|
Post by Sidhe on Dec 25, 2005 14:54:50 GMT -5
With the new patch I just lost a game to a Que Che who could now move enough to kill me because of the extra turn build. I settled immediately btw? And my scout was too far away to return, and most of the time it'll die anyway.
Surely there needs to be a rule against an unplayable start? I was building a warrior from turn one, with floodplains, when I saw him I changed to the one forest tile I had, but the 20% extra build meant it came a turn too late. Everyone in the game seemed to think this was perfectly ok and that I should report. But why report when it's blatantly the fault of the new patch, this couldn't happen before, except by popping a warrior from a hut, or if you settled too late. I really fail to see the logic in forcing a report from this situation. If I have to report fine. I think I'll take a sabbatical from ladder play until some common sense returns?
Personally if I'd of been on the other side I'd of said don't report, but then I'm not obsessed with getting cheap reports. When did fairness take a back seat? Honestly expect to see this happening regularly until the patch is re-patched? Fine I'm a whiner, whatever?
Sorry edited it: I wasn't building a worker or anything just straight warrior build, might of given the wrong impression
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Dec 25, 2005 15:12:11 GMT -5
The 20% was an unintended bug that will be fixed in the next patch. In the mean time you might want to play in slightly larger maps or play civs that start with warriors, not scouts.
CS
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Dec 25, 2005 15:17:42 GMT -5
It was small with 6 players, standard would probably be too big.
I apologise for the rant. But we do need some idea of fair play here? Or is forcing reports in untennable situations considered fair play now? I would imagine this isn't something deliberate as you mentioned, but it still sucks.
Thanks for the quick reply anyway.
|
|
|
Post by islandia on Dec 25, 2005 16:05:21 GMT -5
I've always felt that this was BS as well and have never asked for a report in any of my games where this has happened. However I think everyone in the game needs to agree on a resolution whatever it happens to be.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Dec 25, 2005 16:12:41 GMT -5
This needs to be fixed ASAP. It is totally pointless to run a ladder when "dead on launch" starts ocurr. Might as well have a coin-flipping ladder. If I had been in the game I would not expect a report from Sidhe
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Dec 25, 2005 17:28:46 GMT -5
wOwzaa! this is the first we've heard of this!!
no wait - it's not.
Yes indeed it was a turn 4/5 kill (no not by me) if you start with a scout and no warrior, keep your scout in your city for a few turns, it can defend in the city against an unpromoted Que Cha easily.
and as was pointed out in that game.... that 20% effected EVERYONE, not just a single civ - adjust and adapt accordingly.
But, the game played and almost all who lost reported, and almost all who won got their reports....
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Dec 25, 2005 18:46:20 GMT -5
u lost ... u report ..
quite easy not big of a deal - at least u havent had to suffer - like when playing some1 with res close and u dont have
its the game ... land and start (warrior or not) are important
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Dec 25, 2005 19:16:59 GMT -5
wowza you keep the scout in the city you lose anyway, 80% of the time, nice try. yes look at the odds, nonsense mmv, 20% bonus plus having 2 strength vs 1? 1.1 vs 2.2. Even against a warrior the odds suck, how many scouts have you kille in a forest? funny how easy it is to kill scouts with a warrior with better odds than in an early city? mmm I bet you like them odds? No it's fair because I say it is: fine, so I lose my advantage in having a scout and die anyway, brilliant, very clever and for my next trick....? More ignorant nonsense MMV? Really MMV your fighting a losing battle against the odds, this is fair, but then what does it matter? Fairness is well unfair, and games aren't meant to be fair, rules are absolute, unless we can find some way to abuse them, and then stand back and say: I was only following orders? Nice one MMV, hope you enjoy that anal make believe land you live in. For once try and live in the real world. Yes it's unfair: it doesn't have to be in a game We live in a world where anal retentive rule judges will find acceptance over the people with more common sense. hope you enjoy that experience, I'm sure you really were only following orders sorry kinda lost it there, one thing I can't stand is self righteous rule judges with no common sense, good on ya, hope you enjoy that black and white world you live in. Rules are made to be broken, unless you're MMV in which case you'll defend 'em to the death whether they make sense or not. Might want to think about what that saying actually means. We can accept an impossible situation as fair for a report because a) it's in the rules and B) they were made before this situation actually happened. Good for you, cup of self righteousness anyone? mmm.. really not my time of year, kinda edgy, sorry all, just keep losing it lately. Merry christmas, hope you have a great one, and hope you don't feel too much like I do. Oh and by the way tommy I've had that and came third a few times even won once, always something you can do, even if it is death by turn 30, at least game balance is maintained that's a situation you can live through if you know what your doing, or have a little luck, this isn't dead turn 1. I pick heads
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Dec 25, 2005 22:04:38 GMT -5
Keeping your scout in your city is not a option, well it is but a wasteful one as a warrior will generally kill it anyway.
Yes it is an impossible situation to get out of, but its very rare.
