|
Post by MookieNJ on Mar 21, 2006 2:01:10 GMT -5
I think self policing is the best way to handle this situation. We all play together in teamers often enough that anyone who consistently leaves the game immediately after teams are picked will get a bad reputation. That bad reputation will make him (or her) a last resort to be invited back to future games, which is good enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Mar 21, 2006 2:52:57 GMT -5
One thing that really made me chuckle was when playing a c3c future awhile back, the captain decided he didn't like the team he picked himself and left.
So let me see if I got this correct. If I'm on a team I like, I pick my civ and check-in fast and say lets roll. And if I don't like my team I demand a re-pick or leave. Got it.
Seriously, I have seen this happen 3 times so far in CIV and a few other times were that may have been the case but they had some excuse to leave. It's not a huge problem but I can see this attitude rubbing off on others and increasing as more people feel why should I play as an underdog when he won't and the problem multiples and multiples.
Another thing, what's a fair team is very subjective. Someone you feel is a noob may have gotten much better since the last time you played or someone you think is good may have just been lucky and had a great start last game you played with him. Or a player may be great to others but you think he sucks because he plays in a different style than you do.
Hopefully the peer pressure/blacklist will work but with the vote going against me and many feeling this is acceptable, I'm left with doubt. Let the staging room debating begin.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Mar 21, 2006 8:37:14 GMT -5
"And if I don't like my team I demand a re-pick or leave. Got it." Some may do that but I should hope the community is strong enough to make them realise via verbal cues that it wont be tolerated and could handicap thier chances of futher play. Without selfpolicing...if there are no admins around does the lobby fall to peaces?
|
|
|
Post by lporiginalg on Mar 21, 2006 20:57:08 GMT -5
Just as the admins point out and as your loopy poll will prove, there is nothing wrong with quitting a game that hasn't started. Sometimes players that you know are only semi-skilled get high ranked because they havn't been on ladder very long and had some lucky wins. They havn't even played long enough to know which players to choose. I'm pretty sure the game I left the other day is the only time I've done that in some odd 300 team games I've played, at the time I just didn't feel like investing 6+ hours in a totally lop-sided 7v7. Just as Yilar pointed out, I could've made up some bs excuse, but I gave you guys the option of letting me captain instead and repicking teams. But you guys wanted your little stacked game so I left. Deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Mar 21, 2006 22:42:20 GMT -5
Loopy huh. I guess if giving a scenario and asking how everyone feels about it is loopy, why even have the forums? I thought that's why the forum was created, to discuss issues and get member feedback.
By the way if the game was as lopsided as you say it would not have taken over in an hour to be decided and you wouldn't have invested 6 hrs in the game.
In my opinion if you thought the captain was not qualified enough to be trusted picking teams, then you should have declared that before the picking started, not wait to see which captain picks you and then rebuke the teams. Most members I know, especially a noob, will gladly hand over the captain duty's to someone else, and I would guess you would have had no agreements from anybody in the staging area in regard to you assuming the captains responsibilities, before the first pick was made.
Another thing, I would bet my left testicle that if our positions were reversed the game would have move forward and begun. That is how sure I am that you would not have demanded a re-pick stating you're not comfortable with the teams and there not even in that case.
I'm not sure how uneven the game was for I can't judge all the players skill but the captain did make a unwise first pick.
Back to the loopyness of this poll. I think this is good, even though the poll is going against me(some seemed to vote that way just because they considered it unenforceable)the respondents I would say are about split down the middle. A voter that doesn't back up his vote I don't have near the respect for as one who gives the reason openly for all to see why he decided to vote as such. I actually have much respect for you for admitting it was you and that you consider either me loopy or the thread loopy. We are all finding out who is who. Loopy! I like that word.
|
|
|
Post by Ascension on Mar 21, 2006 23:09:29 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]Loopy Loopy Loopy Loopy Loopy Loopy[/glow]
[glow=red,2,300]Loopy Loopy Loopy Loopy Loopy Loopy[/glow]
I like that word very much too.
|
|
|
Post by lporiginalg on Mar 21, 2006 23:23:09 GMT -5
your poll is loopy because it doesn't offer all the options, some people don't mind fighting uphill battles, usually I don't, but that night I wasn't in the mood. And you're right, if I feel my team is stronger I'm not gonna put up a fuss but even one player on your team was in agrreance with me that it was lop-sided. I found a replacement for myself of equal skill and the first thing he did when he joined room was to pm me telling me he understood why I left and that if a repick didn't happen he would quit as well. Why don't you just accept the fact that some people don't want to waste their time with stupid one-sided games.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Mar 21, 2006 23:59:01 GMT -5
Good point Dusty. When you want a balanced game, often 2 equally skilled vets are nominated as captain in order to have a real fight so to speak.
