|
Cton
Aug 27, 2006 20:43:43 GMT -5
Post by mansurji on Aug 27, 2006 20:43:43 GMT -5
Babelfish dont always get the meaning of sentences
edit : fun to see the google translator give exactly the same false translation as babelfish.
2nd edit : if you have no french or canadian friend to translate it to you, just try to type Crapaud in google image ( instead of clamping plate ), and translate Bave by Spit ( instead of dribble ). The rest of the sentence is correct.
|
|
|
Cton
Aug 27, 2006 20:51:33 GMT -5
Post by Canucksoldier on Aug 27, 2006 20:51:33 GMT -5
Babelfish has got to be the worst online translator of them all CS
|
|
Arvcran
Worker
Tourney Director
Remember the purpose of CIV / BtS is enjoyment, entertainment, and hobby!
Posts: 181
|
Cton
Oct 3, 2006 19:25:08 GMT -5
Post by Arvcran on Oct 3, 2006 19:25:08 GMT -5
So what is the final result of the investigation of the CTON event in CCC. Are you not going to follow Mookie's suggestion of splitting CTON into a 2 round event? Or is the map size going to be determined based on clan participation?
Inquiring mind of curiosity and interest :-)
|
|
|
Cton
Oct 3, 2006 19:48:37 GMT -5
Post by ironclad on Oct 3, 2006 19:48:37 GMT -5
idk i think the full game cton is much better... sub out the lagger, dont know why he plays in first place
|
|
|
Cton
Oct 3, 2006 19:50:56 GMT -5
Post by ironclad on Oct 3, 2006 19:50:56 GMT -5
i have played 18 player ffa huge fractal games with tech trading, there was no lag in some of them all it has to do with is the type of players, map/game size doesnt matter
|
|
Arvcran
Worker
Tourney Director
Remember the purpose of CIV / BtS is enjoyment, entertainment, and hobby!
Posts: 181
|
Cton
Oct 4, 2006 22:59:03 GMT -5
Post by Arvcran on Oct 4, 2006 22:59:03 GMT -5
i have played 18 player ffa huge fractal games with tech trading, there was no lag in some of them all it has to do with is the type of players, map/game size doesnt matter Warlords or CIV?
|
|
|
Cton
Oct 5, 2006 0:01:36 GMT -5
Post by ironclad on Oct 5, 2006 0:01:36 GMT -5
warlords.. there is not as much lag in non teamers as there is less graphics, but there is still that plenty usual lag we get
|
|
Arvcran
Worker
Tourney Director
Remember the purpose of CIV / BtS is enjoyment, entertainment, and hobby!
Posts: 181
|
Cton
Oct 5, 2006 15:50:03 GMT -5
Post by Arvcran on Oct 5, 2006 15:50:03 GMT -5
warlords.. there is not as much lag in non teamers as there is less graphics, but there is still that plenty usual lag we get Ok - am looking for a lag prevention thread - or I'm posting one - just need to find an appropriate place for it ;-).
|
|
|
Cton
Oct 7, 2006 6:46:25 GMT -5
Post by venceslas on Oct 7, 2006 6:46:25 GMT -5
About the translation of the Mansurji's word:
La bave du crapaud n'atteint pas la blanche colombe.
From my dictionnary:
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
-------------------------------
I strongly suggest to revisit the cton rules, it was quite unbelievable that the TD ask to change the rules because he thinks it are unadapted. Ok players was ok, and he asks to head TD, but that was not my point. Generally speaking I like when you apply the written rules. SPM has posted the planning, so it's the duty to the player to tell if it's ok.
Clan trains with the written rules, so it's always annoying when written rules are not respected.
The positive thing was the game was almost fluid. Four hours for a 11 players cton seems ok in my view. I have never seen a cton so balanced. I think level of the game was very high.
chris.
|
|
|
Cton
Oct 7, 2006 18:21:42 GMT -5
Post by MookieNJ on Oct 7, 2006 18:21:42 GMT -5
While not taking part in the cton myself, looking at the results screenshot it looks like many players did very well -- the scores were very tight.
I would like to suggest again that the cton event be broken into 2 rounds if there are more than 9 players participating. For example, in last night's game with 11 players, they could have played a 5 player small map sized cton and a 6 player small map sized cton. The top scorer in each game automatically advances, and then the next best 4 scorers overall advance. They play in a final 6 player small map sized cton, with the results of this game determining the the points for the event.
