|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 4, 2007 7:32:15 GMT -5
1: The Start times Were lets say Too Team USA Friendly 2: Too many Events for The Smaller Nations! 3: Perhaps Half the number of Events for the next one in doing so also limit Team sizes to say 15 instead of the current 25 this way more teams may be able to Compete without Merging any Nations 4: OCC on anything other than TBG is bad for youre Health IMO! 5: as Mods seem to be the Flavour of the day lets do the CTON on a Earth final version map? 6: Ban UQC from all OCC games Just because I dont like it 1. Um, only friendly for the East Coast US players. 8 am for US East Coast is 5 am for West Coast. 2. Well, too many events, that concern was voiced over and over again. I don't think anybody is really listening. 3. This ties into concern #2. The French clans were able to roll with about 13 players a piece and did very well. CSA had a nearly maxed out roster. Had we been able to roll with the original NATO roster, we probably would have done just as well, if not better. Sure we had a huge roster with CSA, but not too many players showed up. We had to give up 2 events, the 1v1 and the Sunday 3v3 ancient, due to no shows. Egalitarianism is nice in theory, but in a competitive environment, it's all about being able to count on your teammates. 4. The map settings for over half the events were just ridiculous. 5. No opinion on the mods. 6. Well, this is a mod. I have no opinion on this. Well, I think it's pretty noob.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 4, 2007 11:43:52 GMT -5
While discussing with some players of the team yesterday, we asked ourself how some people will minimize our victory... By having a reduced congrats thread of course ( and i appreciate to see who posted here, give another light to what's happening on c4p ladder, thanks for your fair-play guys ), but i wouldn't have think of bashing the 2 french teams The fact that we have a large community, people ready to works together without ego troubles, and a will to move forward for a team and not for himself certainly served us, if that's what people were thinking about. The fact that we oftenly had to play fr1 vs fr2 on first round, that, was a real curse. They are haters, people who regularly play would have seen your practice games in the lobby for the Nation's Cup. They don't understand what it takes to field a winning team in that you have to know your players, know the event, and be able to juggle everybody into the right place.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 4, 2007 7:36:39 GMT -5
A bit late, but nice work.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 1, 2007 11:16:30 GMT -5
Too late, the Cold War is over. We're going back further in time for inspiration.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 1, 2007 10:04:52 GMT -5
Get 5 more players on your roster and you're ready to roll.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 1, 2007 6:15:57 GMT -5
MookieNJ DeyReepher Metallian [UN]Pangea [RaY]LordElgis Gogf Mezi Atlas-RB cryptococcus EmperorPenguin25
Pending due to consolidation of the USA team into CSA. Grilla cryptococcus Sentinel popsursocks [Mojo]ape Hendrix DrShot WorldConqurer Bonsai libertas
Due to the overwhelming negative response to Team NATO, I've disbanded that team and replaced it with this team instead. It is country specific and has no members that should not be eligible to play.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on May 31, 2007 22:07:25 GMT -5
Whilst EON is being opportunitistic to stick the knife in, he is right that the format of the Nations Cup is awful. 14 events requires a large team and with the exception of France and the USA and to a lesser extent Germany it is not possible to effectively compete except as a coalition. If teams were limited to 6-8 players and far less events, 6 over the 3 days. THEN I think it'd be a tournament that could be a success and far more countries could compete. Individual US States could even be represented I am sure, but as it is on its first outing it is bigger than the CCC. Now this HAS been said as soon as we saw the format, but no changes were made. Then we have the whole NATO thing, which was just the sort of bollocks we expect from certain people around here. I think in its current format this Nations Cup is too long, too fat and requires big teams if you want to stand a chance and what point is there in a tournament where only the larger civ playing countries have a chance? I think it should be as I suggested and run another time, where there are 6 events and teams of between 6-8 players. If you want a bigger tournament with nations, have Europe Versus America - The Civ4 Ryders Cup. Obviously, anything that members of RaY participate in is controversial. Get over it. I swear, if any of us farts, we're blamed for global warming.
