|
Post by Lestat on May 31, 2007 9:54:23 GMT -5
IMHO, CS u cant forcing people to play wot u think is good to play. People will alone find mods or game type to play. This ladder have those groups : 1. Only anc Cton players 2. Only teamer players 3. Mixed point 1 and 2 but little 4. OCC players, differenciation with map, era, mod. 5. Alsoe many ladder member playing non ladder games eg. earth, ffa, teamers. Well we will agree to disagree Lestat, UQC is getting very popular now and it was hardly played at all before we put it on the CCC roster. Players on the ladder don't know what mods are like if they don't play them atleast once, it's sort of like when your kids say they don't like food they have never tried. If for some reason people hate FRM then we will drop it, but we can't say that until we try it. And the clans and there members are the core of the ladder, so getting them to try things via a CCC is a key way to introduce new mods to the ladder population as a whole. CS Well i think that UQC is not popular. One player playing it only because it is CCC event. UQC is definitive not OCC game style. UQC is good for anc cton....
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on May 31, 2007 11:38:05 GMT -5
Well we will agree to disagree Lestat, UQC is getting very popular now and it was hardly played at all before we put it on the CCC roster. Players on the ladder don't know what mods are like if they don't play them atleast once, it's sort of like when your kids say they don't like food they have never tried. If for some reason people hate FRM then we will drop it, but we can't say that until we try it. And the clans and there members are the core of the ladder, so getting them to try things via a CCC is a key way to introduce new mods to the ladder population as a whole. CS Well i think that UQC is not popular. One player playing it only because it is CCC event. UQC is definitive not OCC game style. UQC is good for anc cton.... One player? I play UQC OCC quite often, and the games are diffenitely larger than one player Now there is no reason why UQC can't be used in ancient cton/teamers either. CS
|
|
ot4e
Settler
Posts: 98
|
Post by ot4e on May 31, 2007 12:10:46 GMT -5
I understand that you cannot get enough testers unless you include new event in ccc. But I strongly insist on leaving current events without major changes, while they are nice and popular. I think it is not big deal to make some "different" extra events which used to be different from ccc to ccc and used to try different game types and/or modes.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on May 31, 2007 16:38:18 GMT -5
I understand the desire for innovation and change, but at the same time I think some people need to remember that worked well or was popular in C3C isn't necessarily what everyone at C4P wants. While some members of C4P came over from C3C, not everyone did. While Civ4 shares the same roots as C3C, it's not the same game. In the end, I truly believe keeping what makes C4P unique and fun is the way to go is what we need to be doing, not trying to make C4P into a clone of C3C.
Forcing new Mods into the CCC, in my opinion, isn't the best way to give them exposure and try to gain acceptance. Why not run some smaller one shot tournaments on the weekends using the new Mods? I remember when there used to be a tournament almost every weekend, and now there are hardly any to be found outside of the CCC. Running tournaments like this will provide exposure for Mods, play testing under competitive conditions, and fun for the community.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on May 31, 2007 17:27:02 GMT -5
mookie, I'm not trying to create a clone of C3P here, that will never be the case. But there is a reason that Future games here never really took off like the other era's. Future was a under developed era when Civ4 was released. I'd be glad to use the FRM in a weekend tournament but Levi has been busy lately so no COT's have been run, if we get the bugs out of the current FRM there is no reason not to give it a try in the CCC, if not then it will wait until the next time. But in my experience people are far too conservative here, but at the same time say that they are bored with Civ and the same old games. I'm not turning the world upside down here, just bring incremental changes to keep people happy and challenged with new games.
CS
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on May 31, 2007 18:34:40 GMT -5
Seems to me there are a lot more clans participating in the CCC now than there were this time last year? Anyways, I just don't think that the CCC is the proper place to be introducting and testing new mods. Once something gains widespread acceptance, like OCC for example, then it should be added to the CCC. Not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by knupp on May 31, 2007 19:42:54 GMT -5
Future was the most popular era that was played in teamers for a good few months in the end of summer and beginning of the winter last year. A couple people complained that it wasn't as fun as Civ3 future. Whether that is the case or not, Civ4 is Civ4. They are not the same games and just because a few people prefer Civ3 Future over Civ4 Future doesn't mean it will be widely popular among our ladder.
