|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 4, 2007 17:58:25 GMT -5
Commonwealth was only allowed because they couldn't fill a single team alone... which is not the case for USA. Now, live with it, NATO will never be allowed in Nation Cup. You have enough top players in the USA to make a top players team, no need to find a poor way to get your friends in a team, you will soon have the "Non-Clan" tournament for that ;D Minimum number needed for a team is 6. They can't fill every event, but it's enough to participate. So we can bend a few rules, because they can't get the team that they want? Is that how it works? Yet, when I FOLLOW THEIR LEAD, and do the same thing, there's an outcry. Straight up BS and a DOUBLE STANDARD. It's the same damn thing. Following what transpired in this Nation's Cup, I can go voicing concerns about the eliteness of other teams and go suggesting they merge with this team or that one. It's ridiculous. So next NCT, there should be only one French team. You'll have to go with 25 for a full roster and leave one player out in the cold. If we were to apply that to the French, how do you think they'd feel? They wouldn't feel very good about it, I'll tell you that. And it'll be alright. Next time, it'll be the CSA + Rokkit + Poly.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 4, 2007 15:53:24 GMT -5
The fundamental difference was: 1. Common heritage - Canada/UK/Australia. Take one on in a War, take the lot of us on. 2. We did not steal from any other countries. You went and put Rokkit on your roster when he was from one of our countries. 3. Without a merger I doubt Oz or Canada would have competed, you had tonnes of players in the USA. 4. Most of our "additions" aren't top players, yours was making an all-star team. 1. The common heritage argument is weak. If we strictly apply the standards set against Team NATO. Your team should in no way, shape, or form have been able to compete as powerhouse team. This is the argument leveraged against team NATO. Not a country. The Commonwealth is not a country. Nuff said. 2. I did in no way, shape, or form, poach any players. Do you see any forum postings where I asked for recruits? No, I managed to see that a good portion of the Americans in RaY did not bother to register for the event, I asked why and managed to convince them to play with some caveats. You can take it up with Rokkit as to why he did not want to play with Team UK. That's between him and you. When I formed NATO, he jumped on board. As for Poly, he also had his reasons for not playing with Team Germany. I actually ASKED him to join Team NATO. Now, here we go with the double standard again. You poached two ENTIRE teams. I had two people. Again, I don't know whether you just put Rokkit on your roster without asking or what, but whatever transpired between him and team UK, is just that, it's between yourselves. 3. Team NATO - I did boost our roster, but if you look at the roster between Team CSA and Team NATO, you'll see who our active players really were on Team NATO. It came out to just over 10 people. We were going to have a go with a small team as well. So what? So it's ok for you to "break the spirit" of the Nation's Cup for your own purposes, yet when we follow your example you get to scream bloody murder? Double standard. 4. Now we get to the real reason. Ok, I'll give you this one. I'm sorry if you can't stand the competition. Maybe, practice? This is the lamest of all excuses and the one that I will acknowledge. However, again, the French put out two teams, it's not difficult to see which one is the better of two, by a huge margin. Double standard. When you complain about the French, I'll acknowledge you have a leg to stand on. However, you did not. It's lame way to compete in a competition, cripple your rivals, but trying to not allow them to play.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 4, 2007 14:40:30 GMT -5
Sure Commonwealth is not exactly a nation, but I can admit it as kind of nation. The Commonwealth is not even a kind of nation. It's Russian counterpart is the Confederation of Independent States and the successor to the USSR.. They function nearly in exactly the same way, except the Russians are a bit more domineering. You can twist it any which way you want, all three are organizations that are comprised of individual nations that have come together for one reason or another. Just because the US did not choose to incorporate Western Europe into its political entity does not mean that NATO is that much different from the British Commonwealth/CIS. From a political standpoint, it's the same damn thing, but instead of political domination it was cultural/economic domination. We can argue this for as long as you want. It's all semantics, as I've said before. Well, I have just reacted because the NATO team post. If some teams have played with foreign nationals(and outside the field of the team identity), I agree with you, it's not normal ans it's double standard. This is exactly the point I'm getting it. We got hit with a double standard and people were arguing over the name NATO, instead of what was really going on. The name does not mean a damn thing. I could have called the team the United States of Azzstopia and nobody would have really cared. Agree with your examples. However NATO is something for the militaries or the politics. Nation is for common people. The man in the street in norway or turkey has no special feeling with the us men. However I think the man in the street in norway may have the feeling to share something with scandinavian countries. About the Commonwealth, colonies are very old. There is a kind of link between people from the Commonwealth. At the opposite NATO is very young, and I don't think it create a link between the people. Again, this is straying from the point I was making that instead