|
Post by Ellestar on Apr 7, 2006 7:53:18 GMT -5
tony - about the betatester not playing thing - I talked to quite some betatester guys in civ3 times - not a single 1 said that civ4 d be a great game - some said thing like "i m not allowed to say - but it suckz" I really wondered why they made a game - which majority of people testing it dont like - oh well moneyx makes lot of things possible i guess Actually, most betatesters don't play after a release. It's the same for all games. oh well u r kinda right that clans maybe cant do much better as other good teams - but a good teamwork is important - and u can learn quite a lot I d take polydeukes as example - 3 weeks ago - he was maybe a medium player - now after some training some freaking by me and lot of plaiyng he s one of the top players out there It's hardly a good example. He played every day and consistently was in top 10 long before you invited him to MUD. another noob screwed teamer - u just need reliable backup guys. The problem is that not even the noobs have fun in a game were everybody is anoyed of em. I mean truly said ... what u think is gonna happen when some dude faces a player like germ in ancient ... he wont build up nuts .. or hwat happens when ebd and some noob face germ and jonneyboy - ebd gets hit bad and is pissed bout no support Well, that's what happens when there aren't enough good players out there. You played too much only with your team in Direct IP teamers. Now when some of them no longer active you don't have enough experienced players to play with. But you still try to play only with good players. After a while there will be even less good players and so on until there will be noone to play with ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Apr 7, 2006 7:50:41 GMT -5
Actually yeah, I'd like to ask too, what the hell are these SEKRIT CLAN STRATEGIES that are apparently so important? After 6 months or so, I haven't yet seen any real strategies that made me go "oh, wow, that's really clever!" How to play the game well is pretty obvious from the get-go. Improvement from there, in my experience, is threefold: Well, it's obvious how to play Starcraft as well. However, 8 years after a release it's still insanely popular in Korea and still popular in some other countries (matches on TV etc.). There is a big difference between knowing how to play and actually playing in the most efficient way. Say, i still do a lot of inefficient things while playing. B) Learning the tactics you are going to have to deal with; knowing that people go for cavalry, being ready for galleon drops, getting metal ASAP. Try to play on Ring and you'll cry how EVERYONE (including top players) dies to drops Everyone knows that it will happen and yet it doesn't help them in any way. Most of that stuff just gets better over time as you play more games and as you watch other players manage themselves. I don't think any of it benefits from "clan instruction." One of the big differences is that's if you just play you improve slowly compared to a focused training. The two basic most efficient ways to improve your skill is to 1) Play against better opposition in a competitive environment. If you're so weak that a better player will steamroll you because of overall domination (not just because of some strategy/tactics you don't know), it may not be efficient as well. Teammates that are stronger than you will also help, especially in strategic games where strategy/tactics is important. Obviously, when you're in a clan you do play with and/or against a stronger players on average. Also, non-clan players may not have access to some types of games (in most other games, clan match is quite different from Pick Up Group match so you can't just play PUG matches and expect to play good in clan matches after that). 2) Learn from your mistakes. That also means that you should be experienced enough to pinpoint mistakes instead of consequences of your mistakes, you shouldn't repeat them again in the similar situations etc. or it's inefficient. It's always good if someone more experienced can tell you about your mistakes because you may not understand the game good enough to understand it yourself. Also, it's just easier to notice other's mistakes. So, clan players do have an advantage here as well.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Apr 3, 2006 2:52:23 GMT -5
