|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 3, 2006 5:27:29 GMT -5
maybe win % shows more .. maybe u are often in stronger team but maybe you r a stronger cap as the other cap or u picked more clever - or your standing isnt as high as your skill - or u just tend to win more often as others do If you're stronger captain and teams are equal then teams are imbalanced. Good captain is half of the victory. I played enough to know how it affects chances to win. You can pick clever only if you play with the same group of players. It's hard to pick clever if you never played with someone or it was a month ago. Also, sometimes there are 3 players that are better than others so 1st pick gets 2nd and it's 1vs2 from the start. Or there are 5 of them so it's 2 vs 3 etc. It's an obvious choice, it has nothing common with picking clever. Anyway, if teams are balanced (every team has about 50% chance to win) then you'll get 50% chance to win if you're constantly playing them. If teams aren't balanced, then you'll get a different chance to win. It's hard to argue with such a simple math
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 3, 2006 2:18:05 GMT -5
Well, if you play only in teamers with a balanced teams (or at least a number of teamers where you are in a stronger team is equal to a number of teamers where you are in a weaker team) then your win/loss on average will be 50% So win/loss from teamers shows only how much you play in a stronger team.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 2, 2006 9:09:31 GMT -5
There should be a hotkey that centers a screen on the last ping location (pressing it another time should center a screen on a second last ping location etc.). Like it was done, say, in Starcraft many, many years ago (you can press space to center on the last event)... Then it will save some time, yes. As it is now, it wastes more time than it saves. Say, for me it breaks a default micromanagement cycle. It disappears too fast so it's impossible to finish current business and watch it later when i finished microing workers for that turn, for example. And it generally requires some non-standart decision-making so i need to "quit" my "micromanagement mode" in which i can control workers/units faster. P.S. Anyone who thinks that there should be a way to disable pinging should stick to ctons. Teamers definately aren't their game style
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 1, 2006 1:56:32 GMT -5
Alot of the old C3C players that were advocating CIV seem to have moved on, funnily enough some back to C3C. Yeah, where are all these beta-testers and strategy-guide-writers who were hyper-active promoting Civ 4 on forums about the time Civ 4 was released?
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Feb 28, 2006 3:03:30 GMT -5
Well a little birdie told me the patch is out soon, so maybe the fan base will increase. And forget about the single player snobs we all know where the best players are ;D MMORPG clearly show that patches rarely bring people back even if these people left only because of the issues that are fixed in these patches (i.e. only minority returns). And they can't bring new people as well. Expansion can increase a multiplayer fanbase. Patches can't do it. If my memory serves me correctly, there 900 barrier was broken on quite a few occasions, and lets face it C3C was very buggy and definatly not intended for MP. In terms of MP popularity i think its embrassing that it even being compared C3C (Although it is quite effectivly), it should be compared with modern MP games like AoE, and lobby numbers should be compared to measure MP success. I think youll find its wouldnt even be 2:1. I say we can also compare it to old MP games like Starcraft. 1/5 of the population of the South Korea played on the battle.net ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jul 17, 2006 15:04:27 GMT -5
Yet released? Do they mean patches yet to be released? If so, they are selling their already paying customers patches. Well, i guess that they'll release all new patches for Warlords expansion only. You know, it's not Blizzard that cares about all their customers and releases patches for both expansion and non-expansion players for games that were released 6 years before the patch.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 1, 2006 13:22:45 GMT -5
Tretyakov is surely a good player. He builds courthouses in a capital and banks in a city with 3 gold/turn. I guess that any player who doesn't know arithmetics will not play with me in one team again
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Feb 24, 2006 8:49:58 GMT -5
When you do know that you as well may report losses at turn 2 in a teamer? -"Please, no Pacifism on front!" -"Heheheh it's to save on upkeep. When i'll get a religion i'll switch" (of course, he had non-spiritual civ)
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Feb 21, 2006 2:22:08 GMT -5