|
|
|
NATO
Jun 2, 2007 9:28:36 GMT -5
Post by deyreepher on Jun 2, 2007 9:28:36 GMT -5
No, I think the people who were complaining, owe Rokkit and Poly an apology, as they were left teamless. To say that they did not want to play with us, is ridiculous. We were ready to roll with them. I followed your lead in allowing them to play on our team, only to find out it was a breach of what people expected of the NCT. So your mistake, cost two people. However, all the people that were in Team America either found new teams or were absorbed into CSA. What's the problem? Deyreepher ? Why apologies to Poly and Rokkit. Its their decision not to play. Poly could have signed up with team Germany, np. He decided not to do. Fine. His decision. Why apologies to him for his free decision ? Because, when I had to cut them loose, they did not have any time to find teams. I only confirmed our roster, at the last possible minute with the absorbtion of Team USA.
|
|
|
NATO
Jun 2, 2007 1:49:21 GMT -5
Post by deyreepher on Jun 2, 2007 1:49:21 GMT -5
Considering the amount of american players in Civ4, far more than french players, there should be 3 USA teams. And the american players that are very competitive should have done their own "elite" team. With all that happened these last days, USA almost had no team to show up... weird. A NorthAmerica team could have been possible (USA+Canada), nothing wrong with a USA "Elite" team too but a NATO/OTAN team is really pointless for a country that could fill several teams. Well, we would have had two American teams, but it seemed that the ladder community decided it was fit for the Americans to play together instead of being allowed more than one team. It is working out well extremely well though. We are getting some players with little to no tournament experience some action and well, it probably helps that we're able to give them some advice. Though, there's no replacement for analytical ability.
|
|
|
NATO
Jun 2, 2007 1:47:01 GMT -5
Post by deyreepher on Jun 2, 2007 1:47:01 GMT -5
A NorthAmerica team could have been possible (USA+Canada), nothing wrong with a USA "Elite" team too but a NATO/OTAN team is really pointless for a country that could fill several teams. Hmmm, perhaps we could start working on a NAFTA team for next time!! ;D What I did was, was try to substitute an organization that would have encompassed the countries of the players who were joining our squad for the NCT. As I said, there were precedents where players were joining squads where they didn't have a strong connection in national terms. Maybe it wasn't creative enough, but I thought it was a far better idea than saying, we're Americans, plus a Brit and a German.
|
|
|
NATO
Jun 2, 2007 1:32:02 GMT -5
Post by deyreepher on Jun 2, 2007 1:32:02 GMT -5
About as funny a joke as yelling fire in a crowded theatre. I think you OWE the several players who dropped out of this tournament because they don't have the same sense of humor as you a HUGE apology. I think you owe all the planners and TD's and everyone else associated with this torrnament an apology. No, I think the people who were complaining, owe Rokkit and Poly an apology, as they were left teamless. To say that they did not want to play with us, is ridiculous. We were ready to roll with them. I followed your lead in allowing them to play on our team, only to find out it was a breach of what people expected of the NCT. So your mistake, cost two people. However, all the people that were in Team America either found new teams or were absorbed into CSA. What's the problem?
|
|
|
NATO
Jun 1, 2007 11:14:13 GMT -5
Post by deyreepher on Jun 1, 2007 11:14:13 GMT -5
I guess my problem is that why cant you just put a winning team together for your team of nationality since its the Nations Cup. It just seems that all your arguments are rationalities are really just a cheap justification for you to be playing with the same old same old and not in the spirit of this event. Putting together a winning team and playing all takers for a team and winning are two different things. EmperorPenguin was the captain of Team America, I am not going to ask him to stand aside. It's his baby, he can do whatever he wants with that team. Basically, what it comes down to is, us, American players screwed this NCT up as a whole. While the French and Russian teams were practicing, the rest of us were getting our rocks off in Random/Shuffle teamers. I'm sorry, if I'm sounding a bit competitive, but I don't see why we should go into a situation where the odds are stacked against us heavily. I don't believe you're on a team, if you're not, why don't you ask to join CSA for the NCT? I haven't said no to anyone yet. Also, EmperorPenguin created Team USA, he's the captain, it's his show to run. How crass would it be for me to wrest control away from him? The way I see it, the most polite thing to do, in order to participate and succeed, was to break off and go with a team I know can do well. For the next NCT, I'll try to make sure things don't go so poorly for the American players, but unfortunately, life issues got in the way for me doing anything substantial and not last minute.
