|
Post by MookieNJ on Jun 22, 2006 1:35:35 GMT -5
Its immoral to rank hoard. end of story. Saying, "oh there is so and so, we play with him alot. Lets kick this other guy out so we can play with each other and then no one can get in our rank clique." thats whats dumb stuff i have a problem with. that ive seen many good players shut out of games. so i just think people should be a little less snobish. and i don't care if these guys block me from every teamer they ever play, cause im climbing the ladder and no one is gonna stop me. You're conflating two possible consequences with one motivation. None of the people you're talking about (maybe one or two, I don't know, but not the majority) give a nuts about their rank, or rank hoarding. They sure don't ever say "Lets kick this other guy out so we can play with each other and then no one can get in our rank clique," nor would it make any sense. People play with the same groups over and over because everyone is friends, everyone is on Teamspeak chatting, everyone is on at the same time, and everyone is of similar ability. That makes for fun games. I agree with Elledge here. First, if there are 2 teamers in the lobby, 1 with a bunch of people whom I enjoy playing with and 1 with a bunch of people I don't know, I'm going to choose the first one. Second, I don't think there are really any rank cliques. I live in the Eastern Time Zone, USA. In my mind, there are 3 groups of players. Because of my time zone, I call them daytime players, nighttime players, and late night players. Most of the rank at the moment is with the daytime players. Why should tommynt or anyone else from Europe have to stay up all day so someone on the West Coast, USA can play him? It's not that there are rank cliques, it's just that there are different people in different places all over the world playing ... if someone from the late night group were to have a day or two off, get up to #1, and then have to go back to work/school and only play late nights, then it would be harder for the European players to get the high ranks. In the end, when so many ladder players agree that rank is meaningless, who really cares? Third, personally I could care less about rank. Sure, when I was #2 I thought it would be neat to be #1 for a while, but other than that, whatever. I play mostly at night, and I've found a bunch of people of similar skill whom I enjoy playing with and who are on at the same time as I am. I could care less what anyone's rank is, I just want a fun game. I'd play non-ladder with these guys (and gals) any time, no reports on the line, just a good game with fun people to play with and against.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jun 22, 2006 22:51:52 GMT -5
I had a very strange teamer today, somsone had copper and iron in his cites radius, with mali.
This guy and enermy get iron hook roughly the same time, the enermy is 10 tiles away (actually probally more). He sees 2 axes coming for about 13 turns, so he builds a axe, then he starts building a settler. The axes arrive and they manage to sit on his iron and break it, because he was building a settler.
But luckily enough this guy has copper in cites radius, he manages to hook that up, and the enermy thinks hes metalless. So enermy sends a couple of charriots ... What does this guy do? Slave a spear and laugh at his attack?
No, he carrys on building a settler, and the single axe in his city dies...LOL
Is it even possible for somsone to build 5 units and get them 13 tiles across the map, in the time this guy builds 1?
I mean if he didnt see the attack and got caught with his pants down while building a settler or worker then fine...but what kind of nonsense is this?
Really shocking stuff!!
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jun 23, 2006 0:22:16 GMT -5
I had a very strange teamer today, somsone had copper and iron in his cites radius, with mali. This guy and enermy get iron hook roughly the same time, the enermy is 10 tiles away (actually probally more). He sees 2 axes coming for about 13 turns, so he builds a axe, then he starts building a settler. The axes arrive and they manage to sit on his iron and break it, because he was building a settler. But luckily enough this guy has copper in cites radius, he manages to hook that up, and the enermy thinks hes metalless. So enermy sends a couple of charriots ... What does this guy do? Slave a spear and laugh at his attack? No, he carrys on building a settler, and the single axe in his city dies...LOL Is it even possible for somsone to build 5 units and get them 13 tiles across the map, in the time this guy builds 1? I mean if he didnt see the attack and got caught with his pants down while building a settler or worker then fine...but what kind of nonsense is this? Really shocking stuff!! 10 titles? 13? Are you joking? There was at least 17 titles between them, he was far away, behind me by at least 7 squares and i was on front. By the way, that's a guy with 200 reports who does that nonsense... Well, some guys die to one chariot while having bronze in capital and one player was killed in front of them with the same chariot (and that guy has 600 reports). So it's not like he was the worst noob out there in the ladder... One rank 1 player was dead with 5 cities and 3 units in Ren teamer while on front vs 5 units, and one of his cities that was under attack got a culture bomb and has 80% culture def bonus ROFL So i guess it doesn't matter how many games someone played...
