My first win on Immortal... Just not any fun.

[TheMeInTeam]

By "rules", do you mean the game mechanics or how the game was intended to be by the game designers?

That's not necessary the same and the latter is not always clear.

Game mechanics. Attempting to determine what the designers had in mind is arbitrary anyway...you don't know unless they tell you so, and if there is a play element they *really* intended, why not force it in the mechanics?

The spotty patching in civ IV makes discerning designer intent more of a divination than following logic. BTS overflow was highly powerful and untouched until 3.19 (years literally), then bugged (I say this only because they said so) in the attempt to curb its power. Spread culture EP missions can win a culture victory...the designers pulled then restored this. Who knows what their intentions were (they re-allowed it but it is very non-user friendly, as is EP in general)...and why are they relevant within the rule system anyway?

Why? To cater to fragile egos? I am communicating a point here. To me, it feels like cheating. That is how I am communicating my feelings on the topic at hand. IF you can relate to something "feeling like cheating" you can relate to my views on this subject and understand my point of view. If you find this insulting it is your ego that is not in check, not mine. I have not slandered anyone in anyway. I have simply stated my view of why I do not like to approach the higher difficulties. I ain't even gonna say that I would win if I did or that a diety victory is not an achievement.

There is also a difference between calling something cheating and merely saying it feels like it. I quote this to specifically point out that it is not *your* arguments I am attacking here. Hopefully that's clear. I have a specific problem with people calling things cheating when they aren't. You have not done so. What you are essentially saying is that "I avoid X because I find it too easy", although realistically it's more clear to others if you say it that way, the way you said it isn't wrong.

I ain't calling anyone a cheater, never did. My statement was it felt like cheating to me... for me... in my single player games. That has nothing to do with anyone here. This thread is about the OP won on immortal and found it unfun due to lack of options in the playstyle required to win. I agreed and added in this little extra thing that has bothered me since 4 came out. It was really nothing more than some expectations of the franchise going unfullfilled but nevertheless existed. I cannot have fun limiting my options for the sake of saying I beat diety or what have you. If you can then by all means have at it.

The lack of options on immortal is perception, not reality. I don't know what else to say. 100's of immortal games have been played, documented, and posted on strategy and tips, and involve everything from double-civ chariot rushes to treb wars to wars that don't start until people are flinging nukes. They also have every single VC represented multiple times over (except for the time victory, but you can't fault immortal or anything else when players strive to win otherwise), even challenging ones like conquest.

So I do have to challenge this point of the OP's----> virtually every strategy will work in the right situation. High difficulties force you to pick strategies that more represent an optimal path (which will vary depending on situation), but even then there is a TON of wiggle room. If you don't believe me, go over to strategy and tips, open up the DR Kossin #17 thread, and read the way obsolete, kossin, and myself played that game out.

The eye opener to me was ABCF using toku to flatten an AI on deity with trebs + maces. Apparently if you're good enough even BTS deity allows a lot of variance.

My goal has always been to see how far I can move up on MY settings which in my mind are the REAL settings. If that statement is offensive to someone then they need to realize that people DO have different perspectives in this world. Especially, concerning recreation. I haven't told anyone "how they have to have fun" playing a game. I have seen others tell others this though.

It's true, people should play however suits them best. But I don't think we ever disagreed on this point in the thread. Just as you haven't called anyone a cheater, I never really intended to call you or what you do out specifically, as I didn't have issue with it.




On a side note, the paper on the heroes/villians game was very interesting. I'd have been on his side, were I ever to stand MMO's and played it. What the community and especially his own clan did to him was a travesty if the paper is truthful. Literally an entire large group of individuals attempted to force someone trying to play a game optimally to change his ways. It reminds me of how people get pissy in gears of war 1/2 when you kill them with the lancer (the game's DEFAULT weapon) rather than the shotgun. I have literally been kicked out of games for using the lancer, and all I have to say is that those who did so were 100% pathetic.

 

[MyOtherName]

Game mechanics. Attempting to determine what the designers had in mind is arbitrary anyway...you don't know unless they tell you so, and if there is a play element they *really* intended, why not force it in the mechanics?

One interesting historical example of going with mechanics over what was "really intended" is the following:

In Street Fighter II, an honest-to-goodness bug in the game allowed people to do a "combo". That bug, I believe, was responsible for the game's popularity, and has evolved into one of the most popular features of that genre.

Edit: Nevermind, that's not really related at all is it? I think I'm rambling at this point. Time to go to bed.

 

[King Flevance]

Arbitrary and unspoken? How is playing towards the objective of a game arbitrary?

The object is to win. Not to make the leader lose. None of them are garaunteed to be the one that climbs out on top of that dogpile. So essentially you were asking the players to risk suicide from an individual perspective - while you sat safely at a distance able to monopolize on the fray with a good chance of coming out on top. Or at the very least losing a game you were already going to lose. Also maybe winning the game had became an unrealistic objective towards them. It is strange, their behavior, in a tournament such as this but outside motives may have been a factor as well. I doubt they were sitting around picking their noses thinking about the next episode of the Simpsons during the game.

