|
Post by notagoodname on Nov 15, 2006 17:48:22 GMT -5
As to the map size .. yes, it's regular size map, but the sea level will be low. Best, SPM Ahem high, you mean it will be high dammit Tried a practice match on it yesterday 4v4,standard size, high seal level. Ends up with >5 cities each so it's a pretty big map. It also comes down to more luck as resources are far more scattered due to the increased size. If your opponent starts near horse it may take a while to even find your iron.
|
|
|
Post by metallian on Nov 15, 2006 18:01:24 GMT -5
I've played numerous 4v4 inland standard ren games and they are turn out to be a buildfest which equates to no attacking. Frankly I'd like the Ren event to be pushed back to a 3v3 small inland because most 4v4's standard inland will definately come down to points, which will equals to 12-15 hour event. A 5v5 Ren event would actually speed up the games because more matches would end with kills opposed to point wars. 3v3 Ren on small inland map seems to be perfect size.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Nov 15, 2006 18:09:29 GMT -5
I've played numerous 4v4 inland standard ren games and they are turn out to be a buildfest which equates to no attacking. Frankly I'd like the Ren event to be pushed back to a 3v3 small inland because most 4v4's standard inland will definately come down to points, which will equals to 12-15 hour event. A 5v5 Ren event would actually speed up the games because more matches would end with kills opposed to point wars. 3v3 Ren on small inland map seems to be perfect size. I agree here -- 3v3 Ren Inland Small is my favorite 5v5 Ren Inland Standard would be my second choice 4v4 Ren Inland Standard/High Sea is a distant third option. Definitely playable and can still be fun, but many of the longest games (time-wise) I have ever played have been 4v4 Ren.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Nov 15, 2006 18:11:56 GMT -5
It also comes down to more luck as resources are far more scattered due to the increased size. If your opponent starts near horse it may take a while to even find your iron. Resources are supposed to be set to balanced so this should not be a problem. Each team will have 4 iron, 4 horse, and 4 bronze near their 4 starting locations.
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Nov 15, 2006 21:13:58 GMT -5
OK, I started out with the best intentions. A few people had recommended going back to the 5v5 format. Then when a number spoke against it, I suggested dividing the difference - but sometimes that just doesn't work.
For this CCC we'll go back to the exact same Ren format we used last time - 3v3 on small regular normal sealevel. Sorry for the confusion.
We can have a forum discussion and revisit this for future CCC's.
Best, SPM
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Nov 16, 2006 0:51:16 GMT -5
I'd like to see some teamers on Pangaea for the next CCC (it's arguable but some people say that regular Pang is better than Balanced--which was made for teamers). But either one would be fine with me! Anyone have any suggested settings for such a teamer?
|
|
|
Post by longhorn on Nov 16, 2006 1:46:37 GMT -5
Well SPM- I really appreciate you trying to incorporate suggestions given, but I understand the squeaky wheel gets oiled.
Well more than 50% of the teamers played are 5v5, so its extremely disappointing that allowing even 1 such event meets with such resistance. 3V3 Ren is probably played 20% max of the teamers I see, Its a far distant 100Th of favorites for me as even the 4v4 format is closer to what we really play-- yes lag can be a problem, but lag can be a problem with any game and any amount of players.
Maybe we can have some fun in the CCC next year and have one or two real CLAN teamers and not just short small piddly events. That doesnt mean it has to be in the ren era either.
Again thanks for trying to incorporate some other ideas.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Nov 16, 2006 2:00:19 GMT -5
I'd like to see some teamers on Pangaea for the next CCC (it's arguable but some people say that regular Pang is better than Balanced--which was made for teamers). But either one would be fine with me! Anyone have any suggested settings for such a teamer? Isn't the Classical teamer on Pangaea/Balanced?
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Nov 16, 2006 7:08:44 GMT -5
make the anc 4-4 or 5-5 then instead.
anc got way less lag problems and standard tbf d result in a way more fair game then small tbf
small tbf is really all about having res in cap range or u r screwed.
