Repoll: Difficulty Level?

[Provolution]

This is not the place to discuss specifics, but if you're going to make this kind of accusation it needs to be backed by facts. Care to PM links?
If not, please refer to the forum rules statement on posting false and defamatory information.


This makes no sense at all. The poll ends long before then.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=264334&page=3

Here is a link, and several statements either predicting, hoping or stating the commitment to make Factions less than what it should be. I am strictly within forum rules, as this is accurate.

I also think that several players are beginning to see what I am seeing, that there is a convention for having our side poll an issue several times to get the same result as the "official side". This perpetual poll thing, I wonder what the reaction would be if we repolled every single decision we did not like, and made that a standard. It is not taken for granted, we will apply the repoll convention of the last 2-3 demogames you and a few others installed, we need to discuss it and repoll it for this game separately.

If there is no such thing as "final repoll" or "final run-off", please let us know, and we would never add the "final word" in our polls, and we will find ways to protect the integrity of the initial result. We would also like to have this metagame demogame rule discussed and polled itself, as it is a major decision to have all polls repolled for the smallest reason.

Now, several players in this thread, as many as in the initial difficulty poll, are this time advocating yet another difficulty poll, public vote with all options on the table, write the conditions in the poll and complete it as fairly done, as well as possibly include a "contract" that this is the definitive and final poll, not repollable at all (if you can dispense from your core beliefs). If you are really true and consistent to your core idea that a poll must be redone if enough people call for it, the time is to do it here, again, even if it hurts and takes more time than needed. Yes, difficulty is a difficult thing to handle, in particular when you remove the outcome of a poll with 60 % support and even a median outcome of Prince, and replace that with a series of flawed polls where some of the original voters cannot participate and the second biggest option, monarch, not emperor, is deliberately left out. If I posted something like that, we would have a totally different uproar.

You can even set it up Daveshack, so it follows your strict preferences for what is right or not, as you are the supreme authority in here.
I certainly do not feel privileged enough to set it up.

 

[Joe Harker]

the amount of micromanagement might be overwhelming. I'm still trying to figure it all out myself.

Thats the good thing about being in a group, everyone can have their little tasks, which are more likely to get done well than when you or i play on our own becuase we have to focus on the entire nation. And doing those little things, especially as a governor help me at playing civ overall.

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

1) I know I can stumble drunk and blind through any Prince level game on any map and win...I'll be more than happy to assist in the group strategies at Emperor, although I admit that Emperor is allot harder than Prince. Monarch is not much of a step at all from Prince, except that the AI actually starts to fight back. On Emperor, you just simply have to be aggressive and pragmatic about how you play.

2) I love factions, I repeat, I love factions!

3) As a group, you'll be surprised at what you can learn!

4) I still see the two polls that are actually in question here (ignoring the ill-fated "final" poll) as representing two completely separate ideas. In the first poll, we were purely looking at the difficulty level and many people voted, and yes, the majority wanted Prince level. In this poll, we're looking at a new idea, where we now realize that we're part of a group, and that the difficulty level will be more like the foundation of our experience, not just a formality or a choice at the start of the game.

5) I love how, although the game hasn't technically started, we are already at war, lol.

6) Politics is chaos. However, perhaps there needs to be a rule that governs who may start polls, and the format that must be followed. Make this a sticky in the poll thread, and empower the admins to delete polls that are not established by the authorized persons.

7) Let me assure you, that I did not start this poll for political reasons. I honestly believed that this poll represented a new idea. However, I do agree with the idea that excessive re-polling can be frustrating and a parasitic drag on our community here. I do not however, view this poll as something that would necessarily negate the original poll.

8) Let's rephrase the discussion this way: How should the results of the two polls in question be handled? Option A: Forget the first poll? B: Forget the second poll? C: If Emperor does not win with 60% of the vote or more by the time the poll is closed, then go with the results from the first poll, i.e. Prince difficulty? D: Have the admins get together and make a decision that is final and shall stand without argument from the community?

