The Final Analysis?

[JohnnyW]

Found this from quickly searching the web:

“If chess isn't random, then neither are dice. After all, the dice roll and land according to rather straightforward laws of physics. If you don't know the number that results, then in your perception only there is chance involved. Chess is the same way. Unless you know all the possible results of all possible moves, there is chance involved.”


I rest my case.

You are a freaking idiot. Moderator Action: Flaming
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Go ahead and flag me, but it needs to be said and I'll take the hit. I'm done dealing with this moron.

edit: that linked article is way off the mark too. Neither of you understand randomess.

 

[tripedius]

The final analyses is pretty simple. It doesn't really matter what people think of this game, but Í'm not playing it anymore. Not that I hated it or thought CiV IV is better, but just because it does not hold my interest anymore. I've played all Civ's and really like this kind of game, but in the end I bored pretty quickly with this particular installement of Civ. Don't really know why, haven't thought about it much but just started playing other games.
In total I've played a hand full of games and would have probably posted this sooner, but I've been without a computer for a couple of months after Civ burned through my GPU (not civ's fault though). Can't really put my finger on it. Sulla raized some good arguments, but the AI has always been crap in diplomacy and war. It's just less fun or rather it does not capture my attention as long as previous versions have.

Maybe, just maybe, it is the growing gap between those that want a occasional game and those that want to play fanaticly as the devellopers have the inclination to focus on the first group. Cause I think that if you don't play fanaticly Civ V could keep you occupied must longer as with previious versions those people would not finish games because they were to complex to continu after a couple of days off. But that's just my opinion and slight frustration that devellopers are only focusing on casual gameplay and/or multiplayer money maker for strategy and rpg games (which makes it extra strange Civ V does nothing for MP)

 

[Eskel]

Decent, but I completely disagree that 1upt caused it all. To me civ5 is awesome despite its flaws b/c of 1upt and hex-map. I don't see how global happiness was a forced decision b/c of 1upt. I don't see how imbalanced civs was a forced decision b/c of 1upt. Etc. Vastly overstated point! Can anyone disprove me? How did 1upt force those decisions?!

You are perfectly right, that 1UPT alone didn't cause it all.
Of course, despite 1UPT there could be better diplomacy, better social engineering system than Social Policies, local hapiness, health and so on. Even 1UPT could be implemented better, so the game overall would offer much more rich and satisfying gaming experience.

However, as Sulla explained in his article, 1UPT is quite an important one among other problems and causes a lot of dire consequences: with overcrowding and traffic jams at the first place.
Look then, how design team tried to counter them:
- too many units? Then let's reduce production rates (makes game dull), and add active defence to cities so they will need less defenders to repel attack (encourages ICS)
- no space for maneuvres? Let's make distants between cities larger. Oh, holy crap, that will strengthens cities too much (increased from 21 to 37 number of tiles within city radius is hard to grasp for human player and increases production rates>> overcrowding) so we have to nerf them again with low tile yields (makes city placement meaningless, dull gameplay)
- we have nerfed big cities, and player is falling asleep during early gameplay? then lets strengthen small cities!(ICS...)
- units are too valuable - they costed a lot of production while being too vulnerable to its counter within paper-rock-scissor mechanic with no possibility of combined arms defence(1UPT)? Then lets strengthen them with insta-heal and more hitpoints, making them virtually indestructible in hands of skilled player (four horsemen of Apocalypse to conquer the world, imbalanced kill ratios >> no challenge, dull gameplay)

Moreover, some inherent qualities of 1UPT inclines me to think that it is not valid mechanic for Civ-styled (I mean empire building) game. Biggest problem is tremendous imbalance between combat and building parts of the game: player doesnt longer need strong economy to win over opponent. What is the meaning of your entire production base, if there are only 6 units on the front line combating? Limited unit numbers, increased dependency on combat outcomes and low production rates just strengthens the trend. Then goes subsequently spacing and scale (mentioned shortly above) and a lot of other details that are widely described in other threads.

