|
Post by deyreepher on Nov 13, 2007 12:27:00 GMT -5
It's not about what you think, it's about what we want. Put up a poll, I'm sure there are plenty of cton players who would like to have a separate rating. I don't have an opinion on the matter, yet. However, it looks like Ellestar has looked into this and would be your man in implementing this if this is what the ladder would like. Well I'm sure that the development team will get lots of feedback when we reach the stage of a large beta test. Until then what "we think" is based on the entire Admin/TD team's experience, and the comments in this thread. And I'm sure we have a pretty complete system ready now. I'm sure that there will be lots of improvements to follow as we progress threw the testing, but it's not like there is not years of experience present in the initial development team. CS You have qualified individuals who can support this project like Ellestar and Geforced. Why would you keep the the circle that makes the decisions on the development of this ladder to the programmer, the admins, and the TDs? What qualifies this closed group from making all the decisions? For one, you said it yourself, you and the admins were happy to continue using the Case's Ladder system, which most of us find grossly inadequate. Second, it seems like Ellestar and, to some extent, Geforced have been researching the algorithms needed to create a system that will encompass the various styles of play that are found within the ladder. The admins have not demonstrated this level of dedication or research into what would help better service our varying demographic of players. Again, I will state that it seems that your team has a limited vision of what would help benefit the ladder. If you are not going to include the before mentioned individuals in the process of developing this new ladder, I do not know what to think other than you are very controlling of this community. It is not like I am asking for you to open the doors up to myself or the players that I play with to making decisions. I am asking you to include players that I have vague relationships with to be included in the developmental process of this new ladder. You stated your team does not have the experience or the know-how to create a system from scratch. That obviously means you could use a few members. Two members have stated they may have sort of skill set to help you out. Why exclude them?
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Nov 13, 2007 12:17:40 GMT -5
well ive stopped development on my ladder now, but ill tell you the main problem is these random team games, realisticly team games should be kept to clan matches like pretty much every other game. even when somone is ranked on this basis it will mean absolutely nothing i had the idea of a proper point system, which would end at the last night of the month, winners declared and be reset, pretty similar to the old c'n'c ladder, ive lost the formula ill try to dig it out somtime That is a good idea, it is good that you brought it up now. I think Geforced has hit a good point. The inclusion of clan matches could slowly lead to the implementation of league style play in Civ IV. Though pick-up teamers are nice in a pinch, playing against another established team would greatly benefit the level of play found on the ladder. The best way to promote the CCC is to have competition. The 6 week break between CCCs would be a great time to be able to ramp up the competition. Also, this problem of having ineligible players due to not knowing they are on a team, mis-spelled user names, and other various reasons could potentially be offset by having standing clan roster support with this new ladder system. The admins already have to deal with tracking user names, I'm sure it would not take that much more effort to track which clans are in existence. As this CCC, there is the issue of fake clans. However, having a pre-requisite of a set number of clan matches to qualify for the CCC would be a possible solution to this potential problem. For one, it ensures that a team has the organization to get a team together to participate in a match. Second, it introduces them to some sort of competition prior to the CCC if they are a new clan. Again, I will point out that others do see the Case's Ladder System as inadequate. Apparently, Geforced was another resource you could have drawn upon for the creation of a new ladder. Maybe you need a new ladder system advisory board and make sure that it is staffed by people who have the ability and the drive to make these things happen. Multiple heads are usually better than one.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Nov 13, 2007 1:03:25 GMT -5
