Zulu boycott

[badken]

I've taken to just dropping out of games with Zulu players in them. The civ is just so overpowered it's ridiculous. Fortunately not everyone is a cheap sleaze.

I haven't lost a game yet where I play as Zulu. If the rush doesn't work, the rapid growth annihilates any advantage other civs have, especially if you take advantage of it with big food cities.

So... anyone else want to join me in boycotting the Zulu?

[MorteEterna]

I've taken to just dropping out of games with Zulu players in them. The civ is just so overpowered it's ridiculous. Fortunately not everyone is a cheap sleaze.

I haven't lost a game yet where I play as Zulu. If the rush doesn't work, the rapid growth annihilates any advantage other civs have, especially if you take advantage of it with big food cities.

So... anyone else want to join me in boycotting the Zulu?

Yes, I want. I would like to see a fair ladder.

I played my last three games with arabs and americans.

The thing I liked is that with americans I had to adapt against CHINESE and he had 3 cities while I had one. And I settled the humanitarian instead of selling it. However, I keep playing the same maps last times, and I want to say I played a known map against you badken. However, don't care, I understood it only when I saw your cities. Up to you there was a good island with confucious school I think and a lot of plains, plus a village if I'm not wrong. However there could be the ark of covenant, but I don't remember about it.

[The Panguin]

Yeah I agree the Zulu are rather cheap. Unless everyone in the game is a good player, or the person using the Zulu is very bad, they're going to get a lot of cities fast and they're going to be pretty difficult to beat. I have been playing A LOT more maps i've played before recently...which is even worse since the last thing you need is a Zulu player with that increased movement who also knows the entire map and starting locations! =P I think that's one of the main problems, the repetition of maps. Every game I played yesterday was a repeat map except one! The funny thing was the game RIGHT after that 'new' map I played was the exact same map! xD So it's pretty hopeless.

But yeah I am totally against the Zulu. Being able to overrun easier, move faster, and grow faster is really pretty difficult to overcome, especially in the early game when you don't have much defense and have to play a bit more cautiously.

[SVPM]

I'm all in. I've never liked the game against Zulu, even if it can be easy to win if they miss the starting gambling rush.

[TheMystic]

I don't know, I always saw them as a challenging side to play against but definitely not unbeatable. There came a point where I was experimenting with the other sides, specifically the Chinese, Greeks, and Spanish, and I found that the Zulus were counterable. I myself lost games, even when I was considered one of the best Zulu players out there and held the top ranks on the H2H ladders. When you took two skilled players and put them head to head, it didn't matter who was playing what. Skill and tactics won in the end.

Remember, a good Zulu player will usually stunt his growth by going heavy warrior in the early game with the hopes of expanding and taking AI cities at the least. You can either try to surprise the Zulu player while he's out and about, or hold him back until you yourself can get on your feet and get some tech going. If you get quick archers, the warrior armies will have a much more difficult time. You can also trade off archery tech to the AIs to help them in the early game. Also, remember, if you're playing against Zulus, do not build your first cities next to a hill! :)

I think they have their place, just like the boom civs do, and all the others.

[badken]

[EDIT: This is not in reply to TheMystic... I was entering this message at the same time :D]

Yeah, I know we've had this discussion before here, but now that I've got a few hundred multiplayer games under my belt, I think I can provide my own insight.

The main problem I have with them is their ability to clean up the map before anyone else gets a chance. With the slightest bit of luck--moving the settler one square and revealing a barbarian village for example (which happens to me all the time)--the Zulu player gets an early game advantage that just snowballs. If those barbs give money, the Zulu player just negated the Aztec starting bonus. If there's another barb village within a few squares (and there usually is), the Zulu player can have a veteran warrior army with 2 moves per turn before other players can produce 3 warriors. Or, they can keep their warriors separate and cover more area, grabbing every village before normal warriors have a chance to spot them.

Another effect they have on the early game is that they make it very dangerous to scout with caravans. Normally caravans make great scouts, because you can move them 2 squares per turn instead of 3, and you're still safe from losing the caravan to an enemy unit. Can't do that if there are Zulu around, you may as well just sell any early caravans you get for 30g instead of finding a city to send them to.

Finally, as SVPM says, even if an all-out rush fails, they can fall back on fast city growth to outgrow, outproduce and outtech anyone else.

There is just no downside to playing these guys.

[Hellogoodbye123]

plus they get the 50% gold production which is also a very effective bonus

[badken]

Remember, a good Zulu player will usually stunt his growth by going heavy warrior in the early game with the hopes of expanding and taking AI cities at the least. You can either try to surprise the Zulu player while he's out and about, or hold him back until you yourself can get on your feet and get some tech going. If you get quick archers, the warrior armies will have a much more difficult time. You can also trade off archery tech to the AIs to help them in the early game. Also, remember, if you're playing against Zulus, do not build your first cities next to a hill! :)

Explain to me how getting the free settler at 100g before anyone else, gathering more money/techs/caravans/spies from villages than anyone else, and finding enemy civs faster than anyone else is "stunting your growth".

Even an average Zulu player will have two cities going before anyone else (except maybe Mongols, and their 2nd city will be size one). Because he has two cities very early, he can scout, attack the nearest enemy, and still build defenses by researching bronze working and archers at home, and he can do it faster than other players.

He'll have more gold to start the game than anyone else, and that gives him the flexibility to adapt his strategy to whatever circumstances present themselves.

Even if you are able to find the AI civ (or "an" AI civ in the case of head to head) before the Zulu player (which you won't be able to), if the Zulu player is anywhere near them, they'll arrive with a veteran army before archers are fortified. Even 4.5 vs. 5 wins enough of the time to make it worth the attack. And if it's an AI player, you don't lose anything by cancelling and healing up your army and having another go. The AI won't attack back with their archers.

And yeah, not building your early cities next to hills is good advice for anyone. :D

[EDIT]
Oh, and I forgot up there -- exploring at twice the speed of everyone else gives the Zulu player more chances at galleys, which means more chances to get out and find wonders early. And even if they don't get a galley, they'll have more chances to have the location of a wonder revealed by a village.

I don't think the Zulu have too many bonuses, it's just that the one early game bonus of double speed warriors overwhelms everything else because it has a geometrically increasing positive effect as each turn goes by.

[EDIT 2]
Another thing about Impis that make them a pain in the neck is that a smart Zulu player can post a few of them on hills near chokepoints. When he does that, the Impi will be able to see an oncoming enemy (warrior, caravan, spy) before the enemy can see the Impi. That is, unless it's a warrior which has already won 6 fights and happened to get the scout promotion... No other player has this ability--it's as if the Impi get a limited form of scout promotion themselves, because they can choose to attack or fall back before the other player even knows they're there.

[thephenom]

ya i'm in there a bit to over powered Especially when your a civ your tying out with online

[TheMystic]

Badken, I understand all of what you're saying, I played the Zulus almost exclusively when I was reigning at the top of the ladder. I know that they can be beaten, and I knew several players who had no problem beating most of the top Zulu players consistently. I know that Zulus haven't been buffed in any way, so I have a hard time believing that they've magically become overpowered in the months since I retired from the ladder.

Are they a top tier civ in terms of early game power? Without a doubt. So are others however. I liken the "No Zulu" attitude to "No Zerg" games I used to see when I played Starcraft.

There are other equally nasty rush strats like the horseman rush or a speed tech to tanks by China. Barbarians cannot be predicted, sometimes they drop nothing of value. It's luck of the draw, and in the end skill represents a huge part of who wins and who loses. Make the most of your games where you are disadvantaged, and never give up.

Watch this in High Quality, and tell me that MGT's strategy wasn't defeated by skill and tactics vs any sort of overpowering advantage that the Zulu had. I actually had a very weak game going with the barbarian drops and my ability to expand. I even had a resync happen that cost me one population point on my capital. The only lucky thing that happened that game for me really was Miz leaving his capital undefended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpQeRy1mHJ0

[Chrono]

I have a question about the Zulu fast city growth,

what is it quantitatively?

Like 50% faster growth?

[MorteEterna]

I have a question about the Zulu fast city growth,

what is it quantitatively?

Like 50% faster growth?

Yes it is

However Mystic, I have to say you have never been first. And I got a bit upset when after I got my first reset you said you were the first like saying you got it 'fairly'. I got the reset, then you couldn't say it and after 6 resets it's still painful to read players saying they are the best (not you) when I had the same points 6 months ago

[TheMystic]

Yes it is

However Mystic, I have to say you have never been first. And I got a bit upset when after I got my first reset you said you were the first like saying you got it 'fairly'. I got the reset, then you couldn't say it and after 6 resets it's still painful to read players saying they are the best (not you) when I had the same points 6 months ago

I'll let the pictures speak for me. Come on Morte, I expected a little bit more out of you here. :)

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/6949/civrevop6.jpg

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/4491/civrev2lw6.jpg

I did get #1 fairly, and then not too long after I had my stats completely reset (we still do not know why). I accepted that, and took that as a much needed opportunity to retire from the ladder at the time.

I'm sure that all the other players that have earned their top ranks since I retired have earned them fairly as well, with the sole exception of the point pushers like South Face. I'm not angry at the new top ladder players just because my stats were completely wiped - instead, I'm happy for them.