The ideal of top rank caps is only important when you climb standings and are getting close to the top. If top rank is there and 7th rank is also there he just may want to take a chunk out of the champ ;D
|
|
|
Post by lporiginalg on Mar 22, 2006 0:26:48 GMT -5
I really don't see the issue here. CS See DD?
|
|
|
Post by lporiginalg on Mar 22, 2006 13:45:14 GMT -5
Out of context? What the hell was he talking about? dancing the macarena? Whether or not CS would ever 'take his ball and go home' from staging is hardly the issue. The issue is that all ladder players have the right to do so. I really don't like your implications that I have behaved immaturely and that I'm a game quiting rank monger. If you guys have such problems with the rules of the league why don't you start your own instead of slandering people in the forum because they aren't doing what you feel is appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by civerdan on Mar 22, 2006 17:58:28 GMT -5
Back to the topic at hand. There are times when either giving highest rank first picking or even letting him pick "elrad" style results in an unbalanced them. I understand the idea of selecting diff capts to balance teams or even allowing the 2nd cap to pick first. But when top 10-20 players are involved, it can unblance the ranking sometimes. In a recent 5v5 teamer ranks 4 and 5 were in the game but letting rank 4 pick first it was decided would result in unbalanced teams. so rank 5 picked first. ultimately the team of player with rank 4 lost. the opposite likely would have been true if rank 4 had been allowed to pick first.
|
|
|
Post by Ascension on Mar 23, 2006 2:25:27 GMT -5
Not to worry Civerdan. The way it looks, we will adopt a new picking system so that will not occur again. We need to just keep picking teams till everyone in the staging room unanimously agrees its a perfectly even match. I mean come on ladies and gentleman, it's so simple why didn't we think of it before. It will be fantastic! If that don't work we can just add two player or switch a player and do it all over again but ding darn-it we well eventually get a team game that is a completely equal match up. If that doesn't work and we still can't quite get it fair, we'll need to have everyones phone number listed so we will be able to call in a person to play who all has voted would be the perfect person to add to the game to make it even. After we get a precisely balance competition started and one person doesn't have as good as land as a person on the other team or a noob is matched up with a vet on the front line we can just meet back in the staging room and redo it again and again till all are unequivocally satisfied with their land and there are no vet vs noob front-line battles.
We need only to follow these few simple steps to guarantee a totally suitable contest of players with indisputably equal skill levels. I'm sure all can agree that this will make for a much more enjoyable experience. When this system is adopted by all the host in ladder, we might even have some games that end up as a tie game. Exciting. No one will have to report and we can wish each other well and play with each other all over again. My heart feels at ease knowing that this dispute will be amicable worked out.
|
|
|
Post by alice on Mar 23, 2006 17:11:18 GMT -5
love to lay on the sarchasm dont ya in truth i think that though you write between the lines, i have not found this issue to affect too many of my games, though it is an old issue that dated way back in to civ3 ect ... but i dont think it is really that big a deal. It happens once in a while, but in my experiance, most players are able to reach concensus. We are imo a rather reasonable group here, its true that some can be imature, or obstinente, however i dont think it is a rule but rather the exception. A player shows charecture through time and it is not to difficult to know with what to trust whom. black list as nescessary i suppose, this aint one of the reasons someone would end up on my blacklist though, (i save my blacklist for 50% win ratio players who go crazy with the ping button that keep trying to tell you how to run civ. )
|
|
redphoenix
Warrior
CCCAC Representative
Posts: 253
|
Post by redphoenix on Mar 23, 2006 18:42:12 GMT -5
Unfair teams is quite subjective, player skill is a matter of opinion in most cases. And usually formed from only a few games, atleast in most problematic cases when people disagree on who's good.
