Why are people so quick to bandy around the term "cheat"? - Page 3

Thrawn05 · August 22, 2002, 19:16

Quote:

Originally posted by DeepO

Believe me, if I thought it would be possible, I would have started already

If you ever get a serious idea on how to do it, you know where to drop me a note

DeepO

Want me to sneak this in the code?:

//Everything after this was done by this guy at Poly named DeepO. Don't ask me how.

Zachriel · August 22, 2002, 20:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Thrawn05
Paragraph 4: I would pay $500 for a smart AI. Besides, I have had more fun against computers then other people in MPs games, why?

I would pay $500 for a suitably good AI, but the vast majority of consumers would never consider such a purchase when there are so many good games in the marketplace.

The gamemaker sold more than a million copies of Civ at about $50 a piece for a total take in the millions of dollars. If the game sold for $500, you would never sell enough copies to even meet payroll. The market for the game would collapse and only a millionaire who hired his own computer team could play Civ.

Thrawn05 · August 22, 2002, 20:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

I would pay $500 for a suitably good AI, but the vast majority of consumers would never consider such a purchase when there are so many good games in the marketplace.

Perhaps I should of stated ahead of time I was being sarcastic.

Zachriel · August 22, 2002, 20:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Thrawn05

Perhaps I should of stated ahead of time I was being sarcastic.

Believe me, I wouldn't base a business plan on the expectation of selling anyone a $500 computer game.

Which was the point I was trying to make. The game costs $50 or it costs $500,000. There's not much in between.

Thrawn05 · August 22, 2002, 20:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

Believe me, I wouldn't base a business plan on the expectation of selling anyone a $500 computer game.

Which was the point I was trying to make. The game costs $50 or it costs $500,000. There's not much in between.

Considering the quality of pretty much all games these days, they are not worth more then $30.

Barchan · August 23, 2002, 02:44

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
You know my grand kids

So much for the 12-year-old gamer stereotype! Hope I'm still enjoying games when I'm that age....

TacticalGrace · August 23, 2002, 04:43

The game would be much harder if the different AI civs did different things. For example the military civs did a archer rush once it had 2 or 3 cities. Meanwhile the expansionistic civs would keep pumping out settlers and colonising the world and the perfectionist civs (religious/scientific) civs built less cities but went for temples/libraries early on.

This woul dbe hard to play against because while you were fending off the archers the clock would be ticking as the expansionists grabbed all the land and the perfectionists ramped up their culture.

Grumbold · August 23, 2002, 05:32

Quote:

Originally posted by TacticalGrace
The game would be much harder if the different AI civs did different things. For example the military civs did a archer rush once it had 2 or 3 cities. Meanwhile the expansionistic civs would keep pumping out settlers and colonising the world and the perfectionist civs (religious/scientific) civs built less cities but went for temples/libraries early on.

This woul dbe hard to play against because while you were fending off the archers the clock would be ticking as the expansionists grabbed all the land and the perfectionists ramped up their culture.

Only if everything was directed at you. One thing Civ 3 seems pretty good at is not playing favourites. If you are seen as the most tempting target, prepare to be stomped. If others seem to be better targets you can sit at peace while the AI nations fight each other around you.

In the time that Firaxis had, they gave the AI a strong early expansion tactic. Yes its tedious to know that you will always face aggressive expansion, but it works. The problem is that the civ traits don't do enough to change the effectiveness of opening strategies. Religious civs might pick temples as their first build to slot in between defender, settler, defender, worker, defender ,settler at a convenient point, while a scinetific one may choose a library, but that doesnt do enough to change the pattern. Any greater move away from REX is just making that AI nation weaker than its neighbours, including all competent human opponents.

To change this you'd have to actually create different rules. One way could be restrictive, i.e. a religious civ must build a temple before it can build a settler while a military civ must build a barracks. Since each Civ has two attributes that would make their early development quite different. Alternatively you could encourage choices by making the key buildings more effective for those civs, i.e. temples would produce wealth for Religious civs, barracks would help keep people content for military civs etc.

TacticalGrace · August 23, 2002, 05:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold

Only if everything was directed at you. One thing Civ 3 seems pretty good at is not playing favourites.

Not according to all the people out there who swear blind that the AI is out to get them.

I guess you are right though. diverting from the path of REX is subtle and difficult and the AI is likely to just weaken itself.