My suggestion is, don't take it so personally when others reach the top. Just be happy with your own performance, and the ranks you personally have reached. In the end, it doesn't really matter. New games will come out, new ladders will catch your attention, and all of this will just be a memory down the road. :)

[MorteEterna]

I'll let the pictures speak for me. Come on Morte, I expect a little bit more out of you here. :)

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/6949/civrevop6.jpg

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/4491/civrev2lw6.jpg

I did get #1 fairly, and then not too long after I had my stats completely reset (we still do not know why). I accepted that, and took that as a much needed opportunity to retire from the ladder at the time.

I'm sure that all the other players that have earned their top ranks since I retired have earned them fairly as well, with the exception of the point pushers like South Face at the time. I'm not angry at them because my stats were completely wiped, I'm happy for them. My suggestion is, don't take it so personally when others reach the top. Just be happy with your own performance, and the ranks you personally have reached. In the end, it doesn't really matter. New games will come out, new ladders will catch your attention, and all of this will just be a memory down the road. :)

Mmh, no. You got the reset because you didn't play.

I got 6 resets and I don't know why.

And, you don't remember that when you were first by that time I got the rest. In fact, I got my first reset when I had 1580 points (How can I miss this?), and after that you said you were first. Then, after one week I came again and you were first by that time, don't you remember? I remember it at least. I remember I had to win many games when MGT appeared (same time of my reset).

[Chrono]

I have a question about the Zulu fast city growth,

what is it quantitatively?

Like 50% faster growth?

Are you sure this is what it is? I was playing Zulu yesterday and the cities didn't seem to grow any faster?

[MorteEterna]

Are you sure this is what it is? I was playing Zulu yesterday and the cities didn't seem to grow any faster?

Were you playing single player?

If yes, then, I started with republic using greeks, navigation with romans or 25 gold, a lot of bugs. However, this is a bug for zulu because if you rush a settler and go for 1 pop you need 10 turns. I asked Liz to fix this months ago

[Chrono]

no i was playing multiplayer, free-for-all

[Chrono]

so basically the zulu fast growth thing doesn't even do anything?

[eireksten]

so basically the zulu fast growth thing doesn't even do anything?

Zulu rapid growth lets your cities require less food in order to grow. This is a cumulative bonus with humanitarians and aqueduct:

1 of them - 66.66... % food needed to grow
2 of them - 50% food needed to grow
3 of them - 40% food needed to grow

So you won't generate more food, but your cities require less in order to grow. Which, all by itself, can make your game.


I'm all for boycotting zulu, hadn't it been for the rank loss it gives you. I don't see why anyone would play zulu the way it is right now. At least not anyone with the slightest bit of pride.

[TheMystic]

Mmh, no. You got the reset because you didn't play.

I got 6 resets and I don't know why.

And, you don't remember that when you were first by that time I got the rest. In fact, I got my first reset when I had 1580 points (How can I miss this?), and after that you said you were first. Then, after one week I came again and you were first by that time, don't you remember? I remember it at least. I remember I had to win many games when MGT appeared (same time of my reset).

Your points look pretty spot on there for your ratio, so I'm not sure what type of reset you are referring to. Either way though, you had first at one point. What I'm saying is, be proud of your own achievement of getting first, and don't be upset at others for getting it as well. Be happy for them, and realize that they put in the work to get there as well. :)

Regarding the Zulu rapid city growth bonus, I'm trying to remember the specifics but if I recall correctly it's a one time bonus on all of your cities at that very moment when you reach medieval. After that, your growth remains the same. Either that, or it acts like a granary of sorts and bumps your food progress each time your city grows. I could be wrong though, it's been awhile.

[MorteEterna]

Your points look pretty spot on there for your ratio, so I'm not sure what type of reset you are referring to. Either way though, you had first at one point. What I'm saying is, be proud of your own achievement of getting first, and don't be upset at others for getting it as well. Be happy for them, and realize that they put in the work to get there as well. :)

Regarding the Zulu rapid city growth bonus, I'm trying to remember the specifics but if I recall correctly it's a one time bonus on all of your cities at that very moment when you reach medieval. After that, your growth remains the same. Either that, or it acts like a granary of sorts and bumps your food progress each time your city grows. I could be wrong though, it's been awhile.

Ok, then you don't understand.

I don't like that you told everyone you were first in that way after I got the reset. And, you are upset because you got a reset after you didn't play for weeks. I am upset because I got a reset without any REASON. I lost all the points going to 1200 and by that time Mr Game Theory appeared, then, I have tried every time to get again the first position but I got resets again and again.

[TheMystic]

I hadn't played for about a week and a half, and for some reason other people have been able to go away for just as long and have their stats remain. Perhaps whoever manages the backend for Xbox Live changed decay rates to stop it from happening again, but regardless I lost my entire record. I'm not that upset about it now though, I think that's the difference.

What I'm saying is, try to not be so upset about it and appreciate that we've all had to deal with some hiccups on the ladder. Whether it be disconnects, freezes, rank abnormalities, etc. We're all in the same boat. There is no need to be upset at other players, unless they are intentionally doing something to negatively affect you.

I'm not sure what you are saying when you say you didn't like how I told people I was #1, I wasn't going around broadcasting it to everyone. I had no idea what sort of complaints you had with the ladder and your points at the time. As I said in my screenshot there your ratio of points to your score look 100% legit to me. I'm not sure when you are claiming you were reset, but the math adds up.

[MorteEterna]

I hadn't played for about a week and a half, and for some reason other people have been able to go away for just as long and have their stats remain. Perhaps whoever manages the backend for Xbox Live changed decay rates to stop it from happening again, but regardless I lost my entire record. I'm not that upset about it now though, I think that's the difference.

What I'm saying is, try to not be so upset about it and appreciate that we've all had to deal with some hiccups on the ladder. Whether it be disconnects, freezes, rank abnormalities, etc. We're all in the same boat. There is no need to be upset at other players, unless they are intentionally doing something to negatively affect you.

I'm not sure what you are saying when you say you didn't like how I told people I was #1, I wasn't going around broadcasting it to everyone. I had no idea what sort of complaints you had with the ladder and your points at the time. As I said in my screenshot there your ratio of points to your score look 100% legit to me. I'm not sure when you are claiming you were reset, but the math adds up.


Ok, I repeat it again, maybe 10th times counting all.

I got a reset WITHOUT losing my RATIO, every time happened. And, I played a lot and know for sure the maximum of points to get is 30, and then I saw their points and they lost points. Then, it means I lost 400 points for example then winning the game I got other points, as the first time from 1580 to 1216. You can't say we are all in the same boat, are you kidding me? You just don't know how many bugs I got more than others players..

[Chrono]

Regarding the Zulu rapid city growth bonus, I'm trying to remember the specifics but if I recall correctly it's a one time bonus on all of your cities at that very moment when you reach medieval. After that, your growth remains the same. Either that, or it acts like a granary of sorts and bumps your food progress each time your city grows. I could be wrong though, it's been awhile.

Ok, those are two very different things. Looks like no one here can agree on how exactly this Zulu growth works?

Yesterday I was trying to grow a Zulu city from 2 to 3 in the medieval era and it took the full 5 turns with 4 food/turn.

Anyone have a definitive answer?

[MorteEterna]

Ok, those are two very different things. Looks like no one here can agree on how exactly this Zulu growth works?

Yesterday I was trying to grow a Zulu city from 2 to 3 in the medieval era and it took the full 5 turns with 4 food/turn.

Anyone have a definitive answer?

Maybe that was bugged. You said it was FFA, right?

[Chrono]

yes, it was FFA

[MorteEterna]

yes, it was FFA

Weird.

However, I asked Liz months ago to fix a bug using zulu. As I said, if you have 3 population and rush a settler, you usually need more than 5 turns to grow, like 10 or 8. However that's really weird.

[badken]

Okay, so last night I tried a little experiment. I played nothing but Zulu all night long. Now, I'm not what you'd call one of your top players, but I like to think I'm a little above average. And I'm not at all familiar with the fine points of Zulu play, because I play random civilizations, so I pretty much play everything equally.

I played a mix of FFA and Head to Head games, probably about a dozen in all. How did I get a dozen games in one night you ask? Well, nearly all of them were over in BC. The only one that wasn't was when I was in a FFA with another very talented Zulu player, and the game went to early AD before I eventually realized I was outclassed.

The result? I won every single match, except those where I was up against another Zulu player who knew better than me how to take advantage of them.

Now I realize this is just one night's experience, but it mirrors what I've seen in most of my several hundred multiplayer games. And I also realize that I am not a top player and I was not up against top players.

The bottom line for me, though, is that the game as it stands now is a lot less fun than it could be for the average player. Even someone not very experienced with Zulu can walk all over them quite easily, just by being very aggressive early on and defending cities they take.

Every game ended in BC. I expected to do well, but I had no idea it would be that easy.

[IML Owl]

The only one that wasn't was when I was in a FFA with another very talented Zulu player, and the game went to early AD before I eventually realized I was outclassed.


Oxymoron????

[Frelinder]

Weird.

However, I asked Liz months ago to fix a bug using zulu. As I said, if you have 3 population and rush a settler, you usually need more than 5 turns to grow, like 10 or 8. However that's really weird.

This is no bug.

The Zulu rapid city grow work something like this:

This is when having all pop on grass...

When reaching medival if you have a city with a pop of 1 it takes 10 turns to grow to 2. In a city with 2 it takes 5 turns to grow to 3. In a city with 3 or above it then goes faster and faster. In citys with a pop more then 3 it works like an aqveduct.

conclusion: Don't have citys with a pop 1 when reaching medival when playing Zulus..

