|
Post by markweston on Nov 11, 2006 23:58:59 GMT -5
As a lot of my old friends here have noticed, I've returned to CIV after being away for a while, and I'm thinking I'd like to play in the coming CCC. Are there any clans out there looking for an extra player? I can cover most eras, best at the team games, only mediocre at 1v1 and ctons.
Ideally I'd like to play with teams who use teamspeak (or simillar voice comms). It's more fun, and makes for better teamwork. But I'm open to any offer that gets me a place in the tournament.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Nov 13, 2006 15:33:11 GMT -5
Ugh.
I remember this qualifying round for the Ironman being tried before. Being in a situation where four clans qualify and only one is eliminated leads to a very strange sort of game that isn't a lot of fun, and also doesn't seem like much of a way of selecting the eight best clans for the main event.
The game becomes weird because 4th place is as valuable as first, and everyone has a very strong incentive to identify the weakest player and dogpile them as quickly as possible. And yes, it's a CTON, but negotiation isn't necessary for this to happen. All you need is for third and fourth-party scouts to observe there's a battle or choke in progress and identify who's losing. The rational response to this information is to join in ensuring that the losing player is elminated as quickly as possible.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Nov 12, 2006 10:50:35 GMT -5
Well giving people options can never be bad, they can explore for 4 turns and decide to settle exactly were the game started them, or move knowing they may be closer to a neighbour, it's always going to be a calulated risk. Such is Civ. CS Well actually I'd say giving people options that are cost free is bad in a strategy game. In a normal game, you have a trade off between wasting a turn or more while you explore for a perfect city site, or settling now with whatever you've got. Both options have costs and risks, and you have to make a decision that's sometimes difficult. The four-turn settler rule simply gives you a risk-free way of perfectly optimising your city placement. Decision-making should be difficult in a strategy game; that's the whole point.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Apr 21, 2006 13:29:08 GMT -5
If teams can't meet, only external parameters, that you can't control, will give one team the victory... size and quality of the land and random civ the team has. Where is the fun ? What, you don't think it's possible for one team to simply play better than the other? Why do you bother then?
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Apr 20, 2006 13:18:55 GMT -5
There are 7 eras in the game, and (is it 5?) map types that Shuffle chooses between. So we argue that we can't play shuffle because of the 1 in 35 chance that the game will be an Ancient/Archipelago?
Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with playing an ancient-era game when the teams can't meet. it's unusual, but unusualness is the point of this event. It is still however a test of CIV-playing skill. Live a little; embrace the random-ness!
If you can't manage that, just don't enter the Random event.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Apr 20, 2006 13:06:47 GMT -5
The Illuminati have spent so much time lurking in the shadows that we nearly forgot to emerge in time for CCC XXIX..
Here's our roster
Islandia Mark_Weston Trayk Willburn Speaker Onan Zhenon lporiginalg SirPartyMan Robert xma machinist Sulla Gogf Longhorn FriedrichPsitalon gunsnroses alice Srayman
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Jan 20, 2006 15:55:37 GMT -5
Illuminati
Mark_Weston for Friday Round Onan for the Final
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Jan 14, 2006 13:45:58 GMT -5
Given how there are so many Ancient era games (there are in fact two almost identical 2v2 Ancient games), it's a bit of a shame that there isn't an Industrial start at all. Not that the CCC will be any less fun, but my vote is for variety in future CCCs.
I expect there's some history behind a lot of these formats which I'm unaware of, but still. What makes a "Grudge-match" a match with grudges and not just another 2v2 ancient start?
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Mar 14, 2006 11:49:57 GMT -5
Eiffel is correct about the sequence of events, though he's being a bit optimistic if he's remembering that each game only took 3 hours.
LKT faced FUN (I think) in the only first round game. Everyone else got byes. So several of the 2nd round games started straight away, and finished quite quickly, while the LKT/FUN game went the full distance.
So by the time LKT got to start their 2nd round game againts TX, all the other 2nd round games were already over. And that one also went the full distance.
Meanwhile, we (Illuminati) started our 2nd round game just after 6pm GMT, when the event kicked off, and had finished by 7pm. We had to wait until 4am GMT for LKT to finish their 1st and 2nd rounds. Actually, I was impressed by how quickly they were ready to play again; and at the time I thought that 9 hours of non-stop playing must put them at a disadvantage. In retrospect 9 hours of playing looks like much bettter preparation than 9 hours of waiting around.