Grumbold · August 23, 2002, 05:51

Thats because there are usually 7+ AI nations, so if 1 of the 7 attacks at any time then the AI "must be rigged"

One thing making the endgame easier in Civ 3 is that the remaining opponents don't adequately unite to protect themselves.

Zachriel · August 23, 2002, 08:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold

One thing making the endgame easier in Civ 3 is that the remaining opponents don't adequately unite to protect themselves.

Very good example demonstrating that the AI's do not specifically gang up on the human.

Most of us have experienced the situation where we control half the globe and are allowed to pick off the remaining AI Civs one at a time. If they ganged up, they would have more power due to the multiple capitals and therefore production centers. But they don't, so everyone knows that once you control half the globe, the game is over.

Wormwood · August 23, 2002, 11:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

Very good example demonstrating that the AI's do not specifically gang up on the human.

Most of us have experienced the situation where we control half the globe and are allowed to pick off the remaining AI Civs one at a time. If they ganged up, they would have more power due to the multiple capitals and therefore production centers. But they don't, so everyone knows that once you control half the globe, the game is over.

So is the solution the old civ 2 "gang up on the human when he becomes the most powerful?"

Grumbold · August 23, 2002, 11:21

If you wanted a stronger late game, it would help. At the moment I feel Civ plays too strong at the beginning, where its knowledge advantage and any difficulty level setting is greatest, but it then falls away in the late game. A slightly tuned down start followed by a more tuned up mid game could be quite a different experience.

Thrawn05 · August 23, 2002, 12:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold
If you wanted a stronger late game, it would help. At the moment I feel Civ plays too strong at the beginning, where its knowledge advantage and any difficulty level setting is greatest, but it then falls away in the late game. A slightly tuned down start followed by a more tuned up mid game could be quite a different experience.

I would agree to this. The only thing in late game is any type of war means a world war with every civ swapping MPP and ROP. And unless you are willing to go it alone, all you can do is flaunt your Modern Armor units along the borders.

I wish there was some sort of harassment skirmishes in Civ3 that wouldn't cause an all out war.

vmxa1 · August 23, 2002, 13:23

I am not real fond of the MPP either. I do not mind so much the ROP. It does not seem reasonable that everyone gets in on the wars all of the time. I would like to see a more sensible approach. I mean that if you have beaten a civ a few times in the past and they had to asked for peace, why on earth would they agree to a MPP with another civ that is at war with that civ? Would you not at least wait until the war was over?

Thrawn05 · August 23, 2002, 15:52

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I Would you not at least wait until the war was over?

In this late in the game, when one makes peace, the rest that were "MPPed" into the war still continue, and when countered attacked, the civ that made peace declares war again! It doesn't end until a civ is destoyed.

Fitz · August 23, 2002, 16:53

Or until 20 years have passed. I never sign a MPP unless I plan to be at war for the next 20 years. If the war starts 10 years into the MPP, I regard that as a bonus. I don't think I've ever failed (intentionally) to cancel an MPP, and now that auto-renegotiate is available I probably never well.

On topic: I would be willing to throw out the word "cheat" if someone told me they had hacked the game, or even changed the settings in the editor to make the game easier. My reasoning is simple: If I did it, I would consider myself to be cheating myself of a funner experience. I'm fully aware that people have the right to play a single player game any way they want without stigma being attached, but the first thing I hold information up to is my personal viewpoint. Since I am aware, the term "cheat" doesn't really hold to much stigma or animosity though. But that initial gut reaction when comparing what is being done to what I would do is where the readyness and willingness to toss the word "cheat" around comes from. Thinking comes later.

vmxa1 · August 23, 2002, 17:08

Trawn05, the MPP war I was talking about occurs even in the first age. I am on a large continent with at least 4 races (have not see a the land so far. I get into a numer of wars with most of them and eventualy they seek peace. At some point I get into war with one race and later another race signs an MPP with them and is forced to declare war. I understand that they can be bribed, but what kind of a bribe would it take for you to join in on a war against some one who kicked your butt and that civs as well? In fact the civ really had nothing to offer as techs had all been leveled on both races and they had no money? All I am saying is that seems silly and it does hurt the fun when you are soon in neck deep with everyone. Once MPP's become available they are abused.
I would submit that ROP's are also abused. Would you really want tohave numerous friendly troops in your lands? How long will it be before they come for you? I just would like to see them toned down a bit.