|
Ironman
Sept 29, 2006 13:43:43 GMT -5
Post by tommynt on Sept 29, 2006 13:43:43 GMT -5
guys u take this concede issue way to serious, usually people quit ironman cause they r f**ked up anyway or at least attacked in some nasty way. Have a look into reallity, once capital and some major ciites of a country is taken there is usually not much defense left (maybe apart some fanatics but at least no civilisation defense).
winning Ironman and taking over whole land from some guys is hard enough, i see 0 problem that some1 leacves once half his empire is taken.
In FACT its much better and more fair that player leaves and ai does it s best (In 1 Ironman AI got 2nd srongest, ai usually build more military as players anyway) then some1 disbanding all untis or so
|
|
|
Ironman
Sept 29, 2006 14:06:59 GMT -5
Post by whitebull on Sept 29, 2006 14:06:59 GMT -5
I agree with tommy, i never played Ironman, but i could imagine what i would feel if i lose half of my cities Maybe we should use vassals ?
|
|
|
Ironman
Sept 29, 2006 14:14:19 GMT -5
Post by eiffel on Sept 29, 2006 14:14:19 GMT -5
No offense, but i'm not surprised at all by your post... and when MUD didn't win this event, they were the first to concede. From what I know, last time, MUD conceded before losing several cities... Btw, if all apply the "I win or I concede", this epic style event will last less than a cton. ;D And if it's not that important, face the -3 or -x points with pride and honour
|
|
|
Ironman
Sept 29, 2006 16:39:42 GMT -5
Post by MookieNJ on Sept 29, 2006 16:39:42 GMT -5
I agree with Tommy here, there should be no penalty for concession in the Ironman.
It's 12+ game of Civ filled with lag, drops, subs, etc. If you've got no shot at even scoring points, you're so out of it that you've got no chance, your land is so awful there's nothing you can do to fix it, etc. I don't see any reason why someone should be forced to sit in front of the game for 12 hours ending their turns. And like Tommy said, you're probably better off with the AI at least building units and moving their workers around and trying than a disgrunted human player praying for the end of the game to come.
It's not about pride, or lack of pride, it's about common sense. The Ironman can be a great event, but when the game gets laggy, buggy, and delayed by subs coming and going, nobody should be penalized for wanting out of the game once they cannot score any points without a miracle or two.
|
|
|
Ironman
Sept 29, 2006 19:53:23 GMT -5
Post by eiffel on Sept 29, 2006 19:53:23 GMT -5
Well my point is that between ruining your game and fun and ruining the game and fun of all the others (except the lucky one that gets your land), i'd rather ruin your game.
And as someone else posted in this thread, someone not defending his land would be penalized also. An epic game is something different than other events, you just can't say "i won't get any point or valuable enough points for my clan, so i'm out"... in an epic style game like this one, you should stay and do your best even with bad land, i guess that's why it's called "ironman".
|
|
Arvcran
Worker
Tourney Director
Remember the purpose of CIV / BtS is enjoyment, entertainment, and hobby!
Posts: 181
|
Ironman
Oct 3, 2006 19:13:48 GMT -5
Post by Arvcran on Oct 3, 2006 19:13:48 GMT -5
Perhaps concession could be in the form of a vassal state?
My opinion on the Ironman being in the CCC is that it is an interesting type of event to have for the simple reason it is a 'complete' game of CIV.
Perhaps it does not need to be in every single CCC.
There could be other semi epic games like 250 turns from ancient or 250 turns from Medieval. (number of turns may be inaccurate here).
Having an event that encompasses all aspects of the game including diplomacy would be interesting. Instead of the cton style or semi-cton style - although I have not given the matter much though or have any historical experience with this concept. As some of you may have.
What I do like very much is opening up the event design to the entire community in a somewhat democratic way. This stimulates participation and interest in my opinion - keep up the good work ;-).
|
|
|
Ironman
Oct 4, 2006 22:55:35 GMT -5
Post by MMV on Oct 4, 2006 22:55:35 GMT -5
+75 say it's a classic and I agree.
"IRONMAN" does NOT mean starching and pressing your wife's blouses with a steam-iron"
It means a HARD LONG ENDURANCE CONTEST OF WHO CAN STAY SHARP THE LONGEST TO WIN THE GAME!
if you CAN'T run with the big dogs in ironman, stay on the porch and tend to your wrinkled clothes.
subs - p'shawwwwwwww, IMHO for every sub used in the ironman, their respective clans should get -1 point of their score from the event. Clan "strategies" to plan a sub every 2 hours is a bad idea and needs to be eliminated - I think that would cut down some of the "waiting periods" by 25%
I DO recommend though a TD sanctioned break (every 4 hours?) where players can shut-down their comps to clear ram, cache, etc to try to end some of the lag issues; and if there ARE to be subs allowed, this would be the time and place for them to enter - but ONLY ONE per game.
|
|
Arvcran
Worker
Tourney Director
Remember the purpose of CIV / BtS is enjoyment, entertainment, and hobby!
Posts: 181
|
Ironman
Oct 4, 2006 23:05:46 GMT -5
Post by Arvcran on Oct 4, 2006 23:05:46 GMT -5
"IRONMAN" does NOT mean starching and pressing your wife's blouses with a steam-iron" *Chuckle* 4 hours straight is alot perhaps a 2.5 hours break would be better- like having 4 quarters with three break periods ;-). Enough time to Iron your wife's blouse or any other activity that may be appropriate between quarters ;-).
