1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

What gives you Civ4 gamer rage?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by itsunder9000, May 5, 2013.

?

Which gives you the most gamer rage?

  1. But...I was building that..(losing a wonder race)

    12 vote(s)
    9.0%
  2. Mr. Burnside you let me down(Losing a battle you are almost certain to win)

    22 vote(s)
    16.5%
  3. Anywhere but there!!!(Losing a key city spot)

    20 vote(s)
    15.0%
  4. A massive barabian uprising is occuring......(oh dear)

    6 vote(s)
    4.5%
  5. You sucker punched me!(Losing a key city to barbs)

    3 vote(s)
    2.3%
  6. no..no.no don't call your momma(weak civ your at war with vassalizes to strong civ)

    11 vote(s)
    8.3%
  7. Darn Liberals(Losing a bonus tech i.e. Liberalism, Music, Economics)

    2 vote(s)
    1.5%
  8. But I had faith!(Not founding a religion)

    2 vote(s)
    1.5%
  9. I guess I'm uncompetative(Not founding a corporation)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  10. So this is suffering the wrath of God...(Having the AP do something you really dont want)

    6 vote(s)
    4.5%
  11. Cathy I thought we had something..(Being backstabbed by pleased AI)

    7 vote(s)
    5.3%
  12. Run for your lives!!!(Surprise attack by a large stack of doom)

    7 vote(s)
    5.3%
  13. Nananana you cant catch me...(Runaway civ)

    3 vote(s)
    2.3%
  14. Wanna mess with me now...?(AI gets longbows too soon)

    2 vote(s)
    1.5%
  15. Penniless(Not having Copper, Iron, Horse, Oil, or Uranium)

    11 vote(s)
    8.3%
  16. They all stink equally

    6 vote(s)
    4.5%
  17. I adoped pacifism, no gamer rage but one gold upkeep for posting

    6 vote(s)
    4.5%
  18. Other, please specify

    7 vote(s)
    5.3%
  1. 6K Man

    6K Man Bureaucrat

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,148
    Location:
    in a Gadda Da Vida
    You're missing the point. For a lot of the posters in this thread (and others like it), the events they relate are part of the experience of playing Civ. Sharing them creates a sense of community for those posters, even if the event itself is annoying.

    We cackle evilly when we get the Tower Shields event, and yes, we groan and curse when a Forge burns down for the 3rd time while building Colossus. We all remember the losses at 98+% odds, while the wins at <10% are few and far between (because attacks at <10% are few and far between). For good or ill, ridiculous luck can make for memorable experiences when playing Civ.

    I get that you want a less random Civ, but not everyone shares your POV. For instance, if everyone played with events off, this thread would be a lot shorter and a lot less entertaining. IMO, of course.
     
  2. noto2

    noto2 Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,709
    Luck does make the game more interesting and memorable in SP. One problem, though is its astounding effect in the early game. Getting a quest like harbourmaster or the ones about building coliseums or libraries is fun. The chance to get tower shields or the tough decision making in the herbs quest - those things are interesting. What is really stupid are all the volcano eruptions. Seriously. Whenver I build a city next to a mountain I just don't bother using cottages. Even if it would make a good commerce city there's just no point. I'll take forever to mature those cottages into towns and then, sure enough, they'll all get wiped out by lava. So I just end up making the city do something else - farms, mines, etc. Those things can be rebuilt quickly.
    The barbarian uprisings are poorly designed as well. You can't prepare for them every game otherwise you'd expand and progress too slowly. Often you can defend yourself when they happen even if you weren't really planning for it, but then of course there are plenty of times where that event wipes out a city and that's a huge loss.
    Also the RNG really affects the early game. I think it was Phil who was talking about playing a mod with fixed combat damage. I can understand the desire to use that, especially in MP. I've had games ruined where I get 2 barb archers entering my borders and to prevent htem from pillaging tiles, I attack. I have 2 axes and an archer. So my 2 axes and 1 archer, attack 2 barb archers on a grassland tile. My two axes die. Next turn, the barb archer kills my archer so I whip an archer into the city. Next turn the 2 barb archers kill my archer in the city. The odds of this happening are 1 in 10 000 or something...and yet that exact scenario happened just the other day.
    So there are some random factors that really make the game interesting, and some that don't, and some that are just there and you have to live with them, unless you want to play a game with fixed damage and no randomness.
     