Hard to see how it was anyone's fault. It was just the worst-case scenario for what can happen with single-elim, random seeding, and more than eight teams going into the draw.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Mar 13, 2006 8:48:07 GMT -5
well we can start about that sure we can recount this np, but wont change thats why i said less then 1 % already knew this would come, so we have at least 50% tamers so that: y = 5000X(teamers) : 10000 = y =0.5 {50 : 10000y} < 0.1 = x<1 % and bigger then a 6vs6 doesn't work good ( to many ladders have to less PC) and 5vs5 works always great in ancient Dress this up with as much maths as you like, you can't change the fact that you just made up that percentage It constantly amazes me the number of people who assume that just because they're not interested in a certain era or game-style, that nobody else is either. You can't play in all the CCC events anyway, so why the urge to get rid of the ones you personally aren't interested in? Just play the eras you enjoy and let everyone else do likewise.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Mar 11, 2006 20:08:57 GMT -5
Yes but on a map without any iron or copper the aztecs or Mali is overpowered and unbeatable... They have to win, no other way... And anyway the problem is that such a game is not interesting at all and the issue is not about skill but about the civ you choose. Don't agree with your first statement. I mean, I have some sympathy with anyone who ends up on a map with no metal; it's so unusual it's bound to be disconcerting. On the other hand chariots, horse-archers and elephants become proportinally more powerful in just the same was as Jaguars and Skirmishers do, and everyone has access to those. And I also disagree with both parts of your second statement. These different games are interesting precisely because they are different. And civ choice doesn't win the game for you; adapting your civ choice and your strategy to the circumstances you find yourself in is what wins for you. The whole point is that when you are playing with a random map like the Mirror/varied landform, you have to be flexible and think fast. Sticking to a standard template strategy repeating the same old build order you've used a hundred times won't get the job done. Which in a competition which is supposed to be a test of skill amongst the best players, is IMO a good thing. And finally, regarding the Aztecs and the lack of metal. The whole point about the Aztecs is that you're choosing a frankly inferior UU that you know, in most games, you'll never even use. What you're paying for (by accepting this crappy UU) is insurance against the time when you don't get metals. That's a strategic trade-off, that the player who - say - chooses Rome has specifically decided not to take. But if the player who chose Rome doesn't get his metal, I don't think he has the right to complain that the Jaguar is cheesy or unbalanced. Because if the Jaguar is to be considered unbalanced in the rare and only circumstances when it's useful, then there's no point having it in the game at all.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Mar 11, 2006 6:26:17 GMT -5
Hmm. These are still Mirror maps right? So the "weirdness" applies to both players equally? So surely the player best able to cope with whatever circumstances he finds himself in, wins? I think that's what competitions like this are supposed to be about.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Mar 9, 2006 15:21:08 GMT -5
Ok willburn and markweston but why to change tactic for only one CCC? After the new patch everybody will use universal suffrage. And 3 hammer instead of 1 per town is not a very significant problem compared to play future without being able to buy! I don't think the majority of players understood the severity of these bugs at the time of the last CCC - very few later-era games were being played at the time. Now we all understand how they work, it seems clear to me that if they aren't banned the late-era events are going to become a competition to see who can exploit the bugs most efficiently. And don't forget that this CCC was clearly intended to be played with the new patch - it was even delayed a week for that very purpose. Now it looks like we're not going to get the patch that fixes these bugs until after the CCC, SPM has had to made some last-minute changes. That's unfortunate, but it's not his fault and it doesn't merit that petulant burst of sarcasm from niluge. 3-prod per town is grossly distorting. It makes the Town by far the best land improvement (unless we're still playing with the bugged State Property too, in which case there is at least competition as to which bugged improvement is best ). Any bug which reduces decision-making that badly is bad for the game IMO. Whereas playing without buying buildings/units just means waiting a few extra turns (or using alternative means like drafting or slavery). A bit of a change if you're not used to it I suppose, but I don't understand why it's so traumatic.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Mar 9, 2006 14:15:02 GMT -5
We can't play futur start without Universal Suffrage to buy units and improvements. Don't you think? Ok for Free Speech and State Property but without universal suffrage i think it isn't possible to play well. And change tactic only one day before will be very hard. Please reconsider that. Why is it harder to play well? Obviously early development will be slower, but it effects both teams so no-one loses.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Mar 9, 2006 12:05:24 GMT -5
Good, thanks for that. One thing though, for further clarification. Presumably there's no reason for those Civics to be unavailable during the Ironman? The bug won't apply there.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Mar 7, 2006 9:42:41 GMT -5
About the Civics bugs in 1.52
I think we all only really became aware of just how major the stacking-civics bugs were in later-era games after the last CCC. It's standard practice in ladder games from Renaissance up to ban Universal Suffrage, Free Speech and State Property because of the massively distorting effect they have on the game.
If the new patch doesn't arrive in time, are we going to be banning them too? As fas as I can see SPMs rules don't mention them.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Dec 6, 2005 9:08:19 GMT -5
Yes, it was the MyLeague homepage I was referring too. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
A quick fiddle with Firefox's font settings solved my problem, but it's the first time I've had to change the default font settings. I guess if no-one else is complaining, it can't be a big issue.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Dec 4, 2005 19:54:23 GMT -5
Hi,
I like the new-look home-page; all the key information is there and well laid-out. But, I'm finding the font chosen for it quite hard to read - perhaps because it's very serify. This is particularly true for the menu items in the left-hand bar. The combination of all-caps and the serif font means I literallly can't read some of them. Luckily, I already know where the key links are, but I'm sure there must be a clearer font-choice available.
Maybe it's just me...
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Apr 6, 2006 5:48:15 GMT -5
In practice the wired network will be faster. Unless you're networking a lot of PCs though, this won't really matter. The bottleneck will still be your broadband connection not your local network.
Wireless is very cool - it's so nice not to have cables trailing round my house. But wireless can also be incredibly frustrating when you run into signal problems because of the buidling design or interference from next-door.
|
|
|
Apology
Jan 20, 2007 10:03:35 GMT -5
Post by markweston on Jan 20, 2007 10:03:35 GMT -5
The last couple of months I've been playing with a slightly unreliable router and/or ISP. Several times now I've been disconnected from games I was playing in during the early hours, and what with tech support not being available at 4am, have been unable to reconnect to play on. My apologies to everyone involved, including the game I most recently got disconnected from last night.
There's a particular problem with last night's game because I restarted CIV before getting a list of the players, and now I don't know who to report to. So if someone could remind who was in that game (5v5 medi teamer on team battleground, hosted by ebd) I'd be grateful.
|
|