has this been fixed?

pg · October 17, 2002, 02:42

i've been out of the loop for a long time but i have an interest in buying ptw because of multiplayer. just one question - has it been mentioned anywhere if where the players starts in random maps has been fixed to be fair? frequently i remember in civ3 getting starts on peninsulas or surrounded by desert/jungle/hills/mountain(or combos of) which is basically a game that you've lost before you had a chance. unless things have changed, corruption is modeled by distance from palace and city number -- thus starting in a place where you cannot expand in concentric circles(due to terrain) from your first city greatly reduces your power. sure you can win, but you'll need much more skill, and it's much harder. usually there only seems to a few starting places per game which are optimal(unless perhaps you play on a custom or really big map), and when i used to play i would have a greatly easier time winning if i got a good start.

Bolt · October 17, 2002, 03:18

Dont think that have been fixed. Atleast now with the latest patch you can set whos starting where in the editor.

WarpStorm · October 17, 2002, 05:45

Why is this even a problem? Life isn't fair, why should your games be? Besides, it'll give you chance to say "If only I had the start you did..."

Hagbart · October 17, 2002, 06:23

I'm sure Firaxis will include multiplayer maps with PTW, where each player has the same opportunities. That would solve the problem, but it would make the games less surprising.

Chronus · October 17, 2002, 07:15

Well, as long as we're on the subject of fixes (sorry, I don't see a "PTW fix list" . . . perhaps I should be looking at the "Civ 3 fix list"?) . . .

Anyway, I miss the "Go To City" feature from Civ 2. Yeah, Civ 3 has it, but Civ 2 had the list nicely sorted alphabetically. Furthermore, when you pressed an alphabetic key, the list would jump down to the first city that began with that character.

aahz_capone · October 17, 2002, 07:46

Yeah, Chronos, that was a nice feature. Makes me think of the original Railroad Tycoon ("Where in the hell is _______?" and type it in).

SMAC had it all a bit easier with every option in a rightclick menu, I miss that in civ3 cause I can never remeber all the hotkeys, and SMAC had a lot more options anyway.

I see on screens of PTW that there are a lot more buttons everywhere however, so that problem is somewhat fixed. looks a bit CTPish actually.... hmmmm...

Maquiladora · October 17, 2002, 14:34

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Why is this even a problem? Life isn't fair, why should your games be? Besides, it'll give you chance to say "If only I had the start you did..."

This has to be the no.1 excuse that losers give (including me), along with "weeeeell i didnt get very good ruins".

Its easier if you just say each player gets a call for a restart if they dont like their land, anything more than 3 players it could take awhile to actually start.

pg · October 17, 2002, 16:54

it's a big deal if you are competitive about your multiplayer gaming, like i am. i don't mind shitty starts vs the ai(mainly because i can win regardless) but vs humans it can make things so bad that it might not be worth playing random maps.

WarpStorm · October 17, 2002, 17:30

I guess I'm not that competitive. While I will try my hardest to win, I'll do it with whatever hand I'm dealt and not whine too much afterwards. I don't really mind losing if I thought I did my best.

Falconius · October 18, 2002, 14:56

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
I don't really mind losing if I thought I did my best.

Bravo and well put! Players should play with the hand they were dealt. If you were playing poker, you wouldn't bail out of the hand saying, "Unfair! I got dealt bad cards."

Very frustrating to play against whiners who quit after a few rounds because they don't like their starting position, or because somebody beat them to their favorite early wonder. This made Civ2 Multiplayer very aggravating and un-fun.

pg · October 18, 2002, 17:09

heh, civ2 starting positions weren't nearly as bad as civ3's are imo. comparing civ3 to poker is egregrious. i just don't see why firaxis couldn't balance out the starting spots and include it as an option for people who want a more 'fair' game. you gambling players could still play with unfair starts.

WarpStorm · October 18, 2002, 17:57

Play a fair scenario if you want. It's easy enough to do. I'll take my chances with random starts.

Tassadar500 · October 18, 2002, 19:53

So am i. If i have a bad area the more i want to win

playshogi · October 19, 2002, 16:04

Comparing Civ3 to poker is unfair. A poker hand lasts a few minutes, a poor Civ3 start lasts for hours.

Jon Shafer · October 19, 2002, 16:14

So don't buy PtW then, if it's that horrible.

That's how Civ III is. That's more reflective of how civilization developed in history. The Mongols started in a big wasteland with scattered tribes. The Egyptians started next to an incredibly fertile river and possessed cities all with populations over 1 million. Guess who conquered most of their continent? Civ games are only what you make of them. Perhaps you'd prefer if there was a seperate island for each civ, all of them identical, and each of them have an identical distance from each other.

If you don't like it, go back to Civ II.

WarpStorm · October 19, 2002, 16:15

If you screw up one hand of poker you can be out of the game (not to mention your life savings).

Raion · October 19, 2002, 16:22

Make a map up to play on.

Its too bad that most people play Civ III with defeating others. Mostly I think the game was programmed like people use to end up playing Civ II, always going after the computer AI's. So when it came out and people started losing, they get depressed. But, it was some of those type of people who played Civ II that way.

Actually there is so much in multi-player, that I think the games will be very interesting with the shorter modes, and suited to how some people play the game.
http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories...894699,00.html

Fairness can be done, but in a regular game, one can add a computer player to take over, if a human drops out.

Smiley goes here!

thinkingamer · October 23, 2002, 14:13

Quote:

Why is this even a problem? Life isn't fair, why should your games be? Besides, it'll give you chance to say "If only I had the start you did..."

u realize that there are some people that do not wish to waste 1-2 hours to play an unbalanced game.

Quote:

If you screw up one hand of poker you can be out of the game (not to mention your life savings).

Most of the people that play civ, plays civ because it has strategy ideas (like chess), not games that consist of rolling dices or drawing lucky hands.