What might define the Intermediate level player?

[dohh]

I find that playing 25 civs on a huge map and not whipping or attacking makes the game more than challenging enough for me without going very far up the difficulty ladder, so I probably won't be looking at playing any deity games.

I played the same way as You described, my limit was IMMORTAL that way. I could not get even close to beat deity. Now, using hints from this forum, I find only deity challenging enough.

 

[Olson]

Saying that one could but doesn't want is a mis-conception imo. I like your answer very much, but that part slaps the players in the face that went the long road towards perfecting their game, because it says you could achieve the same, but I say you cannot, you wished you could, but it's impossible. Everybody can work above their level but only for very short amounts of time, being an expert requires to hold that level over a long time and that's what many underestimate.

[Edit: the following is written in a very nice, friendly tone]

My quote from post #70 above:

"The only constants in Civ are the mechanics. So, perhaps, an "Intermediate player" is one who's learned those mechanics (or most of them) and plays while applying their knowledge on a fairly effective and relatively consistent basis but not perfectly or consistently throughout the game. They could but don't want to do so."

When I wrote, "They could but don't want to do so" I was referring to the sentence that immediately preceeded it. And I think it's quite clear that I proposed an "Intermediate player" might be one who's:

1) learned (at least) most of the game's mechanics,

2) applies their knowledge of what they do know fairly effectively and relatively consistently...

I continue by saying they could apply their knowledge more effectively and more consistently "but [they] don't want to do so".

Referring to any of the above proposed characteristics, of an "Intermediate player", as a "misconception" and then using Deity-level play to support the "misconception" contention indicates you may not have read the proposal correctly.

If the statement "they could but don't want to" is applied to the preceeding statement "one who's learned those mechanics (or most of them) and plays while applying their knowledge on a fairly effective and relatively consistent basis but not perfectly or consistently throughout the game" as intended, perhaps, there'd be no "misconception".

BTW, don't overlook the impact words, such as "fairly" and "relatively", have on the meaning of a statement. They are there for a reason. I would know, I took the long road to learning "Deity level English". If I can do it, anyone can.

 

[Olson]

...[deleted text]... For me, someone who doesn't "want" it, "cannot" do it, but that's his matter, maybe he cannot because he doesn't want, maybe he cannot because he doesn't have the time. I don't say he could never even if he wanted to or invested a great part of lifetime, though you know that that'd be true for some people too....[deleted text]

Seraiel, I competely agree with you if the word "cannot" is replaced with "won't".
To say someone "cannot" do something means they are incapable, no matter how they try; even if they take the 'long road' to learning how.

Pour example, je ne parle pas francais. Mais il n ya pas un capabilite limite mais un decision. lol.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I played the same way as You described, my limit was IMMORTAL that way. I could not get even close to beat deity. Now, using hints from this forum, I find only deity challenging enough.

If you are playing deity on any map without whipping or attacking I am truly impressed.

 

[MensPulchra]

is it that important to qualify people on level of capabilities. this game is fun, not ironman mode made for ragous competition. people to get a life sometimes.

 

[Seraiel]

Your on civfanatics here, not civcasuals ^^ Prepare to get the question "what is life, I only know Civ" .

 

[Macksideshow]

tautology, Civ is life.