Anyway if its a top 10 game, I'd say the players who are their position should be the captains, otherwise ranking really means nothing, even if it's not "the big deal" anyway.
For example I was playing a title game a while back, with rank #1(me) and rank #2 in game. People demanded that someone else would captain? I mean come on you can't do a title game with anyone else than the rank #2 captaining.... Otherwise ask the admins to drop you in rank, they can actually do that I think.
If you gain rank it's tuff luck, deal with it, lose some games to drop in rank if you can't handle it. If you win, then chances are you actually deserve that rank, so get on with the show and captain your team. I think Elrad picking is a good solution to most games, and someone else in game can make suggestions to team composition too if necessary (2nd captain doesn't know anyone there).
If it's other rank positions sure doesn't matter who captains, I don't mind someone else taking over capping or people passing up on capping either. But if it's a top match the players should cap.
Anyway I've played a nutsload of games on the underdog team, and guess what... it's just a game. Win or lose, fun isn't only to be found in having a perfect balance or the better team, the game can it self be fun. Sometimes you can have a nice laugh about someone really messing it up too.
Yeah I like to get a good team too I don't deny that... most here do, but I have found a lot of fun playing on the nutsty poor or a little weaker team too. And I've won quite a few times on the weaker team, personal contribution can make a big difference. Sure I lost quite a few times too, but it's life, just a game.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Mar 23, 2006 18:47:55 GMT -5
we're a reasonable group of people here?
well that's just CRAZY talk, lol!
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Mar 23, 2006 22:55:50 GMT -5
Ditto everything RedPhoenix wrote with one exception. I mean, come on! What a load of whoowee. Do you really expect anyone to believe that one statement? I've heard some whoppers in my day but that one takes the cake. You should be ashamed of yourself after uttering such nonsense. It's just so completely off the wall unbelievable that it makes me guffaw uncontrollably. You being on the underdog team? Pfff! Red, you being on a team automatically makes it the favorite to kick :oss.
|
|
|
Post by lporiginalg on Mar 24, 2006 2:14:34 GMT -5
How much is red paying you Necro?
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Mar 24, 2006 23:56:03 GMT -5
Well, I would say that is the epitome of misquotation, but wait, not so fast. Now that you say that, I think Redphoenix was on the team opposing lporiginalg when he left and Red was on the winning team after we had to do the picking over and Red's team won the game before that as well. Hmm, maybe he is just too damn good and maybe the one must be sacrificed for the good of the whole. The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few. Sorry Red, but you gotta go. Bye. Live long and prosper.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Mar 25, 2006 15:47:44 GMT -5
Things to remember when you quit unfair teamers: 1. Always come up with some lame excuse, like emergencies or power outages. " Guys I have to leave, the power went out and I cannot play any longer" Um... Smoke signals? hehe yea I get the point, just funny.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Mar 25, 2006 15:58:10 GMT -5
I really don't see the issue here. CS See DD? I imagine many of these posts are 'not seeing the issue' IMO as they have not played many (ren especially) teamers. Set up takes from few mins.(20) to well over an hour I chit u not. Waiting a long [glow=green,2,300][/glow]LONG time for a game then ahving to restart the process from some point already covered is sucky... [shadow=blue,left,300]to say the least[/shadow]. I have played many a game where someon comes in with a player to screw the game over, played 3 in a row with them went -26 for the day, [glow=red,2,300]THE DAY I SAID[/glow][shadow=red,left,300][/shadow] I played, I did not leave. Then again I started resetting stats, too many get way too tied up in numbers. Most of the top 20 are remedial overall civ4 players; on any given day. Was in a game where there was an unranked guy, never heard of him. everyone bagged on him and said how unfair the game would be. He spoke intelligently. That in mind the game is not tough to play. He was up for advice. He could have changed names, anything could have been the case. I barked at the crew in the room for being so lame as to judge someone to such an extent w/o any idea what or who he is/was. lame teams, say so, try to fix it. I will play anyway, always have, stats usually reflect it Overall I agree with both Necro and ascen on this one (ouch)
|
|