oh well, it might be better to learn basics yourself then to advise others to do By the way... So far i played 5 games in front on Renessance/Inland Sea (if i didn't forgot something). In a first game i chocked Islandia. Well, actually i didn't burn his 2nd city when he has 2 cities only because i made a critical micromanagement mistake (i tried to move units several seconds before the end of turn but focus switched to a far away worker so i was late by half a second to move one of the two units, i checked save later to be sure). Still, i burned one of his cities later and we were leading by tech (i had 180 research/turn as well while on front line). His north ally lost a city as well and after that they were killed with galleons. I'll tell about my 2nd game (which you refer to) in the end. In a 3rd game on the front on Ren/Inland i was against Tricky. I was 1vs2 (i didn't need help anyway), Tricky got help as early as 1250 ad - 1st musketer from his ally was in his capital, there was a road between him and his 2nd line ally, they tried to counter-choke, and he died anyway to some cats/maceman/musketman. In a 4th game i was against StoneDGoD. He chocked me somewhat (but not good enough, i still had 2 forward cities) and tried to press me early. I got about 5 Knights from my 2nd line ally, 3-4 were in first stack among my units (1st city burned) and remaining Knights were in a 2nd stack that finished his forward city what was cut from any possible reinforcements by a 1st stack. 2 cities burned, gg. His ally who was behind also died as well thanks to a cossacks i got from my ally. In a 5th game i was against [TX]Agentk. He planted one of his cities 2 squares away from my stack (that stack still has one move left so that city burned on the next turn). I got 2-3 Knights, horses, iron and some mushkets from NapalmNow (who still was 1st in score and research). After that, i kept one stack near his capital while ~4 Knights burned one of his south cities in the back line. Unfortunately, i lost a stack near capital when he noticed knights and i decided to push both sides at the same time, but at least he wasn't able to reinforce south that way. Sweviking who was behind was dead almost immediately after [TX]Agentk, he wasn't able to handle 6 knights well (though he killed 2). Both said that i was lucky ;D Well i said that i'm a Lucky Noobâ„¢ a long time ago so it isn't news to me ;D Now, back to the 2nd game. In a 2nd game you refer to i made 2 serious mistakes. But i didn't recieve any help from you AT ALL. In EVERY other game i played on Ren/Inland/Frontline either me or my opponent got help when in need. But you just planted 10 cities. And i know why it was that way. You had a negative altitude toward me even before the game. When you saw that i was in trouble you just kept planting cities and narcissically watched your score growing so to calm your ego in case of defeat. And you got exactly what you wanted. In the end, i killed 3 horse archers, 3 knights and 3 war charriots without any significant losses and they still had 3 knights, 2 maceman and 9 (NINE!) catapults. You said that i am a noob. Yeah, sure, whatever you need to save your precious ego. BTW you didn't said anything when one our city was lost on the south where were 2 top players what always play with you in teamers. There were 2 of them close to each other, they defended together, they lost a city long before me and you didn't say anything about them... So far it's 4 vs 1 score for me. Maybe there was one more game i forgot, but that means that my ally died too early in that game and we surrendered so i don't remember that game, there were some games like that. And i lost the only one where you, tommynt, was behind me and i was 1vs2 (well, to be fair, without 2 mistakes i made i proably shouldn't have died). At that time you was angry because you lost several teamers in a row because of noobs (c)tommynt, but still it wasn't a good enough reason to just watch and do nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Feb 20, 2006 1:23:38 GMT -5
Yeah I was being somewwhat Ironic but I like Magzi live in the GMT timezone and I always seem to miss them, when I get into the lobby there's nothing but ctons and the like. I have played 1 ren teamer in about a month, so I can understand where she's coming from? I'm stuck with the pointless buildfest anc ctons at the moment. Boo hoo roll on the patch I'm in GMT +3 time zone. Well, during weekends there are 2-3 lobby ladder teamers going just about all the time. If you have the most active ladder players in friends list in the lobby, then you can check how many of teamers are going and when they started. You just look in the ladder page and check time since the last game for several players in that teamer. If it's 0.0 then teamer just started. If it's 0.2 or more for everyone then probably it will end really soon and a new one will form. During workdays there is one "invite only" DirectIP top player teamer going (it's easy to check it as well, "Daily Results" + "Standings->Top Fifty"). Since they don't have enough players themselves (at least, during GMT +3 prime time), they invite other players as well that further reduces a lobby team player reserves. So maybe there will be one lobby ladder teamer if you're lucky (after all, you're in GMT +0 time zone so you have more chances to find a teamer than me).
