A Question!

[Ming]

I'm starting to notice a pattern here.

In many cases, the players who consider themselves gods above all others never seem interested in playing each other. We always hear the standard excuses...

You cheat...
You always quit when you are behind...
I've beaten you enough already...
It's no fun playing you...
Nothing left to prove against you...
You're boring to play...
You are an idiot...

Instead, these supposed gods always want to pick on other players... and not prove their mettle against the obvious other supposedly "great" players.

Does anybody else notice this trend too...

[SlowwHand]

Blatantly evident.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Ming
I'm starting to notice a pattern here.

In many cases, the players who consider themselves gods above all others never seem interested in playing each other. We always hear the standard excuses...

You cheat...
You always quit when you are behind...
I've beaten you enough already...
It's no fun playing you...
Nothing left to prove against you...
You're boring to play...
You are an idiot...

Instead, these supposed gods always want to pick on other players... and not prove their mettle against the obvious other supposedly "great" players.

Does anybody else notice this trend too...

hi ,

Ming , you should post a thread like that on civ3 , ..........

as for these gods , its always nice to see that in the editor there civ gets the most advances , .................

open a thread on civ3 , .......and we shal put more feedback there , .........

have a nice day

[SlowwHand]

Kind of a worthless thread idea, considering it's impossible in III to have a MP game.

[Panag]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Kind of a worthless thread idea, considering it's impossible in III to have a MP game.

hi ,

please read again all that Ming wrote down , .....;there is a lot of it on the civ3 thread's , ...........

and MP is not even there yet , ..................

have a nice day

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Ming
I'm starting to notice a pattern here.

In many cases, the players who consider themselves gods above all others never seem interested in playing each other. We always hear the standard excuses...

You cheat...
You always quit when you are behind...
I've beaten you enough already...
It's no fun playing you...
Nothing left to prove against you...
You're boring to play...
You are an idiot...

Instead, these supposed gods always want to pick on other players... and not prove their mettle against the obvious other supposedly "great" players.

Does anybody else notice this trend too...

My apologies.
I read this, and my understanding was that is was a question concerning why "great" players don't play one another.
That immediately made me assume MP, which as you concur, isn't a part of Civ III.

I'll have an excellent day.

[DrSpike]

Yeah this is true Ming. At the end of the day games between the top players can go either way. Hence even those that delude themselves into believing they are the best often don't want to play other top players for fear of losing. This is quite rational, since it wouldn't be that surprising for the winner to take their spoils and find reasons not to play more games.

[Ming]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
My apologies.
I read this, and my understanding was that is was a question concerning why "great" players don't play one another.
That immediately made me assume MP, which as you concur, isn't a part of Civ III.

And a proper assuption it was... (this is the Civ II MP forum )

Civ III never even crossed my mind when I typed it.
However, "ONCE" Civ III MP is available, I'm sure I will be asking the same question

[Panag]

Originally posted by SlowwHand




My apologies.
I read this, and my understanding was that is was a question concerning why "great" players don't play one another.
That immediately made me assume MP, which as you concur, isn't a part of Civ III.

I'll have an excellent day.

hi ,

no need to say sorry , .....

you can stillplay each other , .......without MP , just everyone start's with the same civ , map , and other stuff , and just see who gets the highest level , .......or , .......;work from a SAV(e) , give it to 20 people and you shall have as many results , the one with the best score wins , .............

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by Ming


And a proper assuption it was... (this is the Civ II MP forum )

Civ III never even crossed my mind when I typed it.
However, "ONCE" Civ III MP is available, I'm sure I will be asking the same question

hi ,

Ming , its allready busy , and the MP aint even out yet , ......!

it seems that the ones who play civ2 , moved up to civ3 , and of course their "level" of emperor moved up with it , ........

have a nice day

[rah]

Yes fear of losing.
No matter how much you try to eliminate the luck aspect.
(no huts, equal starting positions, no wonders, etc) Luck is still part of the game. Especially on attacks. That lowly warrior picking off that archer on a hill early in the game might make a big difference.
And if you have huts and random starts, Luck is very important.
So against two reasonably equal players, whoever gets the best luck will usually win. And in a best 2 out of 3, while it doesn't even things out a bit, luck is still a big factor. Don't get me wrong, Skill is very very important.

Blaming a loss on huts never sounds very masterful, but it is part of the equation.

I would expect to beat a less qualified player most of the time, but not every time. (unless they really suck )
But when he does beat me, I congratulate them on a game well played instead of whining that they would never had beat me if I hadn't gotten unlucky. I guess that's the difference between the gods and us mortals is that we recognize the role luck plays and embrase it since it keeps the game fresh and interesting.

RAH

[Ming]

It's really tough to take any of the "chest beating" seriously when it comes to Civ III MP, since nobody has had the chance to prove their skills yet. I also look at all the "claims" made in the single play tournaments with a grain of salt, since you really have no clue whether the person has been resetting, or using some of the other little tricks.

But yeah... there is active "crowing" in the Civ III forums already.

[SlowwHand]

I certainly don't expect to win every Civ game, but the human interaction can't be duplicated no matter what one does.
Civ III is SP. You can't just pass it around and find a similarity to MP.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Ming
It's really tough to take any of the "chest beating" seriously when it comes to Civ III MP, since nobody has had the chance to prove their skills yet. I also look at all the "claims" made in the single play tournaments with a grain of salt, since you really have no clue whether the person has been resetting, or using some of the other little tricks.

