Apolyton Tournaments: Huts or no Huts?

[thinkingamer]

How About playing in a Senario like maps in Heroes of Might and Magic III in www.toheroes.com?

[ChrisShaffer]

If people are going to cheat, they'll cheat, one way or another. Removing huts won't change that fact, it'll just force them to cheat a different way.

The only way to prevent cheating would be to have the game run on a protected server, with players using a client that can't directly modify game data. And that's not possible with the current build of Civ3.

[Aeson]

A settler from a hut in the very early game is worth a couple thousand points in a conquest victory in most cases. Since we are all playing the same Civ, it doesn't matter if no huts take away the strongsuit of an expansionist Civ. People may still cheat, but those who don't will have a better idea of how they stack up to each other than if we keep the wildly imbalancing ability to get the early settler.

[EEKthedog]

Originally posted by ChrisShaffer
If people are going to cheat, they'll cheat, one way or another. Removing huts won't change that fact, it'll just force them to cheat a different way.

The only way to prevent cheating would be to have the game run on a protected server, with players using a client that can't directly modify game data. And that's not possible with the current build of Civ3.

Taking away the biggest cheat would even out a lot....
It's just one less exploit that can be used.

To rubb it in even more: Removing huts won't take away ALL cheating, which was never said by anyone. But it would sure reduce it a lot.

[MarkG]

well, at least for the 2nd tournament, we wont have any huts

[Robert Plomp]

Markos,

can you uncheck the diplomacy, cultural and domination victory options ? They ruin the game
For sure if you're trying to head for as much as possible points.

[Zealot]

I understand all those points of view, but a game without huts =

[ChrisShaffer]

Originally posted by Zealot
I understand all those points of view, but a game without huts =

Yup. Have fun, but I'm sure many of us will opt out of a tournament with no huts.

[Roytheboy]

Originally posted by ChrisShaffer


Yup. Have fun, but I'm sure many of us will opt out of a tournament with no huts.

WoW tantrum or what !!!
Huts are only a tiny fraction of the gameplay experiance

[ChrisShaffer]

How is "have fun" a tantrum? It's not like I cursed you or anything, I just said I wasn't interested in playing without huts, and that I hope that those who decide to play enjoy the tournament. No tantrum, no hard feelings, no insult or injury intended.

My favorite factions are the six Expansionist nations...huts are a huge part of gameplay for them. You don't agree. That's fine, no problem. Enjoy the tournament.

So, in answer to your question "tantrum or what" I have to take the "or what" choice.

[jimb0v2]

it's a tantrum in the sense that if we divide our already small pool of players it becomes less and less fun. You're just leading a group of players that will say "my way or no way"

What is fun about huts for you chris? Just the random element?

I suppose your argument of playing an expansionist civ is valid. but first off everyone is on the same field. and secondly i doubt they will pick an expansionist civ if there are no huts.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by jimb0v2
and secondly i doubt they will pick an expansionist civ if there are no huts.

Wanna bet?

[ChrisShaffer]

How is my not playing in the tournament "dividing a small pool of participants?" I didn't encourage anyone else to join me, I just said some people, including myself, won't be interested in playing. It's not like I'm leading a crusade against the tournament, or telling people they shouldn't play. I just said I wouldn't be interested in playing without huts, that's all. I'm no "leader."

I'm sure if they said "we'll play with huts" there would be other people saying "oh, that makes it too easy to cheat, so I won't play." And that would be fine too.

Hardly a tantrum, just a statement of fact.

[ChrisShaffer]

hmm, there doesn't seem to be an embarrassed smiley

oh well.

At any rate, I guess I'm a hypocrite, since I can't help myself and I've already downloaded and started the second tournament game. I guess I'm just addicted.

[Jurassic Joe]

I say leave the huts in the game. It's part of the game and it adds a little extra flavor to the early part of the game. Playing an expansionist civ without huts makes the scout that you start with not so cool. If the barbarians are set to raging, then the huts more likely contain hordes. I've found that the hordes don't always go for my warrior/scout. If there is a city nearby, then they head for it and plunder my gold (ever notice that even a newly founded pop1 city will contain your entire treasury when plundered by the horde). As for the cheaters, well we will never put a stop to them and their evil ways. I am not going to do any reloading and I salute the rest of you who will play fair and soldier on through the difficult beginning of the game, even when the game wammies you with barbarians.

[Bishop420]

Leave huts... I think any Civ player would restart/reload if they got squashed by barbarians in the first few turns... Thats reality. What's also reality is patience. If there's a nearby hut from the starting city, wait until you can defeat the 3 barbarians before you get all excited... Masonry at turn 1 vs. turn 5 is not worth compromising one's own standards and loyalty to Civ.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by jimb0v2
and secondly i doubt they will pick an expansionist civ if there are no huts.

What did I tell you? The player is the English on the 2nd tournament!

[DK36]

Without the huts, the expansionist civ trade is almost 100% useless.

Huts can be an important strategy to some people. Removing this is like removing communism.