|
Post by Atomation on Jun 13, 2006 13:32:52 GMT -5
Anyone else get really annoyed when a team member or opponent refuses to concede even given the 0% chance of winning? It is such a complete waste of time - for both sides. Maybe there should be an autowin threshold...say 1000 points higher at the 50 turns in mark or beyond? I once played a guy on an island map in 1x1 where his sole purpose was scattering cities all over the map in ridiculously difficult to kill places - like cities that are on a single tile and can only be landed from sea (need amphibious landing just to even things out, and its still pretty tough with the right defenders). At least city elimination helps with this - but let's face it; cities are really tough to take when they have loads of collateral units in them.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jun 13, 2006 17:46:21 GMT -5
Phit why dont you use your ladder name? I asked before and you brushed the question off!!
|
|
|
Post by Atomation on Jun 13, 2006 17:49:38 GMT -5
I already had this name and I couldn't figure out how to change it .
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jun 13, 2006 17:56:21 GMT -5
Then what is your ladder name?
|
|
|
Post by Atomation on Jun 13, 2006 18:16:59 GMT -5
If you read carefully through some of my posts you should be able to figure out, what fun!
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Jun 13, 2006 19:54:46 GMT -5
To change your name go to profile/display profile/screen name/save
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jun 13, 2006 21:46:42 GMT -5
If you read carefully through some of my posts you should be able to figure out, what fun! I believe your only allowed to post here if you are a ladder member, so why admins have not made to change to ladder name i have no clue. But just trying to work out who you are so i can detremine just how valid your posts/ideas are.
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Jun 13, 2006 22:19:07 GMT -5
Knowing your ladder identity would be nice to help us understand more about the person we are having conversation with, but whatever.
My only question is....What are you trying to convey with this post? Your upset because someone wouldn't concede?
I wish more people had that attitude in ladder.
If you got yourself involved in a marathon game without city elimination, that's your fault.
BTW, I find it funny that I have tried to look up your name on a few occasions before as well. Can't remember exactly what you said but the post must have made me wonder, who the f :ok is this goof ball, to make me decide to look the name up on ladder.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jun 14, 2006 0:05:31 GMT -5
I know his identity, therefore i better stay outa this thread somehow i also dont know whats the purpose of this thread - u thzink it s dumb not to concede or to place unkillable cities? btw gt did that in ironman once after my tanks steamrolled him - he transported like 40 grenadiers on a 1 tile island city
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jun 14, 2006 7:58:57 GMT -5
Good strategy in the Ironman as I'm sure he figures you will just go on to steamroll somebody else and maybe he can finish in the top four.
Very lame in a regular game, though.
|
|
|
Post by Atomation on Jun 14, 2006 15:42:23 GMT -5
My only question is....What are you trying to convey with this post? Your upset because someone wouldn't concede? Yes, because if they are against us, we can't leave the game unless we want a loss. If the person is on our team, we also can't leave without getting a loss. At some point it should become obvious that the game is lost and people should just concede - this is the point of concession. Don't get me wrong, i've won plenty games 1 2 or even a few times 3 men down, so I am not the type to just throw in the towel with any glimpse of hope. The problem is when individuals force their team or opponents to stay in the game (with the threat of a "leave game" report, or the obvious loss from leaving vs an opponent) purely on the grounds of being a complete ass, even when the game is over.
|
|
|
Post by smatt834 on Jun 16, 2006 20:13:50 GMT -5
Ill build 100 warriors and 100 archers and try to pillage your land with stacks of 6 or 7 before i give up. Take death like a man. Someone ridiculously in the lead will probably make a careless mistake. If there is a city elim limit you should never concede. If its open ended in that you can lose any amount of cities, I would say conceding has its purpose in that situation. Otherwise don't be girly man. And also try to capitalize on their overlookings.
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Jun 16, 2006 23:05:52 GMT -5
I wouldn't have a problem finishing someone off if they wouldn't concede. I might even enjoy that and it might even make me feel like a real bad :oss. If someone is to good for that I suppose they could just put all cities on archer or longbowman production and walk away from the game and check score upon completion.
People complain when you do quit. People complain when you don't quit. Just do whatever your opponent says you should do to make sure he is happy is the solution. I guess. From now on just let me no when I've won or lost if your playing against me and the I will report accordingly.
Oh yea, I almost forgot, the other day someone complain when I was going to concede so I just continued. Figured I could at least have fun taking the last city of ai that took over for the person that quit. I was at war the whole game, with one player or the other. He had over 200 points on me and I assume he wanted me to stick around to make hamburger out of me, but what the hell, anything to make um happy. To make a long story short, I killed him too. That caused me to laugh myself silly. Funnest game I had in awhile. 3 1/2 kills.
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Jun 17, 2006 1:41:55 GMT -5
I think that when someone is waaaaayyyyy behind in points/tech with little or no hope to win, I think you should concede. Not because you're a wuss, not because you're a quitter, but because it's courteous and allows time for new games.
|
|
|
Post by smatt834 on Jun 17, 2006 1:57:39 GMT -5
i wouldn't want someone automating their que and walking away. i guess one good reason for not conceding is the military training time you have. you are out numbered and out technologied and out gunned. practice holding off the most that you can. sometime in a different game when its really close what you learned will come back to save you. plus i hear about these crazy odd things in the forums...so send units or something and take some cheap shots on everything you see...anything really ... but don't be a boring automater fortifier cause that's called not trying
I guess i think the proper way to die is just go into hyper attack everything i see mode....that way you aren't prolonging it terribly but you are quittin like a girly man either. When i am dying off i will not hole up if i see its inevitable that im going to lose. then you get satisfaction of killing me faster and I could get lucky and raze a city cause you aint payin attention or overlooked something.
Come kill me if you in the mood to. I die fast.
|
|
|
Post by lporiginalg on Jun 17, 2006 3:59:37 GMT -5
I understand the frustration sometimes when people don't conceed a lost cause but at the same time if the game goes on for another two hours than you aren't really exactly crushing them in the first place (unless it's do to lag, that just suxks). I think the worst possible thing to do would be set up a system of forced concession as it would really go against the primary principle of the ladder (ie:playing to completion). Furthermore civ can be very suprising, I've seen people make tremendous comebacks, somtimes winnign teamers when they're down 2 civs. If they have the fighting spirit and want to play on that's their right and like necro says, when you join a game you should be prepared for the possibilty it could go the full turn legnth and lag some at that. What really chaffes me is people that join teamers and then after 40 turns say 'sorry guys i have to go, didn't think it would last this long'
|
|