|
Ironman
Jul 24, 2006 0:29:46 GMT -5
Post by Canucksoldier on Jul 24, 2006 0:29:46 GMT -5
There's been some discussion within the CCCAC that the ironman doesn't need to stay, it's been a classic match since the first CCC in C3C, but if the popular vote is to replace it we certainly will consider it.
CS
|
|
|
Ironman
Jul 24, 2006 2:38:39 GMT -5
Post by notagoodname on Jul 24, 2006 2:38:39 GMT -5
As stated in another thread, i like the ironman, i just think it should be something different everytime.
We have had ironman on inland sea and ring. We have had ironman with chosen civs. We have had ironman with CTON rules.
How about mixing up the formula a bit? My suggestion was a world map, others have suggested democracy style rules and random civs would also be interesting.
Or how about an ironman with different victory types? (try turning off the spacerace so we can war in the future)
The ironman is the only event with the potential to play out like a true civ game should - none of this get as many points as possible in 130 turns crap.
With tommy consistantly getting Ghandi and going on to win ironman we could do with something to mix it up a bit.
|
|
|
Ironman
Jul 24, 2006 2:57:12 GMT -5
Post by Ellestar on Jul 24, 2006 2:57:12 GMT -5
With tommy consistantly getting Ghandi and going on to win ironman we could do with something to mix it up a bit. That's the true reason why some think that Ironman doesn't need to stay ;D
|
|
|
Ironman
Jul 24, 2006 3:21:51 GMT -5
Post by notagoodname on Jul 24, 2006 3:21:51 GMT -5
With tommy consistantly getting Ghandi and going on to win ironman we could do with something to mix it up a bit. That's the true reason why some think that Ironman doesn't need to stay ;D Heh I can on occasion beat tommy (in fact last 1v1 duel with him i won) but it would be nice to have a diplomacy ironman game where the weaker clans can gang up on the top players and score some points. Hell my clan came 2nd last ironman and here i am suggesting that the weaker clans should be allowed to share techs and wage war on me
|
|
|
Ironman
Jul 24, 2006 5:47:28 GMT -5
Post by tommynt on Jul 24, 2006 5:47:28 GMT -5
bleh every1 can beat me on occasion - but can u beat me in a epic where we can both pick civs?
where is the challenge for a weaker clan if all they have to do is to team up instead improving their game? I m no magician - i got no speacial theories - every1 can learn how to play as i do - so instead crying for a gangbang on good players peoply should improve their gaming imo - gt did it and got close - his game just relied a bit too much on desperate moves. I wrote sevral articles how to build up as fast as possible and about how to play epic in general - there s no secret imo
|
|
|
Ironman
Jul 24, 2006 6:01:06 GMT -5
Post by Elledge on Jul 24, 2006 6:01:06 GMT -5
I think the ironman is fine as it is. I don't see any reason why tommy should be especially indomitable just because he has Gandhi; lots of people, me among them, don't pick Gandhi on big epic games.
Looking forward to the day I get to play.
|
|
|
Ironman
Aug 9, 2006 15:25:14 GMT -5
Post by longhorn on Aug 9, 2006 15:25:14 GMT -5
I say leave the ironman as is. Its not so bad to have some tradition!
Maybe one day Tommy fall asleep at his computer and you can beat him in ironman ;D
|
|
|
Ironman
Aug 12, 2006 0:50:11 GMT -5
Post by churchill1 on Aug 12, 2006 0:50:11 GMT -5
Nah. I think his trick is to just set everything to auto and he always wins this way.
|
|
|
Ironman
Aug 28, 2006 10:09:49 GMT -5
Post by uastranger on Aug 28, 2006 10:09:49 GMT -5
There is nothng wrong with the ironman! It is a good event. However what kills the event is ppl leaving when they are loosing. It just makes it so much easier for the neighbours to score real high in points all of a suden. Thats why i admire Eiffel who stuck around until his last city and made his attacker pay, unlike others!