*cheers*

[Grayson]

Oxymoron????

nope!
You don't have to be talented to play the Zulus, and I think that's one part of the issue with the people getting upset about people using them and winning all the time and climbing the ladder. Most of the time that I play against the Zulu, I beat them because they aren't as skilled at the ladder parts of the game. So basically a lot of less skilled players are getting highly ranked w/o really knowing how to play the game. Once I get archers and 100 gold, I usually I beat the Zulu player, but that's still coming from a disadvantage at the beginning.

I never play with the Zulu unless I get them from random, and I usually don't have any problem wiping out my enemies early, and if anyone is still left, I never lose my lead. A player that is skilled at this game with most civs can usually exploit the zulus bonuses throughout the game, because they really don't have any weak bonuses.

You can be talented and play with the Zulu, but it's still shameful to do so.
If I run into a zulu player and it's clear that's all they play with, or an aztec horserusher, which is just as cheap, then I'll pick that civ and turn the tables on them. I don't think I've ever lost doing this.

If the Zulu find u in the first ten turns, you're gonna lose. If the aztecs get a horseman army with infiltration in the first 10-15 turns, you're probably gonna lose.

I don't care about rankings as much as I used to from my awful experiences on PSN, but I like finding good players, and I don't mind talking smack and destroying those how think they're great just because they use the same cheap trick over and over.

My most satisfying night was win I used the Indians and played 5 Zulu players in a row and went 5-0. Not only was it a good feeling to beat them with one of the worst civs, but it was even nicer when one of them acussed me of cheating because of how bad he lost (moved settler, found dye and oak, had horses at his conquered cities in ten turns).

my favorite PSN ID that I've seen: FAGZ_USE_ZULU :D

[Hellogoodbye123]

fast growth adds a 50% bonus to all cities controlled by the Zulu player,

Just like an aqueduct, or settleling a great humanitarium!!
This bonus acts like the +50% gold bonus except it's for food!

I feel bad for the people in Africa, you guys are making there civs look like a cheat.

[Frelinder]

Not quite accurate HGB.. Look at my post in this thread that I wrote earlier ;)

[Chrono]

fast growth adds a 50% bonus to all cities controlled by the Zulu player,

Just like an aqueduct, or settleling a great humanitarium!!
This bonus acts like the +50% gold bonus except it's for food!

I feel bad for the people in Africa, you guys are making there civs look like a cheat.



i dont think this is true

[IML Owl]

I fully, whole-heartedly support a Zulu ban. After a few weeks of playing, I stumbled across the Zulu strategy. Soon after, everyone and their mother was doing it. It became a sad state of affairs when a 4 player game would have at least 3 Zulu players. After a few easy wins, I decided it wasn't at all fun to play as them and I never would again, unless to grief my friends or if I got it randomly.

The Zulu aren't fun. They never have been fun or will be fun. They are for people without any creativity or strategy. As much as I love this game and laud 2k for the product, they really dropped the ball in beta testing with this one. It's well known at this point in the multiplayer paradigm of gaming that if given the opportunity, an unbalanced number of people will choose the easiest cheapest way to win. Some examples are the Zerg rush, the noob tube in CoD4 and 5, path-blocking in left 4 dead, et al.

I blame 2k. They knew what the Zulu were capable of before release. They never should have been programmed into the game. The 50% growth and 50% gold bonuses are strong enough, but you'd never know it, because games are always decided by 2500 BC.

Gaming is meant for fun. It's a shame there are so many f-tards out there that want to ruin the gaming experiences of so many other people so their online personas can gain a couple of points on a leaderboard. The real shame of it is it forces respectful fair players like myself and many of you to bring ourselves down to that level just to compete. All of you people should be absolutely, unequivocally ashamed of yourselves. Thanks for detracting from humanity!

[thephenom]

My most satisfying night was win I used the Indians and played 5 Zulu players in a row and went 5-0. Not only was it a good feeling to beat them with one of the worst civs, but it was even nicer when one of them acussed me of cheating because of how bad he lost (moved settler, found dye and oak, had horses at his conquered cities in ten turns).

ya i had a night last week where i played like 4or so zulu in a row and won i think all of those matches

[Hellogoodbye123]

I had a worst game before, I had been doing well with the Egyptians in single player, they were my second favorite, so one day I got in a ranked game I chose the Egyptians and the game soon start,

I see the diplomacy and there's 2 other Egyptians and one Chinese, I get so mad, I settle my city and I get stonehedge!!!, just knowing that one of the other too got the collusses made me angry so I quit instantly, this was the only time I actually had quit a game, and ever since I,ve haven't like Egyptians, and Chinese because so many use them!

[gallowgod]

a simple fix for this in civ rev2 would be to have all civs earn an invasion technology before they will be able to attack a capitol city. so you can use early science to set an offensive or defensive path. rushers will be vulnerable to rushers and everyone else who wants to play a full game, can.

[KyodaiGT4]

I got reset in head to head once and free for all twice. Who cares. It's so easy to climb the leaderboard in head to head. I got to first in both head to head and free for all with just 100 games played in each. I am just tired of guys who won't play me because they are scared of losing. Civ Rev should not have shown the opposing players' names before the game starts. They are so many guys scared to play me. I do give Morte credit for playing me all the time.

[SVPM]

People don't necessarly quit because they are scared. I don't know the player on Xbox cause i'm on PSN, but sometimes when I see someone that play as zulu I won't want to play against them cause I found those game boring and I want to have fun.
The thing that people have against zulu is not that they are overpowered in general, is that the strategy use by almost all zulu player are the same and that it's boring to play against. When they get on you really fast you can be stuck for a while and can't do anything while their turn is really long because they cover a lots of ground and do a lot of war early on.
The other thing is that they abuse the weakness of the low difficulty level of the AI and that can be done by almost any level of player.
I've played against bad zulu player that have taken all the AI but didn't settle any other city while they had all the map for them. I've beaten them cause settled city are better than capital cause they have ressources and you choose where you put them.

[dio3d]

I'm tired of the Zulu rushers as well. In almost all cases it's a race for domination, and that's just not the kind of game that I like to play. I've seen some players comment that "this is what the game is about: domination", but I disagree. Call me a pacifist, but I prefer peaceful vics. Find and friend me on PS3 (dio3d) if you're ever interested in that kind of game.

[MorteEterna]

I'm tired of the Zulu rushers as well. In almost all cases it's a race for domination, and that's just not the kind of game that I like to play. I've seen some players comment that "this is what the game is about: domination", but I disagree. Call me a pacifist, but I prefer peaceful vics. Find and friend me on PS3 (dio3d) if you're ever interested in that kind of game.

The game was made to be fast. However, zulu are too cheap to use, then they call themselves good using a overpowered civilization. I go almost every time for domination, but not only the first rush, I can go for the medieval rush or modern rush (horsemen - knights/catapults - tanks)

[CoryTV]

First of all, a disclaimer, I play a 'rushing' Civ, Aztecs, so call me cheap if you want.

My philosophy on this has always been, "If you care about rank, and you think there's a Civ better suited to rank than the one you're playing, PLAY THAT CIV." Complaining that the Zulu is overpowered early on is akin to complaining that the chinese start with an extra pop, or that Germans get automatic veterans.. That's their advantage.

The frustrating thing is that many of the top zulu rushers don't play other highly ranked players. The zulu get their biggest benefit in quick games against poor players. If you out rush them or succesfully shut down their rush, they have NO GAME. They'll never catch you because they've spent the entire beginning of the game trying to get out warrior armies that all other things being even, can't take a city with two fortified archers-- meanwhile if you're good, you're killing them tech wise.

If I can stop a zulu rush, (or out rush them) THEY NEVER CATCH ME. EVER. And I'm Aztec, not chinese. Granted, I've been the #1 Aztec player most of the week, but still.. (Important Crow won't play other highly rated players, BTW...)


The point is this: It's all in the game. They've chosen a cheap, boring way of life. They count on luck to get a cheap thrill. Worse, many of them won't play good players. Maybe there are a couple of 'skilled' Zulu out there, but we all know what the deal is now. That's why I no longer care about ever being #1. I'm happy being the #1 Aztec. Hell, if I played Mongolia, I'd be happy being the #1 Mongolia. THat's really how you should look at it.

They clearly didn't "perfect" the balance here-- frankly, I think taking away overrun advantage until medieval would nearly perfect it-- but then people will just complain about chinese, or aztec, or whoever else edges ahead.

I've played all of you on Xbox, I'm sure-- I don't remember Kyodai-- it's been a long time since we played, but Morte's a great player (He way under-defends his civs people while using warriors/horses early on as a defensive Offense unit-- that's how he's kicking your butt, btw...) We all know about Bin Laten and his rich name-changing a**.

I'll finish it this way: Get it right in your head. If you want to be in the #1 spot, you're going to have to play Zulu. Period. If you think of the "highest non-zulu, non-cheater" player as #1, then shoot for that-- I have total peace with the rankings this way. In my mind Morte is currently #1 in H2H, and he's the guy to beat, I could care less who is #1, because one of the top two guys is a known cheater anyway, and the kind folks at 2k don't care-- so who cares about the rank??

I was #4 for a lot of this week before some freezes and bad luck-- I felt an amazing sense of accomplishment-- I knew that it was deserved and totally skill based, as opposed to 'the luck of the Zulu.' and in my head "real #2" was good enough for me.

Cory (bunchadorks)

[bigjohnson54]

Until last week I never had fell prey to a zulu rush, until one game where I think I was using the Indians. I think there were 2 zulu in the game.