New mods keep a community alive after people start becoming bored with the same-old games and feel that they have learned what they want from those game types. But IMO shouldn't be included in the CCC. The CCC was created in order for people to test their skills against the best MP players among the Civ-World. Playing new mods or game types that only a few people play isn't testing skill. CCC should always reflect the most popular and most played games on the ladder at that time.
When people do get bored, they will look for change. Instead of using the CCC as an outlet for people to discover the new mods, I would highly suggest using the front page of the ladder. Everytime somebody goes to report they see the main page and the announcements are few and far between, usually only around CCC. Why not announce new mods with a link to download them and encourage people to play them?
When and if that mod becomes popular... Then, and only then, should be when it is included in CCC events.
|
|
ot4e
Settler
Posts: 98
|
Post by ot4e on Jun 1, 2007 1:10:19 GMT -5
New mods keep a community alive after people start becoming bored with the same-old games and feel that they have learned what they want from those game types. But IMO shouldn't be included in the CCC. The CCC was created in order for people to test their skills against the best MP players among the Civ-World. Playing new mods or game types that only a few people play isn't testing skill. CCC should always reflect the most popular and most played games on the ladder at that time. When people do get bored, they will look for change. Instead of using the CCC as an outlet for people to discover the new mods, I would highly suggest using the front page of the ladder. Everytime somebody goes to report they see the main page and the announcements are few and far between, usually only around CCC. Why not announce new mods with a link to download them and encourage people to play them? When and if that mod becomes popular... Then, and only then, should be when it is included in CCC events. I agree with Knupp and Mookie too. People play ccc to prove their skill with the best players over the world. Once you change events every time it will be impossible to train them well and to accumulate the skill from one competition to another. We work hard at the current set of events and the only thing I am afraid of is that one of my favourite events will disappear or will be replaced by UltraGood&PopularMOD*s. For example, NHL is held every season, and they play hockey each time. It is possible to change some standarts like field lenght or size of the stick, but I think they wont ever make one season with *HockeyOnTheGrassMod*. And I am sure that CTON with UQC is good, but it is quite different to simple CTON and cant replace it.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jun 1, 2007 4:09:16 GMT -5
Oh well some people prefer abusing game mechanics and slaving as many units as possible, so for them the current civ4 future is fine. I have allways been more a fan of the buildup and micro part of the game and therefor I want to play every era with 1 settler only. And people who never really played civ3 future on high lvl ll never understand the thrill of missling kings or building up 20 cities and nukes in turn 50 after u started with 1!! settler and nothing else.
This was also so much more skill and micro intense as game is atm - there wasnt a Iwin button like slaving. And every game was different so many strategys and tactics to win. Civ4 ll never be the same it s just a different game, but as CS said civ4 future is just underdeveloped, there are cool units missing, nukes work very weired imo and lag like shti Many options like bombing improvement are just useless - worst of all is this full map sight, no surprises - 1 scouting fighter and u see whole world?? who did balance such nuts?
|
|
|
Post by metallian on Jun 1, 2007 6:37:20 GMT -5
Oh well some people prefer abusing game mechanics and slaving as many units as possible, so for them the current civ4 future is fine. I have allways been more a fan of the buildup and micro part of the game and therefor I want to play every era with 1 settler only. And people who never really played civ3 future on high lvl ll never understand the thrill of missling kings or building up 20 cities and nukes in turn 50 after u started with 1!! settler and nothing else. This was also so much more skill and micro intense as game is atm - there wasnt a Iwin button like slaving. And every game was different so many strategys and tactics to win. Civ4 ll never be the same it s just a different game, but as CS said civ4 future is just underdeveloped, there are cool units missing, nukes work very weired imo and lag like shti Many options like bombing improvement are just useless - worst of all is this full map sight, no surprises - 1 scouting fighter and u see whole world?? who did balance such nuts? Your build up that gets rolled in 20 turns... Gimme a break. Your old broken down strategies don't work in warlords, hence why all the old MUD members have either quit playing civ or fell back to being average players. I am sorry Tommynt how many times do you have to die in the CCC to realize your out of practice?
