Do duels require more or less skill?

rah · March 17, 2003, 12:29

With all the "I'm the best in the world" claims, it got me thinking. Most of these claims are based on the outcome of Duels. Duels are much different than games with 4-7 people. In a duel, there is no diplomacy. You find them, you kill them. Also in a duel you can go all out against your opponent and not worry about anybody else taking advantage of the situation. And, in a duel, you don't have to worry about people ganging up against you. Those are just a few reasons off the to of my head. There are many more. (please feel free to list others)
So in my opinion, people's claims of being the best based on duels does not mean they are the greatest civ player, it just means they are good at an insignificatant tiny sliver of the civ world experience.

What do you think? Which requires more skill and why?

RAH

srholmes · March 17, 2003, 17:41

I agree.

Duels seem much more like the basic war game of old, lacking a lot of the complexity of the MP game. Of course, the advantage to those who play them is probably exactly that, as duels are therefore quicker and have less potential for luck to play a factor ( I am looking on irrational behaviour by other players as being part of the luck, because sometimes with the best diplomatic efforts other players act in a way that affects you, and over which you have no control).

As you say, there is no diplomacy in a duel, and I think that this is one of the key aspects of MP Civ. Anyone who has played much Risk will appreciate the calculations required so far as starting a war with an opponent are concerned, as this will weaken your standing compared to all the other players, making it more likely that they then attack you.

So while I appreciate that there is skill in playing duels, I think that MP games require more skill, especially in diplomacy.

Ming · March 17, 2003, 17:53

Quote:

Originally posted by srholmes
Of course, the advantage to those who play them is probably exactly that, as duels are therefore quicker and have less potential for luck to play a factor

I disagree... I think luck plays more of a factor in a duel vs a larger game. With more people in the game, luck will tend to even out. In a duel, if you get lucky, the other person is toast as long as they are pretty equal in skills.

rah · March 17, 2003, 18:07

Maybe not (luck that is) even out, but you have many other things you can do to neutralize/makeup for that luck. But really bad luck is just as bad for you in a duel as in a larger game. GAME OVER.

RAH

Smash · March 17, 2003, 19:40

Not more or less just different.For example,I luv to see an opponent get Philosophy in a duel.

StrategicKingMi · March 18, 2003, 01:58

First off, luck is a gigantic factor in multiplayer games. 4 out of 7 civs will have unwinable starting positions in every single game. (now bad players can screw up good starts and allow some good or great player with a bad start back in the game, but with all good players, 4 of 7 are done from beging of the game)
A lot of the time, one or more players will be over run early. Still another will start no where near enough huts to contend. Another side will start with a near by cont that they can trade with giving them a huge advantage.
Multi-player games played correctly are a series of duels. Eliminate any near by civ where you have a big advantage, dont let them linger or unite with other civs . This eliminates the weak and no matter how good they are, the situation will eliminate them.
So in reality, played correctly, a 7 player game will come down to the surving 2 or 3 civs with maybe a 4th civ that survived early elimination. The cool thing about multiplayer game is that the wonders will be well distributed So once down to the strong, now there is an enormous amount of skill involved.
In a duel, start positions are a huge part of the determination of a winner, but in about 20% of the games you will have equal starts.
(meaning, you at least have a chance of an equal start for all players involved in a duel, and in a multiplayer game, you have 0 chance of a fair start for all 7 players on a random map.)
But as far as skill in a duel or multiplayer game, i got to vote for multiplayer games.
(I Played many, many multiplayer games to great success during my 8 time Game League championship days and also have a great tribe record, which is much better then multiplayer games)

DrSpike · March 18, 2003, 06:52

They are very different games.......I would not say either requires more skill. MP may have the edge, since trade is more important, but equally duels have their own unique challenges. I think players that only play duels or MP are missing out.

MalevolentLight · March 22, 2003, 14:27

Diplomacy is for the weak. I won't even talk to anyone in an MP game and even if you all gang up on me I'll still kill you all. In fact MP makes me stronger because I get free cities from weak players. And strat's tribe record is so great kaak kicked him out of the divine tribe.

MalevolentLight · March 22, 2003, 14:31

Also, your games are a joke. You play on tiny tiny maps with **** land so it takes forever for anyone to go anywhere. Then on top of it you play no bribe, which is the biggest rookie rule ever, so that you can sit there and build cities on mountains.

Ming · March 22, 2003, 14:41

Different strokes for different folks... I personally hate playing on large maps where you can go 1000's of years without running into people. With small maps, there is early conflict, and once the land runs out, the only way to expand is to take the cities...

rah · March 22, 2003, 21:41

Gee, reading between the lines it seems that ML isn't good at diplomacy or taking mountain cities,........or anything else that isn't a 2x2x king duel.

