Slaughter
Settler
God save the screen!
Posts: 48
|
Post by Slaughter on Jan 19, 2006 20:19:05 GMT -5
had that too in a duel (ok, not on an 1 tile island, but really small though), but figured out after, that it was not set to varied landmass but to small lakes ... but still wondering how small lakes can grow to such an ocean and if your described scenario would really happen, your opponent will play as robinson crusoe too ... just waiting for friday - ok, i must admit that won't be a very funny game, but ...
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on Jan 20, 2006 3:39:20 GMT -5
With the mirror map, its reflections and varied landmass and sea level medium. I tryed a game with varied landmass on mirror map. I began on an island of 1 tile !!! Do you imagine !! nothing else than water (quite amaizing to don't need worker lol). you need about 50 turns to build a boat and a settler... Small Lakes landmass type should be a better idea. same happened to me to.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jan 20, 2006 3:47:50 GMT -5
after patch maps seem to have bit impoved to me
|
|
|
Post by lorddragon on Jan 20, 2006 7:06:03 GMT -5
As to the Final Ironman round. I realize this could potentially take many many hours. But starting at 7am EST? You guys do realize that for those of us in the Pacific Time Zone, which is a LOT of us, that means the match starts at 4am. I don't know about the rest of you, but waking up before 4am is asking a bit much, lol. A more considerate time slot might be nicer.
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Jan 20, 2006 7:20:19 GMT -5
Our members are from all over the world. Some time slots might favor the West Coast of the US but be horrible for Germany and vice versa.
The schedule has evolved over the years in an attempt to be fair to all.
Since the Ironman is played 24 hours around the clock anyway - it seemed like a good one to start early. Most clans have members from a variety of time zones so they can make adjustments. Perhaps you just need to split the duties with someone from a different time zone.
We do evaluate the comments made here and make adjustments each time; however, don't expect major changes in the time starts since its been crafted and negotiated over time to take into account that our players come from Europe, North America, Australia, etc. etc. Here at CIV4Players you really do Play the World.
Best, SPM
|
|
|
Post by swissy on Jan 20, 2006 19:01:43 GMT -5
The Ironman had nine players registered. Since the game can accomidate nine players in a game, the one five player semi-final should not have been played, all players should have been passed on to the final.
|
|
|
Post by lorddragon on Jan 20, 2006 19:36:33 GMT -5
True SPM, but events should be planned with consideration for the majority of the players. From what I have seen the most represented time zones are PST-EST, with quite a few from Europe.
A start of 7am PST would be 10am EST, and roughly 7pm in the eastern parts of Europe. This would allow 99% of our players to participate in the starting round, which is quite frankly the most crucial.
But as it stands now, it pretty much kills anyone in the PST, which is a very large percentage of the ladder.
The 7am time slot really seems most convenient for those of you on the East Coast, which allows you to start at a reasonable time and play all day, lol.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 20, 2006 19:51:24 GMT -5
The Ironman had nine players registered. Since the game can accomidate nine players in a game, the one five player semi-final should not have been played, all players should have been passed on to the final. Yes, the game "accomodates" nine players; but is it not likely that one or two players start in frozen zones? Nine is the most awkward player possibility. The rules do say that 8 advance after the qualifier. I suppose we could have played a 9 player game to eliminate 1. I would say leave it up to SPM if we want to have a 9 player final tomorrow. It may be a moot point though, as I believe one team is unable to play because of the player name issue. The TD did set it up as a two game qualifier and I believe the rules say that this is ok at the discretion of the TD.
|
|
|
Post by matth on Jan 20, 2006 20:25:23 GMT -5
I told that let landmass type on varied wich mean random was a bad idea...
For two reasons :
First the host is the only to see this option, so he can takes archipelago and know that he will not need to build warrior at the begining, while the other one will not know that for a few turns. (i say that even if i dont think that anyone could have done that but its still a bad point about that "varied landmass type")
Second you can began on a 1 tile island and you can also began on TeamBattleground Est versus West like it was in my semi final against AngelOnEarth. On Teambattleground Est versus Ouest there is 2 tiles of ocean in the middle, wich mean that you cant travel through the other side of the map (you cant go in ocean tile in antique with any boat). You cant reach your ennemies, you cant fight at all !!! not even on water... I used a great artist on my costal city to try to travel trhough the ocean (boat can travel ocean if they are in your territorie). But i gain only 1 tile of ocean so still i cant travel and cant fight....
Is this a real 1vs1 ? Cant fight at all ? is it civ ? no its a GOTM or a sim city...
She beat me with 3300 to 3050 (good job by the way Angel), she had bigger city than me (and maybe more wonder) while i was better in science... i had guild, engineering, gunpowder, education, music, construction, paper... If we meet i could have at least try to kill her (with my scientist advance i should have win)...
Its very frustrating to not be able to defend my title in "regular" condition.