 

[Provolution]

Having looked more into the matter, I think the poll proposal presented by Blastoidstalker and supported by Methos, myself and others would be the most fair thing to do. We need a public poll with all options and rules for interpretation of the poll included, so no player is left out of the loop. We still got some players that are scared of even Prince level, and here we got some pushing for Emperor and omitting Monarch, which was the real runner-up.

Personally, I would possibly vote for Monarch in a run-off (as it is closer to what I consider an ideal demogame level of difficulty). I would not like to vote for Emperor at all, it is too high and forces us into a gaming style that is not reconcilable with running for example a small faction.

So the most fair and responsible thing to do, looking away from my personal bias, would be to follow the good advise of our friend Blastoidstalker.

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

We need a public poll with all options and rules for interpretation of the poll included, so no player is left out of the loop. We still got some players that are scared of even Prince level, and here we got some pushing for Emperor and omitting Monarch, which was the real runner-up.

So the most fair and responsible thing to do, looking away from my personal bias, would be to follow the good advise of our friend Blastoidstalker.

So...Prince, Monarch, and Emperor? I see this as taking some votes from Prince and some from Emperor, and leaving us with a quandary of sourts. I'm more in favor of option C or D, myself. Every time a game difficulty poll has been opened, we get more salt into the wounds. In fact, I think less people will vote in a future poll.

I'm also starting to believe that major polls such as this one should probably have had a couple days of discussion prior to any actual vote. That way, all sides argue their case and the poll is more equitably structured, and no one feels left out of the loop.

 

[AluminumKnight]

I would like to voice my support for blastoid's proposal as well. Have all options in a poll, and then take the highest vote-getters until we get a 50% majority. This is the best, systematic way to go about this.

 

[Provolution]

This was the very post that lead us to the misconceived "run-off" between Prince and Emperor, where Emperor got 3 votes against Monarchs 6 and Nobles 6. This is what happens when some influential players and some leading characters with real privileges are listened to, and not the voting majority. If handled fairly, the run off, if made, would only include Noble, Prince and Monarch, where Emperor, the most extreme option, would be left out.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6606540&postcount=14

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

I don't want to hurt the development of our community with yet another poll, which is why I see option C or D as the most viable options.

 

[Diamondeye]

This was the very post that lead us to the misconceived "run-off" between Prince and Emperor, where Emperor got 3 votes against Monarchs 6 and Nobles 6. This is what happens when some influential players and some leading characters with real privileges are listened to, and not the voting majority. If handled fairly, the run off, if made, would only include Noble, Prince and Monarch, where Emperor, the most extreme option, would be left out.

The reason there was a run-off was that several voters, including me, changed opinion due to the discussion in the previous poll. I agree that i tmight be bit arrogant for the starter of this thread to listen to the "minority" that wanted emperor, but as is now, Emperor is leading, 55% against Prince's 45%, so obviously the majority of the voters are convinced with the DG playing on this difficulty. I especially find Methos' arguments about being many players to plan and decide, heavy-weighting.

In my opinion we don't need a repoll, but ofcourse, we can do as an above poster suggested and include all difficulties. My bet is that the result will be emperor + one difficulty level.

 

[AluminumKnight]

My bet is that the result will be emperor + one difficulty level.

I have a feeling that Monarch might win. This poll simply proves that the majority would prefer Emporer over Prince.

I think we should all take a step back and look at this. Don't you think that no matter what we pick, we'll end up okay? If we happen to get wiped out early, let's just start DG IV! Same if we win easily.

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

I have a feeling that Monarch might win. This poll simply proves that the majority would prefer Emporer over Prince.

I think we should all take a step back and look at this. Don't you think that no matter what we pick, we'll end up okay? If we happen to get wiped out early, let's just start DG IV! Same if we win easily.