of directly attacking my water tight argument that we did not do anything any other team did not do first. Maybe I could have been a bit more judicious with the name, but tell the Russians that NATO has no sort of bond or the Turks. There are many ways to include/exclude people into a larger framework of greater culture. Well true to say, I think nobody would have said anything if USA and England made a team called North Altantic. It's only two countries which are very friend each other.... But here you got almost 30 countries... At the end, I think it's a set of element which tend to me think that NATO is too far from the concept of nation to come in the NC. The British Commonwealth encompasses 1/4th of the global population. NATO doesn't come anywhere close. I know my history, politics, and significance of both of these organizations. Again, this is semantics. The whole thing is straight up BS to me. What it comes down to is, due to public opinion we were denied the team we wanted to play with. How many TDs refused to TD if we fielded the NATO team? It's crap, and most of you know it now. Now I see posts calling for multiple teams from the US? WTF? That's exactly what we did. There were 4 members from RaY on that roster. I more than doubled the number of American RaY players, that would have been an extra team, which there are now complaints about there not being enough teams. I find the whole situation just ludicrious. Whatever the way it's just my opinion, and if admin say NATO is nation, we will play this team as nation. I have no special interest against NATO team, and especially against players from this team. I like these people, they are fair. I may disagree with you on this special point, but by reading your posts I'm pretty sure that we agree on many points. chris. They did allow us to play. Out of respect for the organizers of the event and not wanting them to have to deal with the fallout, I simply argued my case and let the whole thing go. Once we diluted our team and were put into a situation where we didn't stand a chance to win, everybody more or less shutup. Funny how that works.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 4, 2007 12:35:00 GMT -5
Really, where is it's seat in the United Nations? It does not have one. The expansion of your team was justified through the use of an archaic dominion. As I've stated before, using your loophole, I merely used NATO as the binding identity for our team. So what is your argument? Semantics? That's utter BS. If our team had been the Americans in RaY + Gametheory + Cryptococcus + 2 foreign nationals (Polydeukes & Rokkitlauncher) are you telling me you would not have had a problem? It would have and you know it. However, there was not the sense of outrage over the proposed Team Australia + Longhorn or Team Germany + RedPhoenix. Double standard, pure and simple. All I did was use an identity that covered all our players, not unlike your team did. Scandinavia/Team Nordic, it's not a unified country, but it is a shared identity. Team Latino, not a unified country, but a shared identity. We did the same.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 4, 2007 11:34:58 GMT -5
Let's explain me better. I have the feeling that USA should provide at least two teams due to the number of US civ player. The spirit of NC is to have a common identity. For example: nordic countries => Viking So yes I agree with you that you must get more players, but by looking for in US players(they are plenty), not by creating entity too far from concept of nation in order to get some specific players. If really it's hard to get a roster, you may also make an alliance with a neighbour country. But it seems to me a bit strange to make a USA team with player from turkey,belgiuim,norway... It's all the more strange for me that these countries are sometime already engaged in the NC. chris. See, that's a fine line that you're drawing there and it's a double standard, pure and simple. You're saying that the NATO team, which was more or less a USA team, with the exception of 2 individuals goes against the spirit of the Nation's Cup. However, the British Commonwealth can get away with combining 3 countries to max out their roster. We were willing to play with half the allowed roster (though, I bolstered it, just in case). I'll say this again. Where were your complaints for the other teams that had foreign nationals on their team? Those concerns had to be raised by us, only after similar concerns were raised AGAINST us. Double standard, pure and simple. You can't sugar coat it any other way. We had our team, we had our players for events lined up, instead we were gracious enough to combine our team with one that we had no intentions of doing so with. You had your dream team and we had ours. The big difference is, ours seemed to have offended a good portion of the ladder community. We could have been aholes and continued, but we did not. Not because we thought it was wrong, but out of deferrence to the admins and TDs, the last thing they needed was grief over this. I pointed out the examples where I think the double standard existed and I will continue to do so. Tell me I'm wrong. The spirit of NC is to have a common identity. For example: nordic countries => Viking Our team = NATO. What's the damn problem? The Scandinavian countries, you're looking at a historical, shared culture. On that basis, I can do the same with NATO, in that's it's Western European based. The Latino team was based more or less on being part of a similar language family. Technically, they could have had some French players, if they already didn't have them. I mean, damn, the French could have taken Belgian players on the account of language. That is a trivial matter. Maybe I should have based our team on the ability to speak English. Would you have had objections then?
