Epic Three - Rise of the Incans - Info Thread

[theGrimm]

Does it take skill to sandbag a game to score more points after the game is won? Maybe, maybe not. But does it take skill to sandbag BETTER than Syrian, Kylarean, Blake, Sulllla, Uberfish, etc. Hell yes.

Does it take skill to finish a game quickly? Maybe, maybe not. But does it take skill to finish faster than Syrian, Kylarean, Blake, Sulllla, Uberfish, and many more. Hell yes.

Is it fun to sandbag? For some. Not everyone. Not every time.
Is it fun to finish fast? For some. Not everyone. Not every time.

It feels like just the other day I posted regarding how "lively" the RB forums are capable of becoming. But sometimes we should take a step back, lest we offend one another.

I think that we may not all be taking the same view of the word "victory" here, and indeed, there are at least two different ways to view it. Did I win because I beat the AI? Or did I win because I beat the AI faster than anyone else playing the same game did?

Sullla suggests (I apologise for oversimplifying) he sees the game as won once he beats the AI, and any further play beyond that point makes him feel dirty. I understand the sentiment.

But for me, epic 2 was already won in THAT sense when I had a five tech lead and was first in score. Short of a hugely stupid move, I had already, for all intents and purposes, beaten the AI.

I hadn't beaten the best RB had to offer though. Nor would I...by a long shot

What's great about RB, and the reporting system, to me, is that you don't need to win by any particular standard to gain "brownie points". Sure I didn't get a competitive score in epic 2, but Sullla's compliment on my circumnavigation sure was appreciated.

[Sullla]

I'm certainly not asking for every event to turn into a Fastest Finish competition. Obviously that would quickly become uninteresting and serve little purpose. I like our competitions that offer strange scoring systems and variant goals. What I don't like is any situation where players are rewarded for not winning games, when they can deliberately receive extra rewards for sandbagging after a game is obviously won. And yes, that WAS present in Civ3's Epic Two, and it was my least favorite part of that game. When designing these events, I understand that sometimes we will end up with scoring systems that promote delaying victory. Rather than air out negative concerns here, which I don't think benefit anyone, I will "vote with my feet" by not playing in these events, or by playing a variant within the variant by accepting a lower score rather than go through another cow-fest milk. Civ3's Epic Thirty-Six was a good example; I thought the game looked incredibly tedious, and so I skipped it. I do respect that others wanted to play such a game... but baby-sitting the AIs for hundreds of turns, attempting to research dozens of future techs was not for me. Not for me. OK?

Anyone who interpreted my post as an attack on Time victories was missing the point entirely. My beef is not with winning by Time, but deliberately choosing to win by Time when you have another victory condition there for the taking. If I have 60% land area and 94% of the population (as I did in Epic Two), well - the game's over! O - VER! Wanking around for another hundred turns to pursue a score milk is pure nonsense in my eyes. As theGrimm just said,

Sullla suggests (I apologise for oversimplifying) he sees the game as won once he beats the AI, and any further play beyond that point makes him feel dirty. I understand the sentiment.

Of course the game's over once you've beaten the AI! How could it not be! You've won the game! Just take your victory and move onto another game! You can talk yourself into believing it's not, but regardless of logic you have, in fact, achieved victory. Just take the stupid thing and be done with it.

Anyway, I don't want to be any more disruptive than I've already been. Sirian designs one hell of a good set of games. But as far as this goes:

Does it take skill to sandbag a game to score more points after the game is won? Maybe, maybe not. But does it take skill to sandbag BETTER than Syrian, Kylarean, Blake, Sulllla, Uberfish, etc. Hell yes.

You'll never see me engaging in a "sandbagging" competition again. Those who enjoy it are welcome to it, but it's not for me. Not anymore. If that's what the game is about, I'm not playing in it.

[theGrimm]

I don't enjoy sandbagging either. I wasn't even tempted in epic 2, hence my low score. I'm just saying we shouldn't relate our (lack of) enjoyment of it to the amount of skill required

But hey, if a varient looks interesting enough, it may justify playing despite the scoring conditions that exist. But for the sake of milking score alone, I quite agree.

[Hiapoe]

What is sandbagging ... :| sorry for stupid question... it's my english probably that's letting me down...

[Hiapoe]

Oh and there's at least 1 thing already I learnt from the Epic 2: seatiles don't get me good production, so I need slavery!! How foolish was I...

[Sirian]

What is sandbagging ... :| sorry for stupid question... it's my english probably that's letting me down...

Sandbagging, pulling one's punches, and coasting -- three similar terms, subtly differentiated, which refer to giving less than a maximum effort toward the apparent goals, typically because some other (often covert) goal has become the true aim.

There's a fourth item that belongs in the same category, called variant play. The chief difference between variant play and the others is that variants officially enshrine the real goal as the aim, setting aside the apparent goals or replacing them.

There are folks out there who don't enjoy variants because the gameplay feels like sandbagging. Sometimes the difference is purely perceptional. A lot depends on the meaning that any given person assigns to a certain goal, or to the activity involved in pursuing a goal.


- Sirian

[Imhotep]

@Sullla:

Then what did attract you in Epic 2 ? A player like you knew that a competitive score in this one would surely need to chase for the variant scores rather than for the fastest finishes. You could have skipped it, as you say you will do with upcoming events that are the like. What was your real goal here ? You wanted to win the challenge against the other players. You wanted to win the challenge against the human players. The AI is in this case just a neccessary obstacle, a means to the way. How won the game is in terms of roughing up the AI then isn't the question. The question is: How good is my score in comparison to other players ? See, I didn't play Epic 2 because I thought the variant rules were to restrictive for my kind of playing style. All this gems selling stuff was a really good idea but I usually don't enjoy keeping track of a large number of rather complex variant rules. Anyway, maybe I would have still jumped in if I've found the time.

Your argumentation has for me one consequence in it: It is playing the game you enjoy. Winning is not necessarily a part of it. I guess you would still have enjoyed Epic 2 if you just had left out the milking part and taken your domination victory at 1900 AD or earlier. Of course you would have had an uncompetitive score compared to other players who feel less dirty than you when milking. You would still be proud of your subtle city placement, still be proud of your windmill building on that hill north of 25 pop city #8. And you would still have got the praise for a really outstanding game. Do the Epics stand for winning ?

In any case I would say that milking is the wrong word because it has a negative connotation. I would rather call it adapting your play to the given variant rules. There are players who retire games when they see they have a large lead over the AI and will win. Isn't any win that is based on a large lead somewhat milking ?

What the events on RBCiv stand for IMHO I'll explain in the other thread. But my guess is that it is not winning the competition by any means...

Imhotep

[LKendter]

But for me, epic 2 was already won in THAT sense when I had a five tech lead and was first in score. Short of a hugely stupid move, I had already, for all intents and purposes, beaten the AI.

I very much understand this comment. At the point I realized I lacked the time to finish this I was in the same area. I was number one in score, acquired a holy city that got a shrine, was #1 in solidiers, and nibbled at several civs. It was already impossible for me to lose.

[pindicator]

I will try to play, but I doubt I will have time to finish or report. I thought I was going to finish Epic 2 but that became a tedium when the AI killed their own economy in the patchwork settling of the map.

My lure to Civ4 is greatly shrinking, not because I do not like the game but because there are so many other things I would rather do now that the sun is out again!

[Sirian]

I am playing Epics Three and Four, by the way.

Not sure to whom that may matter, but there you have it.


- Sirian