Built a warrior in 3 turns. moved 2 turns, found a village that gave me bronze working, built an archer as my second unit (not even 2 warriors). Fortified, Zulu found Dehli in 3xxx attacked 4.5 v 5 and they pulled the upset. I was incredibly lucky and still lost. I couldn't of had a better defensive start.

Still though, if you boycott zulu we'll soon be boycotting chinese expansion, or aztec and arab horsemen. Nothing is worse than a Chinese player crying about the Zulu, or either of them crying about a horseman rush. You are using a top tier civ, use their advantage and quit crying. If you are using a normal civ, continue to complain, you've earned that right by having to go against the top civs every game :)

[thephenom]

I played a game as random got eygptians . i moved my settler for one turn to find some desert i settled and got rhodes .I couldn't build a second warrior to explore cause 5 turns into the game the zulu have a warrior army 3 moves out side of my cap. I was reseaching bronze and had it done in two turns but had to rush a warrior instead of a archer becasue fear they'd walk into my capital before i could get one so 6 turns into the game the zulu had two caps rhodes and a vet warrior army now no way anyone could have beat him and everyone else was top tier civs two

[Caligula2008]

I just finished playing a guy ranked 22 on Xbox Gamer206 and he is one of these Zulu noobs but he plays his civ good.
I went with random and got the egyptions and oracle, he took over every other player and an A.I. civ. I used a horsemen army/warrior to take over my close A.I. (I benefited from a little separation from the zulu) then expanded in what space I had ( a few islands as well ) and proceded to take over all his cities with a horsemen army who kept getting upgrades/general with the help of the all powerful oracle.

He immidiately calls me a cheater for healing on his square (horsemen unit had medic and I had oracle) Then he sends me several rude messages talking about my rank (is like 330 or something now) and my win/loss record and how I would need like 120 more wins to even be close to him. All while insisting I cheated...

Naturally I stopped talking to him it is just amazing how ignorant of the game a 26th ranked player can be... all because he was zulu. I'm not going to say that the problem is with them being an over powered civ... i'll instead blame it on the ranking system.

Lets face it... most of his games are won soo early he can play a ton of them and rank up so quickly. The system should be based to take into acount how games are won and perhaps even with what civ. Maybe how long the game is played. I have lost my fair share to rushers... im just saying, lets atleast even out the ranking system.

But eh thats just my thought... I loved the win against this guy and it makes it a little more bearable when I get rushed early in a game.

[MorteEterna]

I just finished playing a guy ranked 22 on Xbox Gamer206 and he is one of these Zulu noobs but he plays his civ good.
I went with random and got the egyptions and oracle, he took over every other player and an A.I. civ. I used a horsemen army/warrior to take over my close A.I. (I benefited from a little separation from the zulu) then expanded in what space I had ( a few islands as well ) and proceded to take over all his cities with a horsemen army who kept getting upgrades/general with the help of the all powerful oracle.

He immidiately calls me a cheater for healing on his square (horsemen unit had medic and I had oracle) Then he sends me several rude messages talking about my rank (is like 330 or something now) and my win/loss record and how I would need like 120 more wins to even be close to him. All while insisting I cheated...

Naturally I stopped talking to him it is just amazing how ignorant of the game a 26th ranked player can be... all because he was zulu. I'm not going to say that the problem is with them being an over powered civ... i'll instead blame it on the ranking system.

Lets face it... most of his games are won soo early he can play a ton of them and rank up so quickly. The system should be based to take into acount how games are won and perhaps even with what civ. Maybe how long the game is played. I have lost my fair share to rushers... im just saying, lets atleast even out the ranking system.

But eh thats just my thought... I loved the win against this guy and it makes it a little more bearable when I get rushed early in a game.

Yes, all these zulu players pretty much like to insult others when they are going to lose.

I played with him and beat him every time, using most of the times americans. Last time I got a free settler by 3500 BC and when he attacked me he had 3 v 15.. After this I was going to kill him with a galley and veteran horsemen army.. I got his second city and he quit.

[Caligula2008]

Yes, all these zulu players pretty much like to insult others when they are going to lose.

I played with him and beat him every time, using most of the times americans. Last time I got a free settler by 3500 BC and when he attacked me he had 3 v 15.. After this I was going to kill him with a galley and veteran horsemen army.. I got his second city and he quit.

Yeah it just makes you wonder how he can be ranked 22nd.... but oh well thats how the game is.

[MorteEterna]

Yeah it just makes you wonder how he can be ranked 22nd.... but oh well thats how the game is.

Well, if you want to know, I can become top20-30 getting a reset in just one day or two. Only I need to play against some top players. At the moment I'm second, I have to beat other top players to have more points than Kyoday, he uses zulu too and I play not as much as him

[Caligula2008]

Well, if you want to know, I can become top20-30 getting a reset in just one day or two. Only I need to play against some top players. At the moment I'm second, I have to beat other top players to have more points than Kyoday, he uses zulu too and I play not as much as him

Yeah, haha, I understand that you can do it and pretty easily. My point wasn't that it was hard... just that it is stupid to have a civ so overpowered that somebody who knows little about the game compared to others can be ranked that high with ease.

I'm okay with you being up there Morte... you know how to play. Games 206 is fourth right now on h2h and I am unsure right now on free-for-all it is just rediculous to me.

There are four zulu in top ten H2H right now...

[MorteEterna]

Yeah, haha, I understand that you can do it and pretty easily. My point wasn't that it was hard... just that it is stupid to have a civ so overpowered that somebody who knows little about the game compared to others can be ranked that high with ease.

I'm okay with you being up there Morte... you know how to play. Games 206 is fourth right now on h2h and I am unsure right now on free-for-all it is just rediculous to me.

There are four zulu in top ten H2H right now...

I remember when there were 1 aztec, 1 chinese and 8 zulu, or 7 zulu and me with arabs.

However, I think my favorite civ will never change, that's been two:

Greeks, for the first 40-50 games, and lost only against PrivateJ0hn (china), then arabs used for hundreds of games.

In this game I played:

Greeks
Aztecs
Arabs
China
Americans
Romans
Spanish
Zulu (I admit it, but not many times)

[danthechan]

i think the rapid growth bonus is equivilant to what a humanitarian or aquaduct gives. food from plains, desert, sea, or extra gp or 5000 gold to get aquaducts can counter this advantage.
i would love to see a more customizable game where i can start a game while not allowing certain civs to play. some shooters use this to not allow certain weapons,guns, etc.

[IML Owl]

i think the rapid growth bonus is equivilant to what a humanitarian or aquaduct gives. food from plains, desert, sea, or extra gp or 5000 gold to get aquaducts can counter this advantage.
i would love to see a more customizable game where i can start a game while not allowing certain civs to play. some shooters use this to not allow certain weapons,guns, etc.


Then all of the Zulu guys will have to play against 3 other Zulu guys. Oh what fun! I'm more in favor of them patching the game where if you pick the Zulu it gives you the Mongols. Then if you pick the Mongols, you get the Mongols.

[dio3d]

Then all of the Zulu guys will have to play against 3 other Zulu guys. Oh what fun! I'm more in favor of them patching the game where if you pick the Zulu it gives you the Mongols. Then if you pick the Mongols, you get the Mongols.

Ha! I'm all for that patch as well.

[PhamHall]

Ha! I'm all for that patch as well.

why can't they just make victories for online play optional. either dominatin, economic, scientific or cultural. do things that make people want to use all facets of the game.

[dio3d]

why can't they just make victories for online play optional. either dominatin, economic, scientific or cultural. do things that make people want to use all facets of the game.

That would be a beautiful thing. It's kind of funny how some people here assume that if a player wants a non-dom win they desire as much because of some deficiency in military strength. I have no problem defending, or retaliating if attacked, but if another civ leaves me alone in my MP games, I leave them alone as well, even when my military strength is significantly greater. I think that gives the other players an opportunity to explore other facets of the game, in MP, than just the quick rush-rinse-repeat of a dom game.

On a related note, my past few days of PS3 MP FFA play have been amazing. I haven't lost the few games I've played, but they've all been counted as losses. It's a good thing I only check the leaderboards out of curiosity these days or I'd probably have a coronary.

[Hellogoodbye123]

even if online they go for certain type of victory, they can still rush,

Let's say your in a game where you have to win economically, the guy can still attack you to have his advantage

[greggotanafro]

As a top ZULU rusher myself (top10! yay!).....I tend to live by this rule:
Why choose the rest when ZULU are the best???
Its a bit of a rhetorical or circular argument because I bet some are reading my QUOTE (I made it up :D ) and they say: ZULU ruin the game; dont choose them because theyre cheap; They are overpowered

Well, I agree...CIV isnt a frindly place for a starter or average playr...But for everyone else....I dont know what to say except for the fact that ZULU are forever...complain about it if you want..but its not gonna change and u gotta either pick them because they are "the besttt" or get your own strategy against them!
Of course Im not gonna tell you a way to beat MY ZULU strategy...but I will say that dont count on "taking advantage" of the "delay start" that a zulu playr has because they are "busy rushing"....Im sure im not the only one but I only need 4 armies MAX to rush the world...The 4 armies kill cities and continue on, getting more pwerful!
Like that moderator said though, itall comes down to strategy and skillllss and most of all PATIENCE! (which means NOT quitting as soon as u see a zulu playr)(:p ) LOL

And a common misconception that I get after a ZULU win::It does take skill to be ZULU because if it were soooooo mindless, then wouldnt the Later game be where us ZULU playrs die??

