Post by Gogf on Aug 11, 2006 15:02:29 GMT -5
I realize that I'm essentially beating a dead horse here, but since this topic never seems to go away, I'd like to discuss it in thread which doesn't being with accusations. This post neither has a target, nor does it accuse anybody of rank hoarding. I'd like to post my feelings on this in a more productive way than some people, and so I'm starting a new thread. Rather than replying to specific points, I want to lay out what I feel is the argument from "the other side." We've all seen the threads descriping the evils of the so-called rank hoarding, players not being allowed into games, and how renaissance teamers are the most evil constructions on the planet. Here is my argument.
There are two big segments of Civilization players: the vast majority play single player, and a smaller group compete with eachother in multiplayer. Within multiplayer, a large number of people play nonladder games, while another large group play ladder games. Some of the ladder players play teamers, some CTONs, some 1v1, and the majority of a mixture of the above. Among those who play teamers and 1v1s, there is a group of the so-called "top players." They like to play primarily with eachother, and that's where the problem arises.
I think this desire to play only with good players arises from rank. People used to -- maybe some still do -- care a great deal about rank. When first place is on the line, nobody wants somebody who is playing their first game of Civ to mess it up! I think this gradually shifted towards a generally competitiveness about the game. Sure, having rank one is nice, but the group who I consider to be "top players" are generally rather apathetic about rank. I know I have a high rank not because I care about it or am actively seeking it, but because the people I usually play with happen to have high rank.
The question of whether people should be able to play with who they want is what seems to be the issue here. I believe that anybody should be able to host a passworded Gamespy game and only give the password to those that they choose. It's no different from hosting a direct IP game, but it's easier to set up. The problem arises when people want to play, but the host decides that they're "not good enough" for that game. I can understand this attitude. Nobody wants to spend two hours staging, picking teams, choosing civs, dealing with the host crash to finally have the game start and then lose within ten turns because somebody dies to one longbow.
The problem that if new players were never let into these games, nobody would ever learn. Obviously some new players should be let in. In my opinion, newer players should be let into these games in small quantities. If you play with seven really good players and two medium range players, it's still a highly competitive game. If you play with one really good player and eight medium range players, it's not. Top players should not have to let in the worst players of the ladder. Renaissance teamers are harder to play -- both because of the average skill of your opponents and the inherent difficulty of the game -- than ancient CTONs. If somebody can get a 10% win percentage playing CTONs, they're liable to make horrible mistakes and frustrate their team. One player can ruin a game for nine others, and so newer players should be let into these games in even numbers.
The problem is that if one team has their "newb" on the front and the other in the very back, the latter team will have a huge advantage. For this reason, players who are let into top players games are generally culled through for basic Civ skills. Building a three city front without making roads is not very indicative of Civ skills; building a one city from with roads extending in both directions to stop a bypass attempt is. These skills have to be learned, but it's best to learn them playing in mid-range games. I know it's possible. I did it.
I remember not being allowed into a "top player game." Everybodysdarling was advertising a direct IP game in the lobby. He made the IP clear to everyone, so I could have joined and demanded to play if I wanted. I didn't do that, and I didn't decide to post on the forums. Instead, while upset that I couldn't play -- I viewed myself as better than the vast majority of people I played with -- I begrudgingly respected the top tier of players for their private games. They don't want idiots who don't understand how to play, don't listen, don't understand English, are so-called "selfish players," have attitude problems, or are otherwise undesirable for a plethera of reasons in their games. I wasn't told I couldn't play because I had a low rank or because they didn't want me to get a high rank. I was told that I couldn't play because nobody in the game knew me. EBD said "Sorry, Gogf, but the people in here are in the top twenty and nobody knows you. Maybe another time ."
A few days later, I was let into one of the games with the top ranked players of the time. I was, as far as I can tell, the worst player in that game, so I was on a team with both Tommy and Redphoenix. We won the game, and I remember Red constantly repeating that "Gogf is rather good." I had my change to play in their game once, and I didn't mess it up. I patiently waited for it, and I showed that I was at least competent enough to be considered for future games. Soon I was playing with these guys all the time, and was starting to be considered "good." I don't mean to be self-congratulatory, I'm merely pointing out how players can get accepted into these seemingly Masonic teamers. Wait until you have your chance, play well, and show that you know how the game works. You may have to ask how many cities to make if it's your first renaissance game, or if you should go worker first. Remember that it's better to ask questions of your teammates than to let them barrate you for doing things improperly!
As for how players are rejected from these games, I feel that it should be done tactfully. If somebody who is a "known player" but not very good wants to join, telling them that it's full is a very kind way of saying that they can't play. Some people may prefer not being lied to, but I've found that this drastically cuts back on people going nuts because they can't play. If somebody is unknown, tell them that, and say that maybe in the future they'll be let in. Letting in new players is good, especially for more casual games, but if you want a hyper competitive game or are going to play a title match, it should be your right to excluse whoever you want.
I've never heard of a conspiracy to rank hoard. Sure, most top ranked players seem to like to play renaissance teamers a lot. I'm not sure if that's because it's a very well balanced era, it's challenging, there are a lot of two-move units, it's what the other good players are playing, or some other reason. Regardless, we generally play the same types of game with eachother. There's no conspiracy here, just a want to have fun. I play games with primarily newer players from time to time, but being the best in the game is not nearly as fun as playing with others who have a similar skill level.