|
|
|
NATO
Jun 1, 2007 10:01:14 GMT -5
Post by deyreepher on Jun 1, 2007 10:01:14 GMT -5
Honestly Dey your weak arguments are just that- weak. We all know the EU was formed because of a short roster. We all know Longhorn joined Australia due to the same reason (and because he says Oi Oi Oi often enough to be mistaken for a Aussie) and we all know why and with what purpose you set this team up. Its lame, it ruins the spirit of this entire competition. Oh you have some arguments that make me think your probably a mediocre lawyer in real life, but the bottom line is this whole thing stinks of selfishness and a total lack of respect for the people organizing this event. I thought you were better than this but it appears I am wrong Pick my argument apart, I left it out there for you in multiple posts. And it's the British Commonwealth that was formed by the former Team UK, not the EU. The EU would have had more teeth in representing a team than the British Commonwealth which is practically an insignificant organization (though there are plenty who think that NATO is as well, in modern political thought). So, team NATO really only had 10 active players that would actually participate, the others were only added on the off chance that they showed up for the weekend, not realizing they would not be able to get a game without participating in the NCT. Without the non-Americans, we would have had a roster of 8 which is less than a third of the member cap allowed for the NCT. Even with 10 players, it is more or less impossible to successfully compete in all the events, you would need a minimum of 12 to go the whole 3 days. You're right, I wanted to have a chance at playing on a team that would stand a chance at winning the NCT. Is that a crime? Is it really? Unfortunately, for your argument that it's just RaY + Poly, you then have to contend with the RUS team, which is the RUS clan, roster for roster. I don't have a problem with them entering a successful CCC team into the NCT, the admins don't, so why should you? Help me to understand the situation. To me, it sounds like you there is another source to your animosity towards NATO. If I were truly selfish, I would have continued on with the NATO team, but I had to cut Poly and Rokkit loose. So in the name of fairness and balance, why don't you try to get back the Canada and Australia teams for the NCT? It was out of respect for the organizers of the NCT that I did not pursue the NATO team any further. Again, I've cut out the non-Americans from our roster and re-formed our team. What exactly are your objections now?
|
|
|
NATO
Jun 1, 2007 9:45:17 GMT -5
Post by deyreepher on Jun 1, 2007 9:45:17 GMT -5
Wow Dey, I think it's a good thing you're not playing for the US. While you're at it, I think you should probably go be a citizen of North Korea as you seem to have more agreement with them. I know if I were playing on the US team (and this was a real nations cup that wasn't run as a "let's make sure everyone has fun" feel good bullnuts tournament) then I sure as hell wouldn't want someone like you on the USA team. I don't care if you served in the military, lots of people have. Hell, even John Kerry "served" in the military. You can disagree with the government, I am certainly no fan of Bush and I think he's a very weak president, but when you start sympathizing with a country like N. Korea because you have ties there then you are a threat to national security. You're supposed to have loyalty to the US and only to the US as a US citizen. If you don't believe in this country, fine, get the hell out. I believe you have this view towards North Korea, because you don't know the historical context of how the North Korea/US relations have worked out up to this point. My specialty being that region, I know better. So, let me give you a brief rundown on why the US has poor relations with North Korea. It goes back a bit further than the Korean War, before the end of WWII, Korea was an occupied country that appealed to the US for assistance in maintaining its sovereignty when Woodrow Wilson gave his "Fourteen Points Speech" right before the close of WWI. Unfortunately, for Korea and the Phillipines it was all talk, no problems, the Koreans can deal with their own problems. So the country did what any country under occupation did. A good deal of the country collaborated with the Japanese while there were those that fought a guerrilla war campaign, not unlike the Free French did during WWII. Unfortunately, the power backing the guerrillas were Communist. Fast forward to the end of WWII. Nuke dropped on Japan, Koreans, non-aggressors in the whole conflict were divided up, which seemed ass backwards to the Koreans. It would be the equivalent of dividing France up by the victors instead of dividing up Germany. So you have two superpowers power brokering at the dawn of the Cold War in Korea. Again, unfortunately for the Koreans, instead of having their own say, both halves of the countries were administered by the occupying powers with the nascent populist political group that had emerged during the interim period being labelled pro-Communist by the South and pro-imperialist by the North ending up in