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. Fippy

    Fippy Micro Junkie Queen

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    10,595
    Gender:
    Female
    Failed Reli spreads are annoying ;)
    Esp. if you hurried with getting another one out, so that nice and big city can run Paci..
     
  2. noto2

    noto2 Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,709
    I think it comes down to game design and play testing. Obviously we love Civ, which is why we're all here, and so we really love a product that Firaxis produced...it's just that they gave their 90%. All they had to do was an extra 10% and the game could have been nearly perfect.

    It's obvious that certain things were not play tested. You guys were talking about the Vedic Aryans. Yeah...that event doesn't "teach" one anything. If you play in such a way to be prepared for it every game, you'd bee-line archery right after getting 1 worker tech, and spam archers for the first 50 turns of the game. The problem with that is you would NEVER EVER do things like REX, found a religion, or build an early game wonder. You just couldn't ever do it. I don't think anyone here thinks that's fun or a good idea... also your early game would be so slow that you probably couldn't win on higher difficult levels.

    Very simple tweaks to the game could have made enormous improvements. Again, this idea that "crap happens in war" well yeah... but it's a game. Don't make the game unfun.

    What I mean is, randomness is find, but as Phil pointed out, losing your scout on turn 6 is not okay. Very simple changes could have addressed this stuff.

    Everyone could have started with 4 warriors or something along those lines. I mean, they did the same thing with the palace. The palace is a major equalizer. Everyone starts with at least 9 commerce (1 from the city square tile too). In Civ 3 there was no palace so by turn 10 sometimes you only had 1 trade, sometimes you had 2-3. Literally, your research pace would double or triple as you added roads or water tiles. The palace in Civ 4 helps to balance out starting positions. So why not start everyone with a couple or a few warriors.
     
  3. 6K Man

    6K Man Bureaucrat

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,129
    Location:
    in a Gadda Da Vida
    Strawman. Outside of the Vedic Aryans event, a poor player won't beat a good player solely due to luck.
     
  4. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,157
    Actually it can happen and has happened, and I've been on both ends of it. Most typical is when you get stuck vs strat resource units from copper or horse when you have nothing and just get 2-unit choked. It slows you down so much (can't improve any tiles at all, need to spam the bejeesus out of archers forever just to survive and you aren't going to win) that even stellar play won't dig you out.

    However, chain slave revolts (4 or more) very early, 4+ forest fires in first 50-60 turns, late-game bermuda triangle (more relevant in SP than MP, but relevant in comparison games), freebie golden ages, freebie axe promos, diplo events in series like XOTM and HoF, huts giving absurd techs early, any barb uprising when a human threat necessitates attention at your front are just some examples where one player can materially outplay another and still lose by a margin thanks to events (except the hut one, which is an example of huts which is a similar mechanic).

    By the way...

    Strawman argument per wiki:

    In what you quoted, I am representing my own position (that wins based on these lucky outcomes are hollow, and thus refuting the assertion that someone will keep playing materially longer because they get meaningless wins), not that of my opponent. People suuuuuure love saying "straw man" though, so have fun with that :D.

    I never thought about this, but it's a great point and idea. I also wonder how differently this game would be perceived if "advanced start" were the default option.
     
  5. lymond

    lymond Rise Up! (Phoenix Style!) Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Messages:
    20,611
    so true ;) hate when that happens


    Great stuff, Phil! Good to have you back enlightening and entertaining the forum. :) As you well know I'm strongly opposed to events, whether SP or MP. (don't play MP) Curious, and I think you have mentioned before not being entirely opposed to the idea of events but rather the way Failaxis implemented them in IV, if you had designed the event system, what are some of things that you would do to make it fair and balanced - and far less annoying.? Only thing I can think of is that every player gets the same event/quest. In the case of quests, it would then be a race to complete it should one choose or care to. And certain events would not initiate without certain parameters or conditions met by all, such as access to a resource or tech.
     
  6. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,157
    Ah, always a good question and generally a tough one..."what could have been done so that this was actually better?". I have a few ideas:

    1. Tone down the level of impact - For most of the game, you won't win or lose based on the outcome of a very small # of RNG outcomes. No reason to make events an exception. Get rid of barb uprisings entirely; if you want more fun barb action IMO make barb city invasions more dynamic or alter how they spawn and behave; do not randomly SCREW someone early. Golden ages and global march are too strong.

