"Maranoob"

[Kesshi]

I, too, am a fan of Marathon and long drawn out epic battles.

If I am the first to gunpowder, I want to enjoy the usefulness of this monopoly for more than 2 turns. Marathon lets me achieve this.

marathon/Huge is the best.. Take all power of me to control empire with many many cities (sometimes its about 40 cities before any war from my side) and many many AI (17 enemies are not 5 or 6).. and difference in settler relative cost also make it different from normal speed.
Still I will agree that it is easier (atleast some half-level) IF can take care about Barbs..

I also enjoy Marathon and Huge. I play with barbs off because add a random element to the game that is not enjoyable. (Most specifically the galleys.) However I love the slower tech rate of really large maps. I would play on bigger maps if my computer could handle it.

 

[noto2]

I'm the opposite. I hate long drawn out games involving hundreds of cities and a thousand units. I like games that can be decided in 4-6 hours. I play standard size, normal speed. For a long time I played on epic speed and real life made it difficult to finish those games, I switched to quick/small but it just didn't feel right. Now I'm back to normal/standard and can usually finish in less than 6 hours. Meh. I know I would enjoy a marathon/huge game, but I'd enjoy 3 normal/standard ones more, and marathon/huge takes as much time as 3 normal/standard, probably more

 

[ChaosSlayer]

I play on Mara/Standard size actually and my games tend to last up to 5-8 days
I play about 1-2 hours a day and spend a lot of time micromanaging cities/workers etc.

 

[Kesshi]

I'm the opposite

I think the point of this thread is that you are not being insulted by your game preference in a single-player game. For example, what if people said "I'm not a quick-scrub, but here's my advice." That type of behavior is extremely uncouth and, unfortunately, it is becoming an acceptable trend to label people who enjoy marathon as "noobs."

 

[Seraiel]

I confirm the insults of the "Standard / Normal Elitists" towards Marathon players.

Anyhow, I don't agree that "n00b" is a negative term, it comes from "new by" . A player lacking skills is a "Gimp" . There is even the term "Pro-n00b" .

 

[Turquoiside]

I find it surprising that most people think newbs to the game would click the setting called 'Marathon' over the one called 'Normal'...is that something common in S&Ts or what?

 

[Seraiel]

There is basically an unspoken aggreement between some S&T players that Standard / Normal / Pangaea is the only valid map / setting, and that everything else is hugely unfair towards the AI, because the AI already is too dumb to win, but things have become a lot better already. It was already at the point where some players stopped joining and reading the S&T Forum because of the hostility they got for liking Marathon.

You got an interesting point there btw.: I started my first games on "Huge / Normal" because I love Huge maps because of their epicness, and I took Normal as speed because, well, it's normal . I started playing Marathon after reading the War Academy and these forums, which said that Civ is a war-game and that Marathon favours war, so it became an obvious choice for me.

 

[King Kalmah]

Funny I've been here four years and this the first I'm hearing of this...(wait I never visit the S and T forum....no wonder...lol)

I've always heard people insult marathon players,but I always assumed it had to do with how long we like our games...(since we take days to play a game)

I personally laugh at players that can play and win a game of CIV in one session.That was not how CIV was meant to be enjoyed.I have invested days and weeks on some games.Not because I am a noob,but because the battles are more vast and nations are bigger.

Okay I need to ask this to normal players...How can you play normal when your first war starts in 1000BC and ends in 500AD???

I hate that...not only is unhistorical,but its just weird...no nation has ever fought a 1,500 year war...(takes alot of the fun out of the game)

 

[Turquoiside]

Not that I think too critically of Marathoners, but how can an option that was patched into the game be how cIV was meant to be enjoyed?

You got an interesting point there btw.: I started my first games on "Huge / Normal" because I love Huge maps because of their epicness, and I took Normal as speed because, well, it's normal .

I almost brought up that point, in fact...those were my initial setting too! The game roster just looked too small without at least 9 opponents. And I say 'looked', but I've never really given a serious attempt at deviating from those settings.

 

[Seraiel]

The ment-to-be argument is imo countered by the "I play games for my fun, not for the programers ..." argument. As you see, I quote that sentence, because that discussion somehow took place some weeks ago already and the same arguments came up .

 

[Turkey_ballz]

I play Marathon because I just find it more fun, and as for being easier - that's what k-mod is for.

 

[Kesshi]

Anyhow, I don't agree that "n00b" is a negative term, it comes from "new by" . A player lacking skills is a "Gimp" . There is even the term "Pro-n00b" .

