 |
|
Drachen
|
|
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:36
|
|
Hmm. You probably learn more by NOT restarting. I have not restarted unless I have felt like playing for 30 mins or so and scrapping the game then. I'd hate to have a boring start in that situation.
As for reloading, I guess it would be better for the learning experience (and MP training) to not do so. However at times I have due to new knowledge acquired.
For example, in my latest game I was prebuilding with Sun Tzu's when someone else built it. Thus I switched to the GW to keep the shields, losing many shields in the process. In order to at least keep that many shields until I had the tech for Leo's (my real target), I changed Govs, thinking, since nothing was built in Anarchy, the shields would be safe until I got Invention. Much to my chagrin, I then learned that, if the shield box is full, even in Anarchy, the build is completed.  Armed with my new knowledge, I reloaded the autosave and did not change govts, so I still got the unwanted GW, but knowing I would have anyway, I did not then lose out on 6 turns of production.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mariola
|
|
I don't like to restart, I always take the first map I get, and almost never reload.
Only exception may be if I make a wrong thing by accident (an unwanted click, e.g.).
Maybe I can go back to make an alternative history, but in that case I consider the first game the true game, and the others training.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachen
|
|
I doubt if even the hardliners would object to restarting or reloading if you’re trying to test various aspects of the game or examining competing strategies. If that’s true then the question of the legitimacy of restarting and/or reloading would seem to pertain more directly to comparison and/or competitive games.
I’ve posted this poll as a tentative first step in trying to get a sense of what the majority of players feel are appropriate standards of play; standards which could be given a name, voted upon, and noted when posting results. Players would be free to disagree with the validity of the standards but it would be clear that their views were not shared by the majority of players who chose to participate in developing the standards. Having an agreed upon set of standards would free us from having to define and defend the various parameters of our comparison/competitive games.
Having a set of standards is of interest to me since some of my claims have been a bit controversial with some players heatedly censuring my game setups and others kindly defending my stated positions. I am not very interested in rehashing those arguments but would rather move forward on the issue of developing a set of standards. What about the rest of you? Does anybody else think we should develop a set of standards?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aramis
|
|
Not where I was tomorrow, nor will be yesterday.
Dec 2002
time: 23:36
|
|
I'll restart if the starting position is really bad. Otherwise I take what I get. If I don't like the way the game is going, I'll start an entirely new game, saving the other 'for later' (as in 'never get back to it'.)
I have reloaded, but very rarely, and usually then over some absolutely horrible, embarrassing, rookie-like mistake that makes me cringe, wail, and tear at my clothes, while cursing my fingers for acting on their own.
On the whole, despite what I do, I think it okay to restart and reload as much as you want. You bought the game--have fun with it.
edit:
As for a set of standards for comparison games--I'm inclined against it as so many people approach the game in different ways. Setting standards could limit comparing games solely to posters who share 'the majority view,' 'the norm,' or 'the party line,' as it were.
But I could change my mind, depending on how well the pros of the idea are defended.
Last edited by Aramis on 06-07-2004 at 17:33
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachen
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RMS
I have reloaded, but very rarely, and usually then over some absolutely horrible, embarrassing, rookie-like mistake that makes me cringe, wail, and tear at my clothes, while cursing my fingers for acting on their own. |
quote:
Originally posted by RMS
As for a set of standards for comparison games--I'm inclined against it as so many people approach the game in different ways. Setting standards could limit comparing games solely to posters who share 'the majority view,' 'the norm,' or 'the party line,' as it were.
But I could change my mind, depending on how well the pros of the idea are defended. |
I don’t see why we couldn’t have both. You could post a standard game and it’s unlikely that your game settings would be questioned. Alternatively, you could post a save or game proposal using non-standard settings and respond to any concerns other players might have as they arose.
quote:
Originally posted by RMS
On the whole, despite what I do, I think it okay to restart and reload as much as you want. You bought the game--have fun with it. |
As far as just enjoying the game…absolutely. Questions such as these are only pertinent when dealing with a wider community of players; comrades in arms as it were.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachen
|
|
I picked the “average start and reloads are OK for unintended results” option. I’m currently thinking that this is OK even for comparative/competitive play. Why not try to get an average start. How is player A in a horrible starting spot with player B in a great start a fair comparison? As far as the reload is concerned, all it seems to do is relieve the pressure to execute the game mechanics without error so long as you don’t gain game info or other advantage you wouldn’t have had without the reload. We’re on the honor system anyway and what’s important is your general development style and long term strategy. I’m unconvinced, however, that reloading whenever you feel like it is sound policy for competitive games. For me, if you intend to enter into a MMP and get hauled into a war then you live with it. If you intend to attack with your low health army and you lose then you live with it. The only real downside I can see now is that some players may not play by the rules and will restart for unfavorable events while honest players will not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tall Stranger
|
 |
Northern Virginia
Nov 2002
time: 00:36
|
|
For me, it depends on what I'm trying to do. If I want to play a relaxed, easy game, I'll restart if my initial starting position will be too much work. On the other hand, if I really want to push myself, I'll restart until I get an enormously crappy starting position.