|
|
|
Ironman
Aug 28, 2006 11:41:35 GMT -5
Post by MMV on Aug 28, 2006 11:41:35 GMT -5
tommy is not so exclusive in the winners of the ironman event
and if I recall correctly, I think KC has put in a sub ONE time in all the ironmans since CIV - I'm very proud that KC's ironman players TOUGH OUT the game without substitutions (which includes the rough and tough "iron-pants" Magzi whom I believe lasted 23 hours)
I think "subbing" should have more restrictions (2 subs allowed maybe - or even just one; and perhaps if someone is sub'd, they can't go back into the game) with more clarified rules. Just putting in a sub "because you can" shouldn't be a a valid reason.
LESS subbing just because it's allowed and MORE players starting the event WITH THE INTENT OF TRYING TO FINISH (instead of going nappie-time). If you can't stay awake for an event like this, perhaps limiting yourselves to ren-teamers is more your style.
as someonen posted, it IS the "ironman" event and if some of the people can't play for more than a few hours, perhaps they should let the man of the house play instead, lol!
If all that subbing is required, perhaps the ironman event should be renamed to "WWF Tag Team Bonanza[/i]" (on pay-per-view, of course)
|
|
|
Ironman
Aug 28, 2006 11:52:42 GMT -5
Post by eiffel on Aug 28, 2006 11:52:42 GMT -5
I agree, players shouldn't be allowed to concede in CTON and IRONMAN events or face a -3 points or more in the CCC. Conceding without fighting or trying to defend just give a huge advantage to neighbours that will get easy captured cities and land... and won't lose the units they should since ia won't defend well. I died but i continued defending as much as i could during hours even if i knew game was ruined for me, simultaneously defending against cannons and redcoats at my right, and riflemen and cannons at my left, coming by land, by galleons and transports, when by best unit was muskets drafted every turn ;D ... and none of them brought points for their clan in the ironman, I hope i was involved in their troubles, that's what you get for trying to kill Eiffel ;D
|
|
|
Ironman
Aug 28, 2006 13:49:59 GMT -5
Post by deyreepher on Aug 28, 2006 13:49:59 GMT -5
Tradition was meant to be broken. I would refer to what the majority of the KC guys who have played in the Ironman think. I know that Swissy said it sucked, but that may have been in the heat of the moment. It is truly painful by the time you get to the modern age. You are some sick people if you like to go through that kind of pain.
|
|
|
Ironman
Aug 28, 2006 13:58:18 GMT -5
Post by MookieNJ on Aug 28, 2006 13:58:18 GMT -5
As far as conceding in the Ironman goes ...
I played a practice game with my clanmates to help prepare for this event. My land was about 20 percent deserts, no rivers, very few hills. Really nothing I could do. If I, or anyone else, got land this bad in the CCC how can you really expect them to sit around for 12+ lag filled hours with no hope of winning?
|
|
|
Ironman
Aug 28, 2006 14:48:43 GMT -5
Post by MMV on Aug 28, 2006 14:48:43 GMT -5
Perhaps "ironman" being the unique event that it is, there should be another option....
Make ironman a totally seperate event from the CCC -
I think if you're going to go through 9-24 hours of hellish civ with ALL of it's inherent "difficulties," perhaps playing it with NO subs; one player take all; see who can play the longest with the best that their land and civ gives them - EVERYTHING in play from sleep-deprivation, sore-hiney, crossed and drooping eyes, and a numb mouse-finger seperate event.
Including on the main ladder page - [XX]Xxxxxx is the ladder's ironman champion, etc etc etc should be considered.