|
|
|
Post by zerza on Jun 23, 2006 0:45:51 GMT -5
I dislike playing teamers because of the holier-than-thou attitude of players who are above average, but think they are best player in the game. They brag, berate and basically make the game unbearble to play. As usual, swiss is right.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jun 23, 2006 0:56:25 GMT -5
;D What can i say in responce to that comment? brainless peope playing civ As usual, tommynt is right.
|
|
|
Post by zerza on Jun 23, 2006 2:21:09 GMT -5
damnit its response and people, damnit! ;D
|
|
|
Post by smatt834 on Jun 24, 2006 14:12:14 GMT -5
there is nothing wrong in playing with a group of people you enjoy playing with. thats missing the point. from reading these forums I can see others think there is some degree of rank hoarding going on as well. it shouldn't just be dismissed as not happening, however i agree its not a threat to the ladders credibility of fair play. When i log on i just join whatever game is going on and if everyone did that things would be much simpler. 90% of you guys are great to play with, icluding those who seem to want to just disagree with me . I think everyone just needs a big fat hug.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 25, 2006 0:37:10 GMT -5
there is nothing wrong in playing with a group of people you enjoy playing with. thats missing the point. from reading these forums I can see others think there is some degree of rank hoarding going on as well. it shouldn't just be dismissed as not happening, however i agree its not a threat to the ladders credibility of fair play. When i log on i just join whatever game is going on and if everyone did that things would be much simpler. 90% of you guys are great to play with, icluding those who seem to want to just disagree with me . I think everyone just needs a big fat hug. I'll take a big fat pint.
|
|
|
Post by tamijo on Jun 25, 2006 7:29:14 GMT -5
If a group off players like to play with each other, and not for rank or skill rating, simply for the fun off playing. Then its OK, off course.
But if they do it as a ladder game, its diffrent, then they play for rank & skill. They should in most games not exclude other ladder players, because that would be against the idear of having a ladder system.
Its like if we made a world cup in soccer, without USA & Africa Just because they do not play well, that would not be a world cup would it.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Jun 25, 2006 8:14:19 GMT -5
Its like if we made a world cup in soccer, without USA & Africa Just because they do not play well, that would not be a world cup would it. Except the difference is, including some bad teams in the World Cup doesn't hurt the good teams, including bad players in a teamer ruins the game for the good players. Before you play in ladder teamers, you really should have a handle on the basics of the game, such as the importance of building workers, cutting forests, improving your land, building cottages, and defending your cities. Play single player and ctons so you learn this stuff before you play in a teamer. I'll gladly help any new player transition from ctons to teamers. I'll glady help any new player who would like to learn the basics -- but I'm sorry, the place to do this is not in a team game.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Jun 25, 2006 8:19:55 GMT -5
Naw the noobs have no place on your CCC team/clan. They do have place on ladder teamers, they may make your team lose but half the time they will be on other team so.....
And even if they dont listen too well a few loses will soon have them asking many more questions about how to live and become a better team player.
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Jun 25, 2006 8:32:14 GMT -5
I am coming across people who not only start playing teamers before they really know the game well, but people who join the ladder (and join teamers) before they even played one game of Civ 4.
