bramboy wrote:Thatd be dumb. Imagine me banning a colonels 3 best civs out of the 4 civs he plays. Should I win that even though he is the better player because he doesnt play enough civs?
He can also ban your 3 best civs. And if youre banning his non iro otto civs and he bans your iro otto, he has the option to play a few games with to get the hang of iro and otto before the series and then easily win.
Thats why I think most ppl will just ban each others otto iro. Like people would even ban kynesies iro probably over a water civ.
Youve got to ask yourself one question: Why do we have tournaments?
In my eyes, its for the entertainment of people (and to keep the community active). If every series would ban a players best civ, wed see him play otto/iro or his lesser civs, thus resulting in lower leveled gameplay.
I dont like civ vetos because any gameplay with iro/otto in it or a civilization which a player barely plays is boring.
Yeah civ veto means that you would bann your opponnent's best civs and that he'll take iro and otto even if he doesn't know how to play these civs. And iro/otto players would have these 2 civs banned so that would be almost the same rules except for kynesie
diarouga wrote:Yeah civ veto means that you would bann your opponnent''s best civs and that he''ll take iro and otto even if he doesn''t know how to play these civs. And iro/otto players would have these 2 civs banned so that would be almost the same rules except for kynesie
he probably would get ports and jap in veto since game 1
3 vetos would be fine IMO, most people would ban Iro and Otto + the strongest civ of their opponent, sometimes Otto would be allowed to ban certain civs, like water ones for kynesie. I would make then different rules for civ picking in BOs, for example in BO7 you would be able to play each civ three times.
chronique wrote:Iam agree with garja, civ ban is not a good way. If you restrict op civ one game by BO (and not one win like the pkclan) you can include iro/otto.
Kynesie and Boneng should make a waterbooming guide for every civ.
Plus I want to see Kynesie vs Boneng otto mirror on hudson bay, port mirror on manchuria, russia mirror on new england. Else banning of otto is appreciated already.
Doing what you like is Freedom... Liking what you do is Happiness...
We could also have player choosing all the civs they are going to play for a series beforehand. With a limit of once a civ per bo3 twice for a bo5 or something like that...
There are several reasons why I like a well-constructed picking-order civilization selection process.
First of all it greatly adds to civilization variety (which is objectively a good thing for overall ratings, regardless of whether you and I like or dislike mirrors and our respective reasons for it) without compromising competitiveness and fairness to any tangible extent. The perceived counter-picking element is lessened because first picker always has the possibility choose a civ that is harder to counter-pick on the given map. Furthermore it adds depth in terms of civilization, player (opponent) and meta knowledge and rewards these things in a more adequate proportion to mechanics.
Picking-order also eliminates any disputes with regards to the civ-selection process.
zoom wrote:There are several reasons why I like a well-constructed picking-order civilization selection process.
First of all it greatly adds to civilization variety (which is objectively a good thing for overall ratings, regardless of whether you or I like or dislike mirrors and our respective reasons for it) without compromising competitiveness and fairness to any tangible extent. The perceived counter-picking element is lessened because first picker always has the possibility choose a civ that is harder to counter-pick on the given map. Furthermore it adds depth in terms of civilization, player (opponent) and meta knowledge and rewards these things in a more adequate proportion to mechanics
Picking-order also eliminates any disputes with regards to the civ-selection process.
I think it would be best otto and iro to stay banned. Also, every player can choose their favorite civilisation and ban one civ of their opponent.
You can't ban your opponents civilisation and he cant ban your's. Its simple, but good. This can be used for when players are so bad against certain civilisations.
krichk wrote: For some reason, you want the world to know that you're brave enough to challenge thebritish
