Trayk
Worker
Lets Party at your place!!
Posts: 148
|
Post by Trayk on Feb 6, 2006 17:21:23 GMT -5
I only dnt like when he hosting game with name: "Ladder 1v1 only 20top ranked players" hope next time he will host : "Ladder 1v1 only womans alowed" Prolly cant get Women either ;D
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Feb 6, 2006 18:50:39 GMT -5
"Ladder 1v1 only womans alowed" You must get alot of dates........ especially the consensual type ;D
|
|
|
Post by salqadri on Feb 7, 2006 19:06:19 GMT -5
The problem with 1v1 I find is that it has quite a bit of luck imo. So, when one is on a high streak, then playing 1v1 might risk losing it more easily than teamers. In teamers, if you lack a resource, maybe your teammate has 2 of them. Or you may decide who needs it more sometimes. It reduces the amount of luck involved. But in a 1v1, if one person has copper in his city radius, and the other doesnt, then the former has a major advantage.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Feb 7, 2006 19:07:47 GMT -5
Interesting. I've always felt that 1v1s were a much safer game, because you didn't have to worry that a teammate was going to drop the ball; success or failure depended entirely upon you. Differences in perception, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by eiffel on Feb 7, 2006 23:12:33 GMT -5
You can play cton without beeing afraid of a teammate error... it's just not as safe as 1v1 ;D Success or failure depends entirely upon you as well but more players to watch out...
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Feb 8, 2006 16:33:13 GMT -5
ya espacially if u play some1 in modern era who never moved better units as knights before ..
I think having a +60 streak wiht only teamer proves that there are a lot of reliabe players out there
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Feb 8, 2006 19:34:15 GMT -5
You agreed to random era, Tommy. Don't be bitter that you lost with settings you agreed to; no one forced you to play it.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Feb 8, 2006 20:59:19 GMT -5
i got no problem with loosing - i do often enough
just wanteds to point out that there are sure and easy wins out there - but maybe winning a though game were u have to hope for some help from teammates is more fun
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Feb 8, 2006 22:00:20 GMT -5
Oh, I quite agree. Play teamers when I have the time, but sadly, that's only on weekends... at least until summertime.
|
|
|
Post by mrgametheory on Feb 9, 2006 0:41:28 GMT -5
Tommy you definitely have a problem with losing, lol, as do I, But when you play someone 1v1 there is no one to blame but yourself and as long as you play mirror there is no resource luck involved. And fried, I will agree to play you a random era any time 1v1 ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ascension/Necrominous on Feb 9, 2006 3:33:10 GMT -5
Why play 1v1 when you can play 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1. It's 9 times better according to my math.
Squeeze out every ounce of randomness and the game will loose some ziiiiing.
What separates the good players from the great players is knowing how to play all the different traits with all the different land starts and positions. Add all the different eras and teamwork as well on top of that. Put it all together and whatcha get, a players cumulative skill.
Have fun grinding it out in one on ones'. I'll stick to CTON's and teamers, where the action is.
|
|
|
Post by mrgametheory on Feb 9, 2006 4:09:10 GMT -5
I think your right hands down, there is nothing better than wasting 2 hours in a game that gets ruined by a game crash which forces everyone to restart and than waste another 30 minutes trying to restart because everyone cant get in because of peer problems, or how about waiting for players that lag or my favorite, players that magically drop or several players that magically drop and being forced to waste 10 minutes x 2-3 or my favorite, games that never finish and get sacked because too many players drop, but hands down, you got to love waiting for 25 Minutes for all the players to join to get the full 6-10 in the beginning my favorite, being suicided by one player and letting worse players catch the lead or take it, or playing in a game with 8 people and 7 are super experts (Obviously an exaggeration) and 1 isn't and that newb being killed and their neighbors getting the free land and dominating or being stuck on a team with a bunch of newbs and one of them dies and ruins game for the rest of the team, or like 500 other things i could mention relating to the mechanics of a teamer/cton game and surrounding it. But don't get me wrong. I personally think there is more skill in playing a FFA Epic (Negotiation, trade, etc) than a 1v1 duel, but heyyyyyyyyy wait a minute, no one plays these. If you could remove the problems associated with lag and filtering out matched players, it would help. I Understand how people say that there are more variables in Cton and teamers and that adds to the fun,a nd dont get me wrong, I play ctons and teamers and they are more fun on different levels that 1v1. I even understand the people who love to play with a random newb here and there because it adds spice and luck to the mix. But in the end, far more cton and teamer games are not worth the investment in the grand scheme of things and I dont sit here like most people and have 4-10 hours a day to play this game. If everyone gets into the swing of teamers and ctons there is no great players to play duels and out of this happening I push for more duels and it being hip in peoples minds. So of all of the above, I chose 1v1 duels, not just because of the skill and lack of luck variables, but because I can start a game in 5 minutes, end it in 30 - 2 hours and only have to worry about crashes and lag 5-10% of the time and actually get to enjoy a game, as opposed to sitting in a staging room or a voting screen