Well, a big difference (if not THE difference) between the Firaxis model and the Blizzard model is the money. You have to pay every month to play. You and the company seal a contract - but you can quit it whenever you like. It forces the company to provide support. Blizzard knows that if they ever lower their standards they will lose a lot of customers. Actually, i talked about games other than WoW. Everyone patches MMORPGs, after all there is a subscription model so there is nothing new here. But IIRC Diablo II and Starcraft were also patched in the last year. Guild Wars doesn't have a subscription fee as well, sales were about equal to Civ 4 sales but Guild Wars is being patched a lot, it got a free expansion and Arena.net hosts a normal servers with a client-server model instead of that Firaxis/Civ 4 peer-to-peer crap that causes all these connection issues. Also, Guild Wars has an amazing patching model. The "patches" are automatically streamed to you, and are incremental in the sense that once you've already got an update, future updates are relative to that one and thus not so massive. It's not just their patching model, it's their game engine that also is an editor for all content in their game. So when they update content, client downloads the changes. IIRC they spent about 2 years implementing it. So it will not work for Civ 4 Guild Wars also regularly do small or big updates, and not just that, those updates often reflect the demands of the community on their forums. They have even hired an employee just for community relations (everyone in Guild Wars knows her as Gaile), and she literally interacts with many of the Guild Wars websites out there. She keeps us informed, and even asks what we want, or how we prefer things to be like, and the coolest thing is, they actually do it. It makes you feel so happy. Actually, they had two community managers when i played (USA and Euro). Also, NCSoft itself manages Guild Wars in Korea so i guess they have their own employee for it (i doubt that Gaile knows Korean language). Almost everything u said on guild wars is wrong actually. The guild wars ladder does not work like case's at all. Guild Wars is based on a cumulative score -- whereby you get a maximum 45 ranking points for a win (for a very hard win) and a minimum of 1 ranking point (for an easy win). Additionally, you lose ranking points (maximum 45 for a loss against a really poorly ranked opponent and a minimum of 1 point for losing to someone who ranked much higher thank you). Players are constantly gaining/losing ranking points. Good teams can camp out their position on the ladder and not be dramatically effected, if they have a very strong win history/ranking. In other words, Guild Wars uses an Elo rating system. But this system was designed for two-player games so it's pointless to use it for Civ 4 ladder. It just will not work when we have a ctons and teamers with non-fixed teams. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_systemIt was used for chess and numerous other games and computer games (Starcraft, Warcraft III, Guild Wars ladders etc.).
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 31, 2006 11:19:55 GMT -5
Not a hit? You should check the sales charts, CIV has been in the top 10 and mostly top 5 selling games in Northamerica since Nov 05. It recently sold more than a million games world wide, sure it's not halflife, but for a TBS game that requires a little more strategic though put into it, it's pretty successful, and the best selling Civ game yet. Yes, they sold a lot of boxes and it proves that Firaxis sucks. Guild Wars sold about a million copies as well but they released A LOT of patches and a free expansion. And their online servers are outstanding (they were so even in beta events). Well, Guild Wars was founded by 3 major Blizzard employees so it has corresponding quality. Some people do work so not to feel ashamed and some do only as much as it needs to make some quick money. That's why everyone buys Blizzard games even if they're from a different genre (like WoW). If you buy a Blizzard game, you can be 100% certain that you'll not waste your money. So it's a safe bet to buy it. Unfortunately, it not true for most other games. Well, Civ 4 is a really good game. Maybe it's not as good as, say, Starcraft that is still more popular than all Civ series combined. But it obvious that developers worked hard and really tried to make a good game. However when we do have a good game with an awful support it becomes even more obvious that after-release support is awful. After all, noone expects much from some noname developer who made small sales from a sucky game. But when a company with such name as Firaxis makes as much money as some other companies but doesn't provide a corresponding support it doesn't look good. In short: Firaxis doesn't come up to our expectations.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 31, 2006 11:13:15 GMT -5
Oh and don't forget Neverwinter Nights 2 is coming out this summer. Heh I won't be playing much civ around that time. Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is already released, NWN 2 and Gothic 3 will arrive soon as well It will be a good year for RPG players
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 31, 2006 1:01:02 GMT -5