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jun 1, 2007 12:48:25 GMT -5
lol mettalian u r a funny dude sometimes but somehow u aint make me laugh but I m sry bout your dumbness - god was really unfair to u
and we r so bad that we finish each time we play top 3 when not even playing anymore?
|
|
|
Post by knupp on Jun 1, 2007 14:04:25 GMT -5
You definitely don't slave all that many units in future. It's much more about slaving early workers and settlers, which is done in every other era as well. Most units come from MFG and buying them.
Another thing somebody said earlier was that future is a rush game. I've played future four times in the CCC for my clan and from what I've experienced rushing is no more part of the game than it is in any other era. We've never rushed, and despite that we have won it 3 out of the 4 times I've played it.
|
|
|
Post by knupp on Jun 1, 2007 14:24:07 GMT -5
I would have never thought I would need to explain something like this to the best civ4 player in the world.
When somebody slaves they are trading some population, and therefore GNP and MFG, in order to get a quicker unit. They are also making their city unhappy. It gives them a small advantage in the beginning, but if you can survive via slaving a little bit yourself and being prepared for their attack by building some units instead of expanding like crazy you will come out on top. You will have better stats than them and be able to recover much quicker. However if you'd rather expand then deal with the impeding doom marching your way, you will lose a city or die.
It's funny the way this community adapted. From my point of view as a noob when MUD reigned the ladder, you guys had the best buildup by far. After 30 or 40 turns nobody could keep up with your guys MFG, GNP, or Crop Yield. Finally somebody figured out a way to beat it. Don't try to out expand them and go for points! Just build a bunch of units in the beginning while they are expanding and rush them. I think a lot of players couldn't adapt to that and stopped playing. Thus the end of inland sea ren teamers.
We are living in a different ladder now. If you know the other team is going to expand like crazy, then why not rush them and win? If you know the other team is going to rush you, then why not build early units while slowly expanding so that you come out on top of the stat graphs after the battle?
Slaving is hardly a "WIN" button. When you adapt to other players strategies and counter what they are doing, that is when you win.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Jun 1, 2007 14:34:54 GMT -5
It's funny the way this community adapted. From my point of view as a noob when MUD reigned the ladder, you guys had the best buildup by far. After 30 or 40 turns nobody could keep up with your guys MFG, GNP, or Crop Yield. Finally somebody figured out a way to beat it. Don't try to out expand them and go for points! Just build a bunch of units in the beginning while they are expanding and rush them. Well said Knupp.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jun 2, 2007 3:12:30 GMT -5
funny that now people think they "discovered" rush - like 1,5 years ago when we MUD players where playing regularly and were on top of ladder there were sevevral threads about how much ladder and espacially teamer suck as it is all about rush. That was also the time when heavy warrior rush to fight for workers was the main way to go - i think i had once 10 agg warrios in some1 teritory and beat all his 10 nonagri ones for the worker - this guy was pissed. I just like starting with nothing as 1 settler more thne starting with 15 units - but maybe i m just a oldtimer
|
|
|
Post by knupp on Jun 2, 2007 8:00:17 GMT -5
Rushing with 10 warriors to take a worker is hardly the same as rushing with 10 impis and 10 chariots to kill them. Rushing with 10 warriors in an ancient game is hardly the same as rushing with 10 catapults from each player in a medieval game and killing them while they are expanding. Rushing with 10 warriors in an ancient game to take a worker is hardly the same as rushing with 20 Cavs, 10 Grens, and 10 Rifles in an industrial game to kill them while they are expanding.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jun 2, 2007 8:42:48 GMT -5
OK RAY players own so much, they invented whole civ4 from new, sry that I missed that untill now, but is that the topic?
|
|
|
Post by knupp on Jun 2, 2007 9:09:38 GMT -5
Yeh that's exactly what I said... you aren't reading anything I'm saying. I guess I shouldn't try to discuss strategy with the great Tommynt, champion of Civ4.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jun 2, 2007 9:17:40 GMT -5
? I didnt get that Knupp u r Moderator, your supposed to clear things out not speak weired stuff.
whatever we came to agreement that RAY rocks - now lets move on to new future mod
|
|
|
Post by knupp on Jun 2, 2007 9:25:47 GMT -5
I give up.
|
|