|
Post by markweston on Nov 8, 2006 13:09:29 GMT -5
Or, as a really radical alternative, play a different era or different map. Or even - gasp! - both.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Nov 1, 2006 6:35:00 GMT -5
ICBM joined. Mark_Weston joined. Thats much better news than some slowed Kids filling Reports to each other Welcome Back To The Ladder Aww, you noticed! EVE-online hijacked my computer and flew it to another galaxy. I think EVE will still be taking up most of my gaming time, but I had a sudden urge to play a couple of games of CIV last night, so I re-registered. By the way, does anyone still play CIV, or is the ladder just dedicated to posting long flame-threads now?
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Jul 21, 2006 6:22:37 GMT -5
Hah thanks for considering me beeing one of the nice guys of the ladder ironclad I didnt see that one comming. Anyways I hope you all enjoy your civ time and keep beeing friendly towards each other. Oh and I would definitivly vote for longhorn. Friendliest person in the whole ladder in my mind. Hey, it's a Willburn post! Where the hell have you been? And /me votes for Longhorn too.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on May 2, 2006 5:25:01 GMT -5
While it's good that Hamachi tries to block key Windows vulnerabilities, that doesn't change the fact that being connected to other players over a VPN is fundamentally different to being connected over the internet from behind NAT and a firewall. And call people paranoid as much as you like, it doesn't change the fact that worms and viruses exist and are endemic, and that millions of PCs out there are under the control of someone other than their owner. When I went to the Hamachi site I found that their entire security briefing was about how well Hamachi VPN tunnels are protected from outside attack, which is completely beside the point as far as any of us is concerned.
It is pretty likely that there'll be a small group of players within the C4P community who unknowingly have something nasty on their PC, and connecting to them this way will increase yoiur chance of catching it. It also seems likely that at some point one of those idiots who likes breaking stuff will join C4P and will find a way to exploit the trust implied in joining a VPN with other players.
None of this is intended to be personal criticism Loki.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on May 1, 2006 14:48:48 GMT -5
OK, I answered "no"
1. I have concerns about using Hamachi. I have a firewall for a reason. Opening a great big VPN tunnel through it and giving free access to my PC is not something I'm particularly comfortable with.
2. Direct IP games (whether Hamachi'd or not) are not as open or accessible as games in the lobby. If a ladder player joins the lobby, he can see immediately what lobby games are looking for players. If they're passworded, he can then find out who's hosting and ask to join.
Direct IP games are obviously not visible. They rely on lobby spam (and how many of us essentially ignore the lobby?) which is hardly a reliable way of providing a list of available games. Or more likely, they'll be recruited for by players looking out for other players they know and like and ignoring the rest. In other words, the Ladder will become less of an open gaming community (you're supposed to play any challenger regardless of rank), and more like a collection of self-selecting cliques.
And if there are no ladder games to join, then as has been pointed out, there will be no newcomers to the lobby asking "what's ladder?"
|
|
|
Post by markweston on May 1, 2006 18:34:34 GMT -5
Maybe that pool of dedicated players "who seriously want to test" is out there somewhere, who knows? But if it is, they most have forgotten to send in all those logs of the Retire Bug they collected. Talk is cheap.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on May 1, 2006 15:01:54 GMT -5
Regarding the retire bug.
Some of us have managed to reproduce it and get logs to Firaxis. And the upshot is that the logs aren't telling them enough to fix the problem.
So, more logging options are going to be added to the version of Warlords currently being tested and we'll continue reproducing the problem until Firaxis tell us they've fixed it. But this does mean that logs from normal 1.61 ladder games are no longer needed, and it'll be up to the Warlords beta team to chase this down and make sure it's nailed.
Hmm. Having no idea what that NDA I signed really means, I'm not sure if the Black Helicopters are on their way even as I type.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Apr 16, 2006 19:37:16 GMT -5
Sigh.
I'm no longer surprised, but I am still amazed at the number of gamers who think they can completely analyse the effects of a rules-change or patch based on one (incomplete) playing.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Apr 14, 2006 8:24:35 GMT -5
Retire bug definitly is not fixed! Neither are some of the civics notagoodname - are you saying that the civics bugs aren't fixed because you've tested it in 1.61, or because they're not mentioned in the readme? My information (a specific answer from Soren in fact) is that all three civics bugs were fixed even though only State Property was mentioned in the changelog. OK, I've just run a quick test (Future, me + 2 AIs in a team). All three of us are in Universal Suffrage but I'm only seeing +1 hammer from my towns, and I'm in Free Speech but my allies are not getting the +2 commerce in their towns. Unless you're seeing something different, I'd say the "stackable" civics definitely are no longer stackable.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Apr 12, 2006 7:56:59 GMT -5
Not to worry Eiffel, this looks more likely to benefit the reinforcing defender than the double-moving attacker.