Finally, if your game is not passworded, you do not have a right to choose who comes in and out. If you want to change your mind and password it, that's up to you. You should not be kicking people out of open games, though. The problem arises when people who aren't the host give out the password to a password protected game. What should you do about somebody who joined but you don't feel is at the acceptable skill level? Should you be able to kick them if they refuse to leave, or should you have to hit "go back" and rehost with a new password? I'm not sure what the answer to this question is, but I know that the solution is to not give out the password before asking the host if the player is acceptable!
There are two big segments of Civilization players: the vast majority play single player, and a smaller group compete with eachother in multiplayer. Within multiplayer, a large number of people play nonladder games, while another large group play ladder games. Some of the ladder players play teamers, some CTONs, some 1v1, and the majority of a mixture of the above. Among those who play teamers and 1v1s, there is a group of the so-called "top players." They like to play primarily with eachother, and that's where the problem arises.
I think this desire to play only with good players arises from rank. People used to -- maybe some still do -- care a great deal about rank. When first place is on the line, nobody wants somebody who is playing their first game of Civ to mess it up! I think this gradually shifted towards a generally competitiveness about the game. Sure, having rank one is nice, but the group who I consider to be "top players" are generally rather apathetic about rank. I know I have a high rank not because I care about it or am actively seeking it, but because the people I usually play with happen to have high rank.
The question of whether people should be able to play with who they want is what seems to be the issue here. I believe that anybody should be able to host a passworded Gamespy game and only give the password to those that they choose. It's no different from hosting a direct IP game, but it's easier to set up. The problem arises when people want to play, but the host decides that they're "not good enough" for that game. I can understand this attitude. Nobody wants to spend two hours staging, picking teams, choosing civs, dealing with the host crash to finally have the game start and then lose within ten turns because somebody dies to one longbow.
The problem that if new players were never let into these games, nobody would ever learn. Obviously some new players should be let in. In my opinion, newer players should be let into these games in small quantities. If you play with seven really good players and two medium range players, it's still a highly competitive game. If you play with one really good player and eight medium range players, it's not. Top players should not have to let in the worst players of the ladder. Renaissance teamers are harder to play -- both because of the average skill of your opponents and the inherent difficulty of the game -- than ancient CTONs. If somebody can get a 10% win percentage playing CTONs, they're liable to make horrible mistakes and frustrate their team. One player can ruin a game for nine others, and so newer players should be let into these games in even numbers.
The problem is that if one team has their "newb" on the front and the other in the very back, the latter team will have a huge advantage. For this reason, players who are let into top players games are generally culled through for basic Civ skills. Building a three city front without making roads is not very indicative of Civ skills; building a one city from with roads extending in both directions to stop a bypass attempt is. These skills have to be learned, but it's best to learn them playing in mid-range games. I know it's possible. I did it.
I remember not being allowed into a "top player game." Everybodysdarling was advertising a direct IP game in the lobby. He made the IP clear to everyone, so I could have joined and demanded to play if I wanted. I didn't do that, and I didn't decide to post on the forums. Instead, while upset that I couldn't play -- I viewed myself as better than the vast majority of people I played with -- I begrudgingly respected the top tier of players for their private games. They don't want idiots who don't understand how to play, don't listen, don't understand English, are so-called "selfish players," have attitude problems, or are otherwise undesirable for a plethera of reasons in their games. I wasn't told I couldn't play because I had a low rank or because they didn't want me to get a high rank. I was told that I couldn't play because nobody in the game knew me. EBD said "Sorry, Gogf, but the people in here are in the top twenty and nobody knows you. Maybe another time ."
A few days later, I was let into one of the games with the top ranked players of the time. I was, as far as I can tell, the worst player in that game, so I was on a team with both Tommy and Redphoenix. We won the game, and I remember Red constantly repeating that "Gogf is rather good." I had my change to play in their game once, and I didn't mess it up. I patiently waited for it, and I showed that I was at least competent enough to be considered for future games. Soon I was playing with these guys all the time, and was starting to be considered "good." I don't mean to be self-congratulatory, I'm merely pointing out how players can get accepted into these seemingly Masonic teamers. Wait until you have your chance, play well, and show that you know how the game works. You may have to ask how many cities to make if it's your first renaissance game, or if you should go worker first. Remember that it's better to ask questions of your teammates than to let them barrate you for doing things improperly!
As for how players are rejected from these games, I feel that it should be done tactfully. If somebody who is a "known player" but not very good wants to join, telling them that it's full is a very kind way of saying that they can't play. Some people may prefer not being lied to, but I've found that this drastically cuts back on people going nuts because they can't play. If somebody is unknown, tell them that, and say that maybe in the future they'll be let in. Letting in new players is good, especially for more casual games, but if you want a hyper competitive game or are going to play a title match, it should be your right to excluse whoever you want.
I've never heard of a conspiracy to rank hoard. Sure, most top ranked players seem to like to play renaissance teamers a lot. I'm not sure if that's because it's a very well balanced era, it's challenging, there are a lot of two-move units, it's what the other good players are playing, or some other reason. Regardless, we generally play the same types of game with eachother. There's no conspiracy here, just a want to have fun. I play games with primarily newer players from time to time, but being the best in the game is not nearly as fun as playing with others who have a similar skill level.
Finally, if your game is not passworded, you do not have a right to choose who comes in and out. If you want to change your mind and password it, that's up to you. You should not be kicking people out of open games, though. The problem arises when people who aren't the host give out the password to a password protected game. What should you do about somebody who joined but you don't feel is at the acceptable skill level? Should you be able to kick them if they refuse to leave, or should you have to hit "go back" and rehost with a new password? I'm not sure what the answer to this question is, but I know that the solution is to not give out the password before asking the host if the player is acceptable!