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Feb 18, 2006 3:40:23 GMT -5
the worst things is that these dudes dont even follow advise - if u say get pikes they get cities if u say watch your worker it s gonne in 2 turns if u say move fast they watch and wait what happens ..... Well, i made one mistake around a turn 12-15 and everything else was a result of my mistake. But you didn't help me with military either (isn't that a common mistake as well? ), and even enemy team said that i was 1 vs 2.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Feb 17, 2006 12:39:51 GMT -5
Aw, I'll never get to learn how to play in a teamer. Not managed one yet so can't ever be experienced now Nah. Actually, i'm saying about a different things. Players shouldn't learn game basics in teamers, especially in a ladder ones. After all, it's not that hard to build workers and improve land (and it's faster to learn how to do it in singleplayer anyway). I mean, come on, players are supposed to play a tutorial before multiplayer ladder teamers. And it's not that hard to defend your capital from a warrior when you have nothing else to defend. There are forums with a lot of good articles that teach you how to play. And you'll learn how to play faster by both reading forums and playing compared to just playing. If you want to learn how to play in a teamer... Well, it's actually very simple. Listen to more experienced players, manage your economy well, try to plan your actions according to a general plan. Help teammates when need. Everything else is the same as in other game types if you don't need to plan a general strategy. That's basically it. Teamer is the easiest game type. You'll not win nuts in cton if you have a sucky economy or you can't defend against one warrior. But you can get a free win in a teamer even if you suck. So, players don't need to learn how to play teamers. Players should first and foremost learn how to play the game itself.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Feb 17, 2006 6:08:46 GMT -5
I don't know what is going on in a ladder, but in last 5 teamers i played in 4 of them someone in my team dies at the very start of the game (10-20 turns, sometimes 30). And before that it wasn't significantly better either. Am i so unlucky or it happens every time? So far it seems that it's better to quit a teamer immediately (don't even start playing) if it comes that i should be one of the captains (and i don't like to be a captain anyway). I don't know other players so it's quite masochistic to play in such teamer. I still has more than 50% win/loss ratio solely because of ctons (thankfully, i was in a 1st place in all ctons but one, mostly because of luck).
But that's not all. The way how some players are playing incites an awe and terror in souls of their allies. For example, +8 food sulprus in a capital from irrigated plains and flood plains... That's a player who's on a front and is under attack at that moment. All nearby hills but one are unimproved. He said after a game that he uses automated workers. ROFL Still, he's somehow in top 50 players at that moment. Another one from the same game. OneSong says: 2nd line players should focus on research and great scientists. So, i have a nice ~70 research capital already, one scientist was used for Education and one for Academy. My ally (who was also behind) has a library, he almost completed a univercity, NO COTTAGES in capital even on flood plains and 20 research from his capital... TT This makes me cry.
But that's still ok. Some players in teamers just move their units from a capital and die to one warrior... I clearly remember 3 such cases and maybe i already forgot one or two.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Feb 17, 2006 1:24:19 GMT -5
What the hell does IIRC mean anyway? If I Recall Correctly. I think this abbreviation is as old as internet itself You can use this site www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=iircIt has a lot of abbreviations. Ellestar, I don't know if you played conquests; but the 1.20 patch was a step backwards. Civ 3 was horrible so i didn't. Just about any other TBS was more fun. MoM, MoO 1-2, SMAC, HoMM 3 multiplayer, Colonization etc. i heard rumors that next patch will be final one ... same crappy customer service as with civ3 conqu Final patch in an online multiplayer game? Developers should really get a clue. Both Diablo II and Starcraft are still being patched. Starcraft was released in 1998...