There is no coincidence that two different wargame genres evolved: one tactical and second more focused on strategy. Taken into account acceptable level of abstraction ("accessibility", understood as simplicity of rules that disallow putting together too much), there is not too much common points between those two that can stand for coherent and appealing entirety.

Problem is that devs possibly still could find better (though not ideal) solutions to these problems, e.g. maintenance of units in food, higher maintenance in gold, different maintenance for various unit types - higher for later units. Regrettably, they went straight into braindead tactics of cheap and easy tricks (nerf, nerf, nef, penalty). I can see where they took their ideas from: gameplay>>reality, "streamlining" and "accessibility". That perfectly questions their design skills and proves what Sulla said: they simply dont understand how their game works, not only Civ 5, but whole Civ 1-4 series alltogehter as well.

 

[Dale]

@JohnnyW,@Atwork,@Celevin,@JLoZeppeli This chess thing wasnt really my point at the beginning so that really doesnt have anything (or at least very little) to do with civ5, but it just expanded and came the burning point of things somehow, perhaps because there are some people who just refuse to look at things from different perspective.

Found this from quickly searching the web:

“If chess isn't random, then neither are dice. After all, the dice roll and land according to rather straightforward laws of physics. If you don't know the number that results, then in your perception only there is chance involved. Chess is the same way. Unless you know all the possible results of all possible moves, there is chance involved.”

Also you you guys might want to read this:

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/37&page=2

You can search more from the internet if you please, type something like “Randomness in chess”.

If you guys want to continue just blindly repeat that there is zero randomness in chess then go to some other site to do that.

I rest my case.

Chance and luck are not randomness. Randomness is literally acting to no procedure or rule. Chess has rules. Chess is NOT random. Just because you fluke a winning position does not entail randomness. That is luck. Why? Because to get to ANY board configuration in chess the pieces must be moved according to set and known regulations, procedures and rules. It is possible to predict the path to every single board configuration possible in chess. If it were random, this would not be possible.

I must agree that you have no idea what randomness means.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

You are a freaking idiot.

Go ahead and flag me, but it needs to be said and I'll take the hit. I'm done dealing with this moron.

edit: that linked article is way off the mark too. Neither of you understand randomess.

I agree and taking a link to Wizard of the Coast tht sells a collectable card game is the worst thing to do... As if they don't need to tell everyone that chess is random as well as Magic the Gathering.....

Edit: and Dale dug the grave to aziantuntija 's statement. Rest in peace....

 

[Dale]

Edit: and Dale dug the grave to aziantuntija 's statement. Rest in peace....

Yeah can we now return to flaming each other over Civ 5 now?

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Yeah can we now return to flaming each other over Civ 5 now?

I want to know more about your " i'll try to save the boat" mod Dale, as a sing says in Italy "Tutto il resto è noia" (everything else is boring)...

 

[Dale]

I want to know more about your " i'll try to save the boat" mod Dale, as a sing says in Italy "Tutto il resto è noia" (everything else is boring)...

I wouldn't call it a mod, per say. This should answer your question though. http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/entry.php?51-Is-this-the-end

 

[Eskel]

I am almost sure Aziantuntija perfectly know what randomness mean... However, I guess he won't give up his case. Apparently, he chose consciously to nitpick and make some word-play with sematics.

Though annoyingly, it seems he is right... for some extent. Of course, we can discuss for the rest of our lives if the global nature of universe is deterministic or undeterministic, as we can not prove any of these thesis (at least if Heisenberg was right). However, I dont find this productible.
I have a proposal then. From now on, lets use for our own comfort the word "random" in its common sense, without all these philosophical inclinations, ok?
So if we can predict (at 99.9999% probability) the consequences of our moves in chess, e.g. we consider the figure ALWAYS takes the exactly the place we intended/decided move it to, or figure ALWAYS beats another figure, if it moves onto the tile occupied by it, as it has always been in the past, let's pretend there is NO randomness in chess at all, at least from our subjective, personnal point of view.
You know, most people agree to use simplified meanings rather than precise therms in sake of time consumption and keeping mental health.

