Write it down.

• Flip it again.

• Record the result.

• Repeat at least 50-100 times.

• Have your worldview destroyed.apparently

Yeah I already tried it.
Well, there is a caveat to this.
In this experiment luck isn't involved at all, because any outcome is of equal worth to me.
So any lucky person will get same result as any unlucky person in this experiment, because their luck does not influence outcome of something that is of equal worth to them.
However, this experiment can be modified slightly to involve luck.
If outcome of coin flip is positive - a person gets some money.
If outcome is negative - he loses some money.
Real money, in amount that is important to him.
From now on luck is involved and naturally unlucky person will lose more than he will gain. And his losing streak will continue if he repeats it 50, 100, 1000 number of times (until he is broke completely). I don't mean that he will lose every time, I mean that he will lose more than win, on average.
Of course no money-back guarantee for him, or luck will be excluded from this experiment again.
And another caveat.
Even if somebody who I claim 'naturally lucky' ( i.e. L29Ah ) performs this experiment, there will also be my luck involved, because I now suggested this experiment to prove my point. My luck is bad, so it's quite possible that because of that he will get outcome that is 'average', despite his positive luck. Otherwise I would benefit too much by proving existance of luck. I am unlucky so experimenting with luck turns against me. So I haven't found good way to prove it yet.
But, that's what I do soon - I'll buy some bitcoins or other cryptocurrency, large amount of them. After that it's quite possible that rate will go down, and while I will be losing money I'll find out that most people already sold this particular currency earlier ( luck-based events typically arrange themselves in such a way so that it looked ultimately realistic and simple, to conceal the presense of luck altogether ).

So luck is very difficult topic to research, especially for naturally unlucky person such as me.

 

[matlajs]

i suggest make a Sweden lake biased and adding +1GG point for each lake tile

 

[Blue Ghost]

I don't need to prove anything. I'm claiming luck doesn't exist as a force or attribute that can predict things. You're the one claiming there is some intangible existential force that can alter the outcome of things based on an undetectable attribute.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

To be fair, claiming that luck does not exist is also a positive claim. I’m highly skeptical that this “luck factor” exists, but you can’t categorically state that it does not exist without presenting evidence. I suspect the evidence does exist somewhere, but I don’t know what that would be.

 

[tu_79]

I'm talking about very early game. Lakes give serious boost to population, population gives boost to production ( more tiles worked on ), production boosts early expansion or early infrastructure/wonders or early warfare. Later, yes, bonuses of lake are not that significant, but lake player is ahead because of great start, and others have to catch him up somehow, which is not always possible.

So, upon you, Portugal is a completely useless civ, since her bonuses come so late.

Do you realize that the game may last 300 turns, and that by the time of ideologies the whole world may change? In my games, China is terrific, it seems that she will always win by a fair margin, but then... some Arabia or Siam or India start spamming great people and the tides turn back.

The game does not finish in industrial age. If you don't have the power to expand until then, then don't expand. Maximize your economy, fortify your defenses, do some politics. Don't blame a good start.

 

[DarkZero]

I just describe what I see. Some people are more lucky (on average) than others. I'm personally am slightly unlucky, so I'm good in games that involve less luck and I perform worse when there's more luck ( random, rng ) involved. Civ5 is a very random-dependent game, so I don't win much. It has nothing to do with lack of skill. I don't make more mistakes than other players, I just get less likely outcomes from random-based events, such as starting conditions, behavior of AI, etc.

That is just something you told yourself so you feel good every time you lose at a game, its impossible for people to be overall "luck" or "unluck", you can have a luck day or an unluck week but overall everything balances out and if youre losing more tham youre winning, its a problem whit your skill and strategy, we all had bad starts, but they overall represent 5% of our games, blaming luck or lack of it will only make you lose more and more in the future, as civ is a game whit random maps and where winning games comes from reading said maps and adapting strategies to fit in this map, after all a claim such as "I don't make more mistakes than other players" is one not only impossible to prove, but very likely not true from someone that "dont win much"

 

[ElliotS]

If you claim, then you carry the burden of proof.

Then let's solve it all at once. Find someone 'lucky' and have him flip a coin 200 times. Tell him to pick a side and that if it comes up >125 on his side he'll win money. That would be statistically significant. It also almost certainly won't happen.

But, that's what I do soon - I'll buy some bitcoins or other cryptocurrency, large amount of them. After that it's quite possible that rate will go down, and while I will be losing money I'll find out that most people already sold this particular currency earlier ( luck-based events typically arrange themselves in such a way so that it looked ultimately realistic and simple, to conceal the presense of luck altogether ).

So your bad luck will crash the entire bitcoin economy? Buying bitcoins during a bubble can't just be a bad investment choice made because you're not that bright and have a terrible grasp of statistics?

It's painful to see how you attribute literally everything to luck and other external forces.

Based on your descriptions professional poker players aren't people who've practiced for years and have an extremely strong grasp of math and statistics and the numbers of the game, but rather just the luckiest people. But man it's crazy just how much those SUPER LUCKY players practice and study.

I'm done with this thread. If you don't learn from this there's no teaching you and you'll just go on blaming everything bad that happens to you on luck. I'm going to continue learning and being successful at life and my hobbies regardless of my situation.

 

[DarkZero]

The very fact that right now someone has died from a random acident and you are alive mean that you are rather lucky.

 

[Gazebo]

Then let's solve it all at once. Find someone 'lucky' and have him flip a coin 200 times. Tell him to pick a side and that if it comes up >125 on his side he'll win money. That would be statistically significant. It also almost certainly won't happen.


So your bad luck will crash the entire bitcoin economy? Buying bitcoins during a bubble can't just be a bad investment choice made because you're not that bright and have a terrible grasp of statistics?