Heck, I'd be happy going with Monarch to appease all sides or at least come to the middle. I play all of my SP games on Monarch or Emperor, so I'd still be happy there. Others may feel that emperor is too far of a reach. However, let's also look at what this poll represents from a scientific perspective. it's a study of extremes being presented with no middle ground. It shows that you really have two camps here. One that wants a comfortable stride, and one that really wants a challenge.

A middle ground would be the most politically palatable...let's make that option E, following the logic presented in my earlier post #23

 

[Provolution]

Well, it will be interesting to see how many of the original 36 voters will vote again. Since the previous poll was private, we can of course not compare the voting populations, but anything less than 30 would be a defeat for all of us. Nothing is as disconcerting as having a clear majority poll of 22 votes being "stolen" due to a sudden "run-off" against 3 votes and 3 calls for Prince-Emperor run-offs by more influential and privileged players.

If we get 36 to vote in a poll, we have at least grown the game population, otherwise, it will be proven that the "Perpetual Repoll Policy" has to be reined in, just to protect the electorate against sudden poll-coups. Voters should be allowed to rest after a poll, not be forced to protect the implementation of it day and night.

 

[Conroe]

I think random civ and unrestricted leader combination along with an overcrowded world (9 civs) and city flip option on would be more than sufficient a challenge, if we consider the combination of options.

In my experience, an overcrowded map is actually easier to play. Sure, there is less land for expansion, but it effects the AI as well. As a result, an earlier war is more likely to break out. Not just AI against human, but AI against AI as well. The human player has a distinct advantage in this arena. He/She can adapt to the changed environment, whereas the AI will play the same start that it was programmed to do. Also I find these early wars to be more crippling to the AI than to the human.

Hint: The Imperialistic trait gets a 50% boost to Settler production. That could be quite handy on an overcrowded map.

The random unrestricted leaders will also serve to make the game easier. Many of the leader civ combinations have no synergy. Sure, you may end up with a powerhouse AI ... but in my experience, the AI seems to struggle with this option. The AI is nothing more than a set of pre-programmed rules that is unable to adapt to the changed environment.

As for the city flip option being on, it is normally on by default. I've never experienced any significant issues with my cities flipping to the AI. If you're concerned about your border cities, then prioritize cultural buildings. Also if you garrison enough troops in the city, it will not flip. In the city view screen, you can see the % chance of revolt. In addition, city flipping is also a weapon in the human's arsenal. Thus whether it is on or off, I don't see it affecting the level of difficulty either way.

By the way, I've been playing BtS emperor lately, and when you're used to the new mechanics, it's quite easy. I'd say BtS emperor = Vanilla monarch.

This has been my experience, as well. I've also noticed some of the early wonders are no longer prioritized by the AI, the Pyramids being the most notable off the top of my head.

If there is no such thing as "final repoll" or "final run-off", please let us know, and we would never add the "final word" in our polls, and we will find ways to protect the integrity of the initial result.

I hesitate to enter this foray ... But it seems to me the new guy has already been crucified for this. Maybe we ought to think about letting him down? The thread has been locked and he has apologized. My 2¢ ... YMMV

 

[Shattered]

I agree with blastoidstalkers curriculum on this poll. I don't like that those who don't like prince only have to choose emperor. Emperor didn't even get 1/4 vote in last poll. Yet, if a new poll is posted, like it should be, I will most likely vote monarch, as an appeasement. I myself, usually play noble, as prince is tough, and monarch even tougher. I think focusing on a high difficulty is going to do nothing but kill rp, as we will be more focused on staying alive and begging for the help of people who can play emperor by themselves. I want to play in a game where even bad ideas can be implemented without worrying about total anihilation. I came here to RP, not play civ, as I can do that on my own. Playing on such a high difficulty does just that. It makes this a game of civ, where the only players having fun are the metagame people. I just think, that in the interest of all the new players, and even the vets, (as they too are noobs to this) we shouldn't throw ourselves into a sharktank. None of you have tried a BTS demogame before, so why push so hard for such a high difficulty? Even if the game is kinda easy on prince, the random events and other special feature on BTS will more than keep the game alive.
And about unrestricted civs, I dont know how many games youve all played with that option, but I dont find it unbalanced at all. In fact it can make for some awesome chances in taking power, or just defending yourself against a good combo'd civ. I always choose unrestricted personalites, more so for the fact that I've never play the same game twice. Every game, the comp uses a different strategy based on their civ, and to think that they wont is just inexpirienced. Though I do agree that some civ/leader combos are inherently weak, there are more strong and balanced combos than weak ones out there. So, all this swept under the proverbial rug, I just want to see a new poll with blastoidstalker criteria met. This is what should happen.

