 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
smellymummy
|
|
adamada is right, in the sense that not everyone is able to compete at harder levels, and for some, monarch might be considered hard 
Just like there are various levels of competition in all sorts of events, perhaps apolyton should have tournaments with different difficulty levels too.
A tourney for regeant (anything lower and it would be kind of pointless IMO), monarch, emperor, deity. Maybe a differently designed map per tourney for extra added difficulty/easyness.
In any case this thread is 2 pages long now, and still there is no set decision  which is why I think different tournaments should be the way to go.
Not to hard to implement either: construct the maps, create a thread for each. The long part of all of this would be to verify the scoring, etc.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Marcus
|
 |
Quebec, Canada
Jan 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
I actually agree with Out4Blood that the Scoring System is no good; I just disagree with his solution.
For me, the question is: What if I want to build a great Culture AND dominate the world? I can not win in the Cultural Victory department, because, technically, it´s not a Cultural Victory. On the other hand, I can not win in the Domination Victory Department, because the Despotic Conquest types will win 1000 years earlier, with a much higher score. I may feel I have built the 'best' Civilization, but it will not be reflected in either Score or Year.  |
So why not a tournament with victories disabled and forced to win by Rank at 2050 ( average map+8 civs ) ? Since territory seems to be the most important points contributor , your domination approach is still a good agenda to follow. The player must perform well in all four eras, but that kind of game is longer of course. Not recommended on larger maps ...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
I would honestly PREFER archipelago, however small continents are acceptable.
To discourage early rushing, which is too easy with Pop Rush strategy, what if we weighted the scores for how many Civs were still alive when you won, ie players who win a non-conquest victory have their scores inflated? I dunno, might be interesting.
But definitely Archipelago. Definitely.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jimb0v2
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Marcus
So why not a tournament with victories disabled and forced to win by Rank at 2050 ( average map+8 civs ) ? Since territory seems to be the most important points contributor , your domination approach is still a good agenda to follow. The player must perform well in all four eras, but that kind of game is longer of course. Not recommended on larger maps ... |
Rank in the end is determined by score. This way is one of the worst ways, because it promotes score inflation. The person who nitpicks the most wins. That does not sound like fun to me. I dunno about you. :\
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
I would honestly PREFER archipelago, however small continents are acceptable.
To discourage early rushing, which is too easy with Pop Rush strategy, what if we weighted the scores for how many Civs were still alive when you won, ie players who win a non-conquest victory have their scores inflated? I dunno, might be interesting.
But definitely Archipelago. Definitely. |
The problem with archipelago is that usually there seems to be a galley "alley" to everywhere on the map. Using continents its much more frequent that you have a body of water large enough to restrict galleys from being able to consistantly cross. If the map is going to have the goody huts edited out anyways, perhaps thats another thing that could be checked, as if all land is reachable by galley then it still highly favors the despotic pop rush conquest. The civfanatics GOTM was a perfect example. They used a small map this month, I couldnt tell if it was small continents or argipelago, but all the islands had coast bridges. Granted waiting for the galleys cost me a few turns, but I was able to achieve a 30AD conquest.
I think using a large map size, continents, with high oceans would be good. Maybe even a huge map, archipelago, with high oceans. The larger map sizes dont make too much system difference as long as the landmass size is still close to the same, and the number of civs is kept down.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
romikua
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Achnor
Why not cycle through the different victory-possibilities?
Say, With this map the goal is the earliest military-victory ONLY.
On this map lets see who can win a diplomatic victory ONLY (and earlier).
etc. etc.
Achnor |
I very much support the idea, though I suggest different maps to be used in each round of the tournament.
Such an approach will not only give the opportunity to conclusively compare results of each round, but will also make it really a tournament for the best all-round Civ3 player, opposite to a who-is-the-earliest-to-kill-them-all type.
That's my 2 cents.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Klem
|
|
Cleveland, Ohio
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
I started late in the month and won’t finish on time, but I enjoy the map and the ability to compare my results with others.
Based on the results from the first game, it looks like “smash and grab” will usually win. Some players, myself included, lean to a trade and foreign commerce victory, to the extent possible. The trick is, how to encourage and reward the player for this approach. I suggest the winner will be the player with the highest combined score for ALL surviving civilizations, including the player’s civ.
