Trayk
Worker
Lets Party at your place!!
Posts: 148
|
Post by Trayk on Nov 26, 2005 1:28:03 GMT -5
I had a game this evening in which a new player joined, he was making light of the fact that he was new to the ladder. I commented that we were all new once. He then pointed out that he had just been KICKED OUT of the last ladder game he attempted to join BECAUSE he was unranked. WTF?? Cant you people remember when you were new? I cant for the life of me think of a reason to kick someone out like that. It turns out he is not a half bad player. I hope he hunts all of you Anal Orifices (Orifii?) down and stomps you at some point in the future!! /end rant
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Nov 26, 2005 5:43:41 GMT -5
There is no plural for orifice, isn't that strange. The plural for orifice is therefore orifice I guess.
Unfortunately I suspect the same arseholes who were arseholes in c3c are still arseholes now. That's pretty shameful, the only bar for anyone to get a game is subbing and team balance, anything else is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Nov 26, 2005 6:54:53 GMT -5
Actually, if that player shows up again, Trayk, send him to the admins. Anyone who kicks out players who show up for a game because of their rank may need to be reminded about what being unranked feels like. There may be a great deal more to the story than that - their often is - but if that's the thrust of the plot, then there's a poetic finish.
|
|
|
Post by Rhyanon on Nov 26, 2005 9:05:25 GMT -5
Announcement yesterday evening in lobby for a ladder game: Ladder game only experienced ladders join.
And I said: I thought ladder is for all ladders, makes the whole idea of ladder kind of obsolete. To which I was responded that experienced only means to have reported a few games.
And then I thought, go home newbs, you won't get the chance to get "experienced" when you not even get the chance to report a game.
I know I suffered a lot from this stuff when I was new in ladder almost 2 years back. This hasn't changed with civ4. Actually with this lobby now and the yim circles to make games things have become a lot harder to find and join games. But then who wants to join games that are hosted with that attitude. I certainly not.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Nov 26, 2005 9:21:18 GMT -5
Smart ladders open their games to ALL ladders. Some however keep a small nice of friends (which is OK too I guess). But to keep people out because they are new is not too bright in my humble opinion. I used to host many, many a match in c3c and it was great after 2 years I got to meet so many folks. Some where real tough to beat, others couldn't fight their way out of paper bags but hey....they are all our ladder comrades. Also you gotta remember it is usually by playing against better then you that you learn to improve your game. The "unranked of today" may become the champ of tomorrow. When certain people are "snobby" and only let in certain others, write down their names and remember it, they may very well need a game someday and not find one.....
PS-message to some ladder vets out there from c3c. Wake up and let the noobs play.
other concern in a teamer yesterday a vet decided his team was to concede. A player on this team did not wish to quit. The vet and team overruled him and conceded. This is UNACCEPTABLE. We have gone through these issues in c3c. In order for a team to concede, 100% of the team must agree. If I find a vet abandoning a noob in a teamer saying we don't have a chance....They will be reporting to more then the winning team. So all you new people, know that when playing a teamer, if someone says we quit and you don't want too...they cannot make you. If they go without your consent, they must report to ALL in game and a sub takes their place. To see veterans take advantage of the fact that not all new player know the rules in not acceptable. I know I certainly hope not to hear of vets "twisting" rules around to suit their purposes of there will be sanctions.