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Oct 5, 2006 5:27:35 GMT -5
3-4 hour games are played on a regular basis on the ladder - I think the point of ironman is to go well BEYOND that.
Indeed, MANY members play all day (and night) playing SEVERAL 2-3 hour games per day going from one game ending right into another beginning.
With all the "relief" rules, maybe we should call this "Tinman" lol.
There are more than a few players who have played +18 hours with no subs - and I know of one (the world famous Iron Pants Magzi) who played 23 hours straight - came out of it sunday afternoon her time and played in 2 sunday events.
I'm only pointing out that it's individuals like these who make the "ironman" what it really is supposed to be.
With all these subs being used, perhaps we should call it "Tag-Team" civ and still have the ironman with what it's supposed to be.
|
|
Arvcran
Worker
Tourney Director
Remember the purpose of CIV / BtS is enjoyment, entertainment, and hobby!
Posts: 181
|
Ironman
Oct 5, 2006 15:58:19 GMT -5
Post by Arvcran on Oct 5, 2006 15:58:19 GMT -5
3-4 hour games are played on a regular basis on the ladder - I think the point of ironman is to go well BEYOND that. Indeed, MANY members play all day (and night) playing SEVERAL 2-3 hour games per day going from one game ending right into another beginning. With all the "relief" rules, maybe we should call this "Tinman" lol. There are more than a few players who have played +18 hours with no subs - and I know of one (the world famous Iron Pants Magzi) who played 23 hours straight - came out of it sunday afternoon her time and played in 2 sunday events. I'm only pointing out that it's individuals like these who make the "ironman" what it really is supposed to be. With all these subs being used, perhaps we should call it "Tag-Team" civ and still have the ironman with what it's supposed to be. You bring up a good point about what an event was conceived for. But I would argue it is supposed to be to test your endurance and contra-health skills. It may have been named with that tint as it does allow for a single person to abuse their person - true, but I would suggest rather that it is more to do with having a full epic style game. I am completely aware, though, that I may be completely wrong as I was not privy to the discussion pertaining to creating the event in the 1st place.
|
|
[KC]Bopper
Worker
The Knight Who Says 'Giddy-Up!'
Posts: 136
|
Ironman
Oct 5, 2006 17:02:13 GMT -5
Post by [KC]Bopper on Oct 5, 2006 17:02:13 GMT -5
MMV, I hear ya man. I had sent a suggestion to admin recommending that there be established break times every 4 hours for a stretch and a reboot. Also thought that multiple scoring at different eras as per epic games would be a good idea too. I have also enjoyed the odd 12 hour stint at the pc from time to time and thought that's what the Ironman was about. It's Turkey Day in Canada this weekend otherwise I'd be the first volunteer/victim for the KC team.
|
|
|
Ironman
Oct 6, 2006 13:26:16 GMT -5
Post by mansurji on Oct 6, 2006 13:26:16 GMT -5
well do you guys know the break after 4 hour is already in rule ( at elast it was on last Ironman )
i do think conceding is lame and should be punished. When i invaded ebd's land, i didnt took any precaution, i've just send 2 cossacks per town and made it ( what i wouldnt have tried vs ebd ). IA dont slave its town, and IA dont know how to defend at all ( ever seen an AI cutting his own roads ?! ) so well dont say IA is better defender than human.
i cant see the point of leaving : if i was about to be wiped out, i would defend myself from my best, to make my opponent suffering pain and i will let my land at high cost. A player invading an AI got an advantage which is not fair.
About the ranking system working on many dates, i'm up for, but we have to know if the ironman is the guy dominating the game or the one reaching the first a victory condition... which is not necessary the same.
I also think subs system should be reviewed... perhaps one per team and that's all.
|
|
|
Ironman
Oct 10, 2006 6:35:12 GMT -5
Post by matth on Oct 10, 2006 6:35:12 GMT -5
About the concequences of quit in Ironman :
The last one i played (2CCC ago), i attack and kill my neighbourg very fast (Swissy i think) and colonize my 2 land. The rush cost me a little lack of devellopement but not so much as i did it before Swissy could be able to defend. So i was in a very good situation.
Behind this new land there was someone (i don't remember who so we will call him the quitter because as you will see he quit...) who were between my new land and Tommy. I made an axeman with double forest promotion in the quitter land to prevent any surprise attack and i saw that tommy was preparing an attack on this guy. He quit after loosing his first city which was a new one and while he still have 4 city and his capital. The tommy army was not really strong but he had elephants and cata so it was sure he will finish by conquer the quitter. BUT : the quitter should have slave, should have made unit to keep it a bit difficult for tommy, but he didn't. He quit and what did the AI ? The AI had 3 axemans in one of his city and she send this 3 units on my double forest axemans and loose. She only had 1 archer to defend her city... So tommy could take it immediatly without any problem... A human guys would have slave to make some unit, forcing tommy to send reinforcement and took city with 1 pop instead of what he could take beautifull city at 4/5 pop and a lot easier. This kind of behaviour totally unbalanced the game. In something like 10 turns he had a beautifull 2nd land with beautifull city without any difficulty. And i ask myself that if it was someone else than tommy who would have attack the quitter would have at least try to defend but this is not the question. Totally unfair in any case. In this game Tommy get Liberalism 1 turn before me... I think this quit made him won a lot more than 1 turn... I don't say that i would have win : liberalism is not so important and who know what can happen in an ironman, but still it was unfair and Tommy get Cav before me because of the liberalism free tech.
That's why a rules that prevent conced in a way or an other should be interesting.
|
|