found another bug .. in occ a ai takeover can build more cities ... zhis game is just tooo full of this nuts ... oh ya and just meet 1. cheater in civ4 .. but thats another thread It's not a bug. OCC was made for singleplayer One City Challenges. AI should play in a normal way in OCC and so it does, he can build more than one city.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 30, 2006 5:40:17 GMT -5
elle we MUD guys are fairly active together and try to do mUD vs as often as possible - just too often others are scared (we challenged for example ilus with fried often enough ...) just cause u arent a active clan player it doesnt mean that others arent aswell First, DO NOT CALL ME "ELLE". I REPEATED IT MANY, MANY TIMES. I saw only MUD vs PUG. PUG is not a clan, it's a Pick Up Group. Any self-respected clans in other games beat PUG's with closed eyes I never even heard about a clan wars in Civ 4. Correction: I'm not a clan player at all and i never was in a Civ 4 clan. Eh Illuminati would love playing mud 3v3 4v4 etc. Xma and mark and islandia speaker have all asked me several times if i wanted to play with em vs mud but mud never shows up when we are there.... That's exactly why a practice clan war, friendly clan match or a clan war is an arranged event. Say, in cybersport clans there is a clan member that is responsible for arranging these events for his clan (mostly practice clan wars because it's a common way of training for team games and so clan plays them several times per week). I blame ladder more than civ4 for that I don't mean a ladder rules or something like that, but overall state of the ladder is awful (especially compared to other more successful games). I'd love to see the ladder expand even more. But would you like to tell me specifically how we are mismanaging the ladder? Actually i wanted to say by it that you don't mismanage a ladder. I just didn't find the right words (don't forget that i'm not a native english speaker so sometimes it's hard to express complicated matters). But if you have idea's on how to make the ladder better please post them and not just criticism. If i'll have any ideas i'll say. Mark Twain once said that "There are 3 types of lies, lies, dam lies, and statistics", ergo we can twist statistics to say pretty much what we want. But my point was that we have lots of active players, otherwise how do we get 500 matches reported every day? And we do have 250 active players I think you'll agree that my way of counting an active players is closer to the truth. A number of inactive player doesn't mean much, and counting players who never even won a match is pointless as well (i guess most of them are inactive anyway).
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 29, 2006 5:18:52 GMT -5
4)360 degrees of Civ. Seriously, this one is bad. - You start Civ4 playing random tossers in the gallery. A lot of cursing idiots, minimal skills around, quitting and whining rampant. - Then you start playing ladder, good games, noone quitting, Civ lookin great. - Then you get good and start playing teamers with goods. Most of these guys mistake their ranks for their thingyes and long since forgot that their stats are meaningless, this is a game, everyone should have fun. So you are back to where you started, insane levels of whining and excuses. Quitting, even in the pre-game room. Quitting early like general gallery cos they can see likely path whole game will play out on terrain and civs alone, so why bother playing. Quitting early is like 50/50 chance of occurring in teamers, even worse than gallery. Community too small so no accountability. I have seen people quit first turns of 5v5 teamers cos they think they are so good they can make workers on front line and leave when it doesn't pay off without even trying to recover. Game over, 5 reports, everyone plays with em again next game like they didn't just screw 9 people out of a fun game cos they are selfish. Many similiar examples. 20 minute pauses to whine about team selection. 30 minute pauses to fight over skill comparison of subs. Really lame stuff. Haha nice one. It's not an absolute truth, but it's close. Quitting isn't that common though some players do like to do it And some don't plan if they have enough time to finish a game. A big problem with 'chess style' systems is endlessly playing weak players to boost score. At least with cases you have to beat the players at the top to get to the top. It's not a big problem if you don't gain any score at all for winning against an opponent with a significantly lesser score. But it will not work for team games anyway. And it doesn't work good when there aren't enough players. I dont like pre-defined map as inland, whell, ring etc... Peps say that pangea is resoures unbalanced but all maps mentioned above is resorsc balanced or unbalanced like pangea. No, you're wrong. Noone says that (unless they are noobs and don't know different maps). Pangea has a map imbalance. Someone can have twice as much land as his opponent, someone can spawn between a desert and a coast etc. Civ4 is not dying, it's growing very fast as a matter of fact. Despite the problems we have now while waiting for the patch, we have 938 members as of today, and average 500 match per day. Hardly a ladder that is dying. 