My intent is to force the player to wheel and deal, and to even encourage and aid the other civs. Military action isn’t precluded but wiping out other civs may be counterproductive. For this version, consider excluding cultural victory which might otherwise cut short the player’s plan. I think the same starting game can be used for both the conquest/domination victories as well as the combined score method. That is, allow the players to pick either condition and then go for it, creating two winners in each tournament.
If this scoring method works, it could become routine and we’ll find out who can really build a civilization. Most any worlds and civ combinations for me, but Regent or Monarch level. Or maybe the players could be allowed to select the level, but the map ought to be the same for all levels and conditions. That is, I play at Monarch but can compare to someone who played at Deity.
Klem
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Achnor
|
|
Trondheim
Jul 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by romikua
I very much support the idea, though I suggest different maps to be used in each round of the tournament.
Such an approach will not only give the opportunity to conclusively compare results of each round, but will also make it really a tournament for the best all-round Civ3 player, opposite to a who-is-the-earliest-to-kill-them-all type.
That's my 2 cents. |
That was exactly what I meant, one map for each victory-condition. I'd really like to hear more ppl comment on this idea. We're starting to get a lot of parameters now, different maps for different difficulty-levels and different maps *again* for differen victory-conditions. I think that if we choose to follow this idea we must decide on only a handful (2-3) victory conditions and also if we should have 2 or more different deifficulty-levels.
My suggestion:
Difficulty Victory-type
Monarch Cultural
Monarch Spaceship
Monarch Conquest
Prince Cultural
Prince Spaceship
Prince Conquest
If it is possible to edit the difficulty-level *after* the map is generated we could have three different map to each victory condition but the *same* map for the two difficulty-levels!
So, *one* map for cultural victory for both Monarch and Prince etc. etc.
In the Conquest-tourney we could use archipelago (or small continents) and for the rest we could use big continents or pangea.
So, what do you think about that!!!?!?!?!?
Achnor
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ahlyis
|
|
I fail to understand how using a pangea map with conquest and domination victories disabled is going to prevent the winner from being the one who pop rushes the world. If we only allow diplomatic, space race, cultural, etc victories, the winner will still probably be the one who dominated the world early.
It's simple, if you exterminate your opponents, you can quickly achieve any of the other victories. You may be SLIGHTLY slowed by having to do all research yourself for space race or diplomatic victories, but you should EASILY be researching every four turns. Your score will be astronomical because your landmass will inflate it greatly.
So how does disabling conquest/domination discourage the use of those strategies?
That's why I suggested playing on an archipelago map and enacting a rule that disallows any cities to be owned on any island other than your starting island. It may be necessary to use a continents map instead, but the idea seems sound. Pop rush becomes virtually useless if you aren't allowed to use the land you take.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jimb0v2
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ahlyis
I fail to understand how using a pangea map with conquest and domination victories disabled is going to prevent the winner from being the one who pop rushes the world. If we only allow diplomatic, space race, cultural, etc victories, the winner will still probably be the one who dominated the world early.
It's simple, if you exterminate your opponents, you can quickly achieve any of the other victories. You may be SLIGHTLY slowed by having to do all research yourself for space race or diplomatic victories, but you should EASILY be researching every four turns. Your score will be astronomical because your landmass will inflate it greatly.
So how does disabling conquest/domination discourage the use of those strategies?
That's why I suggested playing on an archipelago map and enacting a rule that disallows any cities to be owned on any island other than your starting island. It may be necessary to use a continents map instead, but the idea seems sound. Pop rush becomes virtually useless if you aren't allowed to use the land you take. |
Thats a great point. I think just moving up to monarch or emperor will fix it.
especially at emperor it's much much harder to conquer the world in 66 turns, because the opp civs are now making 2-3 units instead of 1-2
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
|
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jack_frost
Or we could just see who has the best score on a huge lowest land island map with 16 AI at diety.
