|
Post by GERMANIA on Jun 4, 2006 13:25:19 GMT -5
Well random ist random... we had always contie and modern ore future, i tried after that for my self it, from 5 treys i had 4 time modern ore future and 3 times contie. + 3 time contie from the tourney and 2 time modern and 1 time future, would like to hear if the others had the same thing if yes, then random needs to be remove because we already have future and modern and almost all don't like it
|
|
|
Post by Gogf on Jun 4, 2006 13:40:31 GMT -5
I have gotten every single era when playing a random era game. We had an industrial and a modern in the CCC, but that was just luck. My random era games seem to usually be biased towards medieval, actually.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jun 4, 2006 15:05:10 GMT -5
in 6 or 7 rend era games i had allways mod or fut but oh well i can live with that ;D
still a kinda weired rnd
|
|
|
Post by lporiginalg on Jun 4, 2006 17:18:32 GMT -5
Congradulations Mud, well played.
lp
ps: a few comments on settings medium timer is too slow for ren and fast was too short for modern. At least for someone like me who didn't practice at all lol, but seriously maybe take a look at those two settings and ask yourself how it makes sense. (the ren event was what like 12 hours from start to finish and teh modern was like 4-5 or sumthin?
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Jun 4, 2006 23:53:30 GMT -5
Going beyond the comments and suggestions thread, how about getting the clans more involved in the actual event selection?
Each clan could elect one representative to help out in event formation -- eras, maps, number of players, turn timer, etc. I think we have a real solid foundation of 9 events, but with a little tweaking here and there, the events could more closely reflect what the CCC players would like to play.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jun 5, 2006 0:56:17 GMT -5
Also, would it be possible to get the event list more than a week in advance? Even if the exact date/time/event order is still to be determined, it would stll be really helpful. For example, we invested a lot of time practicing for Medieval and Industrial only to find them left off the event list this time around . Yes, it's the single most important thing. I think that event list should be known a month prior to CCC. That way, we'll have time to play it and it will also promote non-standart ladder games which is IMHO a good thing. Once this CCC is over, I'm going to run a poll on the Era starts people want to see. I hope that poll results will be used only as a suggestion. Else, most will vote for Anc and Ren and it will be a boring CCC 5v5 Ren on Inland Sea was a lot of fun to play in CCC as we play it often in Ladder, although the timer really needs to be bumped up to Fast. Medium is waaay too slow. Yes, we always play it on Fast and it's a long event most of the time. So no need to make it Medium. However, later eras will be better with Medium timer (like Modern, it was Fast for some unknown reason). Btw, a poll is fine, but a group of clan members thinking of events and parameters should be better, hope it will be up in the next few days ;D I think it was already discussed and decision was one representative per clan? The best way to speed it up is just to choose your clan representative and post a new topic on this forum so other clans will post their representative members in that topic as well. With just general talking about that matter i guess we'll not come anywhere any soon. Well random ist random... we had always contie and modern ore future, i tried after that for my self it, from 5 treys i had 4 time modern ore future and 3 times contie. + 3 time contie from the tourney and 2 time modern and 1 time future, would like to hear if the others had the same thing if yes, then random needs to be remove because we already have future and modern and almost all don't like it Nah when i played 2v2 Random/Random i got Ancient and Classical *** Now, events. #3 was pure random. On such a small map and with only 2 players if you don't have resource you'll be chocked/pillaged to nothing and die to cats 100%. We won 2 thanks to random and lost 1 thanks to random. It's just crazy. Either we need a different map with a far away starts and/or guaranteed resources (maybe BalancedOCC_V1?) or more players (at least 4?). #7 Modern. Very nice idea to have "No city Raizing" and City Elimination 2 for water maps. It's just ridiculously easy to burn one city at a time but it's much harder to take and keep 2 enemy cities at the same time. So i think all such events should be played with such settings. Previously i didn't like water maps but with these settings they're fun. Renaissance event was nice. But maybe we'll have Renaissance Team Battleground one next time? Recently it become popular as well and IMHO it will be better if we'll not play with same settings every CCC so to make it more fun (well, Ironman and Random/Random events should be the same of course).
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Jun 5, 2006 3:34:05 GMT -5
Renaissance event was nice. But maybe we'll have Renaissance Team Battleground one next time? Recently it become popular as well and IMHO it will be better if we'll not play with same settings every CCC so to make it more fun (well, Ironman and Random/Random events should be the same of course). TBG is a very fun map for Renaissance, but it can be horrible imbalanced when it comes to strategic resources. I once played a 4v4 where the top side of the map had 1 horse near a city, 1 horse at the very top of the map in the tundra, and that's it -- very hard (and not very fun) to play Renaissance without horses, especially with enemy Knights and Cavalry running all over the place. I know you could tech for Rifles or whatever, but unless you immediately uncover all of your land with your explorers, instead of sending them to enemy land to choke / scout, you're not going to realize you don't have enough horses to make Nationalism and Mil Trad worthwhile techs until you've already spent a significant amount of time following that tech path. That's why I still prefer to play on Inland Sea -- the map may not always be balanced or fair in terms of luxury resources, food resources, and land space ... but it usually does a great job of balancing out the strategic resources. I don't remember the last time I played a 5v5 on Inland where my team didn't have enough strategic resources to go around.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jun 5, 2006 3:40:00 GMT -5
TBG is a very fun map for Renaissance, but it can be horrible imbalanced when it comes to strategic resources. I once played a 4v4 where the top side of the map had 1 horse near a city, 1 horse at the very top of the map in the tundra, and that's it -- very hard (and not very fun) to play Renaissance without horses, especially with enemy Knights and Cavalry running all over the place. Hmm. You're right, there may be no horses at all on one side of the map. Then maybe we should just mod TBG so to balance strategic resources there?
|
|
|
Post by coeurgrenat on Jun 5, 2006 3:40:43 GMT -5
Just a word about the unfolding of the Renaissance 5v5 Finals (Funs vs Illuminati). The match started at 2.30am (French time) and ended up at about 8.30am ...(a 6 hour game!!!)