938? ROFL I don't know where you get that number. Look here: Ladder site -> Standings -> View Ranks. Last page with active players is 201-300, and about half of them are active. So, there are 250 active players in the ladder at that moment. nuts, I program for a living. The data cache bug has got to be about ten lines of code which someone could find in an afternoon, patch, test, and upload for distribution. And for god's sake, put a notice up before the lobby screen that says "You seem to be behind a firewall. Civ 4 needs port 2056 UDP open to establish multiplayer connections. You can visit this site to see how to forward ports on your firewall." It's not like these are content patches or big design issues; these are little bugfixes for major issues. Waiting months for them is inexplicable. Yes. I should have been fired from my work a long time ago if i fixed bugs as "fast" as Firaxis programmers. SP dun do it for me so if ladder died, I would uninstall Civ and grab Oblivion or try Galactic Civ2 or something else. I am lovin it though so hope muchly it don't die. I have both. GalCiv 2 still sucks as is GalCiv. Not many strategic chocies, economy model is imbalanced and is harder to control than MOO3 one (if you want to run it at a good efficiency). Oblivion rocks, definately take that one if you like open RPG concept (or just nice graphics). Believe me the patch is coming, teh delay is only the added over head of Take2, if a english only patch could be released it would have been out ages ago, but Take2 realizes that it has markets world wide, and the patch must be localized and in a professional manner as well, that takes time as well. I wish the patch was out yesterday as well, but it's still better to have a patch with no bugs found especially since this is the last patch before the XP. CS That's why sane developers do make a smaller code patches for critical issues instead of making one huge code+data patch. P.S. Patch isn't a god so we shouldn't "believe"(c)canucksoldier that it will descend to earth sooner or later everything else is just bullcrap from a guy who hardly plays and have no clue - there s just one thing - very few guys play - but I blame more civ4 and the superpoor suport as the ladder for that. I blame ladder more than civ4 for that I don't mean a ladder rules or something like that, but overall state of the ladder is awful (especially compared to other more successful games). Barely 50 active players playing teamers. No REAL clans (like in other games). There are group of friends here and there, yes. But where are clan wars, practice matches, tournaments, competition between clans (don't tell fairy tales about CCC)? Even MMORPG clans are far better and more organized than Civ 4 clans, no need to mention cybersport clans.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 23, 2006 3:04:48 GMT -5
Anyway i hope that patch will not be released Soon™. It will be better if patch will be released before an expansion ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 7, 2006 9:04:27 GMT -5
You forgot to switch to slavery Good old whipping works perfectly. Firaxis can always hire some more developers and betatesters as a replacement.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 14, 2006 1:24:27 GMT -5
My firewall asked me if it's a trusted network when i installed Hamachi. So at least some firewalls proctect you from others on this VPN as well. As i understand, Hamachi creates a virtual network adapter. So, firewalls may work with it as with any other network. That means that Hamachi may or may not help if someone's firewall on computer where Civ is installed blocks UDP packets on port 2056. But you don't completely drop your security by using Hamachi if you have a firewall on that properly works with several network adapters. And it should solve problems with routers and external firewalls (if Hamachi can connect through them but Civ can't). There can be only 17 accounts (16+owner) in one network if we're using it for free. So we can't use one network for everyone. premium.hamachi.cc/compare.php
|
|
|
Future
Mar 6, 2006 1:48:23 GMT -5
Post by Ellestar on Mar 6, 2006 1:48:23 GMT -5
Try Future on Ring. Then it will not be as easy to defend 3 cities? Hmm and what's your production then? In the last game on future i had 3.5 cities producing ships only (one did it half of the time).