Since it's clear that the designers of the new ladder are trying to make it equal and balanced for both teamer players and non-teamer players, why not have an option at the beginning of the reporting process that seperates teamer stats from non-teamer stats: example: ===================== Report Game log in: xxxxxxxxx Tearmer: ___ Non-Teamer: ___ (followed by the normal reporting process, etc etc etc) Would it be that bad or that hard to show who's the seperate stats for both in the appropriate section of the new ladder? i.e. TEAMERS:.........NON-TEAMERS 1. bob..............1. jim 2. billy..............2. frank 3. john.............3. clark I don't think we need to separate game types at the front end, we will have lots of stats that can be displayed, including specific game type stats for each player and overall stats. We are going to operate under the concept that we design a system that ranks all players skill together on the same list. How we fairly rate skill from different games types, to do this, is what we are debating now. If you want to see that player X has 85% of there games played as teamers and there skill makes them the 8th ranked player, that will be available as a statistic. And to create a separate list of skill from a specific game type should not be hard, as when you report your wins, you have to enter the type of game as step 1, so all that info is in the player database. CS It's not about what you think, it's about what we want. Put up a poll, I'm sure there are plenty of cton players who would like to have a separate rating. I don't have an opinion on the matter, yet. However, it looks like Ellestar has looked into this and would be your man in implementing this if this is what the ladder would like.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 8, 2007 14:53:07 GMT -5
Well it kinda makes sense actually, CCC is like once every 1-2 months, and they would have to give out prizes to more than one person, which would just cost the sponsors too much money. There are other ways to reward players. Such as letting the winners beta test upcoming patches or expansions. Makes sense, wouldn't it? If you can dominate all your ladder opponents, you must surely have some insight that would be valuable to the developers. Or maybe, I'm wrong. Not all prizes have to have a hard monetary value. As it is, I think I'll be moving onto World in Conflict. An MP oriented game with a $40k tourney being hosted near the release date of the game. Sure, I may not win it, but at least I have the chance to. This game is just becoming a noob fest of epic proportions but at ever blazing speeds. Sorry about hi-jacking your post on the tourney. I just wish we had organizers/developers that gave half a rat's ass as our Polish Civers seem to have. I guess I'm just jealous and a bit jaded.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 8, 2007 12:48:02 GMT -5
It's not so hard - each company has a budget for it's promotion. So I contacted them and after few visits I managed to yank out few prizes for first KAC Cup - exactly there was 17 games. Second edition has only 10 prizes, but I think that are much more interesting as there are 4 pieces of new add-on... So, we are awaiting you to confront us I think it's cool that you guys managed to get that kind of sponsorship for your tournament. I'm just disappointed that the the Olympics of Civ gets nothing for its efforts. It just goes to show....I go too far.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 8, 2007 6:31:50 GMT -5
Hey...these guys are sponsored...how come the CCC isn't sponsored?
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Apr 22, 2007 10:47:11 GMT -5
TX - Willburn, Polydeukes, and DeyReepher are throwing their hats in to the ring.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Aug 25, 2006 14:34:20 GMT -5
Cash tournaments would be a great idea. The ladder needs to mature and grow, correct? The hardcore players want to put a little more on the line as the current system is sort of bunk. Right now we play for what....name recognition? That doesn't seem to work very well as people seem to be changing their names as often as their socks.
I do see the problems that can arise due to cheating. I still wish there was a replay feature like Starcraft/Warcraft have. A spectator option would be great as well.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Sept 6, 2006 19:32:03 GMT -5
Keep at it. We're rootin for ya.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Aug 28, 2006 4:54:13 GMT -5
The martians are terraforming Nevada, don't blame it on the silver miners. Shhh...that was a govt. secret.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Aug 27, 2006 19:23:57 GMT -5
Casinos are places of good wholesome fun.