You think this is bad, I was in a cton a week or so ago, and by turn 20ish i had 3 civs units on me and 1 of them was a carriot, slowly but surely a few more carriots arrived, was totally resourceless. This is a way worst 2 hour situation. And just 2 days ago, in a FFA me and my ally done the some thing to a helpless neighbour, though no fault of his own, he had a unfair sucky ass game, but thats life.
As tommy said "you lose ... you report"
|
|
|
Post by Srayman on Dec 25, 2005 22:46:20 GMT -5
You could put the workers on the forest to get the warrior out sooner instead of putting them on the floodplains to start. It's usually the best idea to get a warrior in your city ASAP and to guard it, and working the forest even though only one production will get you that warrior that much quicker.
It's a price to pay when working the floodplains. The 20% production cost will be changed, so this could be an option again in the future giving you enough time to switch to the forest. But in your situation you weren't dead on turn 1, you just chose to work the floodplains tile first instead of going straight for the warrior by working the forest tile to start. It's a gamble that didn't pay off.
Sorry that the game happened that way, but every game is the choices we make.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Dec 26, 2005 0:36:34 GMT -5
wowza you keep the scout in the city you lose anyway, 80% of the time, nice try. yes look at the odds, nonsense mmv, 20% bonus plus having 2 strength vs 1? 1.1 vs 2.2. Even against a warrior the odds suck, how many scouts have you kille in a forest? funny how easy it is to kill scouts with a warrior with better odds than in an early city? mmm I bet you like them odds? No it's fair because I say it is: fine, so I lose my advantage in having a scout and die anyway, brilliant, very clever and for my next trick....? More ignorant nonsense MMV? Really MMV your fighting a losing battle against the odds, this is fair, but then what does it matter? Fairness is well unfair, and games aren't meant to be fair, rules are absolute, unless we can find some way to abuse them, and then stand back and say: I was only following orders? Nice one MMV, hope you enjoy that anal make believe land you live in. For once try and live in the real world. Yes it's unfair: it doesn't have to be in a game ::) We live in a world where anal retentive rule judges will find acceptance over the people with more common sense. hope you enjoy that experience, I'm sure you really were only following orders ;) sorry kinda lost it there, one thing I can't stand is self righteous rule judges with no common sense, good on ya, hope you enjoy that black and white world you live in. Rules are made to be broken, unless you're MMV in which case you'll defend 'em to the death whether they make sense or not. Might want to think about what that saying actually means. We can accept an impossible situation as fair for a report because a) it's in the rules and B) they were made before this situation actually happened. Good for you, cup of self righteousness anyone? mmm.. really not my time of year, kinda edgy, sorry all, just keep losing it lately. Merry christmas, hope you have a great one, and hope you don't feel too much like I do. Oh and by the way tommy I've had that and came third a few times even won once, always something you can do, even if it is death by turn 30, at least game balance is maintained that's a situation you can live through if you know what your doing, or have a little luck, this isn't dead turn 1. I pick heads ::) I didn't kill you I didn't make the rules In the game, no one said anything as you "went-off" just like you did here In the game, you announced to us alll in language that would embarass a sailor that you weren't going to report and you argued with everyone (but me) about it. All I said to you was Merry Christmas (after you assailed everyone). As everyone in the game told you, a loss report wasn't expected until you "went-off" on everyone. As they told you before you FINALLY left the game, they now expect one. And now? So do I. Once again - Happy Hollidays!
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Dec 26, 2005 2:24:41 GMT -5
It must be wonderful living in MMV world, the only piece of language I used that was fowl was that's bs unless you consider that's silly or stupid offensive? And had they all said I don't demand a report from the start, I would of said np. Upon asking if I had to report for that you said
'here's how to spell my name MMV'
and the other players agreed with you that I should report? Why would I argue the point if they had said Don't report? No MMV you said plain and simple that you wanted a report and they jumped on the band wagon with you. I tell you what why dont you fish out the chat log. You know what you said, you know precisely what I did. Kindly refrain from slander and lies.
Carry on lying to suit an abuse of the rules system, it's about what I'd expect.
Im sorry but going into a game on the understanding you may be be teamed up on is fine. If it happens you deal with it you chalk it up to experience, it'll even improve your defence and teach you something. Having to die turn 5 has taught me only one thing, that some people value a report more than they value fair play. Good luck to you if that's your attitude, and saying rules is rules, is about the worst possible defence for a situation which was never covered by the rules. Because of this 20% increase in cost I was dead. death by patching. Incidently I tried reloading the save and changing to a forest square turn 1 just to make sure, minimum build time is now 6 turns, with two hammers. Yes you can be dead before you start.
This needs to be cleared up with a rule, especially since it's now possible for this to happen without a lucky hut pop. This will be more common, and frankly I'd expect more people will be chalking up hollow victories on there scorecards and hiding behind redundent rules.
Obviously we can't have a blanket rule, but you can say at the players discretion death before turn 6 can be ruled as a no win situation.
If anyone wants to see the screen save from my start I'll send it to them. Had to use Direct ip and continue so the players in question aren't there, which is good. The civ and start are the same as in game though.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Dec 26, 2005 7:30:51 GMT -5
Just an after thought an unintended game glitch has caused an unwinnable situation that has gone from extremely rare to unlikely.