It's painful to see how you attribute literally everything to luck and other external forces.

Based on your descriptions professional poker players aren't people who've practiced for years and have an extremely strong grasp of math and statistics and the numbers of the game, but rather just the luckiest people. But man it's crazy just how much those SUPER LUCKY players practice and study.

I'm done with this thread. If you don't learn from this there's no teaching you and you'll just go on blaming everything bad that happens to you on luck. I'm going to continue learning and being successful at life and my hobbies regardless of my situation.

If he/she finds this person, let me know, I'll take them to Vegas with me.

G

 

[tu_79]

To be fair, claiming that luck does not exist is also a positive claim. I’m highly skeptical that this “luck factor” exists, but you can’t categorically state that it does not exist without presenting evidence. I suspect the evidence does exist somewhere, but I don’t know what that would be.

No, it's actually the opposite. The skeptical says nothing exists until it is proven so, (and even then, it might be something different of what we've proven, because we're never 100% sure of anything). Saying that luck is a thing that people can accumulate is a positive claim, and this is what needs to be proven, not the opposite.

I used to think I was quite unlucky at gameboards. Now I think my mates are just better in the meta-game, for they play much more often than I do. I can win when we play some game where the results don't change depending on what the other players do, but when it depends on the other players, I suck.

 

[nj666]

its impossible for people to be overall "luck" or "unluck", you can have a luck day or an unluck week but overall everything balances out

so there is some hidden force that balances out everything? why would everything balance out evenly for all people?

Find someone 'lucky' and have him flip a coin 200 times. Tell him to pick a side and that if it comes up >125 on his side he'll win money. That would be statistically significant. It also almost certainly won't happen.

I'm pretty sure it will happen. Happens all the time in civ5, when L29Ah typically spawns near 8 lakes and horses while I almost half of games spawn in tundra or desert.
But no, I don't really want to lose money. You won't believe me anyway even if it works.

So, upon you, Portugal is a completely useless civ, since her bonuses come so late.

No. It's perfectly fine for one player to get some advantages early, other later. But early game advantages must not lead to snowballing and late game advantages because of that. Lake is one such thing.
So many big speeches about anti-snowballing, and yet the worst snowballing possibility is completely ignored.

The game does not finish in industrial age.

In most cases it finishes in renaissance era or earlier.

If you don't have the power to expand until then, then don't expand.

Yeah but lake player has the power to expand AND to do everything else faster. There is nothing non-lake player could do to catch up.

t that right now someone has died from a random acident and you are alive mean that you are rather lucky.

This is only because I try to minimize influence of luck on my life. In civ5, luck can't be minimized much.

civ is a game whit random maps and where winning games comes from reading said maps and adapting strategies to fit in this map

Yes but with lakes there are zero possibilities to adapt. That's why I created this thread. Lake player gets too powerful too fast and you can't do anything about it. And then he begins snowballing and gets further ahead. Yes in theory he can still lose but in practice doesn't happen.

but very likely not true from someone that "dont win much"

I already explained why I don't win much. You are trying to do some kind of circular argument here - "he doesn't win much -> he has no skills -> he doesn't win much because he has no skills -> luck not involved". You completely ignore that I don't win much because random is often against me. You haven't proved that luck does not exist, you just ignore this argument.

Buying bitcoins during a bubble can't just be a bad investment choice made because you're not that bright and have a terrible grasp of statistics?

You can't know if it's a bubble or if it's only starting to skyrocket to $100k or more. I don't know either. It's quite possible that this depends on my luck - i.e. if I buy them, it will turn out to be a bubble and i'll be fukd. And if I don't buy - it will skyrocket. And then it will look like I just did wrong choices. But nothing prevents luck from interfering and making any of these two choices bad choice.

It's painful to see how you attribute literally everything to luck and other external forces.

Not everything. Only things that depend on random or unknown.

Based on your descriptions professional poker players aren't people who've practiced for years and have an extremely strong grasp of math and statistics and the numbers of the game, but rather just the luckiest people.

Actually poker requires both strategy and luck. If somebody is exceptionally smart but unlucky - he will lose. If somebody is exceptionally lucky but stupid - he will lose too. Only some of both can get you anywhere.

But man it's crazy just how much those SUPER LUCKY players practice and study.

Still, if somebody is naturally unlucky, no amount of practice and study will help him to reliably win. He just won't get anything good often enough, will lose hand after hand.

Saying that luck is a thing that people can accumulate is a positive claim, and this is what needs to be proven, not the opposite.

I don't think it accumulates, it looks more like something attained at birth and unchanged during life. The only thing unlucky people can do is minimizing influence of random and unknown in their lifes.
Also, saying that 'everything balances out for all people' is also positive claim and requires proof.

 

[RAuer2]

@nj666 ... Toss aside the entire conversation about luck, all of it. As others have pointed out, the issue is the map script, not the VP mod. The map script is what is creating larger and more numerous lakes than other, "normal", maps create. There is no reason to adjust a mod to accommodate a single map script and an excellent reason not to (because it affects the mod's performance on "normal" map scripts).

 

[Owlbebach]

Then let's solve it all at once. Find someone 'lucky' and have him flip a coin 200 times. Tell him to pick a side and that if it comes up >125 on his side he'll win money. That would be statistically significant. It also almost certainly won't happen.

Ouch, that was bad! It is not statistically significant because it is one person.


@nj666 i have an idea for you. Go to the casino, and play roulette this way: you bet on black $1 and your friend bets on red $10. Since you're unlucky - your friend will get rich after some time!

 

[tu_79]

Well, it was fun, but I won't waste further my time with non-sensical arguments.