But yeah... there is active "crowing" in the Civ III forums already.

hi ,

Ming they have something on a sister site , ......GOTM , and if you restart with autosave , .........; , ......its over , ........

maybe its just a group who like's to do so , .....
to spend their time , ..........

have a nice day

[Chris 62]

I would love to see Eyes play Strategybore in a move by move PBEM game, where each guy posts their moves (after the game is over, natch) with screen shots and saves to back it up.

It certainly would show who is the better player once and for all.

I think Eyes would do it, but would the other guy?

[Flatlander Fox]

Luck has SOO much to do with it, and a terrible player who gets lucky can stay in games where the elites are having tougher luck.

But when Elites play each other, it has a much greater impact. The formulas that bind the good players prove that. One guy gets a tribe, and the other gets a barb EARLY, and the game is over in 3700 b.c. And playing against great players, you can't count on them making many mistakes. They know the tricks, and the formulas to get them to whatever level they are looking for. So when you pop that Barb hut in 3700 b.c., and he kills off your settler, while the other guy gets a tribe, you feel that the game is already over for you.

I can understand that completely.

BUT, I don't agree with it. Just like Risk (A horrid, awful game) when you attacked with 13 armies against two, and the guy defeated you, you felt like quitting. Some did quit, but most of us stayed and finished the game.

The great players are not separated by as much as they would like you to believe. But it is generally the luck that seperates them in the games. Whether one is gracious enough to admit that is an entirely different thing.

[SlowwHand]

Whether they admit that every single game is different, no matter all else, is another thing too.

[StrategicKingMi]

It sounds to me like you are saying the best players "duck" games with others who are supposedly good or great as the case maybe. And I AM that other guy. There is a reason I dont want to play Eyes. I doubt that any fun could be had playing someone with his disposition. Who else do you consider to be worth of being called great? If a new canidate is choosen, and will play on a 90 x 90 board, 2 x 2 , king... I will for sure play.

[Ming]

Originally posted by StrategicKingMi
There is a reason I dont want to play Eyes. I doubt that any fun could be had playing someone with his disposition.

I rest my case...

[-Jrabbit]

Apparently Strategic Boy forgot to read through the first post...


More than a trend, to my eyes, god-ducking is a way of life. What's weird is how these players then insist on crowing to the same ppl they refuse to play. Where's the satisfaction in that?


Maybe I need to spend a few months at the Zone to experience the wonder of it all first hand...

[atawa]

The zone is quite civilized lately, it's just here in forums.

Well thank god I'm not a great player, this way I can still play anyone and dont worry about loosing

[rah]

Originally posted by Flatlander Fox

But when Elites play each other, it has a much greater impact. The formulas that bind the good players prove that. One guy gets a tribe, and the other gets a barb EARLY, and the game is over in 3700 b.c. And playing against great players, you can't count on them making many mistakes. They know the tricks, and the formulas to get them to whatever level they are looking for. So when you pop that Barb hut in 3700 b.c., and he kills off your settler, while the other guy gets a tribe, you feel that the game is already over for you.

1. you shouldn't be opening that hut with your settler after your cap is down that early, unless you're far behind, or it's on a mountain and the settler has a chance to survive a barb.

2. I agree that that one thing early can make a big difference (tribe vs barb) but i will dissagree that the game is over. Granted a few more lucky things like that will be the death bell but one, there's still a chance to make up for it with later luck. Which is why i really have a problem when people want to concede on the spot at 3600. But there are times when you can tell that early. And if people want to agree to restart for the FUN factor. As long as it doesn't happen every game, I'm always willing to give it a shot to come back.

Rich

[-Jrabbit]

Note to self:
After screwing up the start, remember to tell RAH that a restart would be Big Fun.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by StrategicKingMi

If a new canidate is choosen, and will play on a 90 x 90 board, 2 x 2 , king... I will for sure play.

What happened to any settings any timer, strat?

[rah]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Note to self:
After screwing up the start, remember to tell RAH that a restart would be Big Fun.

Mostly used in duels when you want somewhat of an equal start. Sometimes in 3 player games, but very rarely in 4 man games.

[Panag]

hi ,

why is that the "old & famous" kings , the rulers of the game , ... , .....never post their tricks when some one with different skills ask's to exchange them , ....... , .....why, ...??

have a nice day

[Flatlander Fox]

The opening with a settler thing is probably why I'll never be great.

I have had some lousy starts, and played on. I've also had some opponents have some horrific starts, and quit. And some who have played on. When it's all in fun, it doesn't matter anyway.

I agree that you can create your own luck. What I'm saying is that the slightest difference in luck in the games with elite players will be the difference between winning and losing.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Flatlander Fox
The opening with a settler thing is probably why I'll never be great.

I have had some lousy starts, and played on. I've also had some opponents have some horrific starts, and quit. And some who have played on. When it's all in fun, it doesn't matter anyway.

I agree that you can create your own luck. What I'm saying is that the slightest difference in luck in the games with elite players will be the difference between winning and losing.

hi ,

it's noy just a Q of lick , ....he who dares wins , .........

have a nice day

[Hydey]

I don't believe in any God, let alone a civ one.

Ps Rah I here you had a bad game Saturday night he he

[Dank]

*munch munch munch*.......anyone want some popcorn?......I thing this thread is gonna get long