[Caligula2008]

And a common misconception that I get after a ZULU win::It does take skill to be ZULU because if it were soooooo mindless, then wouldnt the Later game be where us ZULU playrs die??

Haha it does not take skill at all... i've played with the zulu along with every other civilization... any new player can learn how to win with the zulu more that 75% of the time in just a few games.

Playing other civilizations take more skill than just building four warrior armies and taking other cities. With the bonus's of your captured cities it makes late game rather easy.

And you would not win late game had you not captured a single city.

[danthechan]

wouldn't you like to challenge yourself by winning with a lesser civ?

[greggotanafro]

Well kind sir :]
U know when it does take skill? When you DONT capture a single city with the ZULU and still win.
I do that all the time...Some times from bad luck...others on purpose

But I do play all of the civs
Its just like I said tho
I live by my quote
(in the post b4 this)

And to the kind sir who says zulu take no skill::
Like I said also..Sure a newby will get a city but the skill comes in keeping them. Im sure you kno how civ works and if u do..u know that a "un skilled" zulu playrs biggest threat is no defense and no culture...
So this again is a circular argument but I know that I got skiills with zulu...its not ALWAYS 1+2=win becuase there are tenacious players who will not simply see a zulu and quit (like MOrte..he would probably stay and outskill a zulu playr rather than give up instantly becuase of ONE or TWO instances of not being at the top of the world)
So zulu can take no skill...but they do if you want to be top 10:p

[The Panguin]

As a player of random now (which sadly has dropped my rank drastically due to almost always getting russians of mongols XD) I know for a fact that the Zulu take significantly less skill then other civs. I am a reasonably good player, and I effortlessly can take out all other civs regardless of who they are whether I rush or not. People fear the Zulu, they're more cautious, and since you can rapidly grab barb huts like there's no tomorrow, you get a lot of cash...plus you can do a lot of expanding, since you can roam the country side, making it much more costly and dangerous for them to send settlers anywhere but out to sea. =/ Rushing is also very simple with them since you normally get at least one capital which again leads to expansion. Once you have a lot of already decently sized / placed cities you have to be a total noob to not at least put up a decent fight. Honestly they are over powered, especially in the hands of someone who has actually played with other civs (and know the value of expansion and training) rather than just zulu rushing all the time.

Zulu are not invincible and they can be beaten, however they are very annoying, especially since almost everyone i've played who has been impatient or a cheat (game mysteriously freezes a turn or two before they're about to get beat, or the game says they leave but they're taking their turns in the 'AI time' between turns. etc) has been zulu...that also really doesn't help their reputation. Now i'm sure not all Zulu rush and I myself have tried strategies that don't involve rushing but its hard! You feel so powerful with the zulu. Armies that take out huts in one turn, move like horsemen and overrun even warriors, it's hard to not rush with them =/ I recently played a top ranked zulu player in FFA...mark something. Last I checked he was ranked 9th (I remember cause Morte was right below him and for a minute I mixed them up XD) he did horribly though, started near me but when he failed to take my capital, failed to take the american capital, and failed to take the egyptian capital he left. So obviously he isn't the best of players since without one capital taken over he just gave up since he just spammed worries will nearly 0ad o.o; (which just shows how easy it is to win / rank up with the zulu if someone who does that could get so high up =/ ).

[Grayson]

Well kind sir :]
So zulu can take no skill...but they do if you want to be top 10:p

by your own assertations you've gotta admit that it's easier to get in the top 10 with the Zulu than with any other civ. I counted recently and on 360 H2H there were something like 23 out of the top 50 were Zulu, with about 5 of the top 10 and 9 of the top 20.

I've played most of the top 10 Zulu players and I've never lost to them when I know who they are and I choose Zulu to counteract them. I also have a better than 50% win average agaisnt the top Zulus using other civs.

A few of them I would consider actually good players, who know how to play the whole game well, not just the rush. A lot of them just quit though when they start losing by any amount just so they can get in more games. they don't wanna spend 2 hours trying to beat me rather than winning five 20 minute games.

I just don't have any respect for anyone who has the Zulu as their fav civ, and I just overlook them on the leaderboard. but there are some players that don't have Zulu as their fav civ but they use them often to fluff their ratings. I just keep a Zulu list handy so I know when it's time to counteract them and choose the Zulu as well.

Not every Zulu player is a noob, some know how to play the game really well, but I've run into too many players that have giant win percentages and high ratings that wouldn't really be anywhere close to where they are without the bonuses the Zulu get.

But the same can be said for China, so I really don't play with them anymore, because they have the same type of rating inflation...

I really don't care anymore if I play against Zulu or not, it's really fun to give them a loss. If I lose in the first 20 turns, oh well, freezes can wreck my rating too. I just play for the satisfaction of winning exciting games, or dominating. If someone wants to feel good about themselves and their awesome Zulu skills, I don't care, everyone who else who doesn't use them puts up the same junk, so I'll do it too.

btw greggotanafro: what's your gamertag or PSN ID?

[dio3d]

I really don't care anymore if I play against Zulu or not, it's really fun to give them a loss. If I lose in the first 20 turns, oh well, freezes can wreck my rating too. I just play for the satisfaction of winning exciting games, or dominating. If someone wants to feel good about themselves and their awesome Zulu skills, I don't care, everyone who else who doesn't use them puts up the same junk, so I'll do it too.

btw greggotanafro: what's your gamertag or PSN ID?

Grayson, are you still playing PS3, or are you completely converted to the 360. If you're on PS3, what's your PSN?

[greggotanafro]

GRAYSON!
ThaT was an inspiring and unbiased ZuLu outlook..I teared up because it was beautiful!
lol
Nahh, but due to educational reasons, my xbox has been taken away by those people who raise me (parents)
So i wont be on for a whillllle
Wats ur gmrtg??

[MorteEterna]

Well kind sir :]
U know when it does take skill? When you DONT capture a single city with the ZULU and still win.
I do that all the time...Some times from bad luck...others on purpose

But I do play all of the civs
Its just like I said tho
I live by my quote
(in the post b4 this)

And to the kind sir who says zulu take no skill::
Like I said also..Sure a newby will get a city but the skill comes in keeping them. Im sure you kno how civ works and if u do..u know that a "un skilled" zulu playrs biggest threat is no defense and no culture...
So this again is a circular argument but I know that I got skiills with zulu...its not ALWAYS 1+2=win becuase there are tenacious players who will not simply see a zulu and quit (like MOrte..he would probably stay and outskill a zulu playr rather than give up instantly becuase of ONE or TWO instances of not being at the top of the world)
So zulu can take no skill...but they do if you want to be top 10:p

Well, I had to play zulu players since months ago and I still do. And I see on the top10 players like the third, using the zulu. Want to know how many times he won? 0. I beat him like 4 times. There are other zulu players better than him but he is third. However, I tried zulu some times and most of the times I had to stay. I don't know really who was the best zulu players, that's difficult to say. Kyoday was like a problem, but it was about luck, like yesterday:

I started with great artist, in the middle of aztecs (4 tiles) and zulu (7-8 tiles), couldn't find any huts or barbs. Then, just for revenge I defended against Kyoday and let another zulu getting my capital, he deserves that, and it's not because he uses zulu, but he says like he won 5 teams games.

[IML Owl]

As a top ZULU rusher myself (top10! yay!).....I tend to live by this rule:
Why choose the rest when ZULU are the best???
Its a bit of a rhetorical or circular argument because I bet some are reading my QUOTE (I made it up :D ) and they say: ZULU ruin the game; dont choose them because theyre cheap; They are overpowered

Well, I agree...CIV isnt a frindly place for a starter or average playr...But for everyone else....I dont know what to say except for the fact that ZULU are forever...complain about it if you want..but its not gonna change and u gotta either pick them because they are "the besttt" or get your own strategy against them!
Of course Im not gonna tell you a way to beat MY ZULU strategy...but I will say that dont count on "taking advantage" of the "delay start" that a zulu playr has because they are "busy rushing"....Im sure im not the only one but I only need 4 armies MAX to rush the world...The 4 armies kill cities and continue on, getting more pwerful!
Like that moderator said though, itall comes down to strategy and skillllss and most of all PATIENCE! (which means NOT quitting as soon as u see a zulu playr)(:p ) LOL

And a common misconception that I get after a ZULU win::It does take skill to be ZULU because if it were soooooo mindless, then wouldnt the Later game be where us ZULU playrs die??

Because its not fun or a challenge and defeats the purpose of playing a game.

[dio3d]

I had a great PS3 FFA game last night where I was the Aztecs, my closest neighbors were the Zulu, and the Japanese were on my other side.

Almost from the outset, the Zulu started attacking me. While it was fun to go through the motions of taking back cities (s/he even culture flipped one of them), it took resources away from my science research. By the time my Zulu neighbor realized that violence was not the way to go, I was playing catch up with my Japanese neighbor who had been expanding and teching like crazy. It got so bad that by the modern era I had been searching the entire map with a cruiser and a bunch of settlers and all (not just good) settle-friendly locations had been taken up by the Japanese.

Needless to say, although I'd successfully built East India and a few other econ/tech-related Wonders, the Japanese pulled a sneaky economic win a few turns away from me doing the same thing to him.

It was a great game, and I wonder how different the outcome would have been if the Zulu hadn't burred in my saddle during the BC years.

[danthechan]

really fun game when you get 3 or more competent players isn't it?

[dio3d]

really fun game when you get 3 or more competent players isn't it?