So plz kick that out for the next ccc and choose little lakes.
|
|
|
Post by islandia on Jan 20, 2006 20:41:02 GMT -5
but is it not likely that one or two players start in frozen zones? Nine is the most awkward player possibility. The rules do say that 8 advance after the qualifier. I suppose we could have played a 9 player game to eliminate 1. I would say leave it up to SPM if we want to have a 9 player final tomorrow. It may be a moot point though, as I believe one team is unable to play because of the player name issue. The TD did set it up as a two game qualifier and I believe the rules say that this is ok at the discretion of the TD. Nine is not bad on a hub map, but I would be perfectly okay with doing an elim to get 8 people, however, it looks like 4 players automatically got a bye to the finals while the other five had to fight to eliminate one person. That seems very silly and more based on luck than any sort of skill.
|
|
|
Post by lorddragon on Jan 20, 2006 22:50:28 GMT -5
Why, as a general rule, are duplicate civs not allowed in tournaments? I realize this rule is probably a holdover form civ3 in which I am told you could not have duplicate civs, but there seems no reason for it now.
In a tournament each player should be able to play their best civ, even if it is the same as someone elses.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jan 21, 2006 0:16:52 GMT -5
d bit boring to have only incs india and france in anc
|
|
|
Post by lorddragon on Jan 21, 2006 0:41:20 GMT -5
Lol, people would play more than those. But thats better than letting the top ranked clans pick the good civs and leave the leftovers for others.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Jan 21, 2006 1:16:14 GMT -5
The Ironman had nine players registered. Since the game can accomidate nine players in a game, the one five player semi-final should not have been played, all players should have been passed on to the final. I quite agree with this sentiment. There's no reason for us to be adhering to a C3C restriction in game size.
|
|
|
Post by swissy on Jan 21, 2006 5:46:17 GMT -5
The hub map gives each player a very sizable area to develope. The "frozen" areas are in the middle. You only get the players starting in frozen/tuindra with 9 on standard with Balanced map.
|
|
|
Post by venceslas on Jan 21, 2006 8:37:10 GMT -5
In the ironman, it will be nice if TD could display the order of the civ choice.
chris.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Jan 21, 2006 11:09:28 GMT -5
The hub map gives each player a very sizable area to develope. The "frozen" areas are in the middle. You only get the players starting in frozen/tuindra with 9 on standard with Balanced map. Again, quite right.
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Jan 21, 2006 12:16:14 GMT -5
I agree that Ironman with 9 players should skip semi and go straight to final. There was a miscommunication, and the TD made the call. Next time, it will be written into the rules.
SPM
|
|
|
Post by lorddragon on Jan 22, 2006 1:54:39 GMT -5
I had a couple suggestions for basic rule changes
1) Allow people to pick whatever civs they want. This no duplicate rule is a holdover from civ3, and it seems to give an advantage to people from the better ranked clans. Tournaments should be a true test of skill, let each person choose whatever civ they are most comfortable with.
2) All votes that currently require an unanmimous vote should require a unanimous save 1 vote on larger games, just like a vote to scrap does. Without going into details, I had my Ironman day ruined because of one person being a pointless prick, even when everyone else disagreed.
3) There should be disqualifications for major intentional breaks of cton rules. In a cton event one of the players announced that he was being attacked by a huge stack by another player, and named that player. Needless to say this was a massive breach of cton rules, and the player attacking was in turn assaulted a few turns later, as it was now known his armies were away, and he was wiped out.
Just a few thoughts. Oh, and have tournaments more often, every six weeks is too long. And Ironmans need to start later, lol:)
|
|
|
Post by Islonian on Jan 22, 2006 2:15:14 GMT -5
I had a couple suggestions for basic rule changes 1) Allow people to pick whatever civs they want. This no duplicate rule is a holdover from civ3, and it seems to give an advantage to people from the better ranked clans. Tournaments should be a true test of skill, let each person choose whatever civ they are most comfortable with. 2) All votes that currently require an unanmimous vote should require a unanimous save 1 vote on larger games, just like a vote to scrap does. Without going into details, I had my Ironman day ruined because of one person being a pointless prick, even when everyone else disagreed. 3) There should be disqualifications for major intentional breaks of cton rules. In a cton event one of the players announced that he was being attacked by a huge stack by another player, and named that player. Needless to say this was a massive breach of cton rules, and the player attacking was in turn assaulted a few turns later, as it was now known his armies were away, and he was wiped out. Just a few thoughts. Oh, and have tournaments more often, every six weeks is too long. And Ironmans need to start later, lol:) 1.Just an idea here but the IronMan is supposedly in my mind anyway the best player a clan has and there for should be able to play any civ in just about any condition so surely civ choice should be random IMO. 2.I beg to differ on this your IronMan was totally ruined when we had the break and all the difficulties that went with trying to get the game reloaded we sat around for quite a while waiting only for you to return after we had reloaded and played however many turns. 3.I can only agree with you on this point the said player was told on more than one occassion not to speak about the game, but I must also add that the game does in actual fact tell you that someone has had a city taken from them and by which player.
|
|