Until it happens to you and believe me it will, you can't possibly understand how frustrating having no chance is and how petty being forced to report for it is.
I Guess I'll just have to get used to the fact that the rules aren't suposed to make sense and that blindly following ludicrously inadeqaute rules like some inane sheep is considered au fait.
Let me ask you if Fried loses his win streak to this situation will we see a change to the rules? Or will we just ignore it and hope it goes away? Hopefuly it will, until then, use your discretion please, unfortunatley your gonna come up against the MMV's of this world, who have no concept of fair play and would demand a win if you started off on a barb, which btw is no different from this situation, try and ignore them. Dying turn 0, dying turn 5 all the same.
|
|
|
Post by civerdan on Dec 26, 2005 10:21:29 GMT -5
Working the forest instead of the floodplain at the start has been mentioned. The problem with this is your city will now be growing slower than everyone elses. Essentially handcuffing your growth because of a situation you have no control over. This isnt a issue of "taking the risk of leaving the city or not" at least in ancient start games. Few people I believe leave there first unit, especially a scout, in there city While building another.
The problem is this: Suppose a civ w/scout starts 6 tiles from an agressive civ w/warrior. The civ with the scout has to a) leave scout in city losing some benefits of having the scout. b) take working tile off food hurting city growth because scouts dont fair well against warriors, even in cities. Thats 2 negatives in addition to the problems starting that close causes in general.
Dont use civs with scouts? well not in your control if playing random.
Any game I have played in it is a restart or no report if you cant build a defensive unit in time. BTW, in single player games you will NOT get a conquest victory if you can kill the AI before they can build there first unit.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Dec 26, 2005 10:22:17 GMT -5
I've now recieved two reports, let me just say that I'd rather die than be forced to report on this issue to a bunch of unsporting players. I will withdar from the ladder for a while until this sort of behaviour of condoning unsportsmanlike behaviour stops flourishing: if a wins that important to you why not go play with yourself.
Rather that than encourage the petty little rule mongers who seem to have more sway than any with common sense. Plenty of games on other ladders. I'm sure MMV will be gutted, I just hope this guy get's his just deserts for leading such a shameful display, and lying to boot.
I'll be back I suspect Finally someone has made me create a DNP list, well done MMV your the one and only person on it. And unless someone of equally unsporting and petty demeanour comes along looks like you'll be the only one.
Sorry CiverDan your post must have gone up just before mine. We talked about this in the lobby, it's good that some other people find the situation ridiculous. I'm really not digging this type of thing, and if I'm losing my temper with people so be it. Something needs to be done whether it's a discretionary rule or otherwise, this situation is only gonna keep rearing it's ugly head until someone makes a ruling.
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on Dec 26, 2005 12:15:53 GMT -5
Kill is kill. If u start with scout and rule forbide to kill u in 10 turns and u exploring with scout... u exploit rule and ur in advantage. Use pangea map it is placement balance... I told placement no resource balanced. U can almost build warrior in 5 turn at start only if ur in floodplain. Then early kill is esape for u.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Dec 26, 2005 12:50:50 GMT -5
I understand what your saying Lestat, but this is not a situation that should exist, in fact the programmers tried to see that it doesn't, now that it does it behoves us to use a bit of discretion when aplying the letter of the law.
I'm not asking for anything out of order or unfair. We could have gone for a standard map but it would be too large as it was, the map then was completely unbalanced because now the guy had huge tracts of land to expand into and did nothing to earn it.
Fortunately he said he wasn't bothered about the report, he only made it cause I complained mostly in reaction to MMV's sarcastic crap, that guy bugs me. That just leaves MMV stand in his self righteous cubicle saying la la la. This is about sportsmanship or in this case the lack of it. If he wants to act like an ass that's his lookout. Just don't expect anything but contempt from me.
|
|
Trayk
Worker
Lets Party at your place!!
Posts: 148
|
Post by Trayk on Dec 26, 2005 13:28:46 GMT -5
I will withdar from the ladder for a while until this sort of behaviour of condoning unsportsmanlike behaviour stops flourishing: This is known in children. "Im going to take my ball and go home if I dont get my way" I hope you are more of an adult than this.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Dec 26, 2005 13:30:45 GMT -5
Erm maybe you have a point there, sorry that was an angry retort to having to report to MMV.
Point taken.
Lestat you can't build a warrior in 5 turns without more than two hammers which I couldnt do as I only had 1 forest even after expansion.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Dec 26, 2005 13:56:11 GMT -5
Sidhe, you have made your point. Have patience. I've been on the ladder a long time and have seen this situation before. Back in the PTW days the "dead on launch" start was starting near aztec. Back then the jag was cheaper and the aztec player could spit them out fast starting on turn one. He would scout with a couple until he saw a border. After that he stacked them up and killed the guy. No real skill, just do it.
That resulted in many posts similar to your's. Some players suggested that aztecs be banned. I was a TD back then and saw that almost every tourney run was won by aztecs.
With input from our ladder stalwarts Firaxis boosted the cost of jags in the next patch.
|
|