Yes, very fun. The Zulu player was quite good, which was a nice surprise. I mean, I can count on two fingers the number of times a previous Zulu player has culture-flipped one of my cities. I think his location was an impediment to his growth or his warring ways may have gone on longer. My location was kind of in the middle of our large land mass, so I was essentially landlocking him while also protecting the Japanese from him.

[greggotanafro]

You know, I just remembered what I wanted to say!

If you use China or Aztecs or even Arabs,
you REALLLLLLY cant complain about us ZULU because what zulu can do immediately, you can do 2x better later on with horses..So its a matter of Zulu getting cities off of the back or other Rush Civs getting them like 12 turns later
So just play the game and pick ur favorite civ!
(zulu are the best)

[MorteEterna]

You know, I just remembered what I wanted to say!

If you use China or Aztecs or even Arabs,
you REALLLLLLY cant complain about us ZULU because what zulu can do immediately, you can do 2x better later on with horses..So its a matter of Zulu getting cities off of the back or other Rush Civs getting them like 12 turns later
So just play the game and pick ur favorite civ!
(zulu are the best)

No, you can complain, because horsemen aren't as fast as zulu rush. With impis you can win almost every time. Horsemen are x2 stronger but 2 times price. And you need also a technology. With zulu you need like 5 turns for a horsemen army.

[danthechan]

You know, I just remembered what I wanted to say!

If you use China or Aztecs or even Arabs,
you REALLLLLLY cant complain about us ZULU because what zulu can do immediately, you can do 2x better later on with horses..So its a matter of Zulu getting cities off of the back or other Rush Civs getting them like 12 turns later
So just play the game and pick ur favorite civ!
(zulu are the best)

don't get us wrong. mostly this thread is just gamesmenship. the only thing i would really like is the ability to set a.i. on emporer or deity and then lets play.

[IceCube]

hey teacher leave a kids alone !
i think kids like zulu so let them have some fun hehehe .
and for elite players i also sugest to skip playing with zulu china arabs and egypt if you think game is easy and looking for some challenge then beat zulu with some weak civ as mongols or russia :) russia is not weak instead im gonna put word not popular civ hehe .
after the game is over you feel proud you know what man i stop his rush and i put some great fight, even odds were against me from the begining !

[Grayson]

GRAYSON!
ThaT was an inspiring and unbiased ZuLu outlook..I teared up because it was beautiful!
lol
Nahh, but due to educational reasons, my xbox has been taken away by those people who raise me (parents)
So i wont be on for a whillllle
Wats ur gmrtg??

xbl gamertag= amazingrayson
psn= anarak, amazingrayson, ghandigrayson and some others with grayson in the ID. but I don't play PSN at all. from what I've read on the boards, it just seems to keep getting worse on the PSN side, so I probably won't log in there anymore, maybe for some unranked sometime I might stop by, but i won't be playing ranked there any more.

[ShowtekGER]

i just completed my first online games and i must definitely declare: playing as zulu is simply unfair. the +2 warrior locomotion in combination with overrun leads the zulu to find gold faster than all others which leads to an early rush of an army that, again, has the ability to arrive at another player's capital very apace.

if the zulu player tries to go for this strategy and isn't a complete idiot the victim has absolutely NO CHANGE to defend his city unless he's extremely lucky as he gets bronze working through a friendly village or so.

that sucks. and no other civ has comparable attributes. the zulu civ is just unfair.

[greggotanafro]

hey teacher leave a kids alone !
i think kids like zulu so let them have some fun hehehe .
and for elite players i also sugest to skip playing with zulu china arabs and egypt if you think game is easy and looking for some challenge then beat zulu with some weak civ as mongols or russia :) russia is not weak instead im gonna put word not popular civ hehe .
after the game is over you feel proud you know what man i stop his rush and i put some great fight, even odds were against me from the begining !

Goooooooo RUSSSSSIA!!
We should all organize a RUSSIAN CIVOLUTION DAY! Every one has to be russia for 24 hrs....or 2kElizabeth can put on an overide update that will FORCE us to be russia, the most "Fair" civ evverrrrrr

Anyways, ur right IceCube
I agree! (although i will hypocritisize myself by going on right now and playing zulu even though I morally should play others....jk)

[SVPM]

the only thing i would really like is the ability to set a.i. on emporer or deity and then lets play.

I agree a lot with you on that one. Even the horse rush would be harder to do and best of all the zulu rush won't work. A good player using zulu on h2h is just abusing of the bad choice of option given by the game. No fame about being top 10 with zulu cause you will beat really quickly bad player and won points faster than with any other civ so even if you lose a couple of game you'll still be on the top of the leaderboard. On Psn I see less and less of zulu player. On top 10 there is only 2 zulus. We're four exchanging 1st place, the 2 zulus, me american (as Stratga) and Apollo as english. With the american you can have an horsemen army in between 11-6 turns so the zulu arrive at about this time on your capital... I've rush a zulu rusher with an horsemen army I was at his capitol in 3400BC!!! Good luck with that.

ZULU AREN'T THE BEST THEY ARE THE EASIEST!

[Grayson]

ZULU AREN'T THE BEST THEY ARE THE EASIEST!

You're mistaken.

Zulu are the best. They are the most overpowered. If it was just the +2 movement, then maybe they would just be a good civ. But rapid city growth and %50 gold is very powerful. Overrun bonus is ridiculous. They are by far the best. I'm struggling to think if I've ever even lost a ranked match with them. After playing so many Zulu vs. Zulu matches with them, I've found too many powerful strats with them that it is improbable that they lose, especially not more than one in ten times. Look at the win percentages of those ppl that use the Zulu, they're misproportioned to anyone else. On PS3 there aren't as many Zulu players, and there's some other good players with impressive records ( I was 42-2 with China/Romans when I first strated H2H, but Chinese are the second most overpowered).

I created a new account to see some better Zulu strats, and after a few games, I realized that in all of them I had 3 caps in less than 15 turns, and then just suffocated the other opponnets. Even if I only managed to get a cap or two, then it would be too easy to tech up and then get rapid growth and fifty percent gold. They really are never in bad shape.

They are the best.

It's not what people wanna tell themselves because they feel they have more skills than the other player because of the imbalance, and then lots of Zulu only players prove time and time again that they don't know how to tech and expand. But those who do know how to do these things well, should rarely lose with the Zulu.

They are the best, but by choosing the Zulu you are not letting others get an accurate idea of your true skill, thus Zulus should be overlooked on the leaderboards.

[SVPM]

I'm still thinking the same thing. If you take 4 very good players in FFA with one of them being zulu, I don't think that the zulu start with the game in their hand. It's easier for them to get gold, but they won't be able to take city to the other if they know how to play. They will waste prouction on armies of warrior, during this time other will buy thing that have a better return rate or offensive efficacity.
The rapid growth don't seem to work everytime and I haven't seen someone able to tell what is the real effect of this (I know it's good but if it's not working).
The +50% gold production is really good for an economic victory, but you have to get there. Personnaly I almost never produce gold, only the surplus from technology.
The overrun??? Ridicously good or bad? I don't see that as a good bonus except really soon in the game. Lots of bonus are better than that and have a more deep impact in the civilzation and game you play.
They are the easiest cause this is all bonus that you don't need to know how to use to take the better advantage of it, they are plain.
I'll agree that in h2h they have a certain advantage because of the weak AI, but it's beatable if you know how to do. As american I can have an army of horsemen real quick, when it's longer it's because I had a great artist... Then I just flip one of the capital they just capture.
The other advantage thay have for the leaderboard is that they play more game than player with other civ, but I wouldn't exchange that cause the game against zulu aren't fun even when taking in account the satisfaction to beat zulu player.

[MorteEterna]

You're mistaken.

Zulu are the best. They are the most overpowered. If it was just the +2 movement, then maybe they would just be a good civ. But rapid city growth and %50 gold is very powerful. Overrun bonus is ridiculous. They are by far the best. I'm struggling to think if I've ever even lost a ranked match with them. After playing so many Zulu vs. Zulu matches with them, I've found too many powerful strats with them that it is improbable that they lose, especially not more than one in ten times. Look at the win percentages of those ppl that use the Zulu, they're misproportioned to anyone else. On PS3 there aren't as many Zulu players, and there's some other good players with impressive records ( I was 42-2 with China/Romans when I first strated H2H, but Chinese are the second most overpowered).

I created a new account to see some better Zulu strats, and after a few games, I realized that in all of them I had 3 caps in less than 15 turns, and then just suffocated the other opponnets. Even if I only managed to get a cap or two, then it would be too easy to tech up and then get rapid growth and fifty percent gold. They really are never in bad shape.

They are the best.

It's not what people wanna tell themselves because they feel they have more skills than the other player because of the imbalance, and then lots of Zulu only players prove time and time again that they don't know how to tech and expand. But those who do know how to do these things well, should rarely lose with the Zulu.

They are the best, but by choosing the Zulu you are not letting others get an accurate idea of your true skill, thus Zulus should be overlooked on the leaderboards.

I played a lot of games and by my experience zulu are the easiest but not the best. In fact, there are civs better than zulu that have different bonuses.

[Grayson]

I played a lot of games and by my experience zulu are the easiest but not the best. In fact, there are civs better than zulu that have different bonuses.

if the Zulu don't get a capital, they are merely just a Good civ. But since 99% of the time they will get 1-3 caps in the first fifteen turns, plus a majority of the huts, have more units to slow down others progress, I can't agreee with you on this one.

If everyone was peaceful, or everyone starts on islands, then Zulu would not be the best, but they would still be top 4 at least.