Noob isn't, by default, a negative adjective. I view it like "kid." I see a lot of gamers in other gaming communities using phrases like "OMG Look at this kid!" and "Can you believe this kid?" Kid isn't an insult by itself, but it can very much be used as an insult. (The word "gay" fits into this category, as well.)

When attached to "mara" it does become an insult. And the forum seems to be accepting of this, (users and moderators alike.) I find that the most disappointing.

The CFC forums have been a bastion of politeness and intelligence as opposed to all other gaming forums. While you will find politeness and intelligence on almost all gaming forums, the signal to noise ratios are too low for someone like me to navigate through. However, this is changing with the acceptance of "maranoob" as an acceptable phrase in CFC. I'm not going to go to the extreme and say that "If we continue using 'maranoob' then the next step is going to be like x-box live." That is simply untrue and an extreme hyperbole. However, I am going to say that if this community continues to accept "maranoob" as an acceptable phrase then we are taking one step in that direction.

"The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones."
- Confucius

 

[King Kalmah]

How ever much I hate the phrase "maranoob"...(I hate the phrase)I would never want the mods to take action over such a simple minded insult.If they did start banning or disciplining over such tiny things this place would turn into Simtropolis.

Anyway back on topic I play for fun,but since you made a good point about it being patched in...I may give Epic speed a shot...it came with the game right?

 

[GKey]

The main issue with game speeds is poor scalability. The normal speed often forces player to skip some interesting builds and therefore not imply some interesting tactics. Why would I bother with Globe? Same hammers spent directly into units will take me further! Heck, I often skip Oxford for that reason.

On the other hand, I honestly would like to know what was designers thinking, when they gave 30% production bonus on Marathon. Like they did not know that slower game speed already benefits human player?

On topic: been reading these forums for years I've seen couple of posts insulting Marathon gamespeed. I doubt this can be called "a tendency", although calling someone "maranoob" (I've seen this for a first time like 2 weeks ago?) is not very friendly and sure is against the spirit of this forum.
OTOH recently I see here many posts and even threads attacking "normal elitists" (at least it's no longer "normal nazis", thanks for that!).

 

[Seraiel]

No offense, but if you don't build the Globe on normal Gamespeed, you're missing a great Military Drafting city. We did some Math on that one lately, and it showed that the Globe is even more powerful than the HE in some cases. Normal speed even favours the Globe because the units are more expensive relatively seen, yet, Rifles are 1pop-Drafts (like on Marathon) .

Skipping Oxford is a common tactic for Domination / Conquest games, the Universities are simply too expensive.

And regarding the "standard normal elitists" , to defend myself, that term didn't came from me (as I neither feel offended by being called a Maran00b player) , and I did not attack one of them, I just stated how things were / are and also said that they're getting better, so I hope you didn't mean me with that last paragraph of your post.

 

[Kesshi]

I hope you didn't mean me with that last paragraph of your post.

No, I did not. I meant "in general" not at you, Seraiel.

Sorry, as I was quoting you I can easily see why this was unclear. Please accept my apologies for that.

 

[Seraiel]

kk ^^

Btw.: I'm playing a game on "Quick-n00b" now (going for Cultural Victory, which is easier the faster the gamespeed) .

 

[Manco Capac]

^
Quick speed is not that hard if all the game was played peacefully. Just the diplomacy factor sucks as it wasn't scaled and only workers will suffer from the quick speed aspect (city foundation at some point).
Techs, resource trade, working an improvement, talking to an AI (which you never embargoed), etc. are actions qualified as instantaneous...so speed indepedent.

Culture on quick speed has the particularity to be wrongly scaled: while everything is scaled at 0.67 of normal speed, culture stocks for next border pop is only 50% of normal speed. This defenses is even more boosted, easing even more the culture win in hostile environments.

 

[joanne]

I don't play marathon not because I'm a hardcore masochistic elitist, but simply because I get bored very quickly - I used to play large/epic, but that got boring too. Now I don't even finish many of my standard-normal games

Nothing wrong with being a "n00b": we were all n00bs once

Okay I need to ask this to normal players...How can you play normal when your first war starts in 1000BC and ends in 500AD???

I hate that...not only is unhistorical,but its just weird...no nation has ever fought a 1,500 year war...(takes alot of the fun out of the game)

How about a 2000+ year war? (granted, no open hostilities for the most part but no formal peace treaty either so still technically "war")

 

[jmas]

How about a 2000+ year war? (granted, no open hostilities for the most part but no formal peace treaty either so still technically "war")

Fascinating link. Thank you for sharing.