Slitherine

ianiow wrote: Purple = Grognard
Red = Expert
Yellow = Average
Green = Learner

EDIT: I have forgotten the top status level..

Black = Anyone who has ever beaten Pantherboy

who's this pantherboy and where is he hiding from me?

cothyso wrote:who's this pantherboy and where is he hiding from me?

Pantherboy is the Supreme Grand Master of FOGPCjutsu. He lives on top of a mountain in Japan. Pilgrims go to him seeking enlightenment. Those who survive the arduous climb come away crying, and never speak of it again.

Tears of joy or of sorrow? Perhaps we shall never know.

After reading some of these posts this is what I've always known about MPer games. It happens in everyone of them. Players find an over powerful faction, they find a map to their advantage and a template setup to their advantage because the majority just want to WIN and then take jabs at their opponents or on forums about how they stomped them and beat them soundly and call them noobs. I've yet to see a MP game that I've played not end up like this. I remember KOHAN when it first came out was fun as hell but then the elitists came in, took over and everyone was a noob who didn't play like them or buildup like them. Thus, the community folded and disappeared except for those handful of elitists who eventually left because there was no one to bully around. Saw it happen in Age of Wonders:Shadowlands and the origional as well. Seen it happen in the online MMO's and MMORPG's like Guild Wars and WOW and Everuquest etc. etc.

"I gotta win and be famous players all the time" are the ones that ruin MP for so many who just want to have some fun without being called noob or idiot or loser etc. etc.

Best way to setup and play MP is with RANDOM armies assigned to each human player based on points. Then you have to show your abilities with what you get not with what you found on some webpage or wiki. One of the best things Magic the Gathering did was make closed deck tournaments and games. Thing is elitists whine about unfair setups and balance issues with random game setups and armies. Guess they don't like how it feels huh? lol

Any time you allow the human element to setup games and create armies you're going to be in for the ole template sort of play. What has been determined as the best powered army on the best map layout for them and the best setup positions is what they will want to play. Randomize everything and you'll eliminate the elitist attitudes and bullying and the "I gotta win all the time" attitudes.

Igorputski wrote:After reading some of these posts this is what I've always known about MPer games. It happens in everyone of them. Players find an over powerful faction, they find a map to their advantage and a template setup to their advantage because the majority just want to WIN and then take jabs at their opponents or on forums about how they stomped them and beat them soundly and call them noobs. I've yet to see a MP game that I've played not end up like this. I remember KOHAN when it first came out was fun as hell but then the elitists came in, took over and everyone was a noob who didn't play like them or buildup like them. Thus, the community folded and disappeared except for those handful of elitists who eventually left because there was no one to bully around. Saw it happen in Age of Wonders:Shadowlands and the origional as well. Seen it happen in the online MMO's and MMORPG's like Guild Wars and WOW and Everuquest etc. etc.

"I gotta win and be famous players all the time" are the ones that ruin MP for so many who just want to have some fun without being called noob or idiot or loser etc. etc.

Best way to setup and play MP is with RANDOM armies assigned to each human player based on points. Then you have to show your abilities with what you get not with what you found on some webpage or wiki. One of the best things Magic the Gathering did was make closed deck tournaments and games. Thing is elitists whine about unfair setups and balance issues with random game setups and armies. Guess they don't like how it feels huh? lol

Any time you allow the human element to setup games and create armies you're going to be in for the ole template sort of play. What has been determined as the best powered army on the best map layout for them and the best setup positions is what they will want to play. Randomize everything and you'll eliminate the elitist attitudes and bullying and the "I gotta win all the time" attitudes.

Gosh, have we read the same posts?
Who are those elitists that wants to bully others? I have not met anyone.
The building of an army and the setup is a part of the game just like moving and fighting with the BG:s. Of course if one not like that play scenarios. There are very good scenarios so that is fun as well.

Randomize everything

Why not let the AI do it all. After all, if you are better at the tactical level as well as building and deploy you are a elitist, right?

I'm still pretty green, I know, but I actually don't think there is anything to fix in the MP system, other than a better chat facility, and some form of personal record of wins/losses (maybe a download offering from the server?).