  3. AdamCrock

    AdamCrock Polish Pudding

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2012
    Messages:
    4,109
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Oakbrook ! ^^
    Has anyone completed the quest where You need to build at least one city on every landmass ? I was wondering what rewards You get ? I always play large maps with many islands so I never really got that one done yet. As for luck - well those feeling lucky would like to play with events turned on :) Personally I think they add some spice to the game so I always play with them turned on :)
     
  4. plasmacannon

    plasmacannon Emperor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,654
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orlando, Florida
  5. rah

    rah Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,273
    Location:
    Chicago
    Yeah, the bypassing the spawn rules is a problem. Those events wouldn't be AS bad if they did. You could at least partially protect yourself. Just more poor design. But there are a lot of poorly designed things in IV.

    Is it OK to complain about the diplo aspect of vassals, since it can be turned off?

    Is it OK to complain about cheesy diplo wins, since it can be turned off?

    Is it OK to complain about unfair tech trades, since it can be turned off?

    Is it OK to complain about the UI, since K-mod fixes a lot of the issues?

    Is it OK to complain about people whining, when they're just having fun doing it?

    And yes, it's your right to point it out to them.
     
  6. Izuul

    Izuul Level 86

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    6,819
    AI trading corn for iron after i have successfully cut off their metal tends to tick me off.
     
  7. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,238
    My problem with events isn't necessarily their random nature, but the potentially drastic, game-altering impact they have as random elements. If failaxis had gone easy on significant-impact events in the first 40 turns and avoided things like "herp freebie golden age", "you lose all units instantly", "here have a free diplo win", and "you have to declare war now".

    It's the same thing with combat outcomes; if you lose your scouting warrior on turn 6 you can miss out on scouting important resources. If you are extremely unlucky you can lose a city to barbarians despite more-than-adequate defenses, because those outcomes hinge on 1 or 2 rolls of the dice.

    Most war in this game hinges on dozens-to-hundreds of dice rolls, greatly reducing the impact of any one. This is also true for AI RNG decisions for the most part. It's these early-on RNG outcomes and events that are basically a "you win" or "you lose" instantly that ruin the game.

    Quests and events that have some semblence of strategic choice add to the game. Events that literally do nothing to influence choice and/or kill you instantly greatly hinder the game experience. When people "comiserate" on the latter, it rings hollow. They're a broken feature, much like the game controls. However, unlike the broken controls, there is an option to get rid of them.

    Where is my "UI buttons don't move" button? How about "No declaring war on allies without prompt?" Would anyone *NOT* click on "have the game move at a decent clip"?

    People are "raging" at things they control, when there are objectively broken elements in this game that one can not control, or can only partially control through mods. That in itself gives me gamer rage. The civ community has put up with and even actively defended excessively shoddy user interface + poor engine optimization for multiple iterations, and if I want to play this game, that impacts me directly.

    Events should never, ever have existed until they got the UI working. Same thing in civ V; failaxis should never, ever have considered releasing new-content DLC until it got its current content working. But the community puts up with it and reinforces the behavior with their wallets, and now I won't touch that game, and still get frustrated in this one as I watch people complain about controllable in-game elements while gameplay 101 issues still don't work.

    Yes, that makes me rage a bit indeed. It says a LOT, and not in a good way, that "poor UI" and "slow game speed on recommended specs" weren't even freaking options. Early longbows is more important than basic control failure? Taking a combat promotion and the game instead auto-exploring is perfectly FINE, but someone researching a tech makes the list? REALLY???????????

    Put me on record for saying these complaints are silly too :p. AI diplo cheese is actually controllable too, so really it's only the human abusing it. Along with tech trades, it would have been nice to see these mechanics balanced, however.