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 10, 2006 2:27:33 GMT -5
The game usually includes noobs, making team strategy virtually impossible if it's not a clan game, the game usually lags a lot more than smaller teamers, you are playing with ppl you have no idea about, good players often get a very boring starting location, no matter how good you do or how perfect you play(kill, aid and support) you can still lose the game easily no matter how hard you're trying to give advice. I think I mentioned lag but it's worth mentioning at least 3 times more. Nah some top players don't give an advice, they take units from everyone else and fight alone with all units in 5v5 teamer So they don't need a team strategy (they do everything themselves), no team coordination, no advices, nothing. I don't know what's the point of playing a teamer if they do it anyway... 2) New ladder players should start with duels and ctons, ask intelligent questions etc or play teamers with their clan(not ladder) Direct IP ladder teamer with top players a long time ago, Ancient start "-So, what were our mistakes (other than that and that)?" "-Hey, Ellestar, stop whining." "-I don't like your attitude man." "-We still didn't lost so stop that." LOL i still remember that. So don't forget to add to (2) that clan should give an intelligent answers to intelligent questions ;D 3) Ladder teamers need to be more 2v2 or 3v3 or 2v2v2v2 or 3v3v3v3 etc. and teams should be friend based rather than trying to do some rank or feeling based crap. A bigger teamer is fine if it's a clan match and players have practiced it. By the way, anyone saw a Clan War match like... ever? I think i saw only one in lobby. IIRC it was TX vs Illuminati. And i'm not sure that it was actually started, i think they only tried to arrange it. Now, I still don't know what I could have done better in the game and it pisses me off because I report for the mistakes of others. Maybe I'm the only one then.... Now it pisses me off only if it's 2 or more losses in a row where i wasn't able to change anything. Or if i see imbalanced teams forming immediately after such loss. It happens so frequently that if i'll care about every one of them it's better not to play at all. And it pisses me off when i'm behind in Ren teamers. Last time i was in the front in them several times in a row i got such a nice winning streak
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 7, 2006 18:16:28 GMT -5
I hear ya tommy, and it doesn't happen just in teamers. Unfortunately, I doubt there is very much that can be done about it. If the admin put in a rule to cover such an incedent then others would use it to quit games and just state they felt they where being insulted so they don't need to report. Then it would come done to your word against his/hers. Maybe just put up with the person who is issuing the insults for that one game and then put him/her on your DNP list. Actually, all conversations are stored in a save files so players can prove that harassment has happened.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 7, 2006 4:26:40 GMT -5
if the team lost some players gonna analyze it to death... why did we lose, he/she is a noob, he/she shouldent done that, we should have done this... yada yada... Analyzing the loss is MANDATORY requirment to play better. Ask any progamer, he'll tell you the same. It's the first thing you should do to improve your skills. Also, when i'm discussing it i want to hear other's opinions as well because i may be wrong in my analyze. Yet, absolute majority of players threats it either as a whine or as a personal attack even if it's said in a neutral tone. Arguing and beeing rude very often. This concerns a few players only so its not a general problem. I guess i'm one of the players who's rude But i'm rude to everyone - in real life, at a work etc. Just understand, that there are diffrent play styles, some players havent played civ as much as some others have. See the diffrence in players that something good instead of something bad. All are noobs in the beginning, all players make mistakes now and then, even veterans make them... Yes there are different playstyles. And i understand it. But... Well, i guess several examples will explain it better. 1) "Different playstyles." Well, there is a 4v4 Ren lobby teamer starting and there are 2 new players already in (noone knows them so they're new to Ren ladder teamers, rank and win/loss is so-so). It's a semi-balanced situation (each team gets a wildcard). We're waiting for eigth player. One of the new players invites another unknown player that has a skill 1100 and 100 wins/200 losses (my guess was that it's automatic death for him in the first turns if he's on front against me, wanggon or yumpak). Since noone knows how to make a balanced teams in that situation, game stalls in lobby. Longhorn decides that he doesn't want to play in such a game and quits, someone else joins. New players start to say something like "let's go" etc. I'm saying that i don't know how to make a balanced teams here. That one with skill 1100 says "Hey just do some teams and go. Who cares, it's just a game". Now a small remark. If someone says "it's just a game", then the true meaning is like that: "I don't care if i win or lose, i don't care if my team wins or loses so i don't care about other players and i don't care if they'll have fun playing this game or they don't. I don't want to learn from my mistakes or improve my skills. I'm here just to waste some time. For me it's just like watching TV show and eating popcorn." From my experience, that assumption is almost always true. By the way, when you hear it from someone with 300 games and skill 1100, you understand that you're about right in that. And guess what? I don't want to play with such players, with them or against them. I politely said him exactly that - afther that phrase it's obvious that we just have different playstyles and we just don't come along together. And i quit the staging room. So, in the end, yes, there are different playstyles. And players with such a mindset should stick to ctons if they don't care about other teammates or their team winning. Or they should play with players with the same mindset. Else, it just destroys games for a players with a different playstyles. 