    2. Lean more on quests - When a quest becomes available, yes make it available to all civilizations at once, and give each a plausible award. Some of the best events are quests. The +3 global diplo on "best defense" is a little ridiculous, while the "free units" aren't impressive. I would look at quests as giving similar rewards to building wonders, as they are a similar investment.

    3. I would want every event to present the player a choice, and to have each one be viable or not based on situation...sometimes with hard choices. Burning a forge down doesn't do much in the way of strategic choice...but what about an event giving criteria that allows the status quo (minimal investment), removing the :yuck: (larger investment), or decreasing production/increasing :yuck: (no investment at all). Make the player do something! I want to see more than just "throw money at this if you have it" or "you take this and can do nothing".

    4. Fortune favors the prepared, right? Let's give events some bias towards things that generally constitute reasonable safe plays. Building units against uprisings is a sucker bet, while binary research is done constantly and thus competent players generally have money for events after writing. Neither is good for the game; no altered behavior from the events at all. Perhaps an investment system (emergency fund?) would have been better. Hell, an investment system would be better than tech trades in general, but at least with events this would give a reasonable way to deliberately hedge or risk it, with more or less dire consequences for coming up short based on degree. Once again, a player choice has to be made here and it ideally still wouldn't be game breaking regardless; you'd want similar expected returns so that one option wouldn't be overwhelming (IE running slavery and just risking the revolts).

    This is already in the game, they just made poor choices as to pre-reqs.
     
  7. noto2

    noto2 Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,709
    I agree with leaning more towards quests and choices. Interesting choices are the heart of the game, according to Sid. I agree with him.
    I mentioned earlier the quests like the harbourmaster, or ancient literature. Things along those lines are interesting. Everyone is racing to build enough libraries to get the bonus so you have a choice to make. You can try to win that race or you can ignore it and focus on something else, like say military units to attack your neighbours who are busy building libraries.

    I don't see the logic to the events like "melee gets free cover ability" ... so someone just randomly got a free gift. No, you should have to earn it. There could be a quest to do something and if done gives your melee units cover, and it should have a risk or cost.

    Even worse, are the negative events that happen for no reason - the forests and forges burning down, or pastures being destroyed. Usually these are minor annoyances but occasionally can actually lose the game for you. The one negative event that I'm okay with is slave uprisings. The reason I'm okay with it is that slavery is probably the most powerful civic in the game and there is little reason to leave slavery except when you need caste system (and it's rare that you need that more than slavery) or in the late game when emancipation penalties are too high to ignore. So the slave uprisings add a cost/risk to slavery, and I'm fine with that. Of course, it would be better if Firaxis had have just balanced the labour civics in the first place :/
     
  8. The7Sins

    The7Sins Hungry Burger

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    471
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Montpelier, Vermont
    It used to be for me not having the resource that is needed for my UU not spawning within the radius of my capitol. Now however one of the elements of my personal mod makes each civ be guaranteed to spawn with the resource needed for there UU somewhere in there starting BFC area.

    Now my biggest annoyance is when I fail to get a good city spot in time.
     
  9. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,157
    That's just the thing. Slave revolts in their current form are trashy, because the expected returns from slavery are great enough to overpower it. As a result, it's still wise to run slavery but now people are rewarded differently for the same choice with events on. That's quite bad design, especially because the revolts aren't even tied to the actual whip mechanic (which would have been very sensible --> chain whip a city and you get increasing chances of revolts, with revolts only being possible in cities with at least 1 whip :mad: for example).

    Instead of forcing the player to make choices along those lines, current events largely follow a canned pattern:

    1. Something positive or negative happens, having virtually nothing to do with player choices.
    2. Player might have the option to pay and get more good or less bad.

    That's it. I just nailed what, 80% of the events in this game? Possibly than that! It's easily the most half-baked expansion mechanic (bad enough to make espionage look amazing in comparison!) and it was implemented with pathetic laziness.
     
  10. babar

    babar King

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Messages:
    600
    I think that to make Events interesting would be such a massive project that it's just not worth it. Same goes for Espionage, which brings me to one of my biggest gripes - the "No Espionage" option. To put it simply, it's not an option. So why include it? Those responsible seem to lack a basic comprehension of the game mechanics.
     
  11. rah

    rah Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    8,714
    Location:
    Chicago
    I don't understand how this negates what I said. The stack took one of my cities then went after one of his. I was able to get units there faster to recapture the city. And defend from what was left after his city fell. When the stack first showed we were unaware of the target till the stack moved.