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 4, 2007 7:35:56 GMT -5
Dear Friends: At CIV4Players we are always trying to come up with new and innovative programs and competitions for our members. The Nation's Cup Tournament will be an event which will allow teams to be formed based on a particular home country (e.g. Canada, Germany). This seems particularly appropriate since the game Civilization itself is about nations, and since we really do have worldwide representation in the Ladder. Good luck to everyone who chooses to compete. And Please remember to have fun, and play with good sportsmanship. Like the CCC, this event is meant to bring our community together, not to cause international rivalries and friction. Sincerely, DTA If I was born in Canada, would I be able to play for Tunga Tuva, assuming there were enough players interested in playing for them? Or need I have a passport of the Nation I am playing for? What if all the Nations were playing for each other? Weird, I know, but would that be a global cultural victory? I feel that NATO was held to a double standard. There were several examples of teams that had players from other countries. We had fielded an all American + 2 foreigner team and there was just the loudest uproar over the whole situation. Then, after the event starts, people start to shift their opinion. It was fairly ridiculous, in my opinion. Now, I'm hearing that the USA should have fielded more than 1 team and maybe even an elite team at that. That's what NATO was. Maybe I'm missing something here.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 1, 2007 5:39:03 GMT -5
Because it's not f**king ccc and this isn't real life. Give me a better reason as to why NATO should not be able to participate, post it in any of the threads where I have stated our case.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on May 31, 2007 20:30:21 GMT -5
Nato Team, Doesn't this defeat the purpose of a Nations cup. I belive civic pride is at stake. Where are the best players. We already have a tournament based on clubs/clans. That is the ccc event. Now we have a group of players that regularly team up in ccc events, come together to compete. Why not just call it a RAY vs tournament. Oh, sorry it is RAY plus Poly. I am not angry, just confused. One of the RAY members proposed this event, and others of RAY are defeating the purpose of a civic based tournament. I can even understand a Brittish Commonwealth team. Or Eastern European team etc. Heck lets put a team together comprised of members with unpronounceable names. We can put Gogf in charge. Just an opinion, Ape We are allowed to play as regional blocs, NATO is a defensive alliance and a regional bloc. Having participated in a NATO mission personally, who are you to judge what I think about this organization? Why do I like NATO? Well, it did roll into Afghanistan, but it was smart enough to not go into Iraq during that country's early stages of invasion. I have too much beef with the US and I'm sure that the ladder members from other countries would agree with my sentiment. I'm sorry I'm not a flag waving, shotgun toting redneck. If it weren't for a few personal issues that came up with my life, I'd actually be preparing to move out of the country next month. On another note, this country does do some good things and participate in some worthy organizations...again, NATO being one of them. So, if it's personal prejudice you have, it's misplaced. If it's something else, you didn't train hard enough.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Sept 5, 2006 11:49:22 GMT -5
It all depends on your point of view when it comes to set maps/resources. Some players are gamblers, some are not. I think alot of players who have a background in other genres of online multi-player games just aren't used to dealing with the randomness that is inherent in the Civ map generation scripts. Oh well, that's just life.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Aug 28, 2006 5:01:41 GMT -5
One of the key points to remember here is...I royally screwed up by not checking the Vanilla Civ lobby. I have not been playing much in the past two months and did not see Swissy via the C4F WL lobby. It just something I did not realize until after the fact. Event 5, the Ironman event was a Vanilla Civ event, therefore Swissy would have popped up in the Vanilla Civ lobby. I did not think of this until everyone had left the game.
What it boils down to is that this was a unique situation. Most of the events were played with WL, I think maybe 2-3 events were played with Vanilla Civ. I screwed up...but this is another case for people to start using C4F. If he had been using it, he could have msg'd me when I logged onto C4F and vice versa.
As a TD (not for that event), I know what the rules are and we went through the proper steps before we dropped Swissy from the game. And I will repeat this for the umpteenth time. We did not see Swissy. WE DID NOT SEE HIM. Did I mention we did not see Swissy?
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Aug 27, 2006 19:17:06 GMT -5
Since CCC 33, I've subbed in more times for Germania than I've played in new games.....
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Aug 27, 2006 19:04:34 GMT -5
what do all these unsporty loosers who just ruled some1 out themself want? u cant rule some1 out by descion - u gotta contact td and the player - easy as that - u broke several rules and complain afterwards - wtf If it was my descision i d rule all players left in game out and give swissy scores of the place when he dropped. Guys who obviously show no sportmanship deserve no points imo We followed all the rules, read the damn posts carefully. The only problem we had was, not one person had all the info on what was going down until after the event was over. And Swissy got his points, which most people agree to. Stop trying to create a nuts storm out of a fart. This should be Germania's favourite event....the IronSub. (cheap shot, but that post just ticked me off).