I understand the difference that ppl are trying to make between best and easiest, and under the right circumstances, others civs can be way better, but it's pretty hard to convince me otherwise that the most overpowered civ is not the best one.

It's the worst one to choose, and I can hang with most Zulus if I survive the first 10-15 turns, but what Civ accounts for your losses (other than those Invisible Eskimos, always freezes up my game *cheese* )

[MorteEterna]

if the Zulu don't get a capital, they are merely just a Good civ. But since 99% of the time they will get 1-3 caps in the first fifteen turns, plus a majority of the huts, have more units to slow down others progress, I can't agreee with you on this one.

If everyone was peaceful, or everyone starts on islands, then Zulu would not be the best, but they would still be top 4 at least.

I understand the difference that ppl are trying to make between best and easiest, and under the right circumstances, others civs can be way better, but it's pretty hard to convince me otherwise that the most overpowered civ is not the best one.

It's the worst one to choose, and I can hang with most Zulus if I survive the first 10-15 turns, but what Civ accounts for your losses (other than those Invisible Eskimos, always freezes up my game *cheese* )

I played good zulu players a lot of times ( like 15 times Kyoday, I'm like a friend but I hate him when he says wrong things, or when he says he is the best, etc..). I'm saying about the first and the fourth, I won like 10 times, with no luck needed. Against Kyoday I could have problems but not really hard. It's only about experience..

[dio3d]

I'll agree that in h2h they have a certain advantage because of the weak AI, but it's beatable if you know how to do.

I'm on PS3. I was starting to wonder where all the Zulu players had gone, since I really haven't seen too many of them around lately. Then, last night, because it was practically impossible to get into a ranked FFA, I played some H2H. Out of the four H2H games that I played, three of them were Zulu. I lost all three games (I played as the Aztecs), which definitely made me feel like a chump. I don't like the domination style of play, so I avoided the horserush and other offensive strats, concentrating on teching instead. But in H2H, the AI offers little resistance to the Zulu, and even though I was teching and expanding very quickly, the constant messages that "the Zulu have taken over the [Civ] capital" etc. were demoralizing, because I knew that they'd just picked up navigation, etc. And sure enough, they'd show up a few turns later in a galleon and I'd be toast.

Taking on the Zulu in FFA is definitely easier than it is in H2H. Unless, of course, I start off with an aggressive strat, which isn't my style.

[SVPM]

I once said that zulu weren't overpowered but just a good civ. I haven't played them at that point. I started to play ffa on random civ. I got the zulu two games in a row. It's just too easy to play with them. I got all the caps and 5 armies of warriors elite or veteran by 2000 BC, the other game before the last surviving player quit in 2500 BC I had 3 vet impi warrior army fundamentalised!!! Even if one survived if you know how to play the game past the impi rush the others don't stand a chance. The rapid growth is just to great and the 50% gold must be good but it must be rare that a zulu player reach that point. Even if you play against good player you'll always find some weaker player or AI to take and then if you know how to play you have a big advantage since warriors rush cost WAY less ressources than horserush.

So I admit Zulu are overpowered and cheap to play!
Lucky for us that good zulu player are rare cause most of them never learn to play past 1000 BC:D

[Caboose_Nor]

Looking at this forum makes me happy. There seems to be some sense in you people. I'm glad most people here realize that Zulus are overpowered and lame as ****.

I can AVOID being killed by them pretty much every time, but someone always don't (and if for some strange reason the Zulu player is unable to capture another capital in the first 10-15 turns he just leaves, which is of course oh so very fun, I LOVE playing against 2-3 AI's.. not)

People who use them are cheap and ruin the game. Just like for anyone who plays Call of Duty and use the noobtube. Thank you for your attention. Keep not playing the Zulu. Cheers!

[AltoStar]

Sorry guys, I do not understand you.

Yes, Zulu have advantage on start. Yes, this advantage is big.
But, to create good gameplay 2K should give us some varieties in leaders. And this is biggest fun and challenge for players, if some leaders have advantages on different stages of game. This is a rule of multiplayer strategy games.

If we want 100% of fairness, let’s all play only for one leader, and we will have very boring game, but fair.

I’m quite experienced Zulu player, and can tell you. To understand how you can beat Zulu, you should try to play for Zulu 20-30 times in multiplayer and you will understand how Zulu can be beaten. I was beaten sometimes very effectively, mainly by Azteks, few times by China, but this is possible.

Look, if we will stop using Zulu, next leader with advantage on start are:
1. Aztec - because of money on start and healing after combat
2. Arabs - because of Fundamentalism
3. China - because of settler effectives
So, we will boycott all this leaders next? Who will be the next? Spain, Greeks?
Then we will boycott all leaders? This is stupid.

[Caboose_Nor]

Yes, the problem is Zulu doesn't have an advantatage just in the early stages of the game, they have an advantage in EVERY stage of the game.

First you get 2 movement and more huts and a capital most of the time.

Then, you get city growth on par with Russians with plains and granaries, without plains and granaries.

Then, you get 50% gold production.

How is this balanced again? How is this "merely an advantage in the early stages"?

[fcm13]

I played a lot of games and by my experience zulu are the easiest but not the best. In fact, there are civs better than zulu that have different bonuses.

I agree with Morte. In a game full of Noobs the Zulu player will win because the Zulus are very easy to play, even for a noob.

But in a game with top players the zulus are good but there are other civs as good as them.

[PhamHall]

Yes, the problem is Zulu doesn't have an advantatage just in the early stages of the game, they have an advantage in EVERY stage of the game.

First you get 2 movement and more huts and a capital most of the time.

Then, you get city growth on par with Russians with plains and granaries, without plains and granaries.

Then, you get 50% gold production.

How is this balanced again? How is this "merely an advantage in the early stages"?

absolutely right. even the user bungles the storming of capitals, they can bunker down in large cities and earn an ecomic victory pretty easily.

[lindsay40k]

absolutely right. even the user bungles the storming of capitals, they can bunker down in large cities and earn an ecomic victory pretty easily.

Quite, I'm no pro myself and yet I find myself not only building a World Bank in the 1500s but also buying a modern wonder every turn whilst the construction proceeds... get Military-Industrial Complex, Manhatten Project and switch to Stalinism and there's no way anyone can capture your capital to prevent the win. Hell, when the massive invasion force arrives, you can drop the nuke just next to your city and kill the bloody lot of 'em :D

[IML Owl]

Sorry guys, I do not understand you.

Yes, Zulu have advantage on start. Yes, this advantage is big.
But, to create good gameplay 2K should give us some varieties in leaders. And this is biggest fun and challenge for players, if some leaders have advantages on different stages of game. This is a rule of multiplayer strategy games.

If we want 100% of fairness, let’s all play only for one leader, and we will have very boring game, but fair.

I’m quite experienced Zulu player, and can tell you. To understand how you can beat Zulu, you should try to play for Zulu 20-30 times in multiplayer and you will understand how Zulu can be beaten. I was beaten sometimes very effectively, mainly by Azteks, few times by China, but this is possible.

Look, if we will stop using Zulu, next leader with advantage on start are:
1. Aztec - because of money on start and healing after combat
2. Arabs - because of Fundamentalism
3. China - because of settler effectives
So, we will boycott all this leaders next? Who will be the next? Spain, Greeks?
Then we will boycott all leaders? This is stupid.

This is the most ridiculous thing i've ever read on these forums.

edit: besides stuff written by Morte ;)

[xX Kyodai Xx]

Zulu can be beaten by good American player or Chinese player as long as you don't get taken out in first fifteen turns. I am tired of Chinese player complaining about Zulus. Chinese might be a better civ than Zulu since you don't need gold to do well with Chinese. Zulu needs gold to be very effective.

[AltoStar]

This is the most ridiculous thing i've ever read on these forums.

Guys, you understood me wrong. May be because of my english.

I'm absolutely agreed with every single message in this thread. I am not arguing with facts. Zulu have huge advantage on start, and not balanced. It is fact. And 2K should fix this if want to develop Civ on PS3 and X360.
I understand you, and agree with you. Try to understand me, Civ Revo is not chess, this game is for fun.

I disagree with Zulu BOYCOTT, this is ridicules, because all races are not balanced. If we will stop using Zulu, next will be Aztecs. Aztecs also not balanced, start with money and auto healing, balanced? no

Should we boycott Aztecs???

[bravo1717]

I am sick of warrior armies esp zulu arriving a my gate in first 10 turns.. and quiet often taking down my sole archer!
It will be helpful if developers could give all civs a palace guard defence 2 or 3.. cannot go out of palace & sells for 0 gold. Please!
I m guity of playing zulu a lot once upon a time when wanted to get my ranking up and so on.. but they are monotonous no brainer overpowered civ.. not fun anymore!

[KillingDeathz]

I think there are worthwhile reasons to boycott Zulu besides the reasons mentioned, which are all valid in my opinion.

Consider the length of time it can take sometimes to connect to a game with people hopping in an out of the lobby and the length of time most people put aside to play (I normally have limited time i.e a couple of hours every few days if Im lucky) playing against Zulus royally sucks!

You manage to get a game going, youre all pumped up, in the first turn you check out the civs you are playing against and hey hey there just may be a Zulu. :mad: Now if there is you are pretty much assured that they will take 1 to 2 capitals or people start dropping out making it even easier for them. Not every time I admit but for the overwhelming majority of games this is unfortunately the case. I have always tried to stay on in the game to see if I get lucky but the majority of the time I just watch them eat up all the available land, claim all the artifacts and bombard you with their advanced units....which in short is no fun at all and a waste of time so now I quit for the most part when there is a Zulu because I dont have the time to sit and watch them decimate everyone.