RAH
Yes, eyes, you're god and no one can beat you at any settings, blah blah blah blah blah blah

MalevolentLight · March 23, 2003, 13:15

Diplomacy is for lesser players who can't kill their neighbor. I never have that problem. And building on mountains slows you down so in effect you've given me the game if you start building on mountains. All building on a mountain does is force me to go around the city. Takes a real genius to throw a city down on a mountain.

Ming · March 23, 2003, 16:07

Hmmm... I've captured and destroyed cities on mountains before... can't you

Alexander's Horse · March 23, 2003, 18:38

Duels and multiplayer games require different skills. Its much harder to win against multiple opponents.

Ming · March 23, 2003, 18:52

I agree... it's one thing to go balls out against a single player. If you try that in an MP game, the civ that just happened to start right behind you, might just be trying to do the same to you

Alexander's Horse · March 23, 2003, 18:56

I have this situation with deity at the moment where he won't play nice with my civ for some reason - won't make treaties etc. So I've attacked him in nearly every game we have.

The most likely outcome of that is we will cancel each other out and another civ in the game will win.

MalevolentLight · March 24, 2003, 20:58

Silly me, I often catch myself forgetting that I am in the presence of rookies and morons and therefore need to explain myself to the lesser folk of this community. By the time you get your little alliance going it is too late. You're still only going to be able to use your own units and as I kill you and take all your cities it's like getting massive amounts of advanced tribes.

Alexander's Horse · March 24, 2003, 21:42

Wouldn't it be fun to get him in a multiplayer game, say a 1x1x deity 4 way on a small archipelago map and see how he goes.

MalevolentLight · March 25, 2003, 00:19

"Wouldn't it be fun to get him in a multiplayer game, say a 1x1x deity 4 way on a small archipelgo map and see how he goes."

Why don't you just say..."Wouldn't it be fun to get him in a multiplayer game, say a 1x1x deity 4 way on a tiny map that gives horrible starting positions because it's too small. And then lets make it archipelageo so it makes all kinds of easy little areas to defend on where we can throw down cities on mountains. Then lets make it deity and 1x1x to truly slow the game to a ****ing crawl and make it impossible to do anything that might be unique or require something special. Then lets see him play a 5 on 1."

Alexander's Horse · March 25, 2003, 00:25

Yeah I shouldn't have mentioned that - I should have known you couldn't hack it.

Ming · March 25, 2003, 02:08

Short version of Eyes last two posts...

I don't like your settings so you are a rookie and moron.
I'm the greatest...

Alexander's Horse · March 25, 2003, 02:24

Quote:

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
Why don't you just say..."Wouldn't it be fun to get him in a multiplayer game, say a 1x1x deity 4 way on a tiny map that gives horrible starting positions because it's too small. And then lets make it archipelageo so it makes all kinds of easy little areas to defend on where we can throw down cities on mountains. Then lets make it deity and 1x1x to truly slow the game to a ****ing crawl and make it impossible to do anything that might be unique or require something special. Then lets see him play a 5 on 1."

I would have thought those conditions would require you to do something special to win as opposed to ICS by numbers. I can certainly see it would take you right out of your comfort zone.

Funny because that's what we play all the time

MalevolentLight · March 25, 2003, 16:02

You play on invalid maps. I don't really need to say more than that.

Smash · March 25, 2003, 16:30

Ok,I'll bite.

What is an invalid map?

Ming · March 25, 2003, 16:56

Any map and settings not appropriate for Eyes regular strategy

atawa · March 25, 2003, 17:36

Smaller then small, the mapgenerator tends to produce rather strange looking maps.

MalevolentLight · March 25, 2003, 17:54

Invalid map means that the terrain is so bad that the computer can't find suitable start positions for everyone. Which means people will end up literally on the pole or in a sea of mountains or jungle.

Hydey · March 25, 2003, 17:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Short version of Eyes last two posts...

I don't like your settings so you are a rookie and moron.
I'm the greatest...

I think that covers his last 100 posts

Alexander's Horse · March 25, 2003, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
You play on invalid maps. I don't really need to say more than that.

Oh come on Eyes. If you really are such a good player you're going to have to show sooner or later that you're not just a one trick pony.

Smash · March 25, 2003, 20:58

Quote:

Invalid map means that the terrain is so bad that the computer can't find suitable start positions for everyone. Which means people will end up literally on the pole or in a sea of mountains or jungle.

Oh ok.I get those starting positions all the time.I call it dirt and rocks.I have played alot of games on invalid maps apparently