|
|
|
Post by cantabrian on Nov 26, 2005 19:46:18 GMT -5
I agree, kicking people out of games because they are unranked is poor form. Yet in teamers and epics its a bit different for various reasons. But don't just kick them tell them why you'd rather they not play, like it would make the game to uneven, you don't know them enough to be able to make the commitment of playing a epic where if one quits it can ruin hours of investment by all the others. But ffa's ctons etc should be open to all ladders, who cares if a newbie joins, a easy report and a bit of extra land for you once he's dead. Or maybe the opposite and he'll take everyone down. ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Nov 26, 2005 19:52:08 GMT -5
other concern in a teamer yesterday a vet decided his team was to concede. A player on this team did not wish to quit. The vet and team overruled him and conceded. This is UNACCEPTABLE. We have gone through these issues in c3c. In order for a team to concede, 100% of the team must agree. If I find a vet abandoning a noob in a teamer saying we don't have a chance....They will be reporting to more then the winning team. So all you new people, know that when playing a teamer, if someone says we quit and you don't want too...they cannot make you. If they go without your consent, they must report to ALL in game and a sub takes their place. To see veterans take advantage of the fact that not all new player know the rules in not acceptable. I know I certainly hope not to hear of vets "twisting" rules around to suit their purposes of there will be sanctions. Which is exactly why you don't invite newbs to teamers... Am i being elitish? Indeed I am. Also it seems to be better to lie than telling the truth, cause if you tell the truth you are gonna get in trouble, but if you just shut up or lie, you will never get caught. So much for being honest eh...
|
|
|
Post by Sly_time on Nov 26, 2005 20:43:59 GMT -5
i personally feel that all people should be able to join games if it is a ladder game...when i was a noob i learned more in teamers with vet players than i ever did alone...
i eventually made my way to be a consistant top 20 player until i didnt care about rank anymore
if you dont want to to let the newer players join then dont play ladder games...create your own elitist league...i think this seperatism is only going to undermine our ladder and what it stands for...the new ladder was suppose to attract new players and make a bigger and better ladder for all of us...
we are in the beginning stages of something that could be bigger than anything we could imagine...
teach this new players what we know and then there will be just that much more of a base of good players to play with...if we continue choose to seperate ourselves for whatever reasons we are only going to give ourselves a bad name
|
|
mezi
Settler
Posts: 23
|
Post by mezi on Nov 26, 2005 21:20:20 GMT -5
new players suck cuz they rarely report and dont lock their civs and quit, and talk about the game durring ctons then they die to your vet neigbor and give up all their land now what i am really wondering is how did i get on trayks DNP list
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Nov 26, 2005 22:50:55 GMT -5
new players suck cuz they rarely report and dont lock their civs and quit, and talk about the game durring ctons then they die to your vet neigbor and give up all their land
Mmmm Mezi, you where never a noob in c3c? You didn't learn to report and live? Yes there are a lot of new players. Yes it will be an adjustment for probably a few months to come. But no, this ladder does not stand for "I'm better then you", "elitism" etc myleague offers free league to those who wish to play with their old friends only. This is not the kind of place where the fat kid doesn't get to swing the bat. This is the league where all players get playing time. Elitism has its place, it is called the CCC where the "supposedly" top notch players face off. A cton is a ladder game where all ladders should be given opportunity. God forbid your neighbor should kill a noob. This noob may learn and come back to kill him 4 months down the road. Don't we ALL elevate our game when we give others the opportunity to rise to our level? I hear alot of complaints lately for NOD that top rank is being "hogged" by testers. You, Yilar, Claudelu all mentionning it. You strive for top rank and wish to olny play your vets? Make up your mind, NOD sounding a little confused to me ATM PS-to Yilar. If you are hosting a teamer and only wish to have your friends there that is fine. No problemo. No one has any issues about forming balanced teams. What is not ok is to take a new player in, start the game and then decide to conceed when he does not feel it the situation is useless yet. I am dead therefore the whole team must conceed? Once a team game starts, to conceed must be unaminous. You know this already...this should not be a new concept.
|
|
mezi
Settler
Posts: 23
|
Post by mezi on Nov 27, 2005 0:30:30 GMT -5
whoa there avo you take me too seriously, rather thought that my rabble rousing would be seen in the light of sarcasm i am however sympathetic to those who wanna play games with their freinds and not just anybody in part for all of the above stated reasons. it seems to me that you do have a few NoD axes to grind, mabey you could address those personaly, on an individual basis btw you have never heard me complain about rank or player inactivity quit being such a Good guy ;D
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Nov 27, 2005 6:10:55 GMT -5
SPM run a big poll onto that issue and it was decided to make it all but 1.
Teamers espacially wiht unranked are really a problem - I hate to tell the people but wtf screw 7 others time by having a about 40% chance for the unranked to play like a ladder.