|
|
|
Cton
Oct 7, 2006 21:09:47 GMT -5
Post by SirPartyMan on Oct 7, 2006 21:09:47 GMT -5
While not taking part in the cton myself, looking at the results screenshot it looks like many players did very well -- the scores were very tight. I would like to suggest again that the cton event be broken into 2 rounds if there are more than 9 players participating. For example, in last night's game with 11 players, they could have played a 5 player small map sized cton and a 6 player small map sized cton. The top scorer in each game automatically advances, and then the next best 4 scorers overall advance. They play in a final 6 player small map sized cton, with the results of this game determining the the points for the event. This is a very good suggestion, if the number of people registered is more than 9 or 10. Thanks, SPM
|
|
|
Cton
Oct 8, 2006 0:50:44 GMT -5
Post by Ellestar on Oct 8, 2006 0:50:44 GMT -5
While not taking part in the cton myself, looking at the results screenshot it looks like many players did very well -- the scores were very tight. I would like to suggest again that the cton event be broken into 2 rounds if there are more than 9 players participating. For example, in last night's game with 11 players, they could have played a 5 player small map sized cton and a 6 player small map sized cton. The top scorer in each game automatically advances, and then the next best 4 scorers overall advance. They play in a final 6 player small map sized cton, with the results of this game determining the the points for the event. In a game with 5 players, you'll get a bigger average score than in a game with 6 players. So, it's unfair to directly compare scores between such ctons.
|
|
|
Cton
Oct 8, 2006 1:16:57 GMT -5
Post by venceslas on Oct 8, 2006 1:16:57 GMT -5
The Mookie's suggestion make sense for me chris.
|
|
|
Cton
Oct 8, 2006 2:08:34 GMT -5
Post by MookieNJ on Oct 8, 2006 2:08:34 GMT -5
While not taking part in the cton myself, looking at the results screenshot it looks like many players did very well -- the scores were very tight. I would like to suggest again that the cton event be broken into 2 rounds if there are more than 9 players participating. For example, in last night's game with 11 players, they could have played a 5 player small map sized cton and a 6 player small map sized cton. The top scorer in each game automatically advances, and then the next best 4 scorers overall advance. They play in a final 6 player small map sized cton, with the results of this game determining the the points for the event. In a game with 5 players, you'll get a bigger average score than in a game with 6 players. So, it's unfair to directly compare scores between such ctons. Or you could just take the top 3 players from each preliminary cton then .
|
|
|
Cton
Oct 8, 2006 3:43:39 GMT -5
Post by churchill1 on Oct 8, 2006 3:43:39 GMT -5
Much easier - Don't play the cton at all. Decide who is the most likely to win and give them the points. Seriously though I am very much in favour of 2 rounds for the cton. If 9+ worked fine on a large map then I would love to see just one round, but afaik it doesn't. BTW what map settings and exactly how many players featured in this cton?
|
|
|
Cton
Oct 8, 2006 3:45:51 GMT -5
Post by churchill1 on Oct 8, 2006 3:45:51 GMT -5
In a game with 5 players, you'll get a bigger average score than in a game with 6 players. So, it's unfair to directly compare scores between such ctons. Or you could just take the top 3 players from each preliminary cton then . But, what if the players in one event are clearly stronger? Is there a way to make sure the skill is balanced between each 'semi-final'. I can't understand why there is no seeding in the knock-out events either.
|
|
Audrien
Settler
Administrator
Posts: 74
|
Cton
Oct 8, 2006 5:52:12 GMT -5
Post by Audrien on Oct 8, 2006 5:52:12 GMT -5
Or you could just take the top 3 players from each preliminary cton then . But, what if the players in one event are clearly stronger? Is there a way to make sure the skill is balanced between each 'semi-final'. I can't understand why there is no seeding in the knock-out events either. You cannot make sure that the skills of the players in each semi-final are balanced. You can seed the teams by ranking, by rating (skill), by register number (if you are using the case's tourney "software") or by random. Well we all know that rank (and maybe even skill) mean nothing. So it would not be sure if those teams were balanced if the teams where seeded by ranking or by rating (skill). (I think the software uses the first player's skill or ranking for the entire team. So if the first player that registers has a rank of 6 and a skill rating of 1842 and the other two players are ranked 340 and 278 with ratings of 1509 and 1789 the system uses the stats of the first player for the entire team. That way the system makes the team stronger than it would be if an average of the players of the team was used.) Furthermore you cannot seed them by ranking or rating because the members of the french clans usually dont play much at the US ladder - so their ranking and rating might be horrible even though they are good and very good players. That said the only way you can seed the players somehow balanced without corrupting the game would be the random seeding. The problem is though, that the tourney software from Case's can still not be used for that event as far as I know. But i might be wrong. So which way would be the best to seed the teams randomly? Some software would be best - cause a human would corrupt it ... ;D
|
|
|
Cton
Oct 8, 2006 14:31:00 GMT -5
Post by churchill1 on Oct 8, 2006 14:31:00 GMT -5
So which way would be the best to seed the teams randomly? Not sure what you mean by this. Yes i take your point that it is hard to seed teams fairly. But I think SOME kind of seeding is better than none. The best way to go IMO would be by clan placement in current standings or previous CCC. Or even better by placings in that particular event at the last CCC.
|
|
Audrien
Settler
Administrator
Posts: 74
|
Cton
Oct 9, 2006 5:40:50 GMT -5
Post by Audrien on Oct 9, 2006 5:40:50 GMT -5
Yes i meant fairly instead of randomly .....
|
|