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Aug 27, 2006 19:01:35 GMT -5
he didn't have to find of sub. The other players awaited 45 min Several players had opened C4f and could speak to him on the lobby, (on the main room ) One decision had been decided and it is not respected It must be eliminated [fun]ggjohanson Like I said, he was available. Yes, we did wait 45 min. I believe I was the only player on c4f and I was in the WL lobby not the vanilla civ lobby. If your clanmate had been jacked out of points like Swissy would have, you would be screaming bloody murder, given the circumstances and what we know about how connecting error messages work.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Aug 27, 2006 14:11:03 GMT -5
Only if you die thrice in your next CCC event Ironclad. You really should get an individual award for that.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Aug 27, 2006 11:56:02 GMT -5
On the ruling of awarding KC 2nd place. It makes sense to me. When I did play, people not being able to connect to each other would see the incoming player message/being blocked by a certain player message. If anyone else's clan had been in the KC situation, they'd be screaming bloody murder if they weren't awarded their points. Especially, given the circumstances.
My only beef is with the event itself, not the ruling.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Aug 27, 2006 11:46:38 GMT -5
Now my opinions on the IronSub Event.... If a clan chooses to drop from the event without being eliminated, it unbalances the entire event. Case in point, when I jumped in KC jumped from 5th/4th place all the way to 2nd with 1st place looming in a matter of 5 turns. The rapid jump in points was possible due to the MDR team dropping out, by the time I had jumped into sub, Swissy was well on his way to finishing off the MDR AI. When you have all the land from the northernmost tile to the southernmost in the west with the turns to rebuild the infrastructure in those lands, you get an unfair advantage. The only people I've heard praising the Ironman event as of late are those that have started the event. With the exception of Swissy, everyone had been subbed out and were not the original players. Ironman my ass, it's the IronSub event. Some of the reasons some of those players won't come back? The lag, it is the most atrocious lag I've ever seen. Not even in the early 90s with my 14.4k baud modem, did I ever experience such lag. The game is unplayable by the modern era. The turn timer was at 2:40 minutes by the time I had joined, but this did not account for the progressive lag, where the timer was not ticking down at real-time, but more like at 5X slower speed. On top of that I would get hit with a lag spike that lasted for 3 min, every turn. 3 min of not being able to click a unit and issue commands. This event is just painful. It's torture. Why would you do this to the players? There are other ways to take out your frustration upon the ladder. I had already had my fair share of civ up to this point, but the IronSub event has broken me. I weep, a bitter and downtrodden man.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Aug 27, 2006 11:35:08 GMT -5
*Here's the story, Swissy crashed. *I opened up C4F to monitor for Swissy, when it looked like Swissy wasn't coming back, I asked CS and Conq45 to see if one of them would sub for KC. *For 30 min after Swissy's drop, both CS and Conq rebooted their systems to try to get into the game. Conq said that he could not get past popov on several occassions. *Being that it was taking so long for a replacement to jump in, we decided to invoke the 10 min rule after half an hour had gone by. However, with 30 turns left in the game and there being 3 min of uninterrupted lag spikes (this does not include the additional lag throughout the turn) the game had become very uncomfortable and the prospect of the event taking another 3-5 hours for 30 turns did not appeal to the rest of us. We wanted to call it on points, being that there were 4 remaining players and waiting 45 min had made the French players really sleepy. *It was brought to my attention that if we did not continue playing, Swissy would get his points, so naturally we continued for a few turns, then called it. *We shut down the game and lo and behold, Swissy is in the Vanilla Civ Lobby. I find out he's been there the entire time. In fact, he's been trying to jump into the game the entire time, Conq45 was trying as well. It turns out that both were getting error messages saying they could not connect to popov, but the other 3 players in the game had no way of knowing, except when Conq45 relayed the msg to me. I realize now that the C4F program does not show players from both lobbies, the way it does from the in-game browser (I haven't been playing much so it's an honest mistake). It is at this point that KC appeals the results and where Levi steps in and Swissy receives his 2nd place.
Now that is what happened.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 1, 2006 20:27:10 GMT -5
I'm usually in the bottom 100....where's my challenge LP?
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 1, 2006 16:36:19 GMT -5
It's why it's called total war, LP.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 1, 2006 14:56:42 GMT -5
My talents lie in other endeavors. It's why I play teamers. I would get owned so hard in a duel or cton. I'm a leech and need support to survive. I suppose I'm the ultimate noob.
|
|