Looking at this thread, the topics raised are:

1. Not enough open games. That's because they go quickly, so create your own challenge, no real hardship. Also re various incentives to open a challenge, surely getting your FoG fix almost immediately and the benefit of setting the conditions should be enough.
2. Hide or show your army? Doesn't matter which, but my preference is to hide, so people don't get the drop on you playing rocks, sissors and paper.
3. Giving players experience statuses, and matchmaking. No point, you find out the top/poor players soon enough, and so the system is self leveling. I'm not cynical here. There is a danger that less experienced players will be afraid to post a challenge, because no doubt there are a few black belts out there who will think "oh here is Gersen up for another thrashing, let me just polish up my Spartans... heh, heh, heh". But people should not worry about it, you learn alot from the elite out there!

My thruppence worth.

After all, if you are better at the tactical level as well as building and deploy you are a elitist, right?

Nope because with all randoms only "SKILL" remains. Spartacus outdid the Romans for awhile because He was skilled at tactics but he really didn't get to pick and choose his army makeup. It was random from what came from the fields and other towns and more or less a rabble of randomness.

Imagine now if you will a battle of Two Spartacus randomized armies. Now that would be a battle to behold and the best SKILLED would win not just the one who exploited the system and chose only the best units from the lot of choices and the perfect map for them and the perfect setups.

I'll also give you a good example of random but still being able to play your favorite armies. HOPLITES card game is one of the best wargames I've ever played whereby nobody can get that perfect template to play every game. The cards you draw are "RANDOMIZED" and thus you can't deploy the same way everytime and you can't use the same tactics everytime. Give it a try if you like it's free. http://digilander.libero.it/zak965/hoplites.htm

Igorputski wrote:

After all, if you are better at the tactical level as well as building and deploy you are a elitist, right?

Nope because with all randoms only "SKILL" remains. Spartacus outdid the Romans for awhile because He was skilled at tactics but he really didn't get to pick and choose his army makeup. It was random from what came from the fields and other towns and more or less a rabble of randomness.

Imagine now if you will a battle of Two Spartacus randomized armies. Now that would be a battle to behold and the best SKILLED would win not just the one who exploited the system and chose only the best units from the lot of choices and the perfect map for them and the perfect setups.

I'll also give you a good example of random but still being able to play your favorite armies. HOPLITES card game is one of the best wargames I've ever played whereby nobody can get that perfect template to play every game. The cards you draw are "RANDOMIZED" and thus you can't deploy the same way everytime and you can't use the same tactics everytime. Give it a try if you like it's free. http://digilander.libero.it/zak965/hoplites.htm

I like your ideas very much. A King or General should make do with whatever forces join him under his banner, even the unprotected undrilled poor MF with light spear!

Thumbs up to a random force generated option!

Igorputski wrote: Nope because with all randoms only "SKILL" remains.

I completely disagree--the last thing this game needs is more luck involved, as in who was luckier to draw the better army... Moreover, I don't agree that it is historical at all--it is not as if generals just attracted random mobs of troops who just happened to be passing through--they fought with their kingdom's traditional army type and often hired mercenaries to fill in perceived weaknesses in their armies.

I don't accept challenges with unknown armies because there are some armies I don't like to play against. I always choose an appropraite army when accepting a named challenge. I always post named challenges myself and if someone accepts with a funky matchup, I just play it out.

I do agree that there are players out there looking to use ambush armies for a win, but not that many. I like the idea of picking an army and letting the DAG generate the forces -- an option that would be nice in the future and not too hard to implement. Too many games involve optimal army choice and optimal force selection. Doing larger battles can force players to take undesirable BGs, but that penalises some lists that max out early.

Deeter

deeter wrote:I do agree that there are players out there looking to use ambush armies for a win, but not that many. I like the idea of picking an army and letting the DAG generate the forces -- an option that would be nice in the future and not too hard to implement. Too many games involve optimal army choice and optimal force selection. Doing larger battles can force players to take undesirable BGs, but that penalises some lists that max out early.

Maybe I don't get this random army concept because when you play large battles, you usually have to select almost every unit available, there are generlly not a whole lot of choices being made, and little difference between "optimal" and "sub-optimal".