BTW, it is known fact that sooner or later computer will always win against human in chess, as they can predict and compute more possible scenarios and combination of moves.

 

[aziantuntija]

I must agree that you have no idea what randomness means.

Ok first of all i have never, i repeat NEVER said chess is random, so dont go around saying that i did. But i did say that chess has some randomness in it. It doesn’t really make it a fact if you agree or disagree with me. Since there are people for and against this claim: “there is zero randomness in chess”. Maybe you just dont give yourself a change to see the other side of the story. I mean its easy to say that 'there is zero something in something' than to actually look deep into it.

Randomness is literally acting to no procedure or rule. Chess has rules.

..so therefore, throwing a dice is not random since it obeys the law of the physics. Physics does have laws.

If we look it like this, then nothing isn’t really "random" because "there is a reason for everything".. To continue with this perspective: if i need to throw number six with dice and i succeed in it, it wasnt exactly just a 'lucky roll of dice', because the dice obeyed the laws of the physics and it gave me the six because i throwed it in such manner that it gave me the six. Therefore, there is no other explanation to this other than this must of been skill since dice doesnt roll radomly. Infact, since there is a reasons and laws for everything and nothing isnt random then we wouldnt even need the word random. Please everyone, dont quote this out of the context it belongs, wich is answer to Dale.


Ok lets forget my last answer (the one abowe) to Dale for a moment and get back to the real world wich has a word 'random' in it.

Because to get to ANY board configuration in chess the pieces must be moved according to set and known regulations, procedures and rules.

Yes this is true. However, during MAKING (playing to the point of) this configuration that were the game now stands, if you just even ONCE did NOT think -ALL- of the possible moves available, I mean literally ALL, then there HAS occurred (at least) SOME change/randomness in the placing of the chess pieces when we get back to the point were the game now stands. This is not though how computer plays chess. Computer goes trhough ALL available moves every single time (yes, even the most stupid moves) and picks the best move. But howewer, this does not prove that chess would NOT have ANY randmomness in it because of how computer plays it, that would be like saying that there is no bluff in poker because the computer does not understand the concept of bluffing.


You know, we still might just agree to disagree about this thing, I would be perfectly fine with that.

 

[Iranon]

There is no need to agree on anything - you simply don't understand the concepts involved. And this loops back to the original disagreement: Some things aren't a matter of opinion or taste, but can be judged objectively.

 

[aziantuntija]

There is no need to agree on anything - you simply don't understand the concepts involved.

Then please enlighten me.

There are people in this thread that just say that "you are wrong" and nothing else, please dont be one of those.

And this loops back to the original disagreement: Some things aren't a matter of opinion or taste, but can be judged objectively.

Yes I writed quite a bit about this one:

So once again, if you say that for example: "Civilization V uses 1upt system." then you are absolutely right and that is considered as a fact. However, if you say that its bad thing that "Civilization V uses 1upt system." then its just your opinion and is not a considered as a fact. Its simple really.

So are you disagreeing with me about this one?

 

[JLoZeppeli]

I wouldn't call it a mod, per say. This should answer your question though. http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/entry.php?51-Is-this-the-end

OK, if even you give up, i can turn my back on Civ V and rejoin the Civ IV forum... What's a pity...

 

[Mustakrakish]

I love random...

 

[Atwork]

There is no need to agree on anything - you simply don't understand the concepts involved. And this loops back to the original disagreement: Some things aren't a matter of opinion or taste, but can be judged objectively.

And so we come full circle!

Then please enlighten me.

Aziantuntija, go down to your nearest used bookstore and pick up an introductory book on mathematical statistics!

Until you switch topics, I will no longer respond to you & I suggest everyone else do the same. No amount of explanation will solve this riddle for Aziantuntija.

 

[aziantuntija]

@Atwork I belive that you learned something from this discusson, but i think your pride took such a hit in the process that you will propably never admit it.

