|
Post by Lestat on May 15, 2006 8:23:51 GMT -5
I saw nice name of game before 2 days:
"JUST PLAY AND SHUT UP".
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on May 15, 2006 11:57:57 GMT -5
ellsestar well i know some people find ctons fun and some people don't. fair enough. i don't find teamers fun, but if i said they are not fun for everyone, that'd be a pretty arrogan thing to say. and to say they aren't competitive, i'm not sure how you can justify this. sure there are only a few really good players playing cton, but when they play it is very competitive. and unlike some teamers u don't often know about 30 turns in who will win. sure if ur playing a lot of people who aren't very good, then it isn't competitive and it isn't fun. so more good players should play cton.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on May 16, 2006 1:30:21 GMT -5
ok, I've read the whole thing and this appears to be the conclusion you all have reached:
1 - no one wants noobs to play because they will mess-up the ladder teamer game
2 - doesn't matter if you're a noob because all you're supposed to do is exactly what the team captain says.
3 - all losses are then blamed on anyone who doesn't listen to the team captain.
3 - it is in fact then, brainless, lol!
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on May 16, 2006 2:37:28 GMT -5
better dont talk about brainless when thinking that after 3 there s another 3 - some might think u lack some important part
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on May 16, 2006 6:53:47 GMT -5
Ooh, ice burn!
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on May 16, 2006 8:28:36 GMT -5
hahahaha
|
|
|
Post by MMV on May 16, 2006 9:36:30 GMT -5
better dont talk about brainless when thinking that after 3 there s another 3 - some might think u lack some important part oh come on tommy - I used two 3's on purpose so you and your " peope" could civ and count at the same time
|
|
|
Post by Tony on May 16, 2006 21:24:32 GMT -5
MMV could you explain why all your posts are lame jokes that hardly ever make sense? I appreciate you try hard to be class forum clown, but with every single post? But when you are not telling lame jokes you are making things up: although it's not TRULY indicative, if someone has +500 gold by turn 30, it could be a clue (workers generate wealth, through happiness, growth, production, etc). That's how we found out that player XXXXXX did it in an OCC - he had 3000 gold at turn 50. When we got close enough, his land was COVERED in workers (more workers than military units) Just played a non-ladder player that at turn 30, WITHOUT pyramids (I had them) he did a 600 point score jump in one turn (after almost lagging out) without a culture bump. Go figger' It's cheats, exploits, whatever you want to call them These things aren't possible without cheating. * edited to add - fortunately we see these things more in non-ladder games than ladder games. Im not sure which is worst Not trying to be rude, but what i want to know, is there a reason for this "never talking straight"?
|
|
|
Post by MMV on May 17, 2006 0:09:10 GMT -5
MMV could you explain why all your posts are lame jokes that hardly ever make sense? I appreciate you try hard to be class forum clown, but with every single post? But when you are not telling lame jokes you are making things up: although it's not TRULY indicative, if someone has +500 gold by turn 30, it could be a clue (workers generate wealth, through happiness, growth, production, etc). That's how we found out that player XXXXXX did it in an OCC - he had 3000 gold at turn 50. When we got close enough, his land was COVERED in workers (more workers than military units) Just played a non-ladder player that at turn 30, WITHOUT pyramids (I had them) he did a 600 point score jump in one turn (after almost lagging out) without a culture bump. Go figger' It's cheats, exploits, whatever you want to call them These things aren't possible without cheating. * edited to add - fortunately we see these things more in non-ladder games than ladder games. Im not sure which is worst Not trying to be rude, but what i want to know, is there a reason for this "never talking straight"? not making it up - and don't feel the need to prove it to you - also don't feel the need to forward the saves or screen-shots to ladder admins as they weren't ladder games the LATEST cheat (off the ladder)? A cheat that starts a player with 500 gold. Yesterday I went into a game (dropped player) in progress and it was turn 5 (1st warrior popped in city was 5 turns from completion - scout 6 hexes from cap - not much explored. 500 gold in the pot. What do you think, the scout hit 5 villages all next to each other and got 100 from each? And yes, you're rude - asking me about being "forum clown" and accusing me of lying proves it and makes your posts 100% worse than mine. Try getting out of those ladder ren teamers and see what's actually happening - if you can - you might be surprsed how many people AREN'T as rude as you. But - thanks for rudely posting (again), your constant accusations of "liars" on the forums (this isn't your first time) are fun for all. Why heck, I bet if zerza hadn't been banned for acting the same way, he might have had enjoyed them too! //edited to add// look at the last 10 posts that are listed on your own profile - it pretty well defines who you are.
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on May 17, 2006 2:47:10 GMT -5
the LATEST cheat (off the ladder)? A cheat that starts a player with 500 gold. Yesterday I went into a game (dropped player) in progress and it was turn 5 (1st warrior popped in city was 5 turns from completion - scout 6 hexes from cap - not much explored. 500 gold in the pot. What do you think, the scout hit 5 villages all next to each other and got 100 from each? No, I think you're full of it. Here's why: not making it up - and don't feel the need to prove it to you - also don't feel the need to forward the saves or screen-shots to ladder admins as they weren't ladder games If I say that Martians have invaded Boston, provide no backup or proof for my claims, and you tell me it's not true, do I get to insult you for calling me a liar?
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on May 17, 2006 2:48:25 GMT -5
As much as I love team games, I have to admit that I am getting pretty frustrated watching my unexperienced teammates getting slaughtered on the front just about every game while I'm on the other side of the map where I can't help them. In two of my recent losses, I have the highest or second highest MFG, decent GNP for having high MFG, tons of units, keeping my front safe and taking cities from the other team. In the meantime, in these two consecutive games, two different people on the front are building aqueducts in size 4 cities while they have no units. Along comes a stack of knights and they are dead. PLEASE BUILD DEFENSES IF YOU ARE ON THE FRONT! YOU NEED TO LIVE! WOULD YOU DO THIS IN A CTON? Ugh. Just use common sense, please, it's not hard .