Also, some armies real need certain units...if I am playing Carthaginians, you will pry my veteran African spearmen out of my cold, dead hands, without them you might as well just retreat off the map.

Wow a lot of strong opinions here, I think accepting/offering "blind challenges" is random enough for me.

One suggestion i would like to make as an additional option is a toggle for "allies on or off" Sometimes I just like to play with/against a "pure list"... Some lists allies make your opponents army resemble nothing like what you would expect in that list... Often times its frustrating to lead mid repub's against an opponent who is fielding more and better quality legion than you have!

As for a randomizer ? You can do that yourself, roll some dice to select your list for you and then off it goes to a challenge!

Maybe I have been lucky, but I have never felt that anyone I have played is a "glory hound" Only one player (who has mysterisously vanished) posted his wins with a certain list, but i think that was to prove a point as opposed to any kind of bragging. Players who only use certain lists does not bother me either, after all, everyone will tend to gravitate toward a list(s) they like, or have a flair for....

Cheers!

historical random matched games would be good.

like in: join an early romans vs pyrrhic, or a republican rome vs carthage italy, or even persians vs greeks, and so on. the server would randomly assign players to one of the involved armies.

also, army lists for these kind may also be server generated, or picked up from a range of pregenerated army list for each army list (like 3-4-5 list versions of early roman army).

That would would be neat. I think the TT has the concept of "themed games" where any book can be used but the actual historial dates for that list come into play for whether two armies can butt heads. Mybe something like that will be added down the line on the roadmap

Igorputski wrote:After reading some of these posts this is what I've always known about MPer games. It happens in everyone of them. Players find an over powerful faction, they find a map to their advantage and a template setup to their advantage because the majority just want to WIN and then take jabs at their opponents or on forums about how they stomped them and beat them soundly and call them noobs. I've yet to see a MP game that I've played not end up like this. I remember KOHAN when it first came out was fun as hell but then the elitists came in, took over and everyone was a noob who didn't play like them or buildup like them. Thus, the community folded and disappeared except for those handful of elitists who eventually left because there was no one to bully around. Saw it happen in Age of Wonders:Shadowlands and the origional as well. Seen it happen in the online MMO's and MMORPG's like Guild Wars and WOW and Everuquest etc. etc.

"I gotta win and be famous players all the time" are the ones that ruin MP for so many who just want to have some fun without being called noob or idiot or loser etc. etc.

Best way to setup and play MP is with RANDOM armies assigned to each human player based on points. Then you have to show your abilities with what you get not with what you found on some webpage or wiki. One of the best things Magic the Gathering did was make closed deck tournaments and games. Thing is elitists whine about unfair setups and balance issues with random game setups and armies. Guess they don't like how it feels huh? lol

Any time you allow the human element to setup games and create armies you're going to be in for the ole template sort of play. What has been determined as the best powered army on the best map layout for them and the best setup positions is what they will want to play. Randomize everything and you'll eliminate the elitist attitudes and bullying and the "I gotta win all the time" attitudes.

I live in this forum in my spare time and I'm yet to see anyone bully, brag or the like. The worst that seems to be posted on the forum are strongly worded disagreements about the various merits of the game.

I like the idea about colour coding to give an indication about levels of skill. It isn't an absolute number, so hopefully wouldn't be too personal, but it would give a guideline to allow good match ups to be made. It may be a bit early (given we are only in season 2), but if a new player wants a guideline to player competence, then look at the league tables in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (in the leagues, tournaments... section of the forum), there are probably a few anomalies, where new people have joined the league, but it may be mostly right.

Having read these posts then I'm going to make an effort to play more than my favourite Seleucids (I'm trying Carthage at the moment... I've avoided them in the past because I think they are underpowered compared to what I expect) and I'm also going to post more games for people to accept.

I'm also more than willing to try to advise my opponent if they would like. The only problem, as RBS said, is that some people interpret offers of help as arrogance and can take offence. If anyone, who is relatively new to the game wants a friendly game, with or without questions or advice, then just PM me.

