Difficulty Setting

Inverse Icarus · June 8, 2002, 15:19

first democratic potion of the game,

it's pretty self explanitory, btu if you feel the need to "campaign" for your choice, do it here

Nubclear · June 8, 2002, 17:34

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
first democratic potion of the game,

it's pretty self explanitory, btu if you feel the need to "campaign" for your choice, do it here

I think we should do a lower difficulty, because some of us are new to Civilization and still haven't quite mastered it yet.

Inverse Icarus · June 8, 2002, 17:54

oh, and incase you're wondering, i voted Monarch (its where i play for fun

)

ixnay · June 8, 2002, 21:53

I say Emperor. With the combined forces of all our citizens, we should be able to do ok on it.

Space05us · June 9, 2002, 03:39

I say Diety, hey if we get killed the first time we can always go back and try again!

Gramphos · June 9, 2002, 05:11

I purpose the following calculation to evaluate this poll:

1. Give each option points:
Chieftan = 1
Warlord = 2
Regent = 3
Monarch = 4
Emperor = 5
Deity =6

2. Multiply the points for each option with the number of votes for that option, and sum the points in total.

3. Divide the points with the number of voters, and we get a men point.

4. This point is rounded and the difficultylevel will be the value that results in.

What do you think?

Will it work?
I think this way we'll get the opinion on how hard we want the game.

Gramphos · June 9, 2002, 05:17

And an example from the postioin after 13 voters.

(1 * 0 + 2 * 1 + 3 * 2 + 4 * 4 + 5 * 3 + 6 * 3)/13 = 57/13

57/13 = 4.38 Rounded to 4 => Monarch.

Tarquinius · June 9, 2002, 06:56

I agree with you Gramphos, that is a good way to determine difficulty level IMHO.

Eli · June 9, 2002, 07:18

Definetely Deity.
With so many people thinking about the game, we should make it as hard as possible.

Also, the Democracy game will be much more realistic if we face real crises that can seriously affect our empire and even destroy it.

I mean, do you want to play a game where everything goes smoothly and the most important decisions we make are whether to invade the neighboring civ with 20 Knights or 30?

Alex · June 9, 2002, 11:17

Deity. What Eli said.

I want to feel unhappy and start some revolutions.

punkbass2000 · June 9, 2002, 11:21

I agree with Eli too. Also, although some people are new, I think we'll likely do as well as our best players, if not better, assuming the 'good' players explain their opinions and the new players can follow the arguments. Also, we'll have tons of time for extra analysis and micromanagement.

Jon Shafer · June 9, 2002, 11:59

I voted Monarch, and that's what I was going with, but after reading Eli's post, I would have to agree with him (oops

). Let's go for Diety, it won't really be fun unless it's a real challenge.

Purple · June 9, 2002, 13:20

Diety, without a doubt!

I usually play on Monarch, but I think the wealth of knowledge and skill represented by our population make it possible to face the challenge of diety.

Besides, it will help lower-level players improve.

Inverse Icarus · June 9, 2002, 13:24

you people are over optimistic. diety is a world where the AI starts with 2 settlers 4 workers and several warriors. and it grows AT LEAST 10x as fast as you. ::sigh::

Eli · June 9, 2002, 13:31

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
you people are over optimistic. diety is a world where the AI starts with 2 settlers 4 workers and several warriors. and it grows AT LEAST 10x as fast as you. ::sigh::

Do you prefer a world where we grow 2x as fast as the AI and achieve dominance by the industrial era? Because this is what will happen if we choose Monarch or other "low" difficulty levels?

Though I must admit now that Deity might be really too much. At CFC they play on Monarch level and they are a very powerful civ, but not more than that.

Maybe Emperor?

Inverse Icarus · June 9, 2002, 13:34

i dont want a game where the AI cheats its way to utter victory.

ever start near the germans on deity? ::shudder::

Franses · June 9, 2002, 15:05

My vote was influenced a little bit by the way Gramphos suggested to calculate the difficulty level from the votes. IMO anything below Emperor is no challenge for more than 30 humans!!. So I voted Deity. But perhaps it is a bit too much for the first Democracy game? Emperor is ok with me. Depends a bit on the CIV we play of course. If we also choose a "bad" CIV, I will even be satisfied

with Monarch.

Fatwreck · June 9, 2002, 15:17

Emperor, without a doubt...

Nikolai · June 9, 2002, 15:23

I would like the regent level, but I'm open for higher if people think that is best. I only think we should start low and then try the higher levels when we know we can do it!

Kuciwalker · June 9, 2002, 16:01

A lot of people don't have experience with the higher levels. Let's play at either Regent or Monarch, so that everyone knows what's going on.

Alex · June 9, 2002, 16:03

Hmm... Thinking about the other arguments here, I think that Deity might really be too much... Emperor or even Monarch sounds good.

Jon Shafer · June 9, 2002, 16:52

I'm good with Emperor.

If people don't really know how to play... then don't be president or a minister.

Games like this take... a... very... long... time... to... play, so chances are we may not even have another game like this.

punkbass2000 · June 9, 2002, 17:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Eli

Do you prefer a world where we grow 2x as fast as the AI and achieve dominance by the industrial era? Because this is what will happen if we choose Monarch or other "low" difficulty levels?

Though I must admit now that Deity might be really too much. At CFC they play on Monarch level and they are a very powerful civ, but not more than that.

Maybe Emperor?

Please, that game really was over by the beginning of the middle ages. We're twice the size of anypne else. We need Emperor, minimum, or we will reach certain victory before the game is half over.

Wojit · June 9, 2002, 23:11

I'm personally all for Monarch. Nice and... not-too-hard. I think Diety is pure madness, but, luckily, using our vote counting system, it has just about no chance of happening! Yay!

Jon Shafer · June 10, 2002, 00:04

The problem with this system is that things like Diety or Chieftan can never win. It will either be Regent or Monarch (most likely Monarch), without a doubt, due to the natural distribution of votes.

civman2000 · June 10, 2002, 00:08

well, i think it's more fair...

It's like how the Electoral College system in the US would be if reformed. In most states, even if a party gets 49.999% of the votes, the otehr party still wins every single one of the electoral votes...

Jon Shafer · June 10, 2002, 00:09

And that's fair?

civman2000 · June 10, 2002, 00:14

No, I guess I was a bit unclear. NOT averaging it would be like the electoral college. how we're doing it is:

Quote:

like how the Electoral College system in the US would be if reformed

Jon Shafer · June 10, 2002, 00:18

Actually, this proposition would be more like having 5 different canidates, 1 on the far left, 1 somewhat left, 1 in the middle, 1 somewhat right, and 1 far right. You average up the votes for all of them, and whereever the most lies (nearly always the middle) wins. That's not the best way to do things, IMO.

Jethro83 · June 10, 2002, 08:34

My vote is for Emperor. Anything less would be too easy for us to face collectively.