As most players try to double-move from out of sight, they're not very likely to have a unit in place with movement points unused sitting in the right place. If they try to move one into place in advance, the defender gets a whole turn to kill it.
Thank God. The idea of double-moves with no delay is a little sick. As for the defenders' advantages; well yes they obviously exist, but that doesn't stop most team games ending early due to player elimination.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Apr 12, 2006 17:42:31 GMT -5
A host should always set the game settings and they are the hosts choice as he is the host... If players complain then they can host thier own games... It is simple as that... I mostly agree with Random here. Maybe if everyone in the room disagrees with him, then a host should think again. But in general, he's doing everyone a favour by cutting out all the endless chatter that comes with the "democratic" process of making game settings. Make the settings, tell people what they are, be prepared to explain (once) politely why you want to play that way, and then to explain politely that no they're not negotiable. Then play the damn game. I can always find something to read if I end up in one of those games that takes an hour to launch, but still; I'd rather it happened less often.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Mar 3, 2006 9:18:07 GMT -5
got it now, thanks ! still ..if this bug works the same way for both teams and both teams are aware of it , i dont see a reason banning it (am i missing something ?), those civics have other useful bonuses. My answer is, because they completely unbalance the game, and therefore reduce the number of strategies available down to one. If there's only one optimum strategy (i.e. abuse the broken civics as hard as you can) then there are no interesting decisions to make. Everyone will be doing the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Feb 28, 2006 8:57:25 GMT -5
Such is the price of fame...
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Feb 26, 2006 9:09:34 GMT -5
Future 2v2. Whenever.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Feb 19, 2006 9:23:02 GMT -5
Well, we've all played so much ancient that it's coming out of our ears. Given that Classical mostly feels like Ancient with a bit of a head-start, it's not surprising that in the search for something new people are choosing Renaissance over Classical.
But yeah, it's a fad. At least in the sense that we'll soon have played so much Renaissance that it'll be coming out of our ears, and then we'll all start looking for something else. My vote's for Future.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Feb 22, 2006 12:00:59 GMT -5
As an argument about the validity of the Rankings, I don't think that really works. Wycombe Wanderers never get invited to play in the Champions League, but I doubt that cheapens the value of winning the championship.
But as a description of the slightly cliquey tendencies of the top ranks of the ladder, I do see your point. Very little of this is deliberate. (There's only one player who I see being regularly excluded from games or avoided by a large number of ladder players). It's pretty natural to want to play the people you know and like, and when looking for extra players to invite those on your buddy-list.
The solution is simply to get onto those buddy-lists, which isn't all that hard once you've played a couple of games with them. Almost all of the top-30 players are regular teamer-players; so all you have to do is see which games they're playing and ask to join. There are a few idiots who actively try to exclude players they don't know - the rest might be a bit rude about assuming that anyone they don't know is a "noob", but will play with you nonetheless. After a few days you're one of the regular team-game players and none of this is an issue.
The time-zone problem is obviously a bit more difficult. My solution is to play until 4am. This may or may not be an option for you.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Feb 21, 2006 9:07:00 GMT -5
No Sidhe, rank is a matter of who you beat and how often you beat them. A fairly crucial difference.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Feb 19, 2006 9:07:48 GMT -5
Nah. There are several team-games started evey day from the GS lobby if you're around, and a large pool of players who would rather play those than anything else. I rarely have trouble finding one or getting into one. Of course, atm everyone's playing Renaissance so if you want another era you may have to work a bit harder. But my bet is if you start a game and call it "Ladder Teamer" or something similar, they will come.
Your only problem will be having to deal politely with the narrow-minded ones who assume that anyone they haven't played before must be a stupid noob and not worth playing (it's a great catch that catch-22).
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Feb 18, 2006 11:42:38 GMT -5
Oh look, some more smug ladder vets whining about noobs. The last time I heard all this was last night from a top-ten ladder player and team captain who spent ten minutes singing this song, and in the end threatened to walk off until we re-arranged the teams to suit him. Then guess who got eliminated in the first 30 turns? Get over yourselves. There is a tiny handful of players I've seen who play consistently well. The rest of us screw up and play like newbs at regular intervals. So let's demonstrate maturity and show some consideration to new ladder members. I for one don't want to be playing the same dozen usual suspects day in and day out for the next six months.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Feb 5, 2006 13:32:32 GMT -5
For myself, I just don't enjoy 1v1s very much (especially not Ancient on Duel maps). They're so samey and one-dimensional, and so often decided by a single game event.
|
|