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Feb 16, 2006 8:13:51 GMT -5
It's not like they'll be able to fix everything with one patch so sooner is better
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Feb 16, 2006 5:17:07 GMT -5
IIRC it should have been released at least a week ago.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Feb 14, 2006 12:03:53 GMT -5
IMHO the only ones who don't like a posts from people with big egos are the ones who has a big egos themselves. Also, for some people it's a part of the fun no matter what kind of game they play. So IMHO best solution is to make another forum board for that kind of posts.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Feb 13, 2006 1:54:42 GMT -5
Hmm i don't know if it's true or not. However IIRC i never played with tommynt, but i played with most of top 20 who actively played in the last 2 weeks. So i don't know where he plays, but it's definately not a games what are open to other players. Of course, it may be because i live in GMT +3 timezone and he's from USA as i understand. But none the less i saw other players actually playing, but not him.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Feb 10, 2006 4:03:47 GMT -5
Nah it can't be that simple. When i'm playing Civ4, i have ICQ and Xfire in the background. Also, there are several FireFox windows opened (ladder "player search", gmail that updates information about every minute etc.). I remember i even played in a lobby with a Torrent client taking 60% of my upload capacity (30 kbyte out of 50 kbyte upload) and everything worked just fine.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Feb 6, 2006 7:28:27 GMT -5
It is called a "formal challenge" if you are in the top 50 and wish to move up playing 1v1..you challenge no more then half way to top spot and go from there. It will not work. High-ranked inactive players slide down in ranks too fast because of several teamers per day (especially in weekends). Formal challenges IMHO will be too slow to offset it even if you win most of it. Mirror 1v1 duel or tiny is the best map because everyone has the same resources and luck isn't an issue. To make it even better, we can choose leaders by banning untill only two sides will be left. Say, default rules for Moscow Heroes 3 torunaments were as follows: random player (who wins a flip of a coin) chooses if he bans first or second. After that, players ban sides in 121212 order until 2 sides are left. Then player that banned a side second-last chooses his side from the two remaining sides. What has happened to this game. Why is it that 95% of the top 50 players on Ladder do not play 1v1 games. They refuse to. It is almost impossible to find a 1v1 game with good players and it is getting out of hand. All I see is teamer games and an occasional cton and when these top players jump in teamer games with other top players it is easy to defend titles due to lack of competent team mates so it adds an entire new defense on people to maintain their rank. Well, in most cases there are two captains that pick players in 122121 order (for 4v4). Some games are Clan vs PUG (Pick-Up Group), but from my experience it's not that common. Anyway, clan members should practice to play with each other somehow, isn't it? And even then sometimes they decide to pick players when Clan vs PUG makes it too unbalanced. The real problem is that these games are mostly closed. As i was told, it's because noone in a team wants to lose because of one newbie. So, it's a good idea to play ctons first, it's not hard to get a good rank there IMHO (say, i got 42th place IIRC in just several days). Also, other players will notice you. Well, i'm just sharing useful information i got from other players. You can also try to join an active clan that plays in these teamers. What do people feel about this? Is there to much skill involved in 1v1 games and Ladder isn't about this kind of skill? I understand that people just want to have fun, but do people no longer have fun in 1v1 games? I need help on this issue because I am failing to accept what is going on here. It's probably too random. Even if resources and spawns are the same (say, on mirror), fights are still random. Less units means that random plays a bigger role. Also, double moves are still nasty, as are clickfests who moves unit first (host obviously has a huge advantage here, especially if it's something like Euro vs USA - in that case average pings are higher than average human reaction time). Another reason is that there is noone but maybe a bad luck to blame if you lose a duel ;D
|
|