January 26th, 2006, 02:32
Posts: 1,882
Threads: 126
Joined: Mar 2004
So we've had our first "Gentle Adventure". I'd like to get feedback from those who played the game, or who would consider playing games from this line of "easier than normal" games.
* What did you think?
* Did anybody (who did or didn't report) have a hard time with this one?
* Was it too gentle? 
* Should most "Gentle Adventures" be set up to play on Noble level, in the future?
* Anything else you'd care to add?
Your feedback will be used to help determine future scenarios. Thanks. 
- Sirian
Fortune favors the bold.
January 26th, 2006, 03:05
Posts: 40
Threads: 4
Joined: Dec 2005
I for one enjoyed my game immensely. but that could be because I had at least some sort of a goal, and because I had an interesting idea for my writeup from the get go.
I think the next difficulty level up (noble?) might be better for them though just for more of a challenge w/o being 'difficult'
Games with weird goals/variants also make things more interesting, really if you are going to have a truly strange variant going on then lower diff level is going to be the place to try it out. And I'm sure some weird ones are bound to come along.
Black Holes are what happens when God tries to divide by zero.
January 26th, 2006, 03:18
Posts: 42
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2005
Sirian Wrote:* What did you think?
It was pretty fun, I was pretty deeply into the game, but it was very easy, and I'm surprised at the jump from Warlord to Noble. Although it doesn't get much easier than popping a worker from a hut. Out of interest, was that done using the World Builder?
Quote:* Did anybody (who did or didn't report) have a hard time with this one?
Well, I didn't
Quote:* Was it too gentle?
Yep.
Quote:* Should most "Gentle Adventures" be set up to play on Noble level, in the future?
They could be, but I think it would be possible to make a Warlord game harder too.
January 26th, 2006, 03:25
Posts: 53
Threads: 5
Joined: Dec 2005
We could give each set of variant rules a modifier based on how tough they make the game, then use that to determine the difficulty level. For example, I'd give:
No Attacking: +1
Settle New World: +1
Czar Scoring: +1
Tundra Start: +3
No Alphabet: +2
January 26th, 2006, 06:03
Posts: 123
Threads: 7
Joined: Apr 2004
Sirian Wrote:* What did you think? I enjoyed winning an RBCiv game with Civ4.
Quote:* Did anybody (who did or didn't report) have a hard time with this one?
Not at all. Never upgraded my units but the AIs never bothered attacking me. I got my religion when I wanted, unlike in my other games where I was always beaten to it.
Quote:* Was it too gentle?
How do you dare put Adventures 1 & 2 in the same category ?  Far too gentle, like everyone will say, I think. So far I haven't read a single report with any glimpse of suspense about winning the game or not. That tells it.
Quote:* Should most "Gentle Adventures" be set up to play on Noble level, in the future?
Yeah. Except for some very hard variants, but that's not the point of adventures, right ? Noble is the limit I'd put.
Quote:* Anything else you'd care to add?
For me, Adventures are just like Epics, not secondary games. They already take so much time to complete (at least for me : I'm a slow player and have a slow machine), and participation is high. I think a good mix of Adventures and Epics will do good for the community.
January 26th, 2006, 06:53
Posts: 258
Threads: 32
Joined: Dec 2005
If nobody really struggled, a small step up in difficulty level would suit me fine. Doesn't mean it has to be Noble+, though. If I'd though about it beforehand, I would have added some wierd variant rules that wouldn't be feasible on higher difficulties.
One thought, though, from an average player; I learn a lot from reading the reports of players better than myself and comparing them to my own. But if the gentle games aren't interesting / difficult enough to attract the better players, I won't be so motivated to play myself.
(That's in no way a comment aimed at those who played this last gentle adventure  )
January 26th, 2006, 06:58
Posts: 26
Threads: 3
Joined: Nov 2005
I played both adventure 1 and 2, but didn't report as I didn't finish either. Adventure 1 was too easy and, well you guessed it, adventure 2 was too hard for me.
I'd like to see some adventures at Noble or Prince level. By now I win most of my Prince games, but Monarch owns me every time I try it.
Noble with an interesting variant sounds like a good gentle level for the average player like me.
I'll give Adventure 4 a spin next week and am prepared to get owned once again. Too much  in my play.
January 26th, 2006, 08:24
Posts: 22
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2006
Well, for me Adventure 1 wasn't motivating enough to join realms beyond. 2, 3 and 4 were. But as I don't have that much time right now, 2 was too hard for me cause I didn't know the map-script at all. 3 was impossible as I couldn't open the savegame so 4 was my first game.
I think the relatively low participation in adv1 (compared to the first epic) shows that not so many were motivated enough. Higher difficulty levels (Noble+) might help. But if you want to use easy adventures as a way to "recruit" new unexperienced players for realms beyond then I would suggest to take an easy difficulty level, but add other selfmade limitations as in Adv3+4. This way the new players would get the feeling to belong to the community and the old ones have some goals to achieve...
Threepwood
January 26th, 2006, 09:29
Posts: 1,922
Threads: 68
Joined: Mar 2004
Hi,
theGrimm Wrote:One thought, though, from an average player; I learn a lot from reading the reports of players better than myself and comparing them to my own. But if the gentle games aren't interesting / difficult enough to attract the better players, I won't be so motivated to play myself. A good advice would be not to wait until the more experienced players play the gentle Adventures. Instead, try to play the more challenging Adventures and post a detailed report about it! Sure, you might lose the game, but I bet you will learn a lot more by losing and comparing your game to winning reports than by winning an easy game and comparing that. I speak from experience; I've played in the Civ 3 Epics from the start, and have posted several losses - and have learned so much from comparing my lost game to the games of winning players and realizing my mistakes. I don't think I would have learned as much if I had stayed away from the hard games!
Granted, Adventure 2 might have been too hard. But you could try out Adventure 3 or even Adventure 4, for which I find the "extreme" label a bit misleading. You might be surprised about how good you already are; I know I had to be "forced" by the RB Epics to play on harder levels than I felt comfortable on, but in the end I did better than expected. And I think you will find several more experienced players playing Adventure 3 and 4...
-Kylearan
There are two kinds of fools. One says, "This is old, and therefore good." And one says, "This is new, and therefore better." - John Brunner, The Shockwave Rider
January 26th, 2006, 09:45
Posts: 3,037
Threads: 49
Joined: Mar 2004
I wasn't planning on playing many gentle adventures, as I'd rather save my time and energy for more challenging adventures/epics. I imagine the point of keeping the gentle adventures is to encourage newbies to sign up and become interested in The RB Way -- I wouldn't expect people to treat them as anything other than a stepping stone. So perhaps the idea of keeping the difficulty level low, but adding variant restrictions, is a good way to go. Or add optional even-more-stringent restrictions (ala scoring rules, or some other such) if we want to encourage some of the more experienced players to join in.
|
