Style:    Language:

Author Topic: Quick review of CivWorld  (Read 4296 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CanuckSoldier

  • Owner/Global Admin/Operator
  • Global Admin
  • Commando
  • ******
  • Posts: 6735
  • Gender: Male
    • Civilization Players Leagues
Re: Quick review of CivWorld
« Reply #15 on: June 09, 2011, 01:44:44 AM »
You dont play "silly mini games" to gain medals you fight and win battles and help with tech victories, wonders ect I hardly ever do the puzzle swaps and never do the retarded truck game

Still yes its boring and not half as fun as zyngas Empires and Allies ! :)

just 348 more civbucks left then im out :p

What ever they are still silly and have no place in a strategy game as weak is CivWorld is in that genre.

CS
Owner/Global Admin/Operator
Civilization Players Leagues
www.civplayers.com

Offline SirPartyMan

  • Head Tournament Director
  • Global Moderator
  • Ironclad
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: Quick review of CivWorld
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2011, 10:38:42 PM »
I am going to go against the conventional wisdom again, perhaps, but it won't be the first time, nor hopefully, the last.

I really like CIVWORLD - which is now in Open Beta and anyone can play.  Message me if you want an invite to one of my games.

The game wears well and has much depth to it.  I won't try to convince the unconvinceable with a zillion details but here are my main points:

1) This is a *TEAM* game - in fact its dumb not to join a civilization, like the Mongolian Horde, as teams progress quickly through science and only teams can engage in combat.  My first few games I stumbled alone.  But then I joined a lively team and we started winning - that got the old adrenalin pumping.  In CW, people know the good players and/or can look up their current rating. You can choose to join the best team by evaluating some facts and statistics.  Once you're on a good team with some leadership, things change.   You can be loyal to one team the whole game or you can backstab and leave for another mid game. For an 8 day game, I'll usually stay true and go down with a sinking ship.   The good thing about the game length, is that quitting turns out not to be a big problem - although teams are dynamic and you can drop people inactive after 48 hours (team decision).

2) You can say all the bad things you want about CIV World, but there *IS* indisputably 24/7 team chat.  This is an area where Facebook shines. There are team votes.  Tech strategies and military strategies can be debated between members of a  team.  On a team of fifteen, someone is online  almost all the time and anyway the "log" of older messages from when you were offline is there to be scrolled through.  I really enjoy being able to log on any time of the day or night and usually be able to engage in some team chat - just like the good old days.  This aspect has been overlooked in the prior posts which I am not going to debate point by point.  Even if most of what they say were true, the team camraderie and funny chat sessions can make it worth it. 

3) There is a lot of building strategy and home placement.  Do you enjoy picking your city locations in CIV relative to terrain?  It's very similar here with water even more of a benefit.  But there is no distance from capital type penalty so you can spread out and scout.  There is a tech tree - do you like remembering which tech helps you construct which building improvement? To me this game is most of the familiar elements of CIV - the winner manipulates resources and growth to the optimal. Granted it's more of a builder's game than a one on one Attack game. But a lot of us love building optimally in CIV. Just a new ruleset - been there- done that. The old learning curve. 

4) The mini games are a minor thing - a distraction.  I play them sometimes to win points for my team (+25 culture or whatever to every teammate), but the number of turns are limited and often I have hundreds available unplayed.  It's not a big deal one way or the other.

5) There is very nice individual recognition thru a ranking system based on accomplishments (fame points).  The fame point system is quite diverse (it's much more than just minigames). Any rating system is subject to debate, but we are used to one being imposed.  I consider the system fair subject to the issue of CIVBUCKS - which I dont use or ever buy. I never hear CIVBUCKS discussed in team chat either.  Like others I found fame points  bewilidering, now I average over 100 a game and climbing. The winner of a game is in the 300-400 range, so as always I'm still learning and coming in ranked around 20 out of 200.  Not bad for an old-timer, but I'm improving :)

6) You can learn A LOT by looking at other people's land (it takes a few days to figure out how, but its easy, like most things in the game). There's a really good Wikipedia - and I like asking others in chat and debating strategy.

7) Team combat is much more than "roll the dice".  Of course every CIV game has the RNG factor.  But when you come up against a "stack" of 250 riflemen, you realize some people are playing the game to win militarily.  Another thing that you don't notice at first is that combat takes hours and you can Retreat, Reinforce, Redeploy, - I've seen a cocky team go to bed thinking they had won the battle and we were able to rush in another 400 units to kill their army.  You can win an era with a big military victory, as well as fame points. You kill their units - they are out of play - it's CIV warfare

Now you can't compare a PC game with a Facebook game.  I am not claiming this is as rich and robust as CIV3, let alone CIV4 or CIV5. But more people are playing this CIV online than any other CIV.  Games fill pretty quickly -- up to 200 players per game.  They are approaching game #3000 - so you do the math. 

This is CIV for the masses. It's free.  Don't judge a book by its cover. Give it a second look.

SPM

PS: I am still always looking for a game of CIV4 or CIV5 MP PC style too.




« Last Edit: August 10, 2011, 11:46:05 PM by SirPartyMan »

Offline CanuckSoldier

  • Owner/Global Admin/Operator
  • Global Admin
  • Commando
  • ******
  • Posts: 6735
  • Gender: Male
    • Civilization Players Leagues
Re: Quick review of CivWorld
« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2011, 11:44:28 PM »
Yes it all depends were your expectations are coming from.  If you were expecting a PC-like 4X strategy game you will not find that, and you will be disappointed.  If you are looking for a good Facebook game you will like what you find.  For me personally I was disappointed as I fell into the first category.  But to each his own and I am glad that it is a good game for some people.

I am disappointed as well that the way CivWorld is engineered makes it impossible for Civplayers to run a league for it, as I really think that we could use CW as a method to introduce players to PC Civ gaming.  But since FB doesn't give us any method to know who "JonR" really is, and players are allowed to come and go out of games at will, reporting games as league games and managing the player list is pretty much impossible.

CS
Owner/Global Admin/Operator
Civilization Players Leagues
www.civplayers.com

Offline SirPartyMan

  • Head Tournament Director
  • Global Moderator
  • Ironclad
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: Quick review of CivWorld
« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2011, 10:20:11 AM »
I agree we dont need to have any ladder support other than forum discussion, such as this one.  The game has its own in-game ranking and it will be interested to see it adapt.

With a little planning we could advertise a newly started game and try to get 10-15 of us in that game and form a team. 

Wherever it is, CIV3, CIV4, CIV5, CIVWorld - hope to see you in a game soon.

SPM

 

League