    A lot =/= all. Also, we're talking about the base game, not mods that are N/A to forum games and 100% illegal in settings like HoF and XOTM. Just because there are actual competent people out there doesn't mean failaxis is suddenly better as a result. Kmod fixes other things in this list too.

    I said it was silly, not that they couldn't or shouldn't do it.

    I'm not a fan of this either.
     
  8. rah

    rah Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,273
    Location:
    Chicago
    Yeah, I rarely could ever get an AI to trade me Elephants but they seem to almost give it away to other AIs.
     
  9. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,238
    Usually two resources is enough. Trading for jumbos isn't nearly as aggravating as trying to trade to get iron.
     
  10. AdamCrock

    AdamCrock Polish Pudding

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2012
    Messages:
    4,109
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Oakbrook ! ^^
    Speaking of UI I think that there should be an option to customize auto-pause/break "upkeep procedure" at important events like city captures on AI turn, conifrm combat odds, GP born, auto "after-battle" combat log, religion found etc. (with "zoom to *the site* option and ofc : "Are You really sure You want to declare war ?" ;)
     
  11. Izuul

    Izuul Level 86

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    6,819
    Speaking of trading for resources, i tried to trade for Oil in a deity game a couple weeks ago, and IIRC the AI wanted something along the lines of multiple resources + 250-300gpt. Then ofc I looked at the AI trades and saw that one of them was trading it to another AI for 1 seafood resource.

    This doesn't bug me as much as the Iron thing b/c it's rarely game altering like metal can be, but it's probably even more ridiculous.
     
  12. rah

    rah Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,273
    Location:
    Chicago
    Yeah, you're right, mine was more a general whine that the AI seems to deal strat ones easier among themselves.

    On the other issue, (yes i love beating dead horses) while I agree with almost everything you say on the events. Yes if they could have minimized the game ending crap in the first 40 turns it would have been nice, I still like how they impact the game so I'd still use them.

    But I disagree on your issue with the combat. Yes that early low odds loss to your scout makes a difference. I don't have a problem with that. That kind of thing happens. Things should happen that aren't totally planned. It's amazing when you look at some of the tiny things that decided battles over history.

    In my opinion, (which obviously differs with yours) the game would get awfully damn boring that if you follow the proper script guarantees the win. That's no different than the "I win button".
    I think the big difference is that you view it as a strategy game and I view it as more of war game. Probably because of all the MP games, and growing up playing every darn Avalon Hill board game with my brother. In war, crap happens. It's how you recover from crap that tests you. My brother an I were reasonably equal in skill. Some games were decided by who played the best or who was the most aggressive, but sometimes the battle was decided by things you had no control over. The most satisfying wins were those where luck was against you, but you still figured out a way to win. Maybe the difference was that we wouldn't make a big issue over who was overall better at a game. One of us was better on that particular day. Which is more how I see war games. You seem to think that the better player should always win. (or at least it sounds like that)
    You are entitled to think that way. Others are entitled to think differently.
     
  13. capnvonbaron

    capnvonbaron Democratia gladii

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,783
    Location:
    cyberland, USA
    LoL its ok TMIT, I understand what you meant poking fun at my rage toward events. I do play with them off a lot now, but sometimes I just like a game to be spicy. Hell, if it had just been a barb axe uprising I would've been fine with it, I had chariots in the area (and just a few games ago I had a barb axe uprising next to the city I had about half a dozen immortals ready to spank JC with, so that was a lulzy event).

    It was just the timing and circumstances that made it rage inducing this time. (I'd been slammed by barbs all game up until then and also had several >70% losses)
     
  14. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,238
    I'm only arguing against "crap" that happens that where you can't possibly recover no matter how good you are. Civ IV is a game and a strategy game on top of that. One rightfully expects a semblance of balance.

    But before that we at least SHOULD, in theory, expect a game where its basic features function on a consistent basis.