As for reloading, I guess I don't really see the point of doing so to change the outcome of a battle or to keep from losing somehow. I have, on occasion, done so because I forgot to do something I genuinely intended to do (switching from a pre-build to a GW, for example), but that's about it. That said, if reloading is fun for you, have at it. It's your game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachen
|
|
Go Bucs! Some of the great team work coming out of Germany may need to be countered one of these days…
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shogun Gunner
|
 |
Potomac Falls, Virginia
Oct 2000
time: 00:36
|
|
I'll restart/reload when I feel like it -- which is rarely. I however, voted for the option directly above the "whenever I feel like it option".
However, as busy as my life is, I won't waste time playing something that is a result of improper game operation or that is a waste of my time. Some examples are:
1. A ridiculous start -- on tundra or just a generally horrendous start position.
2. A bug/failure of the program -- this would include improper happiness calcuations on the part of the program, submarine bug, etc.
3. I don't like the fact that I'm forced to make decisions about alliances, war and trade without being able to consult my current treaty arrangements, trade reelationships and foreign relations. If I guess wrong, due to imperfect information (read: bad memory), I will restart to make the decision I intend.
4. If I click the wrong thing -- for example, accidently click "end turn" when I intend to check the DIPLOMACY or ESPIONAGE screens (why are they so close to the "end turn" area???
I however will never restart/reload to
1. Get a better combat result
2. Select an alternate decision/strategy due to a poor choice/result of my initial decision/strategy.
3. Erase a consciously made decision made on my part.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
I Qtrl-Shft-Q until I get a start I think is "decent" or, if I have had a bad run of luck recently, I may look for one that's "really nice." I rarely have played out a start that I think most peope here would consider bad.
My definitions of those terms, however, may vary from others.
Some people really relish the idea of taking whatever is given them and turning it into a win.
Me, I don't really play to just win. I play to win HUGE. I like taking a nice spot and seeing just how far ahead I can get. I like shooting for a full age tech lead, all the wonders I like, and access to all 8 luxuries (w/o having to trade for 'em ). That's an absurd level of power when compared to just winning. But I often get there, because I play nice starts on a level that is probably well below my skill (Monarch).
I do this because I enjoy it. I'm playing civ after working all day (or all week) and I'm looking to relax and have some fun. I tend to play fast 'n loose, with minimal micromanagement (after the early game). Occasionally I will seek more challenge, but most of the time I like playing a quasi-"sandbox" type of game. Many of those games are never finished. They get saved when I'm done with the first sitting (so ancient or early medieval age) and I never load 'em back up... I start a new one. Real UP games typically get played out right up to when I'm about to win... and then I leave 'em there.
It's all about what your goals are. Why are you playing?
Some play for challenge, and a sense of accomplishment in beating a tough difficulty with a crap start spot, or to "figure out" the game. Some work to get quirky maps that play atypically, for variety. Some, like me, play for ultimate power. This is a simplification, of course, but you get the idea.
-Arrian
EDIT:
As for reloading: I will reload if I make a non-strategic mistake. This means mis-clicks (oops, I just gifted Republic to the Egyptians!) and bad driving (hitting 8 instead of 9 and thereby getting my curragh sunk). Further, I often forget to adjust the lux slider to prevent disorder when I've got a good settler/worker pump going. This results in a riot, simply because I forgot to check on the city, which I find irritating as hell. I will often reload to prevent that disorder. Sometimes I just can't be bothered and let it go, though. I NEVER reload to get better combat results.
Actually, I have reloaded to change a strategic decision, but then I considered that game "lost" in my mind. I didn't actually lose, but a war went poorly (I basically ended up with an expensive stalemate). So I tried out a different strategy to see if it would work better. It did. This is part of the learning process, IMO. I learned that a late medieval/early industrial war against a strong, militaristic Emperor level AI civ is *a lot* harder than a similar war against a typical Monarch level AI civ. I didn't bring NEARLY enough firepower to the party the first time, and it cost me. So now I know.
Last edited by Arrian on 17-07-2004 at 00:35
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-07-2004 11:02
. I wouldn't do so if I could get more predictable results from this damn random number generator for combat. 
Been there too
|