And what almost irriates me even more is that sometimes you come across a Zulu player who turns out to be sub-par and by the time you discover this your whole game strategy is screwed because you tend to play defensively, such is the expectation of a Zulu rush.

Sorry for moaning I just love this game and when I get a chance to play it I want to enjoy it....not play several short games with Zulus...

[Caboose_Nor]

Hear hear!

[R0Val]

Okay I know a lot of people are having a tough time with the Zulu. I do fairly well against the Zulu and I've learned a few things when defending against them. Now if enough people can defend against their early rush then it would make the Zulu much less effective. Please feel free to critique or remark...

1. Always build 3 warriors. Try to send them in one general direction if you can. I understand if you start in the middle that cant be done but most starts are on the edge of the continent. Try to get a least 1 hut, hopefully 2. Now if you see the zulu coming, retreat and try to form an army. Then try to get on a hill so that you can bring the attack to them. If not chill in some woods. Now the goal is to get to 100 gold for you second city which is crucial, crucial, crucial. If you dont get it you will lose. If I get only 1 hut and only pull 50 gold and I find a couple forests, deserts, plains giving me some gold there I will then sell my warrior army to do everything I can to get the second city. Its that important! Settle the second city ASAP and by some water. So you can...

2. Tech Bronze Working. This is obvious and with two cities you can do it in 2-3 turns. Now you have 100 gold. Once you get bronze working, rush archers in both cities for 40 gold and, booyah, you are impi protected. (if you need to, rush 2 archers in your capitol but refrain from making an army. You need to save the cash) Now if you can put your archers at a choke but its super important to have them fortified so if you dont think they can defend for at least two turns at the choke leave the archers in your city. Now its okay to leave cities unprotected if nobody can get to them by land because you closed off the choke. So the only way they can get to you is by galley. The next thing you want to do is...

3. Rush a Galley. Even if you did not get anymore gold than your original 100 - 40 gold (rushing archers in both cities) you can afford a galley. Now I use my galley to find the Zulu. You want to know exactly where they are coming from. I also use the galley to stop other galleys from finding my cities. I'll just stand in the way and wont move until they turn around. usually players wont risk a coin flip battle between two evenly matched galleys. Once you spot them place your militia by their capitol preferably on an island to spy them then run your galley back to your area to set up the next phase.

4. Expand! Beeline to Code of Law. Don't waste time building defense. Once the Zulu and others see that you had archers early they wont mess with you until they get knights. Once you get Code of Law switch all your cities to gold and try to rush settlers out. This is the time to get a ton of cities. Try to get 6-10 cities during this time. Use your galley to establish cities on islands minimizing the contact you have with the Zulu. Once you have your cities up switch to tech and get Democracy. Put your free pikeman at the choke. Time is crucial because you need to be...

5. The First to Navigation. Two reasons: 1. You need that free Galleon to protect your unguarded backside borders and island cities and 2. If you have a great builder you can rush the East India Trading and get +1 science/gold on each sea square. (this is a game changer!) At this point you know the Zulu is out to get you because you will be out teching him. Their most likely strategy will be to get knights on you ASAP. If a galleon is the fastest way to you then they will load a galleon up with knights and try to attack you. There is nothing more satisfying then destroying a galleon full of knights. The best!!! If you see that they skipped over feudalism then they are trying to be the first to tanks.

6. Own the Sea, Defend the Choke. At this point you should have a great foundation to own the tech lead. Be the first to steam power (Own the Sea), Be the first to Gunpowder (Defend the Choke). Get to Tanks and Win.

Good luck.

[elthrasher]

4. Expand! Beeline to Code of Law. Don't waste time building defense. Once the Zulu and others see that you had archers early they wont mess with you until they get knights.

This is all good advice, but I do find that this part isn't always true. I often see Zulu going around from city to city testing their defenses. If it's a new city, a single archer will only have a defense of 2 against the vet Impi army with 4.5. A fortified archer has a defense of 4 and can still be beaten by a veteran warrior army. It's worse of people have horse armies. A vet horse army has an attack of 9 at least and will usually beat a single archer. You either need an archer army or some kind of offensive army to counterattack. A vet warrior army could do the trick but having your own horse army or even Legions is better.

The key is to keep tabs on the opposition and adjust your strategy accordingly.

Two more suggestions:

This one is basically for newer players. Do not leave your workers balanced. If you do that, you get your first warrior on turn 5, grow to 3 pop on turn 10 and won't have Bronze Working until turn 20. This is way too late. It's better to go all production to get some warriors out, then either grow if things seem safe or tech Bronze if archer defense is necessary.

If you're in danger of an Impi rush and don't have Bronze Working yet, try to get it from another player. You'll need a tech to trade, so this won't work if you're playing a civ that doesn't start with any tech and haven't gotten one from a hut. But if you do have any tradable tech, odds are people will give you Bronze for whatever you've got. It's in their best interest that the Zulu don't take you out and Bronze is hardly a high-value tech (unless you need it to live). It's far from ideal to have to trade, say, Code of Laws for Bronze Working, but you can't win the game if you're eliminated.

Alternatively, you may be able to buy Bronze Working from the AI. This is usually better than having to trade for it, but of course you'll have to have encountered the AI, it will have to have Bronze and it will have to still exist (not yet taken out by a player), so this may not always work.

[IceCube]

or ally with others vs zulu :)if is ffa

[MEX.at]

I've taken to just dropping out of games with Zulu players in them. The civ is just so overpowered it's ridiculous. Fortunately not everyone is a cheap sleaze.

I haven't lost a game yet where I play as Zulu. If the rush doesn't work, the rapid growth annihilates any advantage other civs have, especially if you take advantage of it with big food cities.

So... anyone else want to join me in boycotting the Zulu?Why should I ?

I prefer to play AZTEK, and just have scared FOGMEISTER and his horde of Zulu warriors enough that he quit as he knew that he doesnt have a chance :P

If you dont want to play ZULU try AZTEK !

Of course the AZTEK is another one of these civs which aim at a early win, but you need a bit more skill to play them as for the ZULU.

MfG, MEX

PS: While under siege by a Zulu army, i conquered India at 3000BC ... then beat the attacking Zulu with my archers and started to search for the source of this Zulu warriors attacking me ... at ~ 2000BC FOGMEISTER left the game :D

[bravo1717]

Hi R0VaL
Nce to know you have countered zulu. I ve played lots of games with and against zulu. As someone pointed out sole archer s not foolproof against zulu army.
Similarly arab horseman or horsemen with infiltration can take down fortified archer army.
All this seems to make early rushing overpowered. Especially chinese, azetec zulus and arabs
It is fair to win by domination but i see a lots of games ending in BC. It takes a lot of fun out of multiplayer games and makes multiplayer games unidimensional.. too foccused on rushing. Perhaps ppl who rush with these civs either dont like like long intense strategic games or are just too focussed on their rankings.
For those who will like to play peacefully, atlest in BC, have a look at Dio3ds thread and we can play peacful multiplayer games

[IceCube]

if you dont take egypt early with horsemans they will take you later with knights .

[elthrasher]

Hi R0VaL
Nce to know you have countered zulu. I ve played lots of games with and against zulu. As someone pointed out sole archer s not foolproof against zulu army.
Similarly arab horseman or horsemen with infiltration can take down fortified archer army.
All this seems to make early rushing overpowered. Especially chinese, azetec zulus and arabs
It is fair to win by domination but i see a lots of games ending in BC. It takes a lot of fun out of multiplayer games and makes multiplayer games unidimensional.. too foccused on rushing. Perhaps ppl who rush with these civs either dont like like long intense strategic games or are just too focussed on their rankings.
For those who will like to play peacefully, atlest in BC, have a look at Dio3ds thread and we can play peacful multiplayer games

There's a solution other than "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Well, it's a little like that. You can build your own offensive units. That doesn't mean you have to rush. I have stopped horserush by counterattacking with warriors when I had zero techs. If you have a little more time, you can go for your own horse armies or even legions.

An attacking horse army will often take a wound, even when attacking just a single archer. Now is when you counterattack. A wounded vet horse army in a forest has a defense of 3. Non-vet Legions have an attack of 6. A non-vet horse army has an attack of 6. A single non-vet Catapult has an attack of 4. The Knights Templar (as knights) have an attack of 6. A veteran warrior army has an attack of 4.5. A non-vet warrior army attacking from a hill has an attack of 4.5. Any of these things should be able to rid out of that troublesome offensive army. The key is to be able to counterattack with something, anything. This won't work 100% of the time, but it will work often enough that you can make a game out of it.

The last game I lost, I lost to an Arab horserush. My mistake was counting on my archer armies to protect me. I should've teched Iron Working and made Legions. This was nobody's fault but mine and it's a lesson well-learned.

[travist2150]

This is a problem that can easily be solved by making the start screen not anonymous, you should be able to see the Civ your opponent has chosen so you can choose whether to play them.

I like the English and I can usually have Tanks by 500 AD if I don't build Knights, but it is so hard to play against the Aztecs and Zulu, I am forced to defend myself.

ELIZABETH make multiplayer so you can see what civ your opponent has chosen and it will solve all of this frustration, that is the way it is for civ 3 and civ 4, WHY NOT the new CIV!!!!!!!!!!!

[danthechan]

lately i have been seeing a great mix of civs in ranked ffa. chinese and zulu have been very rare. it could be because its a new psn and the match making has me not playing top ranked players.