    No, I think the player who plays better in a given game should always win, especially if he played considerably better. That is not necessarily the person who is the better player "on average" or overall. What makes matchups interesting is not "how much can the random noise decide the outcome", it's the choices each player makes while attempting to win *this time*. Victories that happen solely "because the game says so" aren't truly victories at all; they're noise and hollow interruptions of the real play experience.

    What separates good players from average ones? They make more optimized choices and fewer mistakes. In theory, a person who plays absolutely perfectly shouldn't be losing at all, with the obvious note that playing absolutely perfectly is beyond human ability. However, the way the game is skill-equalized, it'd be possible for an above average player who makes dozens of mistakes to beat someone who has the "perfect game", and yes I think that sucks something horrid. Victories in a strategy game should be earned, not given away by the game beyond player control.
     
  15. rah

    rah Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,273
    Location:
    Chicago
    All good points. You argue it well, which I'm sure is due to experience dealing with others like me.

    As I said, I can and do respect your opinion but disagree. Which is becoming obvious that we never will. I guess it comes down to I don't think the person that plays better should win every time. (I know, heresy)
    Since I've played it as a war game since it came out, I can only view it that way. And in war, best isn't always good enough.

    If a better player plays a weaker player, Even with events, the better player may not win EVERY game, but he will win enough that there will be no doubt between the two on which one is better. And that is good enough for me.
    And it keeps more people available for our MP games because if the weaker player never has a chance to win, they stop playing. I'm willing to toss out that bone. Especially if it keeps them playing long enough to become a better player. I was the weaker player long ago. IT's all about the fun. I'd rather play with a consistent group of people that I know will try to complete a game, even from a losing position, unlike the random player you find on-line. I want to play a more relaxed game and not the blazing game typically found on-line. And then I'm not worried about cheating like was rampant in random civ II MP games.

    It all comes down to what you use the game for. For straight comparison games, I agree with you 100% but that's not how i use the game. What they call it, doesn't impact that. Strategy/War whatever.
     
  16. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,238
    I think you're getting confused to some extent. This is advertised as a strategy game, although admittedly that rings hollow due to how it is balanced (war >>> peaceful strategies unless playing vs AI which don't try to win). However, war games don't HAVE to be played in any one way; they can be balanced or not balanced just like strategy games. What you are doing is introducing bias along the lines of "this is always how I pictured it", which does not necessarily make it a good experience at all.

    Comparing war in civ to actual war is even more silly, especially because actual war actively seeks favorable *imbalance* (which runs counter to what you want out of a game) and depends on micro levels far beyond the scope of civ.

    Why add the noise though? Unless the disparity is quite large, the "better" player would lose occasionally even with 0 random factors, simply because the "weaker" player does something unexpected or the better player makes more mistakes than usual.

    It's hard to see how someone winning and KNOWING it's only because they got lucky is rewarding for them. "Here, have an unearned victory". What if they could have found a way to win without relying on that? They'll never know, and they now get one less opportunity for their choices to be the decisive outcome in the game.

    This argument was bound to come up eventually. Over the years I've played with a lot of people, some that I know well IRL and many that I don't...but ultimately whether I knew them didn't matter. My end conclusion is that I've lost respect for "weak" players who stop playing a game they'd otherwise enjoy because they feel like they can't win. It's a flimsy excuse. But this is an anecdotal story. WHY do I feel this way? Well:

    1. If you enjoy the game enough to play it, you play it (given).
    2. If your enjoyment hinges on winning a certain % of the time, you'd ideally take steps to win that %.
    3. If you dislike losing, you take steps that help you win or you don't play.
    4. If you don't mind losing and can have fun when it happens frequently, then the argument about the player stopping isn't relevant.

    The fundamental premise of a game is to operate within its defined rules in an attempt to secure one of its victory conditions. A typical person improves over time and then hits a plateau in terms of ability.

    So what happens when skill disparity grows? One player wins more frequently, while everyone still wants to win. This is fair, however. Each person is getting what they put in. Skill equalization *punishes* the person who learned more and makes better choices. Actively punishes them...and reinforces poor play habits.