Interesting since nobody could actually win this  |
I thought that these settings would be the hardest settings as well, till I played with them. As of 100BC, I'm more powerful than 4 AI civs (score), and one other has been eliminated (not by me). I also occupy the largest area of any Civ. I have fought successful wars against the Zulu's and the English, leaving them little more than enough to be valid vassels. Not giving the AI room to expand actually takes away its greatest ability on Deity. I played an 8 Civ, Huge, Pangea Deity game, as the Persians. With constant warfare against the Aztecs up till the early AD's, all I had accomplished is taking 20 or so of their cities. I had not even dented their empire, as it was constantly expanding faster than I could destroy it! Even with the captured cities, the Aztecs were more powerful than I was, and the whole game was looking impossible. The interesting thing is, that the AI doesn't seem expand indefinitely, as the other 6 Civ's were also no larger than the Aztecs, and still roughly 1/4th of the map was unsettled. I eventually got the Zulu's to help me with the Aztecs, but they ended up actually being taken out by them. So after the whole thing played out, the Aztecs were the largest Civ, by far, and I was the smallest of the remaining 6. My whole war to take out the Aztecs had only served to make them stronger.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Klem
|
|
Cleveland, Ohio
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
I had thought about the same thing, but the point isn't to make conquest impossible to win with, its to make each victory condition a viable way to play. Having 8 civilizations populate a map (with 8 palaces, and 8 forbidden palaces) should always net more overall points than a map populated with 1 Civ, 1 palace, 1 forbidden palace. Also it wouldn't take much skill to just build a small empire that can be defended, and then let the AI do the scoring for you. |
Without play-testing, I don't know for sure that conquest isn't valid. Maybe it should remain. Although you could stay small and survive, I don't believe a small Civ could exert enough influence to improve the combined score. In the current tournament, I took out the scumbag Zulus and seriously weakened the Chinese. Practically, I couldn't influence others taking out the Romans and reducing the Persians to two island cities. The question now is, what will maximize the combined score of the remaining Civs, and should we cull out the two weaklings. Also, I assume the combined score will be improved if I go for some victory condition rather than the score in 2050.
Different players will have as many different approaches and we don't know what will win a combined score victory and almost surely, some players will really shine, but probably not the early conquest victory. I think the winner will play the game at least through all advances, helping to prove their overall Civ prowess, not just combat ability.
Klem
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UncleBeef
|
|
Why not post multiple versions of the map and have a winner in each skill category?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jurassic Joe
|
|
San Jose, CA
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Archipeligo, Huge map, Monarch or Regent, 12-15 AI opponents, Starting Civ should be the English (They are only 2 Techs away from map making and they have the naval special unit). Leave the goody huts in, a little randomness is good for the game and the barbarians can be set at raging hordes. You won't be so likely to grab the huts without backup. Leave all of the victory conditions in but differentiate between the victories.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grundel
|
|
A Civ 3 tournament is like a Golf or Bowling tournament.
Yes, you heard me correctly. a GOLF or BOWLING tournament. 
Allow me to explain.
As a competitor, there is nothing you can do to prevent someone else from scoring. The only thing you can do is try and get the Highest score possible. The higher score wins.
In golf, you cannot tackle the other players. In bowling, you can't play goalie and prevent the other bowler from knocking down the pins.
With this understanding, I say that if you are going to hold a tournament, then have the conditions change from event to event. Instead of always making it a Pangea standard map or Huge continental map...make it random. No one will know what they are in store for before they play. They will have to explore the world, build their country, and then play as the circumstances dictate.
Like in golf, players play at different courses. Some courses favor the long ball, while others favor the short game. In bowling, there are some conditions that favor the crankers, while strokers dominate on others. The same could apply in a Civ 3 tournament. If its an easy map, then the scores should be higher. If its a harder map, then so be it. I would not be for playing a tournament game with the same conditions every month.
This is what I would suggest...
Random map. Even the map size could very from week to week.
Random Civ.
All Victory Conditions apply...HIghest score wins.
Vary difficulty...an easy game for those (like me ) who have not mastered th nuances of the game yet, and harder game for the more hardcore players.
Another possible variation would be to not allow civ specific abilities, putting everyone on an even playing field...but to counter my own point, if everyone played the same civ, this would be a moot .
This seems pretty fair.
This is my $.02
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-11-2001 06:08
I don´t know if you are being sarcastic, but I wouldn´t consider Monarch easy. I would have to strain my faith in people´s truthfulness to believe anybody who says he can consistently win on Deity without saving/reloading goody huts, battles etc. 
Reduce #shields/pop point.
|