2) "Mistakes". Sure, i understand when players make a mistakes. Even "veterans" do it. I do them a lot as well. Now, what should i think about a player who hosts several Ren teamers every day and has 400 reports total when he places his 2nd city (with a 2nd starting settler) in the middle of a grass near enemy capital and with enemy units on two nearby forested hills??? I said him that he suicided the very turn he did it And of course i was right After such a suicide move he had half as much production as a 2nd worst production player in a game for entire game until his death... Well, i expect that everyone who played that much in exactly that setting and who is in top 20 for some time will not do a blatantly obvious suicide attempts. Guess what he said after that? "It's just a game". ROFL Just another player with 200 reports total and with a highest rank 17 built Courthouse in a capital and banks in other cities (including cities that generated 3 gold/turn). That's when i needed 5 more units max to kill Willburn for like 20-25 turns straght. Of course, he sent me 0 (ZERO) units. In the next game (after a week or so) on Industrial i said at the very start - "Please no merchants" (there are merchant specialists in cities by default). Guess what he does? He makes a merchant. I'm saying "I SAID NO F****** MERCHANTS!!!" (another act of stupidity in 2 games in a row, once again from him, so i was kinda angry). Besides, i expected something like that from him after a previous game, other players in a team were reliable. Guess what he does after that? He makes just another merchant Well i guess some players are just idiots no matter what's their rank or how much they play. And idiots drive me mad. Besides, he said me to blame StoneDGoD instead because he died to 2 transport drops. So what if he died? It's not that easy to defend, especially without an experience. But it's significantly easier not to make merchants. Sure, no reason to yell at the noob if he does that but we're talking about a player with 200 reports and a highest rank 17. Just another one. Highest rank 23, 300 reports. He failed to kill enemy THREE times. I mean, come on? Is it hard to move a stack of 2 units in 10 seconds? He failed twice in a row. If he can't both manage economy and move units then he should give units to a front player. Is it hard to move at the end of the next turn (i repeated it twice just in case)? He moves at the start and spoils a 100% town kill. After there are 6 cossacks with 2-4 str in a city and some more equally 3/4-dead units he retreats with a stack of 9-11 musketeers and says that he doesn't want to suicide against cossacks (that's when an enemy player already lost one city). By the way, he retreats and says it after i asked an advice from other players if i should attack and AFTER i already attacked. Of course, after that 3 players yelled at him. I don't see how it can be any different after that. In responce, he said that he was right in all cases and we're wrong ;D Anyway, it was the funniest game in that month Have fun, play civ, try your best to win of course. But if you lose is it the end of the world??? Because after a loss a new game starts in maximum 30 min that you can win. You can win it if you learned something. Else, it's a pointless assumption. I would never think of beeing rude to a players "face" after a loss or a game in general. Just accept it, and dont play withthe player in a near future if you think hes that bad or give him advice without caps and alot of !!!! after the comment. It's not that easy not to play with someone in a teamers. I guess the only reliable way is to host a teamer himself and don't invite players you don't want. idont know if im wrong here, but every evening/night i go to play, i go to have a good time, have fun and enjoy the game i love. It's the same for me. So please all you grumpy, unhappy and crap talkin players, start having fun with CIV or play another game! Trust me, i do have fun playing Civ 4. At least, until someone will spoil all the fun. Actually, most of the time these players fail to spoil all the fun despite their attempts. But sometimes ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 3, 2006 12:06:34 GMT -5
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. Like making tons of knights, upgrading them to cossacks and steamrolling opposition BTW it summed up nicely in a Tom Cadwell's "Lecture 8: Play Balance" (rewritten article is here www.gamedev.net/reference/design/features/balance/default.asp , but i prefer an original one). Game balance, in the broadest sense, is derived from two major axioms of game design. The first is that players should have options and choices -- a game without choices is usually not really a game... choices and the interaction involved are what elevate a game from reciting a script, or watching a movie.
