Slitherine

Is there much of a streaming community for tournament play for this game? I used to watch a lot of Rome Total War 2 games on youtube, and this game seems like it could function similarly, though the PBEM might make it more difficult.

Geffalrus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:08 am Is there much of a streaming community for tournament play for this game? I used to watch a lot of Rome Total War 2 games on youtube, and this game seems like it could function similarly, though the PBEM might make it more difficult.

Not as far as I am aware. It is not something that I have looked into, at any rate.

Geffalrus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:08 am Is there much of a streaming community for tournament play for this game? I used to watch a lot of Rome Total War 2 games on youtube, and this game seems like it could function similarly, though the PBEM might make it more difficult.

There are a couple of challenges to this. First of all, given the PBEM nature, there will be a lot of dead time even if both players are "live" and at their desks simultaneously swapping turns. Secondly, since this is a turn-based game, so even when the player is active, there is a lot of thinking time with not much to do. I guess you could try to think out loud but I question how entertaining it would be.

The only real answer is to aggressively edit out the thinking portions and focus on the actual movement and combat which takes a ton of work to do. It's not like Total War where you can just turn on the game and stream and its live content. I tried doing it and it was a ton of work to pump out just one episode. Like far in excess of playing the game.

If there was capability to replay battles (similar to how it is done in TW) it would solve the problem. Most of Total War youtube videos casted using replays rather than live streams.
I do not get why they have not implemented replays. It seems to be easier (or the same) for turn based games compared to real-time ones.

It's a shame it's so difficult as your videos were rather good. But I can see your point. I actually live tweeted a match I was playing............and yeah, that was no small amount of extra work (and obviously way less than making a good video).

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:27 am

Geffalrus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:08 am Is there much of a streaming community for tournament play for this game? I used to watch a lot of Rome Total War 2 games on youtube, and this game seems like it could function similarly, though the PBEM might make it more difficult.

There are a couple of challenges to this. First of all, given the PBEM nature, there will be a lot of dead time even if both players are "live" and at their desks simultaneously swapping turns. Secondly, since this is a turn-based game, so even when the player is active, there is a lot of thinking time with not much to do. I guess you could try to think out loud but I question how entertaining it would be.

The only real answer is to aggressively edit out the thinking portions and focus on the actual movement and combat which takes a ton of work to do. It's not like Total War where you can just turn on the game and stream and its live content. I tried doing it and it was a ton of work to pump out just one episode. Like far in excess of playing the game.

THINKING Time?!!??? There's thinking time?

BDH

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:23 am Classical Antiquity A-D tables.jpg

Pete, I should have 5 points as one of the losses was 3-1, thanks. I'm wondering if new columns for different types of result may be easier to show the results?

Morbio wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:37 am

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:23 am Classical Antiquity A-D tables.jpg

Pete, I should have 5 points as one of the losses was 3-1, thanks. I'm wondering if new columns for different types of result may be easier to show the results?

I have moved this post into "The Rally Point" in case there is anyone else who has a view on the tables now with the revised scoring system introduced in Season 4. Are the tables in their current form still adequate? There are now two types of win - 3 points and 4 points; 2 types of draw - 2 points and 0 points; and 2 types of defeat - 1 point and 0 points. And then there is the very occasional 2 points for a tie when both players lose more than 60%.

So instead of the P-W-D-L-Pts we have now, you could conceivably have P-W4-W3-T-D2-D0-L1-L0-Pts. That would be 9 columns instead of 5! It would be possible not to have a separate column for ties and just show a tied result in the D2 column as 2*. So that would still leave us with 8 columns. I am not sure that I want to go down that route as they might be quite difficult to decipher for some players. I am bound to get loads of queries and it will make doing the tables a lot harder for me, and it will take me a lot longer too.

Any thoughts?

My view is there is a heck of a lot of work involved already and the summarised tables as already given are more than adequate.

Cheers

Ian

The tables are fine. Wins, losses and draws are all you need. I know in sports like rugby they sometimes have a bonus points column. For the Digital League a bonus point would come from a close loss. It might be helpful for you to include it as the other points will come from draws and wins. Otherwise, just keep it as it is as it looks very good.

The only change I would like to see to the summarized tables is adding the name of the players army to the player name.

As it is now, the only division summary that I really understand is mine because I know the players and the armies they are using. When I look at all the other division summaries, I may see a person with a 1-9 record but what I don't know is that he is playing the Elamites which explains a lot. Or a person with a 9-1 record but he is playing some monster army which also explains a lot. In fact, I would understand the tables better if I only saw the army name and not the player name. Of course, we have to have the player name but the tables would make more sense to me with both the player name and their army. Anyway, my two cents worth.

double post deleted.

While the list of players and armies is included off the chart, I have to agree with Jagger. While who won/lost is important, it makes the chart far more interesting and valuable to see at a glance what armies are involved without scrolling back and forward to the list.

I realise this might be tricky and more work for poor old Anders (hidde) our chart maker-in-chief. But if it is feasible it will make the charts far more interesting.

EDIT: This from the old day of FOG1 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 13&t=15387

Jagger2002 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 3:02 pm The only change I would like to see to the summarized tables is adding the name of the players army to the player name.

As it is now, the only division summary that I really understand is mine because I know the players and the armies they are using. When I look at all the other division summaries, I may see a person with a 1-9 record but what I don't know is that he is playing the Elamites which explains a lot. Or a person with a 9-1 record but he is playing some monster army which also explains a lot. In fact, I would understand the tables better if I only saw the army name and not the player name. Of course, we have to have the player name but the tables would make more sense to me with both the player name and their army. Anyway, my two cents worth.

What do you mean by the "summarized tables"? Do you mean the charts in the "Arrange your matches here" threads? If so, Anders (hidde) has already shown me a dummy chart with army names (not the dates though) under the player's name and they look OK. I think deve was asking for a similar thing a few weeks ago. We can bring these in for Season 5. If you mean the actual league tables themselves in the results threads then I think the answer is going to be "no". This is because it would make a lot of extra work for me when compiling the tables because the position of players is changing all the time, whereas in the charts the players stay in alphabetical order right the way through the season.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:27 pm a lot of extra work for me when compiling the tables because the position of players is changing all the time, whereas in the charts the players stay in alphabetical order right the way through the season.

I would be happy if it was just the final archive charts after all the battles are over.

ianiow wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:41 pm I would be happy if it was just the final archive charts after all the battles are over.

Yes, we will certainly be able to do that for you.

Can look like this:

hidde wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:07 pm Can look like this:
Document 1.jpg

Perfect

Nice one Anders

Yes, hidde, almost perfect! Perhaps if the top row of player names also included army name and maybe one font size bigger, then we would be one giant step closer to reaching nirvana. ....Ummm...why do I feel like I am looking a a gift horse in the mouth and pressing my luck...