Btw, food prices in Vegas are just phenomenal. If you don't go for the gambling, hookers, drugs, entertainment....go for the food. Maybe for a tan as well. Take a trip out to some of the other areas of Nevada and check out that starscape. It's unreal.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Nov 12, 2007 3:02:44 GMT -5
the fact that withdrawing units cause flanking damage is completely slowed, I mean the whole concept is slowed as far as this game goes, but that's just horribly stupid. It was a half-baked idea that somehow made it into the game. There were 4 other nerfs to catapults, but this was pushed so hard by the SP community as a solution. Those SP guys...they love to make things more complicated than they should be. I bet half of them work in government.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Nov 12, 2007 3:09:27 GMT -5
They are the most rediculous unit yet, the only suitable counter is formation pikes which you can't mass produce unless you are an agressive civ. Most mind blowing is they decided to nerf conquistadors but then add a unit that is better than conqs were in the first place. SP mentality for you. They will argue against you, just for the sake of being against you. However, when you point out that they want to replace a unit with a unit that is same unit, but better, they scream bloody murder. Damnit, the future of gaming is playing together. Nintendo's whole strategy for the Wii is based on it. Wii would like to play.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Nov 12, 2007 3:06:48 GMT -5
I have to eat my words. People die in every game now. However, in ancient games, elephants are game breakers. I wish the developers would have made elephants a military resource rather than a luxury. Seriously, what is so luxurious about having an elephant? They are either beasts of burden or used as beasts of war.
Facing a stack of elephants/axemen is not much fun, even if you have catapults. You just simply don't have any sort of odds whatsoever unless you have elephants of your own.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Aug 11, 2007 2:06:20 GMT -5
You both hit the nail on the head. Now, just pre-order World in Conflict and we'll be waiting for the both of you with open arms. The game is hardly perfect, but the game mechanics of WIC is solid enough that any gripes that I have are merely personal quibbles.
We're getting owned like hell in World in Conflict, but that's the best part of it. We can only improve and get better. Plus it doesn't hurt that there are cash rewards at the end of it all if we play our cards right.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jan 14, 2008 12:04:05 GMT -5
I tryed in saturday occ advanced start with 1600 gold and i dont like it. This is only mine opinion. I was Buying education, 4 workers, library,uni, and forgot to buy 5 wariors ... for hapyfaces eg. Just put 50000 gold and who first pressing buton BEGIN is winier. This adv optinion just convert skillz into money but noob as me can screw it up to... If you play regular games of Advanced Start of whatever settings with a core group of players, I am sure that you will hit the sweet spot of how much gold to start with the Advanced Start option. I think that is the reason for the dislike of Advanced Start, there are a lot of permutations as to how to setup your civ before you hit the Begin button with that game type. As someone said before, the sweet spot is where you can start with a few extras, but not be able to buy tech.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jul 7, 2007 17:25:28 GMT -5
rofl CS i wish admins were actually good at this game and understood it ray were the only good multiplayers (to my knowledge) that were trying to fight for multiplayer in bts, and they lost all hope Kind sentiments, Gef, well, at least towards us and the other one is shared as well. The problem with the beta testing was it was to find bugs and inconsistencies within the game. Unfortunately, balancing the game was not our prime duty. When the XP comes out, I'll welcome you all to the beta .
|
|
|
BTS
Jul 14, 2007 0:21:55 GMT -5
Post by deyreepher on Jul 14, 2007 0:21:55 GMT -5
With all the additions, nerfing, changes... this expansion is actually starting to sound pretty darn cool to me! Go Espionage, corporations, Typhoons! LH (will be back for BTS)! This is your XP. If I had to characterize this XP with just one word, just one word, it would be.....Longhorn.
|
|
|
BTS
May 7, 2007 13:08:03 GMT -5
Post by deyreepher on May 7, 2007 13:08:03 GMT -5
yeah i'm dying to play a random leader, random civ cton..... lol Shaka of the Romans ;D Remember to give props to Metallian for the any leader with any civ combo. He wanted it, and I suggested it for himat his bequest.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 4, 2007 12:28:02 GMT -5
Imo July 13th 15th is too early. With a major tournament every 3 weeks we will get an overdose Nation cup should stand twice a year like Summer and Winter civ4 olympic games. I agree people who complains about huge quantity of events. Less event but more teams please. We had so much "bye" last WE. That unbalance scoring and nations standing. I agree with your assessment.
|
|