|
Post by Bantams on Jul 10, 2006 16:46:50 GMT -5
? just want too know why do you concede when you still have 3/4 ppl left in a teamer 4v4 or 5v5 or whatever aint conceding same as quitting shouldnt they report twice for conceding?
|
|
|
Post by GERMANIA on Jul 10, 2006 17:46:33 GMT -5
Come on think about what you post.. If a team believes they have no chance more to win it is there right to say we decide to concede the game and maybe do a new one where you have again for a new fight where you maybe have the chance to win
Why should i play a game where i know i have no chance to win, its a waist of time because allot don't like to play a game where they know that they already lost. Maybe you should play some more teamers to relies that..
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jul 10, 2006 18:12:07 GMT -5
I'm not sure what this thread is all about. People concede because they're tired of playing and they don't think they have a chance to win, why else would they concede?
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Jul 10, 2006 18:27:56 GMT -5
While it's a ton of fun to come back after losing a team member, it's really hard to do. You need to have an obscene MFG lead or an obscene GNP lead to pull it off.
So in the end, most of the time the game is 95% over and most people prefer to start a new game rather than slog it out in the 3 minute long lag filled turns at the end of a game they most likely cannot win.
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jul 10, 2006 18:32:38 GMT -5
While it's a ton of fun to come back after losing a team member, it's really hard to do. You need to have an obscene MFG lead or an obscene GNP lead to pull it off. So in the end, most of the time the game is 95% over and most people prefer to start a new game rather than slog it out in the 3 minute long lag filled turns at the end of a game they most likely cannot win. Of course, when you're facing Mookie, all bets are off ;D
|
|
|
Post by alice on Jul 10, 2006 19:15:54 GMT -5
In civ three the game was better balenced imo because it was more possiable to have the tide turned in a teamer many times. 1 lost players was not enough to determin the outcome. that seems to have changed but maby 1 city elim would change that up a bit
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Jul 10, 2006 19:23:40 GMT -5
Of course, when you're facing Mookie, all bets are off ;D Funny coming from the guy who died in 20 turns! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jul 10, 2006 19:55:25 GMT -5
Clearly it was a STRATEGIC death.
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Jul 11, 2006 8:19:34 GMT -5
Ok only asked due to having only played a few teamers and the other ppl conceded with 10 turns left last time so wouldnt it have been wise just to play the ten turns especially if scores are close than just concede giving yourself no slim chance whatsoever I was on the winning team btw i aint moaning cause I didnt concede
|
|
|
Post by tamijo on Jul 11, 2006 8:37:30 GMT -5
Main problem with quitters in cton, is that they unbalance the game for others. And even in a CTON is someone i 99% dead its ok for them to "walk out" and get it over with.
I sure prefer a new game, instead of 20-25 turns or more with a game that has allready found its winner.
|
|
|
Post by eiffel on Jul 11, 2006 8:57:06 GMT -5
I understand your question and it's a good one Actually, i think ladder players are easy "conceders"... losing 1 player doesn't always mean the game is lost but most will want to concede and put pressure on the ones who don't want to... cause the want to start another "fun" game where they will be able to get the 1st kill. Those teamers are "first kill teamers"... why not make a special rule where the team who loses a player first, loses the game and report, would be more simple. I can remember games when "lost situation" lead to a final win. And those victories are greatest. But in 5v5 inland sea, games are already so long to play, sometimes laggy, sometimes blocked situation if no early kill... so players will gladly and fast concede or scrap if something goes wrong.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jul 11, 2006 11:58:33 GMT -5
Well, I'll either accept or push for a concession based on several factors. How big of a tech lead the losing/winning team has. GNP/MFG of remaining civs on my team, and current military on hand.
If we're getting way out-teched, being a civ down does not help the situation. Chances are they are winning on points and teching towards a unit that you have no chance of countering. In this situation, your only bet is to hunker down or mass enough units to take out what they have on hand. Chances are if you don't have the units on hand required to kill, they'll get to that more modern unit and you've lost.
If our tech is about equal and we lost the runt civ (hopefully it's a front civ that died and in such a case, they're probably not contributing much GNP), there is a chance that you can pull through. If you can decimate the stack that killed your teammate chances are the other team might get lazy and hole up, either expecting you to concede or they may go for a points race. In this case you can quickly build your defenses up, maybe even take out the attacker and quickly reclaim all the land with an artist bomb. This is contigenent on having decent MFG.
If our MFG is higher, then definitely fight it out. Spam as many units as possible and try to get a kill. If you can get a kill, chances are their back civs were busy teching and they just got lucky with eliminating your teammate. Raze all their cities to the ground and show no mercy.
If they merely attacked before you did and you had an invasion force on hand, go wreak havoc. It'll be a race to see who can eliminate the most players first.
If none of these cases really apply, it's numbers, pure and simple. If you can't get a kill within 5 - 15 turns, the loss of that teammate really starts to sting. You're losing out on hammers, gold, and beakers. If you were to spreadsheet this game, you'd see a graph where you'd take a hit and the other team is above you. You'd have to either pull a sneaky move or get lucky. However, having less available hammers means you're inevitably going to lose.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jul 12, 2006 3:07:41 GMT -5
beh the thing is that as techs of each player count for points there s like no chance to win a 3vs4 on score
if u cant win on score u gotta attack and if other team knows that u gotta attack they just defend and thats usually very easy. And i see few teamers getting conceded when there s chance to win
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Jul 12, 2006 11:11:21 GMT -5
Set up game "killer cton" style but for teamers. That is assign a number for a kill say...500pts. So if you lose a player early you can make up the points by killing one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jul 12, 2006 11:37:02 GMT -5
LOOOOOOOOOOOOL if you lose a player early they get 500 pionts too, its like having a 1v1 killer deul. Are you suggesting barbs made the first kill?
I dont think kills needed to be rewarded anymore then what they are, killing in a teamer is SUPER powerful.
|
|
|
Post by lporiginalg on Jul 12, 2006 19:25:43 GMT -5
I think people have gotten into this thing were they want all games to end in 50 turns or less, so they play teamers where they rush for a kill, get a concession, wash, rince, repeat.
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Jul 13, 2006 10:23:50 GMT -5
I think people have gotten into this thing were they want all games to end in 50 turns or less, so they play teamers where they rush for a kill, get a concession, wash, rince, repeat. Lol too right more reports the better ;D
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Jul 13, 2006 12:07:15 GMT -5
In first light 500points seems like reward to original killer but...point is if you are on the team with three remaining then 500 points still gives you a chance to win. Get one kill say 15 turns later then you scored the "bonus points" You are now trailing in techs but still have a chance at winning if you can muster another kill.
As it is now, first kill=win 95% of the time. To have kill points balance out some of the teching may bring it back to 70%.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jul 13, 2006 12:27:41 GMT -5
omg avo take a step back and listen to yourself, if both teams get a kill each its like giving both teams zero pionts.
Currently if you get the first kill its a 95% chance of winning if you player "killer teamer" its still 95%. Nothing has changed, only thing is if you get 2 kills then then you can claw it back, but 4v3 is hard enought to get 1 kill, 2 kills in a limited number of turns is ... well impossible if the other team is marely average. Also if the team that gets 2 kills is not winning on pionts it dont deserve to win. In ancient people have about 300-800 pionts, this coming off your score is more then enough.
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Jul 13, 2006 12:39:35 GMT -5
omg avo take a step back and listen to yourself, if both teams get a kill each its like giving both teams zero pionts. that line makes no sence to me please explain
|
|