I was quite lucky with players with a about 5-10 record or so who often turned out to be quite good and neat. But some others turn out to be really anoying espacially when loosing.
|
|
|
Post by civerdan on Nov 27, 2005 7:39:34 GMT -5
I agree that in general Ladder games should be for all Ladder memebers. As said above in Team games its it important that games be balanced, especially in 2v2 and 3v3. Yesterday I had a situation where there were 3 new players and 3 good ones. Since I had second pick I got the two new ones. One person wouldnt follow my instructions (i.e. change his research). The other player had his empty cap walked into 10 turns in.
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Nov 27, 2005 8:30:32 GMT -5
PS-to Yilar. If you are hosting a teamer and only wish to have your friends there that is fine. No problemo. No one has any issues about forming balanced teams. What is not ok is to take a new player in, start the game and then decide to conceed when he does not feel it the situation is useless yet. I am dead therefore the whole team must conceed? Once a team game starts, to conceed must be unaminous. You know this already...this should not be a new concept. Yes of course i know this. But if you insist on not concerding, when you know its obovious impossible, especially after you lost your killer stack or something. You will get a bad reputation.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Nov 27, 2005 8:30:59 GMT -5
Sorry Mezi, I did not realize you where being sarcastic. Maybe that's why it felt weird because I saw you play anyone in c3c. My apoligies for misunderstanding you.
Tommy the vote all but 1 is to scrap a game/lag/oos/etc Not to leave a teamer. A 4v4 if one of the four wishes to continue the other three cannot conceed. You can explain to him the situataion may be hopeless but if the whole team doesnt want to conceed, you cannot decide for them.
Dan, I think you hit it right on the head. Teamers get "balanced" teams, a mos ctons should be open for all. Yes there are times when a game happens with all friends in it, point being a ladder player should not have to be begging for a game in the lobby when some are present.
|
|
|
Post by Sly_time on Nov 27, 2005 9:05:33 GMT -5
Once again i will say this as vet players we are expected to hold a standard higher than others...which include explaining rules to new players, teaching new players how to play, and last but not least promoting the ladder to everyone...these are just a few of the things as vets that we should be doing!!!
If all you are worried about is rank then that is fine or balanced teams then so be it...but i reitterate what is the difference of couple of reports if you lose vs promoting the ladder to the new comer
We all sometimes fail to forget this is for enjoyment only...ah yes i understand the argument...it isnt enjoyable getting my arse kicked
So many times in C3C team games the best players were not captains because they just didnt care what the ranks were so when teams were picked they became unbalanced(i.e. zaxxon being picked first)
Very few team games are balanced and a true general will know how to rally his troops around them
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Nov 27, 2005 11:23:25 GMT -5
Very well put, Sly, I agree 100%.
We need to take the big picture. Ranks will come and go - reputations stick around a lot longer.
Remember your thoughts when you joined the ladder about people who were open and friendly? Try to be that same person now for the new folks joining up.
Thanks, Hal (SPM)
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Nov 27, 2005 11:43:56 GMT -5
I thought there was a C3P rule where you can't refuse to let someone join an "open" game? I think the exception was non-reporters.... or maybe I just dreamed it? I can't find that rule in the rules, heh.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Nov 27, 2005 12:14:50 GMT -5
I thought there was a C3P rule where you can't refuse to let someone join an "open" game? I think the exception was non-reporters.... or maybe I just dreamed it? I can't find that rule in the rules, heh. There is no such rule. Noobs in a team game have always been a problem. It's a bigger problem now because we have more noobs. The problem is that the noob doesn't see the big picture; he only sees what his civ is doing. To him things may look good and he doesn't realize that his teammates may be in deep ****. I understand the logic behind the current rule; but often it means that 3 guys are forced to waste a lot of time in a hopeless cause. I would favor a rule that says team majority -1 is needed for a team decision to concede.
|
|
|
Post by donaldkipper on Nov 27, 2005 12:20:19 GMT -5
team majority -1?
in a 3v3 thats 1 person
|
|