 |
|
Chronus
|
|
Hi Comrade,
I've been wanting a more difficult level myself but you expressed it better than I.
I enjoy Diety, large map, raging hoards, 7 civs, etc. I haven't beaten the game yet at this level because someone always sends up a spaceship before I can. I do, however, make it to the end quite easily.
I miss the days (as a newbie) when I was fighting for SURVIVAL. Perhaps I need to turn on the Bloodlust option more often?
Anyway, an impossible (and I do mean IMPOSSIBLE) level would be great!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ilkuul
|
 |
of Thame (UK)
Mar 2000 time: 05:12
|
|
quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune on 04-08-2001 10:53 PM
Civ II had:
- 3 Newbie levels
- 1 Rookie level
- 1 Intermediate level
- 1 Advanced level
- NO Expert level
 |
Oh come on, people, get real! How many of all the 1000's of civ players worldwide (as opposed to the expert few who make posts like these!) would call King a 'rookie' level?! I've read a few candid comments even in the rarefied atmosphere of these forums by folk honest enough to admit that they struggle to win at King, and have never managed to do so at Deity.
quote:

I call a level 'challenging', when it is hard too survive. So I want a level where survival, even for very experienced players, is an accomplishment.
 |
So, who on earth wants a game where you have to struggle merely to survive? Well, obviously you do. But forgive me for sounding simplistic, but don't most people want to WIN? If Firaxis makes the top level of the game unwinnable, there'll be a lot of alienated people out there clamouring for their money back.
If a few masochists like (forgive me, no offence intended) your good selves want to punish themselves by struggling to survive, then I say Firaxis should provide editable variables in the control files (as with Civ2, but extended perhaps) that you folks can tinker with; but please, do not ship the game with a top level that can barely be won even by the most experienced players! That would kill it for me, and, I suspect, very many others.
[This message has been edited by Ilkuul (edited April 09, 2001).]
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bender
|
|
San Francisco, CA, U.S.A.
Nov 2000 time: 05:12
|
|
Ilkuul: Your comments make sense to me. Firaxis shouldn't lower or raise the standards from what currently exists under Civ II. Editable files are a great way to expand the difficulty of Civ III. After all, it's not like the AI will be able to defeat a human in a long game anyway.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
- Groucho -
|
|
Why would having a near impossible top level wreck the game?
I like chess but simply going over to the park reminds that I am nowhere near the top level. Try it some time. There is nothing like having some old guy that looks like he sleeps under a bridge "rip you a new one" on the chess board to help keep the ego under control. I only do it a couple of times a year, but when I play the park regulars it is rewarding to get a draw and I savour my rare victories for months.
My point is that just because there are players I can't beat doesn't wreck chess for me. By the same token, why should really hard levels wreck CivIII?
- Echinda
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Chronus
|
|
"but don't most people want to WIN?"
I suppose. But winning gets tedious and boring after awhile. I prefer losing and getting that "Aarggh! Next time I'll do this and I know not to do that!" feeling simply because this is what brings me back to try again.
"If Firaxis makes the top level of the game unwinnable, there'll be a lot of alienated people out there clamouring for their money back."
Why? Does the game have to be beatable at the top level in order to be enjoyable? If you must win, couldn't you just play one of the easier levels? No one is trying to take away your easy levels ... why limit those who want difficult levels?
I'm afraid history is against you on this one. The CTP2 forum is choke full of complaints about how the game is TOO EASY. Some of them even went and got their money back. I could see a problem if the easiest level is too hard, but that is definitely not the case here.
"Firaxis should provide editable variables in the control files (as with Civ2, but extended perhaps) that you folks can tinker with"
I agree but I still think the "Impossible" level should be added (or the "Diety" level made even harder). This not only makes it easier to start the game (or switch games), but it provides a nice standard to refer to. Otherwise, a player has to type in all the options to describe the kind of game he/she played. And I probably wouldn't be able to relate simply because the settings I use would most likely be different than his/hers. This is especially important in MP games.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ilkuul
|
 |
of Thame (UK)
Mar 2000 time: 05:12
|
|
quote:

Originally posted by Echinda on 04-09-2001 10:01 PM
My point is that just because there are players I can't beat doesn't wreck chess for me. By the same token, why should really hard levels wreck CivIII?
 |
I think there's a difference between players you can't beat, and game levels you can't beat. The fact that you can win sometimes against really good chess players, I would guess, makes it worthwhile for you to carry on. But if a certain variety of chess were so difficult that you could never win, there would be no incentive for you to carry on playing it!
To me the difficulty levels of Civ2 are like a ladder: it's there to be climbed, and if it can be climbed, then it must be possible to get to the top! If you try climbing again and again and never manage to reach the top, you feel cheated and are inclined to stop climbing altogether. Just reaching halfway all the time leaves you frustrated and unsatisfied.
So, please Firaxis, don't make the Civ3 ladder so hard to climb that only professional mountaineers can ever reach the top!
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Gramphos
|
|
ACS Civ III Files Manager, Prince of Development
|
 |
Chalmers, Sweden
Apr 2001 time: 06:12
|
|
The levels I miss in Civ II is levels that you may play just as a normal civ, not to conquer the world, neither for the AI, but to build up a working economy and relations with other civs. Maybe not a difficulty level, but another, more realistic, game mode.
I doubt we won't se anything like this in Civ III, but some sort of difficulty level that makes it harder to get big, both for the player and the AI can't be impossible to include.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ilkuul
|
 |
of Thame (UK)
Mar 2000 time: 05:12
|
|
quote:

Originally posted by vgriph on 04-10-2001 04:22 PM
The levels I miss in Civ II is levels that you may play just as a normal civ, not to conquer the world, neither for the AI, but to build up a working economy and relations with other civs. Maybe not a difficulty level, but another, more realistic, game mode.
 |
Now there I fully agree with you! So often when I first played Civ1 and Civ2 I fell in love with my civ and its world, and just wanted to be left in peace to build it up!
Maybe Firaxis could consider a 'SimCiv' mode, the opposite of 'bloodlust'! Everyone's at peace, you just build your civ up as far as you can go, with the end coming whenever you want it (by retiring); at which point you would get a different kind of score with greater weight placed on number of citizens, happiness, wonders, and techs researched.
I would find that very restful after all the frantic scrabbling for power in normal civ!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Chronus
|
|
"No matter how difficult you make the hardest level, SOMEBODY will find a way to beat it ..."
Exactly ... this is really the bottom line IMOHO. We saw it happen in CIV I when the Emperor level was deemed unbeatable. We saw it again in CIV II with the Diety level. Firaxis will be thanked (by me, anyway) if they delay the inevitable for as long as possible.
I know the programmers can't make an AI that's as good as a real human. I can only encourage/spur them on to do their best. :-)
"If Civ isn't challenging for you, ... (1) Play a game that's more difficult for you, or (2) Start your own civilization in real life and put your fearsome leadership skills to good use. There's no point complaining about it."
I prefer "stating my opinion" instead of the term "complaining". ;-) I plan to buy the game even if they don't change the difficulty.
My real point, however, is this: If they added a more difficult level going from Civ I to Civ II, then, who knows? Maybe they'll do it again for Civ III. How can they know we want it if we don't speak up.
"Maybe Firaxis could consider a 'SimCiv' mode, the opposite of 'bloodlust'!"
Well, Ilkuul, we can finally agree on something! :-)
I like playing peaceful games as well as survival games. My overall favorite type of games are when I peacefully build a thriving empire only to have some monster powerhouse civ come and try to take it away. So then, Firaxis, make a SimCiv level AND an Impossible level!
(Boy, I just want it all, don't I?)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zeevico
|
|
Melbourne, Australia
Dec 2000 time: 05:12
|
|
'I plan to buy the game even if they don't change the difficulty.'
I'm afraid that's the attitude gamers had about TOT, CTP1/2 and all the other faliures. I sincerely hope people would stop sayin 'I'll buy the game anyway...' If you'll buy the game anyway, than obviously it's not an important enough issue to be in the game. Maybe Activision and etc thought people thought of this about the AI as well?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12. Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|