    So you get players who will tell you outright "I am not interested in improving at this game that I'll still play every week for over a year", pout a bit when they lose, and change nothing about how they play. Really? You want to encourage THAT, and possibly even REWARD it occasionally? Why? What's so bad about making it the player's own responsibility in terms of how much "fun" he has or how much skill he or she needs to attain that fun?

    Every single one of us (except whoever played this game 1st) was the "weaker player long ago". That kind of statement isn't relevent. Are you really saying you'd have given up...simply quit outright because you knew you'd lose because people who were temporarily better than you could outplay you more often than you could outplay them? I find that implausible.

    I played in a similar group a while back myself. Guess who the first people were to quit playing out of that group? The low worker, low city wonders who refused to adjust their play then whined when you killed "their AI" that was still alive after someone else killed 3-4 from a worse position. The game got stale for them I guess, probably because they didn't change and improve, adjust, or make it different in any way ever. The next to go were people who did slightly better, but similarly hit a plateau and never adjusted past that. On occasion, RNG would throw them a stars-aligning bone and they'd come out on top, but it was rare, really rare and the same 2-3 people finished on top every week. Events couldn't save them. Indeed; one could argue that noise provided by events early on and the reliance that created on them for even a "chance" to win became a crutch and stunted development.

    My suspiscion, however, is that they didn't matter. If someone isn't willing to improve AND is butthurt enough over routine losses that they'd stop playing, they shouldn't be playing with people who are willing to improve in the first place. Those two gamers are in different worlds and random factors will have minimal at best impact on either side's enjoyment.
     
  17. rah

    rah Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,273
    Location:
    Chicago
    Friends are friends regardless and you support them. You'll note that I said that if they continued playing that they would have time to improve. And I refuse to look down my nose at a friend just because they aren't improving at something up to my standards regardless of their intent.

    I had one friend that didn't enjoy the game as much as being part of the group and having interactions. To be fair, we sometimes did things we didn't enjoy just to do one of their favorite things. People play for different reasons. Some play just to win and will only play settings that guarantees it. But I digress.

    By your own admission and definition, civ is not a true strategy game. Regardless of how it was advertised. Some will take it as it is, and others will try to make it what they think it should be.

    If you had experienced many Avalon Hill games (assuming you didn't or you wouldn't have made that comment about war games) you might think differently. If one side had a definite disadvantage in a battle, the game replicated it. If you played the losing side in one those games, the odds were you were going to lose. But not always, sometimes superior play and even luck would swing the battle. Which one it was, was usually self evident unless you were clueless. Sometimes it's not about winning but the experience. Different experience lead to different lessons learned. People still bought the games and replayed them many times.

    Now you might say verdic archers can't possibly teach you anything, I respectfully disagree. Some might use it to improve their fighting retreat skills.

    I was playing an MP game with my brother and the six swordsman event had them appear right between us early enough that neither one of us could respond quick enough, but it was hilarious watching us try. I reacted better and got an advantage from it.
     
  18. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,238
    How many years do you need to improve lol. I will not look down on someone as a person if they choose and even deliberately say they won't improve at a game on purpose. I do raise my eyebrows when these same players complain or react adversely to losing after essentially making a commitment to consistently losing. You can't have it both ways; grown adults shouldn't need their hands held by events or anything else.

    I will, however, look down on them as gamers and hope that such a tendency doesn't bleed into things that are actually important, such as one's career or relationships. Those things don't tend to be easy/simple either, and the consequences for "quitting" are a smidge more dire.

    There is some frustration in watching a friend simply will themselves out of improving though, and even more frustration when the games themselves enable that to an extent.

    Like I said though, if one is just hanging out and doesn't actually care much if they win they don't fit the demographic you claim will quit because they don't think they can win. Settings manipulation is another matter entirely, although even the most luck-loving among our group came to hate certain map scripts due to the imbalance (tectonics for example) simply because they eventually ate the bad starts with massed plains and couldn't recover.

    It's as much a strategy game as most others. I'm not sure how to place it; the AIs are no valid guide since they don't play it and humans are volatile indeed. Regardless, it's in the genre and is sold as the "ultimate strategy game", and perhaps that's true...or would be if you could prevent your units from moving against your will :lol:.