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on May 17, 2006 3:17:32 GMT -5
Damnit...I'm going to have to suck it up and apologize to tommy for my earlier post in this thread. Hopefully it wasn't too scathing, but after the past week and a half, I am beginning to see his point.
I too was in the same two games as Mookie where the front line players were building aqueducts within the first 25 turns of the game. The aqueduct was taking 14 turns to build in the 1st game, and 12 in the second. They were 120 turn games so that's 10% of the game wasted for 1 city to build something. Not very cost effective, a warrior would be a better choice in a ren game as you can use it later for happiness/Hereditary Rule for a back line city later down the road.
Seeing a city over 15 tiles away from the front being razed by 3 knights, with 2 cities in front of it, while building an aqueduct makes me sad.
Also, seeing a size 4 city two tiles away from the front after being culture bombed and roads all the way up to it, while building an aqueduct, with India opposing also makes me sad.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on May 17, 2006 3:20:03 GMT -5
As a possible solution to watching new player after new player struggle to play on the front, Dey has come up with this:
If a previously agreed upon "new player" (or perhaps simply the last player chosen on each team) is on the front, the game can be reloaded (not remade) with that player swapping positions with another player on the team.
I know that some of the fun GameSpy connection issues may further complicate this, but I know I'm not the only one sick of having to report 5 losses because the weakest player on the team got stuck in the toughest position. If we can get behind this idea, new players can learn the game from a safer position, watch more experienced players and pick up tips, get coached from the veterans, and not be in constant danger of dying. It should be more fun for all, and hopefully will result in a collective drop of all of our blood pressures.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on May 17, 2006 3:46:41 GMT -5
The only other solution I have is to give the lesser inexperienced players Aggressive Civs. For Ren Teamers, the only safe civs I can see to give are Inca for Quechas to break out of an early Longbow choke, Alexander for Phalanxes to stand up to knights in the absence of iron, or Tokugawa for the Samurai which only require copper. The other civs require some skill to use properly and in the wrong hands can kill it for your team.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on May 17, 2006 5:51:09 GMT -5
I like mokkies idea - is it somehow able to create a map where to locations of players arent random?
and MMV calling tony rude is another "joke" from u - he s the most allways friendly guy i saw playing civ4 maybe beside nero
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on May 17, 2006 6:02:47 GMT -5
The only other solution I have is to give the lesser inexperienced players Aggressive Civs. For Ren Teamers, the only safe civs I can see to give are Inca for Quechas to break out of an early Longbow choke, Alexander for Phalanxes to stand up to knights in the absence of iron, or Tokugawa for the Samurai which only require copper. The other civs require some skill to use properly and in the wrong hands can kill it for your team. Quechuas! I've never seen anyone leverage those in Renaissance. I guess they are definitely pretty cheap, though, and effective. I might have to try Incas and do that next game I play (if I ever play another game, hehe.) Agg/Fin are fine traits for sure. EDIT: Player placement choice would be a godsend and I think would add a whole new level of skill to the game, as you could really assemble a team with traits and people that were extremely strong in their position. I know personally (even though I can handle a front line position acceptably against most players) I would be very happy to be able to slot myself into a support position in team games, and I'm sure a lot of people like tommy would be happy to take a front position if they could.
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on May 17, 2006 8:58:20 GMT -5
why u dont try this : 1. If builder player is in front then - killer player and those one just replace their positions via rejoin.... dont kno if this is forbiden in ladder. Second, I saw that "experts" were killing in teamer on the front line bc their mistakes... but no one blame them. (maybe noob dont kno that they made mistakes).
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on May 17, 2006 11:39:08 GMT -5
i love the quecha v longbow idea. on plains it would take 2/3 quechas i reckon to kill a bow. hm if the bow was on a hill much, much more though. heh great diea.
|
|
|
Post by weaksauce on May 17, 2006 13:15:18 GMT -5
As a possible solution to watching new player after new player struggle to play on the front, Dey has come up with this: If a previously agreed upon "new player" (or perhaps simply the last player chosen on each team) is on the front, the game can be reloaded (not remade) with that player swapping positions with another player on the team. I know that some of the fun GameSpy connection issues may further complicate this, but I know I'm not the only one sick of having to report 5 losses because the weakest player on the team got stuck in the toughest position. If we can get behind this idea, new players can learn the game from a safer position, watch more experienced players and pick up tips, get coached from the veterans, and not be in constant danger of dying. It should be more fun for all, and hopefully will result in a collective drop of all of our blood pressures. i played a game last nite - each team had 1 new player... ours ended up on front line. he immediately lost 1 city (front city, 2nd settler) to longbowman and a camel archer. the opposing team had their new guy buried in the back. but we then micromanage everything our teammate did, and our team eventually won the game anyway. i say dont reload... let them screw up and learn. if he dies and u all report losses, who cares... rank is meaningless anyway.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on May 17, 2006 14:26:37 GMT -5
i played a game last nite - each team had 1 new player... ours ended up on front line. he immediately lost 1 city (front city, 2nd settler) to longbowman and a camel archer. the opposing team had their new guy buried in the back. but we then micromanage everything our teammate did, and our team eventually won the game anyway. i say dont reload... let them screw up and learn. if he dies and u all report losses, who cares... rank is meaningless anyway. There's a fine line between watching someone screw up and then learning from their mistakes and the same players die day in and day out for 3 months in a row. No matter how much you try to teach them, some of the basics are still missing from their bag of tricks. When it comes to certain individuals, I think I've been patient enough.
|
|