    While I wish they thought through the events better, as long as you're accepting a random civ and random starting land (which in my opinion have a greater impact on MP games than events usually do) all we're arguing about is the just how much randomness.
     
  12. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,157
    ? All you'd need is to remove 1 warrior defender from the city, let the swords take it, then re-capture the city. You definitely implied that there was some "react to it better" going on there. I didn't know moving a unit 1 tile sideways and then getting lucky that the next "target city" happened to not be yours was "reacting better".

    After recapturing your city, you would have at MINIMUM ~12 turns before the swords could return if they went to one of his cities, not to mention he had at least 5-6 turns on you to defend his city (and 7-8 overall). You can't possibly assert with any credibility that this is an "even" situation; it's much easier to react to an attack when you have 3-4x times as many turns to shift units as the other guy. A good player can easily stuff 3-4 axes in a city within 8 turns, but not within 2-3.

    If neither of you had any/many units of significance, the person getting stuck actually having to kill the swords is at a significant disadvantage. It's frankly ridiculous to claim that retaking a completely undefended city is a good reaction lol.

    And yes, land screws are one of the worst things in the game. I'm not sure how you'd deal with that other than playing on balanced pre-made maps or at least running an algorithm that gives nigh-identical capitols and similar surrounding lands.
     
  13. rah

    rah Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    8,714
    Location:
    Chicago
    Or you can make the game where land differences are quite minimal. (and we saw how well that worked with civ V) Making the land less interesting was one of my biggest complaints about V. A fact that I mentioned many times during testing.

    And for the record I didn't know the swords would always totally vacate the city once captured. I've seen the archers lose attacking a city defended by a single warrior (against all reasonable odds) so never thought to remove the axe that was there and just prayed. You learn something new every day. At least you're laughing at my tactics and not my integrity.
     
  14. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,157
    ??? This makes no sense at all. If Civ V's spawn distributions are better-balanced than IV's, the difference is minimal at best.

    The problem with IV's land imbalance isn't the variety, but rather the distribution of food (regardless of source) and sheer volume. All too typically someone will spawn at the edge of a continent with a rival in the middle and nobody on the other side. There's nothing you can do about that if said situation turns into a runaway. I've seen AI with 20+ cities and a peacevassal in such setups, but in human hands it might be even worse.

    Indeed I forget that some of these mechanics are not 100% common knowledge. The lemming script uprising barbs will *always* immediately vacate the city. They basically charge headlong from 1 city to the next and won't attack anything else unless it's a city (and then only if adjactent to it; they will not re-route to take a different city than a target city) or it directly blocks them. If you wanted you could literally follow uprisng barbs around with a worker and they'd never kill it unless it blocked their path.

    Even so, losing buildings en masse hurts, as does losing the pop. Only the archer one tends to be insta-death because you only have 1 city and often little more than a worker/warrior. Still, these uprisings really don't add much to the game in terms of strategy/choices because they're sucker bets. I'd rather see a barb event that boosts a barb city or upgrades a barb city to a "minor nation" (which already exists in the code). Less of a cheap shot and potentially very interesting especially on scripts like terra.
     
  15. rah

    rah Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    8,714
    Location:
    Chicago
    The thinking (in V) was that if the land is not as special, then differences between placements wouldn't have such an impact. No one would have 3 x the food as another. Even a tundra start wouldn't be as bad. Rivers still caused an issue though which is why I never understood their thinking on it since they didn't feel the need to balance that.

    In IV there were ways you could tweak the map script so it wasn't as bad. We had one that one of our programmers did that spaced the starting locations better for MP games on Pangaea maps. K-mod fixed the "plains cow" shouldn't be considered a food special.

    And thanks for the additional details on the mobs.
     
  16. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,157
    In V, while the land isn't as special (more driven by cities), resources are freaking crucial, and the end result is the same thing.

    That game also suffers in that "lots of land" means nothing because it's consistently suboptimal to settle all of it. V tends to have unclaimed land into the industrial era and later...and even then they couldn't manage reasonably balanced spawns! Some people get 2 copies of multiple unique luxuries with more nearby and others...don't.
     
  17. rah

    rah Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    8,714
    Location:
    Chicago
    considering how much thought went into Balancing the maps, the results were very unsatisfying. But didn't they look great ;)
     
  18. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,157
    Awesome! It was a major step forward in visual appeal to represent items with a colored dot! Very innovative. It was also a great idea to make sure that the UI along the botton and side of the map take up as much space as possible, so people who can't read size 16 font still have a chance. Definitely necessary to remove hotkey options and require more clicking on buttons than years before, because they're such GOOD looking buttons!