That WAS the main intent of the ironman to begin with.
subs - they are good for lunch, the navy, and to their masters; but not Civ, lol.
|
|
|
Ironman
Sept 29, 2006 9:06:02 GMT -5
Post by uastranger on Sept 29, 2006 9:06:02 GMT -5
Hmm considering the next ironman, i got an idea. The fact is that the ironman gets screwed because some ppl give up and quit the game. This makes it a lot easier for the neighbor to take over the ai. Therefor i got the idea to reward points to the all the players after each era. Like in a real epic game. So the longer you play the more points you accumulate. Ofcoure first gets more points then second and on. And u only get these points if you sit out the game. So if u quit while your civ is still alive u dont get any points. Ofcourse at the end of the game the winner gets most points.
|
|
|
Ironman
Sept 29, 2006 9:09:50 GMT -5
Post by Tony on Sept 29, 2006 9:09:50 GMT -5
I like the idea!
Something like this would be good IMO:
First: 9(not 8) Second:6 Third: 3 4th: 2 Being alive when somsone wins: 1
|
|
moineau
Warrior
Administrator
Posts: 330
|
Ironman
Sept 29, 2006 9:47:53 GMT -5
Post by moineau on Sept 29, 2006 9:47:53 GMT -5
Good idea.
|
|
|
Ironman
Sept 29, 2006 10:12:05 GMT -5
Post by holocanthe on Sept 29, 2006 10:12:05 GMT -5
Very good idea with sanctions (clan loss 2-3 points) if a player quit, concede or no fight before his elimination
|
|
|
Ironman
Sept 29, 2006 12:05:38 GMT -5
Post by AngelOnEarth on Sept 29, 2006 12:05:38 GMT -5
i like the idea to use benchmarks like in normal ladder epics then just to give points at the end of the game, what about this suggestion:
there are 4 in-game benchmarks and 1 at the end of the game which will be at 2000BC, 0AD, 1000AD, 1500AD, final victory condition and give the following amount of points
in-game 1st - 5 pts 2nd - 4 pts 3rd - 3 pts 4th - 2 pts alive and still playing - 1 pts
end of game (or final victory condition) 1st - 8 pts 2nd - 5 pts 3rd - 3 pts 4th - 2 pts alive and still playing - 1 pts
all points of each benchmark are added together and devided by 3 (rounded down if <x.5 else rounded up to nearest integer), that will be the points the player/clan will get for the ironman event.
some examples:
if you ALWAYS come in 1st place at all benchmarks, you will receive 5+5+5+5+8 = 28:3 = 9 pts, which will be the highest amount to achieve then. ALWAYS 2nd: 4+4+4+4+5 = 21:3 = 7 pts. ALWAYS 3rd: 3+3+3+3+3 = 15:3 = 5 pts. ALWAYS 4th: 2+2+2+2+2 = 10:3 = 3 pts. ALWAYS not 1st-4th but alive and playing: 1+1+1+1+1 = 5:3 = 2 pts, so even if you finish last but played on till end, you receive 2 pts minimum.
and here some examples showing not so straight benchs: maybe with bad start, like 3rd+2nd+1st+1st+1st = 3+4+5+5+8 = 25:3 = 8 pts. or bad finish, like 1st+1st+3rd+2nd+3rd = 5+5+3+4+3 = 20:3 = 7 pts. or being only middle but coming into 3rd coz some1 died, like 4th+alive+alive+4th+3rd = 9:3 = 3 pts.
as you see, the points are nearly the same at the end like before with end-only-pointing, with the difference that you miss points if you quit coz you do not gain pts for being alive - maybe add -1 for every benchmark where AI is playing for a non-dead civ if you want to penalize more.
i did not check and calculate "extreme" situations, but i guess overall it's not a bad solution.
|
|
[KC]Bopper
Worker
The Knight Who Says 'Giddy-Up!'
Posts: 136
|
Ironman
Sept 29, 2006 12:40:24 GMT -5
Post by [KC]Bopper on Sept 29, 2006 12:40:24 GMT -5
I would strongly support any concept that rewards the dedication, patience and sweat that an Ironman requires. I had assumed (mistakenly) that Epic points allocations were being used for all long-duration games. Long overdue...
|
|