I can see where Avo is coming from but I personally don't understand why someone would want to join teamers before they can play well. Or why someone would want to play game after game after game and not improve (which is the case for many ladderites).
|
|
|
Post by Gogf on Jun 25, 2006 10:20:23 GMT -5
It's ridiculous to suggest that we can't pick and choose who we want in our game. Sure, having a newbie in the game will make the other team lose about as often as our team, but is that what we really want? Do we want to win a game because someone who doesn't know what they're doing contributed nothing or died easily? Losing that way certainly isn't fun. Yes, they will start to improve eventually, but fun is not a game where one bad player ruins the game. A fun game is one where both teams try as hard as they can to win a close game. We naturally want to play with people of our own skill without having people that don't understand the fundamentals of the game.
Sure, we all die stupidly and make dumb mistakes from time to time, but if we know that someone doesn't understand the basic elements of the game, the general inclination is to not allow them into the game. It's not an elitist thing, it's an "I want to play an enjoyable game" thing. I play games with newbies all the time, but if I want to play a teamer without them, that should be my right.
|
|
|
Post by knupp on Jun 25, 2006 13:03:16 GMT -5
I played a medieval teamer two nights ago. It was a 2v2v2v2v2. I was teamed with a guy I didn't know. Anyways somebody's starting archer comes wandering down. My partner had a horsearcher due in 2 but the archer would take his unprotected capital in 1. I tell him to slave. He doesn't know how to do it. I pause the game and explain how to slave yet he still doesn't do it. He lost his capital. Luckily no city razing was on so we were able to take it back but c'mon. If that option wasn't on that game would have been lost for us. If you don't know how to slave please don't join teamers. Then I have another game I played. I was on the southern front. The way the teams were placed the opposite team had two front guys. Both good players. This was by far one of the best played games I've played. I razed one of the guys front city. Our middle man has a huge score, double the pop, gnp, and production of everyone and has had 2 golden ages. We have the tech lead and the point lead. Down south we had power lead. However our northern front guy and his support had almost no units. The support was building temples in cities that were not unhappy, monestaries when he was in organized religion, aqueducts when the city was only losing 1 food to unhealthiness. So our northern guy had no support and lost a stack attacking. They counterattacked and completely wiped him and the support guy off the map. This was a game we shouldn't have lost and we do because some people are NOT team players.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 25, 2006 13:31:08 GMT -5
They do have a place if....and only if they can be balanced by someone else of equal skill. People of less experience will almost always be included in ladder teamers, due to simple numbers. Being such, they're more or less handicaps. The difference in being handicapped by having to help out more players than the other team is huge, especially during the opening phases of the game. There is so much to look out for and so many things to do that somebody will inevitably miss a key moment which could lead to a really short game. In which case, what will these inexperience players learn?
To define what I consider helping out the lesser experienced players, it's explaining the background info needed on why certain things are not necessary or why some things should absolutely be done. Such as in Renaissance games: the general consensus is forges should be built early (I know there are still a few holdouts who do give a compelling argument on why other things should be done). The explanation would be the multiplying factor of hammers given by forges over time can make or break a game. If you're chopping workers, that's more hammers towards that or overflow, more units will be created over time, etc. It can be broken down to simple numbers.
Doing something like....building a colosseum, courthouse, aqueduct, on turn 15 is a no-go for various reasons. Such as the percentage of the game turn limit in building such an improvement or that there are other alternatives that have not been exhausted yet that do not take up valuable production that have yet to be employed. Once again, a numbers game.
I don't think just telling someone what to do is very helpful. Without the reasoning behind it, more often than not, it is counter-productive. Resentment is usually what you get in return...with such comments as: Let me play my own game, which is antithical to providing these players with a richer gaming experience.
|
|
|
Post by lporiginalg on Jun 25, 2006 17:26:04 GMT -5
I played a medieval teamer two nights ago. It was a 2v2v2v2v2. My teamate was such a noob in that game...rofl
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jun 25, 2006 19:16:00 GMT -5
After a couple days playing games with really bad folks I think that a lot of people in this thread overestimate the quality of the players we are talking about.