there being no moderate party in the country as it was wiped out by both sides for not falling to either extreme. The North had all the guerrilla fighters as top government officials, while the South relied on government officials who had previously collaborated with the Japanese Occupation government. Which of the two evils is the better choice? In either case both countries went their seperate ways for the next forty years, saber rattling and threatening each other with a few skirmishes here and there. However, after the much publicized natural disasters in the North in the 90s occurred, a move to true democracy in South Korea (S.Korea had been a totalitarian military dictatorship up until the 90s), and practically free access to the US economic market (I believe S.Koreans should be more greatful for this, the older generation is, but the younger generation, not so much), things were a changing. In addition, warming relations with China and Russia rendered the whole Cold War strategy in Asia moot. It's more profitable and effective to trade with totalitarian nations and export culture than to try to export the ass end of a cruise missile. Unfortunately, this mindset did not apply to certain countries, such as N.Korea and Cuba. So, with South Korea enjoying the fruits of true democracy and a booming economy, the time seemed right for re-unification. It had a model to steer towards a smooth path towards re-unification, the German model. The 1998 Asian financial crisis was a hiccup in the plans, but things still went forward in the form of linking up economic infrastructure such as hooking up power grids and transportation lines and most importantly, tourism. So, while things were slowly, but surely moving towards federation, the US steps in and starts making threats for the sake of US domestic political posturing. Do I have a problem with the US and my ethnic homeland, yes, you're damn right. It was on the path to linking up with a democracy and becoming a participant in good standing with the rest of the world. Instead, the door was being slammed shut when the two parties that had the most to lose were in the process of trying to fix the situation themselvse. You'll see the blowback effects of this policy in a few decades when the Koreans find themselves aligning themselves in the Chinese sphere of influence. Instead of being a positive influence in correcting a gross mistake that a nation did to itself, the US only tried to dig the dagger even deeper in splitting the two nations apart. So yes, I feel bad for the North Koreans, who are my people. The only thing that makes them different from South Koreans is about fifty years of history and a closed border. So, you can take your Patriotism (A Fallacy of Irrelevance (a deductive fallacy of soundness with a falsehood in the major premiss) in the Emotional Appeals family) and go troll another forum and community.
|
|
|
NATO
Jun 1, 2007 8:41:32 GMT -5
Post by deyreepher on Jun 1, 2007 8:41:32 GMT -5
Initiative in it self is great, but you might have expected this. Some countries are to big others too small for this, especialy with the huge amount off events. Would be more fun to ask for any team off 6-8 players NO 2 CLAN-MEMBERS ALLOWED. That would make up some fun teams tournament directors, listen to this: It is very competiative people that play in this ladder ! Have to keep that in mind no matter what event you make. They will allways try to tweak the rules into something they can win, so allways make rules VERY clear. The opposite is infact the case here, rules couldent be more unclear. To be honest, I did not expect this. I have not really been a victim of RaY bashing, which is what most of this was. Usually it is directed towards the more prominent members of RaY, such as Metallian, Speaker, Knupp, Gogf, Mookie, theWiz. I've heard talk about it, but that's my first real experience with it. As I've said, I provided ample precedences that were followed through for this NCT by other teams, before I proceeded with NATO. I'm assuming that you're saying that no clan that participates in the CCC should be able to just cut and paste their roster into the NCT. Unfortunately, you'd be disappointing the RUS clan, their line-up is exactly the same as what they had for the last CCC. They are a nation/ethnic based clan/team. A very good one, in my opinion. They haven't been very prominent, but I've been watching them for the past 3 CCCs and they are a solid clan that has interesting strategies, synergy, and they will be a contender to win the CCC if they already haven't trained themselves up to that point. So, perhaps I should take some of the blame for Team USA not being in tip top shape, however, the month of May was one where I had finished school and was in the process of a big move and I was extremely busy. That mistake won't be made again for the next NCT as I'll hopefully be able to attract some top notch American talent into Team CSA. And on the part about the rules. I'll repeat this again. I followed the PRECEDENCES of other teams for THIS NCT. There is not one action that I did before any other team did first. Let's get that straight. I will emphasize it over and over again.