|
|
|
Post by Ascension/Necrominous on Feb 9, 2006 4:24:55 GMT -5
My guess, you will remain a good player and never become a great player due to that way of thinking. If one on ones turn you on, have a blast. I like CIV orgies. Everyone gets f ;D ed.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Feb 9, 2006 7:45:37 GMT -5
I think each discipline has its own enjoyments and negativities. 1v1s are very direct conflicts; no one else helps you, but no one else gets in the way, either. Demographics intelligence information is very potent, and psychological tricks are very direct tactics. Teamers are about communication and camraderie - large scale tactics and wide manuevers between multiple players. You have to worry about infrastructure and reinforcement lines between teammates, specialist players, multi-dagger rushes and massive late-game sledges. CTONs are swirling melees where allegiances change and being above and below the radar is wise. You have to simultaneously plot the demise of neighbors and worry about neighbors (plural!) plotting your own demise. And sadly, the long-lost FFA is a diplomatic knife game where people make deals and break them, trade tech for time alive, vicious partnerships come and go on the wind, and more. All of these have their merits and their downsides. None are best, and none alone are the mark of a "great player." 1v1s teach dealing with a problem yourself and being innovative because you have nowhere else to turn. Teamers teach large tactics, feints, and massive strikes. CTONs teach survival instincts, watching opportunities and taking them, and not being so large a target as to get everyone after you. FFA - though sadly, it never seems played - is a match of diplomacy, cunning, and offering techologies or allegiances for time and manuevering room. Unfortunately, too many people take the diplomatic sneakery and backstabbing of FFA much too seriously, and it isn't played anymore. None of those are best; some people like one style, and some like another. People will swear by one or another, but as far as I'm aware, no one's ever proven which is best. Different styles of the same beast, all opinion, and all fun. Some people like everything but CTON (I do like regular FFA amongst friends,) some people like everything but 1v1s, and for example, EoN liked everything but teamers. Let's not slag each other's preferences - play, have fun.
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on Feb 9, 2006 9:57:30 GMT -5
Tommy you definitely have a problem with losing, lol, as do I, But when you play someone 1v1 there is no one to blame but yourself and as long as you play mirror there is no resource luck involved. And fried, I will agree to play you a random era any time 1v1 ;D Not true. U blame me or Firaxis or Sid pffff Now sirious I love to play 1v1, CTON, teamers on each era. All is fun and in all type of games u can learn something. U guys who said that 1v1 is crap just admit that u are scared . In 1v1 u dnt have noob neighbourhs for cover.
|
|
|
Post by salqadri on Feb 9, 2006 15:55:20 GMT -5
Man do I miss FFAs. Havent played one since I joined ladder. My favorite settings were: Continents, Blazing, Small/Standard, 6/7 players, and the game would last around 6 hours, from the stone age to the nuclear age. Now, THAT, was fun. Ofcourse, I was a newb, but so were all the other ppl I played, and I enjoyed it thoroughly. I would never play a game where there was no tech trading, cuz that takes all the smartness and fun out of the game.
And now, I only play teamers, and even that only with the people I want to play with. My thinking is, if I wanna play, might as well get ranked for it. Or nowadays, I have a nice big streak, lets keep it going by avoiding ctons and only play the teamers with top 10 ppl. But then I often cant even play those cuz RedP and I can never connect with each other. lol, I feel sad for myself!
|
|
|
Post by deviousdevil on Feb 9, 2006 19:12:29 GMT -5
Well as a rank no. 18 (top ever 5) I played my 4th or 5th 1 vs 1 to keep him MrGameTheory happy.
It didn't work, he is still not happy.
|
|
|
Post by mrgametheory on Feb 9, 2006 19:46:20 GMT -5
wow it takes some balls to brag about a game that you won for the sole reason of my Chariot not being able to kill your skirmisher with a 97% odds of winning and you ended up taking a city with the same skirmisher.
I can see the joke that the gods are playing on me in allowing this to happen and you being the type of person that would post such a thing if it were to occur.
In the end, I am obviously not invinciple and I lose in all types of games all the time, but when something like that happens, I feel compelled to just resign in the middle of a game, like I did, because I dont react well to divine intervention.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Feb 9, 2006 20:44:41 GMT -5
Let me guess Mr whine theory, he tampered with the RNG.
But something is really confusing me, why didnt you pick England and use your BS theory to win? You said you done the maths why not put it to practice?
I think the CIV gods dont like all your whining either, thats my theory anyway.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Feb 10, 2006 8:15:50 GMT -5
Uh. HOW exactly does a chariot have 97% odds to kill a skirmisher?
|
|