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

 

[ohioastronomy]

You can try to use the word "day" to describe what everyone else calls "night", or use "up" when everyone else uses "down", or call the color of a normal cloudless daytime sky "black" when everyone else uses the word "blue". However, you will quickly annoy and anger the folks you're talking to when you start to use language that way. Azain, I'm afraid that you're at that stage here - you're simply using words such as random in a manner utterly contrary to their accepted meaning. And, to be honest, it's coming across as an exercise in word games (a.k.a sophistry) to try and tie this to things like free will and determinism.

 

[aziantuntija]

You can try to use the word "day" to describe what everyone else calls "night", or use "up" when everyone else uses "down", or call the color of a normal cloudless daytime sky "black" when everyone else uses the word "blue". However, you will quickly annoy and anger the folks you're talking to when you start to use language that way. Azain, I'm afraid that you're at that stage here - you're simply using words such as random in a manner utterly contrary to their accepted meaning. And, to be honest, it's coming across as an exercise in word games (a.k.a sophistry) to try and tie this to things like free will and determinism.

What is the point of your post? If you are annoyed or angry then please go away, you dont have to come here and mension my username in some weird post.

Moderator Action: It's not up to you to decide who can or can't post in a thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Dale]

..so therefore, throwing a dice is not random since it obeys the law of the physics. Physics does have laws.

If we look it like this, then nothing isn’t really "random" because "there is a reason for everything".. To continue with this perspective: if i need to throw number six with dice and i succeed in it, it wasnt exactly just a 'lucky roll of dice', because the dice obeyed the laws of the physics and it gave me the six because i throwed it in such manner that it gave me the six. Therefore, there is no other explanation to this other than this must of been skill since dice doesnt roll radomly. Infact, since there is a reasons and laws for everything and nothing isnt random then we wouldnt even need the word random. Please everyone, dont quote this out of the context it belongs, wich is answer to Dale.

Dice follow the laws of probability.

Yes this is true. However, during MAKING (playing to the point of) this configuration that were the game now stands, if you just even ONCE did NOT think -ALL- of the possible moves available, I mean literally ALL, then there HAS occurred (at least) SOME change/randomness in the placing of the chess pieces when we get back to the point were the game now stands. This is not though how computer plays chess. Computer goes trhough ALL available moves every single time (yes, even the most stupid moves) and picks the best move. But howewer, this does not prove that chess would NOT have ANY randmomness in it because of how computer plays it, that would be like saying that there is no bluff in poker because the computer does not understand the concept of bluffing.

If someone doesn't consider all the possible moves then that is a CHOICE between elements in a limited set. That is not randomness. You may THINK your choice is random, but the way the brain works (maybe not yours) it concludes based on many criteria. Even something as simple as your brain preferring crowns will skew the result, and anything like that destroys all concept of randomness. Moderator Action: Flaming. You could have made your argument without the insults.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I suppose there is a CHANCE of randomness happening in chess. Someone else totally unrelated to the game could walk past and kick the table making all the pieces jump onto random squares. But that's about the only way randomness could enter the game.

 

[ohioastronomy]

Decent, but I completely disagree that 1upt caused it all. To me civ5 is awesome despite its flaws b/c of 1upt and hex-map. I don't see how global happiness was a forced decision b/c of 1upt. I don't see how imbalanced civs was a forced decision b/c of 1upt. Etc. Vastly overstated point! Can anyone disprove me? How did 1upt force those decisions?!

Well, back to the original thread and minus one poster on /ignore (not you!).....

There are two main categories for me, and Sullla hits on one of them: there are consequences for other game ingredients from no stacking, and a lot of them are bad. But there is a second part that he didn't touch on much, and I think it may be just as important, if not more so.

You only have limited development and coding resources. The choice of no stacking meant that a lot of the effort in making the game had to be devoted to adjusting the many drastic changes that resulted. For example, I'd bet that coding how pieces moved without stacking was a massive coding effort. This then left a lot less room to fix other aspects of the game, thus the issues with happiness, civics, and the like.