|
|
|
NATO
Jun 1, 2007 8:32:42 GMT -5
Post by deyreepher on Jun 1, 2007 8:32:42 GMT -5
There is two french team because we have enough players to make two team. you can make two usa team if you want. I'm unsure how old you are in the civ world, but under civ3 they had also several french team at nation's cup. So we feel the right to make two teams, and nobody has said anything, so I assume it's right. Another point is that both french team are not just a MDR team and a LKT team. We merged players from every clan. I agree with your posts in many points. I disagree only on the point that I raised in my previous post. chris. Well then, there should be no objections to to the CSA Team. I would ask other players to sign up, but it's a bit late, it looks like the teams are set, I don't want to poach players from other teams, and I think there may be some friction between Metallian and some of the other top American players. One would hope they would work through it, but he has done a lot of smack talking during the CCCs. I know he only does it to cloud the other players' judgements, but I think some people have taken it too personally. So, it looks like light sparring for CSA this NCT, but maybe we can get a better one in the next NCT. There's also a difference between the French ladder players and the American ones...it seems that the bad blood that has formed between the Americans is a barrier we have to overcome. In fact, I'd say it's a huge gulf. If you haven't noticed, alot of players have really big egos. It's not very conducive to teamwork, when everyone is strutting their feathers. It would take alot more than a month to get a good team going, plus we'd have to rebuild trust and respect. Also, trying to not marginalize the players that need some practice and brushing up on the basics of Civ, such as developing uber micro and pro level strategies....sometimes, it's best to cut your losses.
|
|
|
NATO
Jun 1, 2007 6:22:50 GMT -5
Post by deyreepher on Jun 1, 2007 6:22:50 GMT -5
I don't see how you can't grasp the difference between a number of small teams/countries merging to make a team that can compete or a country that has so many players it can make 2 teams and a political grouping like NATO that covers a random collection of countries many of whom already have teams. I also don't quite get that your unwilling to play for America but are willing to play as NATO an organization whose cornerstone is the USA who you aren't willing to play for. Your only claim to being in NATO in the first place is by virtue of being American so if your renouncing America I don't see the logic of NATO. Good, I'm glad we're in agreement, now since NATO is no longer a team, go ahead and direct your energies to breaking up the Commonwealth team into its constituent teams. There's enough for 3 teams there, 4 if you want to make them the bare minimum, have at it. There's a reason why there's alot of animosity towards the US government in the world today, you can be a firm supporter of the US government and still realize that its out there. Like I said, there's a dichotomy in that worldview as people still view the American people favourably. Sure, I like about half of the population, the other half consists of people who hold views opposed to mine and are unwilling to compromise and are just running the country into the ground. Life is like that, the dichotomy of life.
|
|
|
NATO
Jun 1, 2007 6:13:29 GMT -5
Post by deyreepher on Jun 1, 2007 6:13:29 GMT -5
I don't see how you can't grasp the difference between a number of small teams/countries merging to make a team that can compete or a country that has so many players it can make 2 teams and a political grouping like NATO that covers a random collection of countries many of whom already have teams. I also don't quite get that your unwilling to play for America but are willing to play as NATO an organization whose cornerstone is the USA who you aren't willing to play for. Your only claim to being in NATO in the first place is by virtue of being American so if your renouncing America I don't see the logic of NATO. As this argument is starting to get old and we've obviously pissed off a lot of the ladder community, as captain, I'm disbanding this team. However, I have registered another team that should be less objectionable and should be far more acceptable to the community. We are making concessions to the point where we cannot successfully compete in this event, but we will make the attempt anyhow.
|
|
|
NATO
Jun 1, 2007 6:00:45 GMT -5
Post by deyreepher on Jun 1, 2007 6:00:45 GMT -5
Your personal opinion about what a tournament team should be doesn't matter here dayreepher. You have only two options : accept this tournament like it is and respect its rules and what it has been created for, or just don't play it. If this team is allowed to play, NC will be a complete nonsense. Many players would be really disappointed (including me) for one guy being happy because he is not able to play with other players than his clanmates. Telle me it's just a bad dream, I'm gonna wake up. As Mansurji said before, I have much respect for all RaY players, and I seriously expected better from you, guys. That's fine, if I'm forced to play with Team USA, I expect the two French teams to be merged. I also expect the Commonwealth team to be broken up into its component parts. Team UK, Team Canada, and Team Australia. All I ask for is fair treatment. If we have to, we can even shed Rokkit and Poly, then there is no damn reason for contention among the ladder community. With such a small roster, we'll have to skip events, any problems with that?
|
|
|
NATO
Jun 1, 2007 5:58:21 GMT -5
Post by deyreepher on Jun 1, 2007 5:58:21 GMT -5
By the way Mansurji, I did not intend to slight you with that post. I am just responding to the points you made and am stating my case. I think you make some valid points, but I also feel that we are being unfairly treated by the community at large (not by the TDs).
|
|