    The visuals don't bother me as much as their adverse impact on performance though...or the complete dismantling of actual #inputs required to accomplish anything.

    Edit:

    More on topic, one of the most rage-inducing things for me with civ IV and failaxis is their patch history over the last 2-3 patches:

    - They knew about a multitude of broken UI issues, which they didn't touch.
    - However, 4x barb galley spawn rate was deemed necessary
    - Break then unbreak espionage spread culture mission
    - Permanently introduce a bug in overflow, admit it, then never fix it
    - Nerfing protective because the overflow was deemed "abusive" even though it was otherwise the weakest trait.
    - Left all kinds of known issues like AI being paranoid because you're "too self-close" in the game.

    This continued on into civ V, and you can see their policy in V with "nerf anything good players do to succeed" effectively destroyed large-scale expansion as being a viable and occasionally optimal choice. They nerfed trades, horse units, anything they could to hide the fact that the AI starts to get significant bonuses over the human after *chieftain*...! However, did they fix issues such as:

    - Governor shifting tiles *after* you hit end turn and starving a pop off of a city?
    - A unit displaying "RANGED ATTACK" and then when you right click to make a ranged attack, move instead?
    - 5 second wait times after moving a unit during your own turn later on in the game?
    - Actions taking 2x as many inputs as they took in the previous iteration, which was already pretty bad?

    Nope. Firaxis' patch history in civ IV was a very big tell for exactly the kind of product they intended to put out with civ V. While I disagree with Soren when it comes to AI design, he and his crew did a lot to make the game solid in depth, challenge, and tradeoffs between choices, even if they couldn't manage a competent engine either.
     
  19. 6K Man

    6K Man Bureaucrat

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,129
    Location:
    in a Gadda Da Vida
    Luck or no luck, the lesser player still has to find his or her opponent, recognize that they have an advantage that can be exploited (via choke or rush), and successfully execute the choke or rush while avoiding being distracted by other things.

    Nice try (I suuuuure got a good chuckle out of it :D ), but no. Go back and read what you wrote, with a more critical eye.
     
  20. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,157
    True but irrelevant. I'm not claiming that some true rookie is going to beat Rusten without knowledge of the game. I'm claiming that someone who is and plays *markedly* better than someone can still lose regardless (IE I've never had 500 AD rifling like Rusten has, but I could still just choke him if he didn't have any resources and was close by).

    Events aren't the only factor that can do this, but they're one of the few. Most facets of civ IV gameplay simply aren't so powerful. The only RNG elements that are comparable are spawn luck and huts (if one uses huts). I struggle to think of anything else where player choice doesn't become the primary factor.

    Okay. Here is the original quote you claim is a strawman:

    For this to be a straw man, two things must both be true:

    1. I must be arguing against something that wasn't claimed.
    2. I must be representing what I'm arguing against as coming from who I'm arguing against (otherwise I'd just be rambling).

    Now, let's take a look at the argument I was going against when I made this statement:

    So let's see here. Rah put out that with events:

    1. The better player will not win every time, IE occasionally worse play will win by luck.
    2. Players who feel that they can never win will stop playing, and luck gives them a chance to win.
    3. Because they win by luck, players are more likely to keep playing.

    In light of that, this statement:

    Does not constitute a strawman:

    1. Rah is claiming that lucky wins will cause people who would otherwise quit to keep playing. This implies that winning by luck is in some way rewarding to a given player (if it had no value and wasn't rewarding, Rah's claim would be instantly false). Indeed, I am questioning the value of a lucky win to the player who wins, a direct challenge to Rah's claim. Perhaps you can enlighten the forum as to how this, by definition, constitutes a strawman?

    2. The other part of this argument is the "KNOWING" part. Compared to #1, this is a bit of a logical leap. However, I assert that when events actually are game-deciding (and indeed, huts and spawn positions as well), that it is quite obvious in-game that such is the case. Events that lack such a decisive impact are far less likely to actually allow someone who played comparitively poorly to win the game. Even if we accept that some lucky wins won't be obvious, however, the reality is that the "weaker" player is still hoping that he will win because of the "chance" to win by luck (Rah's actual assertion), otherwise once again Rah's argument doesn't make sense and one wouldn't be materially more likely to keep playing with them on vs off.

    I'm glad you can find humor in falsely asserting logical fallacies, however :D. I certainly do make them, I just didn't pull a strawman in this case.
     

Share This Page