The second is that games should not have unnecessary components that dilute the gameplay. Choices that are never a "right" choice, or are almost always a wrong choice are not really choices at all, and are just noise that makes the rest of the game less compelling. Combine these two, and you have the basis of balance. Specific balance issues are listed below:
1) Dominant Strategies A dominant strategy is a case where one choice is always better than the other. This is always bad, because its effectively one choice, with noise -- not a compelling bit of gameplay. In multiplayer games, this manifests itself as times where you always play the same strategy no matter what, or when one player can play a particular sequence of actions and responses that guarantee the other player will be at a disadvantage, no matter what.
... etc.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 3, 2006 2:05:16 GMT -5
By the way in any community 1 in 10,000 people have slightly faster reactions. And I mean slightly don't believe the hype these guys are full of it and they know it, speed of thought matters, not hand eye speed. The rest is just connection speed and there own ignorant bs. I've yet to see someone on dial up or 128k dsl beat my reaction speed. And I'm I think average, there was a whole mythos in C3c that somehow someone was fast because of reactions nope either connection speed or there fast cause they learn the game to excess(and usually and uncannily enough both)but also because they can think fast nothing you can do hand eye co-ordination wise means jack? we're literally talking about microseconds between reaction times here.... And I can prove this scientificaly if you need it. Microseconds? Actually, average human reaction time is about 200 miliseconds (for example, try www.reflexgame.com note that it triggers on releasing a mouse button so press and hold it, release when border changes color). I can get 150 sometimes and 170 consistently if i'm not seriously underslept (then it grows to about 200-220). Ping is also measured in miliseconds. Modem adds a ping of +150, maybe +200 compared to a T1 or something like that. ADSL adds +20 ping (at least to me, i have a 2048/512 Kb ADSL). Also, if host is in USA i have an additional +200 to ping (or more if he lives in the middle of nowhere and has a bad ping to major lines himself). For europe, it's additional +20 to +40 ping for me (sometimes up to +130 if host's connection sucks). Say, i have a ping 38 to europe.battle.net (Starcraft/Warcraft/Diablo etc., 20 ADSL + 18 my provider->Telia provider to a total of 38) So, as you see, i may get about +50 miliseconds compared to somewhat slow player (170 vs 220 miliseconds reaction time). Pings difference is significantly bigger in most cases. Also, when you just spam a keyboard , reaction time isn't important at all.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 2, 2006 16:46:12 GMT -5
AFAIK huts do have a mirrored results. But an ability to mirror Inland Sea etc. will be really nice. I think it can be modded right?
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 5, 2006 5:56:11 GMT -5
so then............ teams are NOT equal because captains are not part of "the team?" Captains are part of the team. P.S. You should train your reading comprehension skills if you want to argue on forums. Or just stop trolling.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 3, 2006 12:18:18 GMT -5
yesssssssssssssssssss, if teams are equal then teams are imbalanced? Ok, if you don't understand obvious things i may explain. If teams are about equal if you count only personal player non-leadership/non-team strategy skills and some team has a better captain (i.e. he has better leadership, team strategy skills etc.) then obviously team with a better captain has a bigger chance to win.
|
|