    War games have a wide variety; balanced/imbalanced, increasingly luck dependent or virtually not at all. I'm not seeing how this is applicable to rage sources in civ IV in particular though, or to the luck argument. Wanting to make civ IV like those games is no different from trying to make it any other game it isn't. What I want to see is balance within the context of civ IV, not balance within the context of Chess, HOMM III, Starcraft, Avalon Hill, Bridge, or Basketball.

    Please don't work in such ridiculous statements. Or, if you're going to say something this flagrantly ridiculous, perhaps you care to tell us how to do a "fighting retreat" with a worker and MAYBE 1 warrior ^_^. Fact of the matter is these uprisings pre-1500 BC are severe setbacks no matter what, and the ~2000 BC and before ones are killshots.

    I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to question this story (which is also not relevant BTW). 6 swords = huge map, so "right between us" means that you somehow were close to bordering each other in the early game on a huge map, plausible but "right between" is questionable because uprisings literally start on your borders.

    On top of that, however, is that barb uprisings follow a special AI script (lemming); there is roughly 0 chance that the uprising event would split the swords and attack both of you similarly. No, it will pick a target city and run all 6 guys there, and won't even attack a unit unless it's directly in the way. Any "advantage" conferred from this event is based upon who it doesn't target.

    At least make up PLAUSIBLE stories; giving me this junk is ridiculous :lol:.
     
  19. rah

    rah Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,273
    Location:
    Chicago
    It was a large not huge map and we had AI's in the game since it was just the two of us. Calling me a liar isn't exactly taking the high road. Which I thought you were doing up to this point. I kept responding because I was appreciating your insightful responses. Now I'll know better.

    You said it yourself "What I want to see". That sums it up. IN YOUR OPINION. I want to see it more like a WAR game. Why does your opinion trump mine? Fortunately we both get to have our own way. And I'm not the one saying you're wrong. I've even said for comparison games I agree with you. I'm just saying for other types of games I have a different opinion. Geeze.

    And I had one friend that played for years and only improved marginally. So you may laugh at his inability to improve TO YOUR STANDARDS, but I still considered him a good friend a I thought no less of him. I wish he had more time to improve but he passed away last year. People at Poly can verify this if you want to call me a liar again.

    So keep pointing your nose to the sky and laugh at us lower beings. Enjoy
     
  20. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,238
    You literally said something that can't possibly happen as an event. What do you want from me, to ignore it?

    Point my nose in the sky? Try thumbing it given the response you just gave :D. Maybe you just misremembered, I'll assume that's the case, but you told me something very questionable and so I questioned it. The uprising event script does not permit behavior such that both of you would have to try to react to it, or that one could react "better" considering that one of you got hit by six swords and the other likely 0. If you get a barb uprising, it's going to SOMEONE's city (even if it's glitchy and goes a long way) and all six of them are going there come hell or high water. You might remember a barb event, and even scrambling to handle it, but it only hit one of you initially.

    People who started later than me got better than me too. It happens, and I know exactly why it happens. Now, would I routinely complain about it in a MP game because I didn't have precious skill-equalizers to give me a chance at winning, were I to play such opponents? No. Would "winning" solely because the game said so be rewarding in any way? No. Would gambling to surprise and defeat a great player who was and is still better than me such as Lord Parkin be rewarding? Yes, that was a great moment, but if he died to vedic aryans or was severely crippled all early game it would have been a victory with an asterisk.

    If someone is fine with where they are in terms of skill, they also need to be fine with where they are in terms of win %. Why is it so hard for people to accept that there are people better than them and vice versa? Within certain skill clusterings anybody can beat anybody, but some people are favored for a reason. You don't need random events to determine outcomes; player consistency (or rather, inconsistency), transient improvement/mistakes, and choices are the core elements.

    And in all of this discussion, I need emphasize again that events didn't HAVE to go that route and in doing so diverge from virtually every other civ mechanic. They did though.
     

Share This Page