And a specific feature of my example is that things were actually spoken!

I don't doubt that. I would want to see the game board as I can think of multiple scenarios where some dude across the map shouting "Attack Him before he wins" would result in me saying "Shut up and mind your own civ, profanity" There are some people out there who will do anything to point a finger at someone else as to why they lost in a game. I somehow doubt you would be this upset over it if you were the guy being not being attacked here.

I want to know how people who "sha-la-la" and "doopty-doo" through a strategy game get to a tournament at a major gaming convention.

If you really aren't trying to demean people, surely you can at least understand how people would get the wrong idea with comments like:

• "feels like cheating"
• "none ... are technically cheating"
• "next door to cheating"
• "MY settings ... are the REAL settings"

• And since it is not the settings I have always played (since 1) I feel I am in a sense cheating.
• None of these settings I have mention are technically cheating
• And I personally feel changing settings to suit difficulty level is right next door to cheating.
• My goal has always been to see how far I can move up on MY settings which in my mind are the REAL settings.

#1) Based on my civ past settings, I feel... (Should not concern you as to how you play)
#2) If you need some type of validation through me there you go, I handed it to you. YOu are validated.
#3) I personally feel... (Can only be seen as an attack if I am not allowed to disagree with you.)
#4) There are people on this board that feel no vassals, no tech brokering, marathon, or what have you are the "real settings" as they play that exclusively. And there is nothing wrong with that either. PLaying constant settings tends to make tyou think of them as the real settings. It just happens. Lighten up, my point in that message is clear so long as you aren't seeing red.

For the record, I think playing a "no aggressive barbs & great wall" variant of Civ 4, or other similar thing, is perfectly fine. Similarly, I would have no problem when nobody attacks someone running away with the game in a "no combat" variant of Advanced Civilization.

But if "no combat" isn't a rule, people dont have the right to not attack the score leader when you think it is proper to do so?

 

[King Flevance]

There is also a difference between calling something cheating and merely saying it feels like it. I quote this to specifically point out that it is not *your* arguments I am attacking here. Hopefully that's clear. I have a specific problem with people calling things cheating when they aren't. You have not done so. What you are essentially saying is that "I avoid X because I find it too easy", although realistically it's more clear to others if you say it that way, the way you said it isn't wrong.

Actually, I never said it that way because I don't avoid it because "it is too easy". It is actually still quite difficult to mind my p's and q's on that stuff. More like, I feel like I am not "truly" beating said difficulty level.

It's true, people should play however suits them best. But I don't think we ever disagreed on this point in the thread. Just as you haven't called anyone a cheater, I never really intended to call you or what you do out specifically, as I didn't have issue with it.

No we haven't. I may have also taken you out of context a few times when suddenly my morality was called into question. I was in o.O mode. I never meant to rile here but I am not going to lie about how I view something - especially a game. I will take your word on the flexibility thing though man, I ain't messed with it enough and I have learned enough about your charactor to know its probably true. Maybe one day I may end up at Immortal but guesstimating the way things are I probably won't go above Emperor.

 

[MyOtherName]

I would want to see the game board as I can think of multiple scenarios where some dude across the map shouting "Attack Him before he wins" would result in me saying "Shut up and mind your own civ, profanity"

I don't think I really pushed it: I was watching them resign themselves to fate rather than try to do something it. Not pushing it was probably a poor move. Alas, the game was long enough ago that I can't remember enough of the details to re-analyze it.

I somehow doubt you would be this upset over it if you were the guy being not being attacked here.

I seek to play games^* because it is an intellectual activity -- devising and executing a strategy tested against other players. It is not very fun when the outcome is, in large part, determined by mindlessness. A victory handed to me on a silver platter is just as unsatisfying as a victory handed to someone else on a silver platter.

I want to know how people who "sha-la-la" and "doopty-doo" through a strategy game get to a tournament at a major gaming convention.

Groupthink is very common. *shrug* And, for the record, just anybody can come to most game conventions. (although, by the nature of the event, most are serious gamers. But "serious gamer" does not mean "free from groupthink or other similar things")

But if "no combat" isn't a rule, people dont have the right to not attack the score leader when you think it is proper to do so?

Of course they have the right not to attack when I think they should. They have the right to attack when I think they shouldn't. They even usually have the right to blatantly cheat.

People have the right to invalidate a Incan duel map victories in Civilization. They have the right to insult people who use throws in fighting games. They have the right to let the leader coast to victory unopposed in Advanced Civilization.

And I have the right to argue against that.

For the record, I brought up the third one merely as a rather blatant example of how an artificial rule can destroying the depth and complexity of a game -- how it can simply make things unfun -- it wasn't intended to be the focus of my argument. While I generally oppose artificial rules, the thing I specifically intend to argue against in this thread are examples like the first two -- people applying pressure to coerce people into obeying these artificial rules.