There are people willing to play teamers who do not understand the basic mechanics of the game. They don't understand the wonder descriptions. They don't understand that citizens work tiles for cities. They don't understand how great people are created. Some of these people have played hundreds of games. This is not the sort of thing where you can put them in a teamer and then they will be OK next time.
I heard an anecdote the other day from a friend who was on the opposing team in a Renaissance 4v4. We had two teams of fairly strong players, with one player we thought in the staging room was "average" on each team. Their average player had an average win record, I think I'd even played with him before, and he had an average reputation. 800 games played or so. Well, I was supporting the front against my friend and the average player behind, and they got crushed. When we talked about it after the game, it turned out that he had great land - loads of flood plains - but what he did was use his workers to improve the normal plains first, while he was still working the unimproved flood plains with his cities. By the end of the game he still hadn't gotten around to working some of the flood plains. Why? Because he figured he should improve the worse tiles first.
That same game another player on their team, the south support, built Angkor Wat, Sistine Chapel, and Spiral Minaret, all by hand. At the end of the game he argued passionately "why would they blame it on me? I built three wonders and the front on top still died!"
This is what we are talking about. People who if you ask them why they are building what they are building, they can't even give you an answer, because they don't understand how the game works. The reason these people still exist is because ladder games will never, ever teach you how it works. You will just go on building the same random things, with the knowledge that "everyone else seems to like building workers, barracks, and lots of knights", so do that most of the time, and you will never learn jack.
When I started playing ladder in March or thereabouts I had probably five hundred non-ladder MP games under my belt. My first renaissance teamer was a 3v3v3v3, my first renaissance game ever and about my third ladder game. Know what? I didn't f**k up. I didn't need my hand held the whole time. I played just fine. We won. It's not rocket science. My second was on the front versus tommynt, weaksauce, and other miscellany. I learned how that worked pretty fast too.
There is not some big-ass learning curve to teamers. There is a learning curve to C4 and I think half of the people on the ladder have never even climbed it. These are the people who we aren't interested in playing with. To reference dey, it's not a matter of telling these guys why forges are good to build early. You would have to explain what the f**k a hammer is and why you would want 25% more of them.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jun 25, 2006 20:31:00 GMT -5
ya elledge there are some really weired guys missing the basics - but due to the so low level of play in many ctons these guys can hold some close to 50% winpercetage and it s not hard to figure em out if u dont know em
when playing teamers u should just know how to switch tiles in city or to slave or some other things
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jun 25, 2006 20:32:20 GMT -5
I think this partly steams from wathing others play, and reading other peoples articles.
Because if t wasnt for this you would be forced to think for yourself and work things out for yourself.
This i a true story ... Once i was in a 2v2 tiny teamer, we had scouts and it was unknown if they did, i think this was pre-patch.
My ally started building a worker, and when i was like WTF, he repllied "this is how redphenoix plays". He must have seen/heard redP build a worker first, but he didnt understand you can only do it if its safe to do so.
From this piont onwards i was sure being able to see what your ally is doing is just pure EVIL. Because everything your ally is doing dont come with a detailed explaination, so it can give confusing mixed singnals.
EDIT :: Expanding on what tommy writes, it is very difficult to know how good somsone is from his stats alone. As i mentioned in another thread a good above average player should have 70%+ wins if he plays only ctons. A poor player can build 5-6 cites, with little work/production and easily retian a 50-60% win record.
|
|
|
Post by knupp on Jun 25, 2006 20:32:54 GMT -5
I played a medieval teamer two nights ago. It was a 2v2v2v2v2. My teamate was such a noob in that game...rofl Yea, you had the noobiest team mate of all. ;D Now you know why I had to pause for 5 minutes...I had to tell the guy how to get into the city screen...when he finally figured that out he couldn't find the whip button...
|
|