 

[DaveShack]

I also think that several players are beginning to see what I am seeing, that there is a convention for having our side poll an issue several times to get the same result as the "official side". This perpetual poll thing, I wonder what the reaction would be if we repolled every single decision we did not like, and made that a standard. It is not taken for granted, we will apply the repoll convention of the last 2-3 demogames you and a few others installed, we need to discuss it and repoll it for this game separately.

If this game follows the pattern of the previous ones, the fact that you're making so much noise, especially conspiracy theory noise, about this issue will send many of the 1st timers packing.

There is no conspiracy and never has been one.

You can even set it up Daveshack, so it follows your strict preferences for what is right or not, as you are the supreme authority in here.
I certainly do not feel privileged enough to set it up.

Any citizen may post a fair, unbiased poll. How could it be any different?

 

[AluminumKnight]

The single biggest thing that hasn't really been addressed is that ice has said that the demogame has struggled with Prince before. I think this means that going above Monarch is asking for trouble.

I second (fourth? fifth?) blastoid's proposal. Let's get a real poll with all options up there, now that people have had a chance to discuss this more. We may get less response, but it's the best we can do. Clearly, the last two polls did not work.

 

[DaveShack]

The single biggest thing that hasn't really been addressed is that ice has said that the demogame has struggled with Prince before. I think this means that going above Monarch is asking for trouble.

Looking back in the archives I see that we played DG2 on prince level. We won that game very easily -- the difficulty was with keeping people in the game due to unnecessary fighting over rules and polls.

 

[fed1943]

Three points:

a) I agree with Blastoidstalker proposal, and would suggest a little twist to it,
if no single option got more than 50%, that is, to "slider"it to achieve
majority. Two examples: 20 voters,10 for Prince,10 for Emperor, then
victory to Monarch; 24 voters,5 for Noble,9 for Prince,10 for Emperor, then
it shall be Prince. (No need for a run-off).

b) I usually play the level I play by two reasons: I'm a strong (for said level)
Domestic player and a weak (again for said level) Military and Diplomatic
player; so, in a team, me and my partners can play a higher level.

c) Honestly I cannot see how a higher or lower level can help or hurt RPG or
narratives.

Best regards,

 

[Ballazic]

Honestly I don`t want to play on emperor level, but if thats what the people want i dont want more recounts. I say we just go with this poll

 

[Conroe]

And about unrestricted civs, I dont know how many games youve all played with that option, but I dont find it unbalanced at all.

Shaka is still Shaka, whether he has a Fast Worker or an Impi as his UU. The personality is based upon the leader not the civilization. If you give him a Navy Seal or a French Salon, he will not do as well. Give him a Praetorian and ... well ... things may not go well for the home team. Given the number of combinations in a random draw, it is more likely that Shaka will struggle.

The same goes for other leaders. Asoka is going to focus on religion and science. The same with Mansa Musa. If you give these types of leaders a War Chariot or a Praetorian, the units will likely not be used to their fullest potential.

The single biggest thing that hasn't really been addressed is that ice has said that the demogame has struggled with Prince before.

The first DG was started right after had been released. There was no experienced pool of players to call upon. My guess is that a series of poor decisions were made in the early game that came back to roost in the mid game. In the second DG (also on prince), the game became easily winnable despite a number of poor decisions in the mid game.