Each turn saw an impressive lag ( from Mark Weston) without taking into account the numerous disconnections coming from the same player... I don't mean to put into question the Illuminati Victory, but playing in those conditions was almost impossible and rather nerve breaking! All the more so since the lag occurred at the beginning and end of each turn! So no fast move was ever possible...
Mark Weston is not fully responsible indeed the event settings are not adapted to a fluid game.
To finish, i hope i'll never have to play such a game again, and what's more at such a late time for us Frenchies...
Congratulations again to the Illuminati for their victory in this event!
coeurgrenat
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jun 5, 2006 3:50:59 GMT -5
Each turn saw an impressive lag ( from Mark Weston) without taking into account the numerous disconnections coming from the same player... I don't mean to put into question the Illuminati Victory, but playing in those conditions was almost impossible and rather nerve breaking! All the more so since the lag occurred at the beginning and end of each turn! So no fast move was ever possible... Mark Weston is not fully responsible indeed the event settings are not adapted to a fluid game. Bleh. I prefer to say straight. If your computer or connection sucks, upgrade it or don't play a big teamers PERIOD. Definately it's solely this player's responsibility. And there are 9 more players that suffer because of one lagger.
|
|
|
Post by coeurgrenat on Jun 5, 2006 4:40:12 GMT -5
Here is the problem actually! We asked our opponents to find another player but they could not do it apparently.
So I am asking now : have we been too kind(/stupid? ) to play a game in such conditions???
I know some other clans don't even wonder about the problem and decide not to play.
What is the attitude to be adopted? Are the settings for this event going to be upgraded or discussed?
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jun 5, 2006 4:51:47 GMT -5
if its very clear that it s only 1 players respaonsible for lags and drops his own team should be sportive enough to sub him and if no sub is available and it keeps being that bad just to concede.
Future final was unplayable for me for example - entering city screen wasnt possible once nukes started to fly so i could not set production - maybe it was my PC or my connection even as i doubt that - but it was unplayable and as i saw no other solution so i just conceded.
imo we play for fun and a game that lags all time is no fun so i rather just end it as loosing fun of civing - there ll allways be a next game without lag to show that u r a good player.
Still i think there should be set clear limits for a a need to sub/concede a player like above 450 ping and a max of 2 drops
|
|
|
Post by swissy on Jun 5, 2006 17:00:48 GMT -5
My opposition to anything more than 4 v 4 in the CCC is based on lag. You are throwing together players who would never play in more than one game with each other due to lag issues. The larger the teamer, the higher potential for a lag issue to appear. And, the larger the teamer the less likely there will be a sub around.
On another note, when are we going to have Ultimate Cton in a Civ4 CCC?
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jun 5, 2006 17:18:24 GMT -5
Well, the lag was a shame, but I didn't find it game-breaking. Mostly Mark's lag was of the sort where often at the start of a turn and sometimes maybe every other turn everyone would get "Waiting for Mark_Weston..." for 5 or 10 seconds. There wasn't really a lot of latency in unit movement, etc.; his ping was fine, he just kept having these little faux-drops where he lagged out for a few seconds, and probably 5 times or so over the course of the game he actually dropped and had to hotjoin.
It kinda sucked, but I don't think it honestly impacted gameplay much. Of course, I was sitting in the back teching, so maybe it was a real pain in the ass on the front lines. We honestly had no substitute, though (it was really late) so for us there wasn't much choice.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jun 5, 2006 17:55:18 GMT -5
5 drops is way too much imo
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jun 5, 2006 19:05:02 GMT -5
5 drops is way too much imo Yeah, it's pretty gay. We would have subbed him after the first or second except that there was nobody else, and I think it's even worse to concede a good game because of random lag problems.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jun 5, 2006 19:45:07 GMT -5
a game taking more then 7 hours and forcing other to stay up till 7 in moring is worse then loosing a game imo - but i m just 3rd person and no nothing about the game
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Jun 5, 2006 19:52:11 GMT -5
This one game seems to be the exception rather than the rule for the 5v5 Ren Game, as we experienced absolutely no lag in our 2 games. The only changes I would make are to put on Fast Timer and turn off the Barbarians ... both of those options would help speed up the game.
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jun 5, 2006 21:46:57 GMT -5
That's an exaggeration, tommy. If I had to put a number on it, I'd say Mark's lag lengthened the game by perhaps an hour. It was seven hours because there were people on both sides using the full medium timer with the usual timer lag for every turn, and we went until there were about 20 or so turns remaining.
|
|
Juni
Worker
Posts: 137
|
Post by Juni on Jun 5, 2006 23:49:28 GMT -5
I don't understand people who say : "we don't play this era in ladder games, so we don't have to play this in CCC".
Until last CCC, I had never played any game in modern era. And I thought this era wouldn't be very interezsting. One week befoe CCC, I tried it, and even if the map was ridiculous, I realised that this era could be very interesting, and I enjoyed it.
I think that instead of making the CCC look like ladder games, we should make the ladder games look like CCC. It is an occasion to discover eras or maps we are not used to play. And maybe, who knows, to enjoy it. Civ is very large, it would be a shame to use only a small part of it.
And we have to wonder if CCC is a World Civ Championship, or a ladder Civ Championship.
|
|