Wow, leave you guys alone for a second..

First off, the folks I have played have always been very polite and friendly. I don't think I have ever received advice I haven't asked for. The problem is, how can you give much advise, other than generic, when there are several moves a turn and several turns?

Perhaps what is needed is a true replay, where the player can see turn for turn, pause, rewind, see that calculations and digest it slowly. Athletes view tape, teams scout players, minutia is dissected to figure things out. This is like playing a pickup basketball game against the NBA allstars or for the Euros, a friendly neighborhood game of football against Spain.

There needs to be some tutorials, replays and other things to help us poor lesser generals understand what is going on. We can barely get a few games in on a few army sets before there is a new large set of armies and we never really understood how to master the first set. I doubt I have used the same army even 10 times even counting vs. the computer. When I say we, I should probably just say me, but at this point in the forums, I see mostly the same vets posting and playing.

Perhaps there should be leagues where there are promotions and demotions for a tournament "season" so the ranks settle themselves?
Just throwing ideas out there. I like the game concept and I enjoy learning from the vets, getting beaten almost ever time gets old.

http://despair.com/stup24x30pri.html

Mercutio wrote:Perhaps there should be leagues where there are promotions and demotions for a tournament "season" so the ranks settle themselves?

There are leagues. See here: viewtopic.php?t=15387

I'd say that having leagues and such would be more of a turn-off for some newcomers though. It's a real conundrum that as your community matures, it can become less easy for new people to join. It's a great sign though, I think, that some members of this community care enough to at least discuss the issues themselves. So kudos to you all.

Cheers

Pip

All this talk of not enough open challenges and I have 4 untouched ones for over an hour.... I must smell.....


On a serious note, what I find depressing is there are now multiple armies that I have never fielded, and likley wont field for fear of being considered one of those " bad players" who wants to use a "killer list"

Seriously, Grumblefish made an excellent point when he states he was looking fwrd to IF so he could play the SPARTANS. Many players love the Swiss, as well as the Late Repub's, yet these are now apparently being considered lists that only players that MUST WIN AT ALL COSTS use.....
When does it stop? I mean early Greeks are just as powerful (all those armoured hoplites) as Spartans (well of course, as you can take Spartans as allies)
Bopsos, but now I hear players considering Roxi's and Sarmations ultra uber as well....


I think there is too much emphasis on lists and there supposed "super powers"

I post open challenges on the hopes that my opponent will pick a reasonably historical line up (or at least NOT chose a ridiculous one) I post hidden ones to , well , to be surprised But I accept what I get and in the end , even if it is a line up had I known what my opponent chose in advance might have made me raise an eybrow, or roll my eyes, in the end i have never had a BAD time, win or lose.

In the end i am against any kind of official rankings, "selective matchups" ( ie only having "open challenges" for a defined player list , its either open or private) etc I mean for a topic that expresses worry there arent enough open challenges, people want to narrow down who open opponents might be allowed to join?

My suggestion: Incorporate the paired match up for DAG battles , ie ya dont like someone bringing Swiss against you? , well he is going to have to play the reverse battle, he he....

So in the end, bring on your Spartans, your Swiss , your Lancastarians and Bospos, let it be known that I dont care what army you want to field, its just as much your game as mine and I wont gripe or begrudge you (well maybe a tad )

New Players: I am not the greatest player out there and i tend to be a more intuitive player then a technical player, I doudt if advise i give such as "determine your schwerpunct" will be much use... All i know is one thing you can do is start playing a lot of battles and do not keep track of your wins/losses, just enjoy the friggin game!
However, If you ask during a match i would certainly tell you all I know (which isnt much!)

Now after all that blathering, I hope at least one challenge I posted is accepted or I really will think I smell.....

graymouser raises several good points...I also play with Seluecids and Late Repub Romans fairly often, because let's face it, they are kind of fun to play. I don't think that most people who play them are hyper-competitive jerks, its just that enough people like playing them that the variety of battles is greatly reduced, and a lot of times if I post one of the weaker armies I'm hoping someone will pick something that will provide a good battle. I've played Carthags vs Pontics several times, and that is one of the closest match-ups I've found!