Anc 5-5 on tbf was the standard game untill some people got skilled in ren inland sea and didnt want to adopt to other eras or settings
|
|
vox
Settler
Posts: 15
|
Post by vox on Nov 16, 2006 9:15:57 GMT -5
Explain pls this matter to me: In the 4th event (CTON) - are the subs forbidden at all? So the same person have to play two 3-4 hours games and interval betwen in a row?
Also, I personally dont like idea with preliminary round for Ironman. It will lengthen this evemt even more and significantly decrease fun relatively huge 10-11 men game.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Nov 16, 2006 9:19:22 GMT -5
a 5v5 would be intersting IMO, considering 5v5 games are probally the most popular teamers, seems a bit of a shame not to have one.
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Nov 16, 2006 11:01:17 GMT -5
After this CCC, we will run a poll on 5 player per team games in the next CCC.
SPM
|
|
|
Post by eiffel on Nov 16, 2006 12:55:20 GMT -5
A 8 players ironman is not enough imo... why not allow 10 best (score) players from qualifications instead of 8 ?
|
|
|
Post by notagoodname on Nov 16, 2006 19:57:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Nov 16, 2006 22:42:23 GMT -5
Yes all the events are Warlords. It says that in the first sentence of the Main post. Best, SPM
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Nov 16, 2006 22:43:56 GMT -5
A 8 players ironman is not enough imo... why not allow 10 best (score) players from qualifications instead of 8 ? Yes, it seems to be the consensus that a 10 person Ironman is playable but the concern would be with a one round match of 13 becoming a lagfest. The top 10 finalists advance to Saturday's match. And the top 4 finishers of that earn points for their clan. Best, SPM
|
|
|
Post by Polydeukes on Nov 17, 2006 4:53:48 GMT -5
Event 6 -- I think the map change to C4F is good as it takes away a lot of the randomness of who wins the resource lottery in their capitals. With 1 city elimination on, the resource lottery becomes that much more important, so by slightly changing the map, the game can be more about strategy and less about Mali, Aztecs, and who gets Bronze and Horses. Mookie i completly disagree. C4F is a complete joke for that event. Why even plant another city if i got all i need in my cap? Create slavehell and its gg Only one leader allowed, you guys kidding me right Whats up with Mali, Aztecs? Shaka Zulu ==> gg The whole event is completly messed up. There are only a few ladder players who play anc tbg regularly. As one them, its sad but true, i have to play open games to play anc tbg games. Imo there is only one way to make this event playable again. 1. Regular Tbg NO C4F (Standard size ---> #3) 2. Ban Shaka Zulu and Montezuma 3. make it 4vs4 or 5vs5 4. 2 city Elimination We can discuss about #4. But imo 1 and 2 MUST be changed that way. Event #6 is unplayable right now. The better team wont win, the first pick will win.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Nov 17, 2006 7:58:42 GMT -5
Mookie i completly disagree. C4F is a complete joke for that event. Why even plant another city if i got all i need in my cap? 4. 2 city Elimination Polz -- my thoughts were that either we needed a map that would guarantee better resource allocation OR do 2 city elimination to make it less risky to plant a second city for a resource. Get unlucky and plant your second city with 2 Archers next to a small stack of Impis or Chariots and you're out of the game ... pretty harsh! I leave it to you Anc TBG experts to decide which idea is better .
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Nov 17, 2006 10:39:40 GMT -5
i really don't understand why same ladder cannot be pick by both teams... for sure, the game is played before it starts..
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Nov 17, 2006 11:06:58 GMT -5
i really don't understand why same ladder cannot be pick by both teams... for sure, the game is played before it starts.. I pressume you mean event 6 No me neither seems a stupid idea the highest ranked clan is obviously gonna win the Event if Civ leaders are picked by rank
|
|