princeofkabul wrote:Yes, maybe i should've been more active trying to schedule games, but it's still takes quite efford doing so. Getting all the guys there for a 3v3, needs very much cooperation from both sides, twice I've got my boys into the lobby but others teams haven't got they full setup to play the games.
I haven't said that im not here for the money, I am here for the money and for the fun. The idea of making money from pure enjoyment is really nice, also the idea of making money out of a game that you like, even if it's small pocket money. I did give a "shit" about this event, otherwise I wouldn't have joined with my team to the event in the first place.
Ok
princeofkabul wrote:If you and your family do have great amount of fortune, good for you, even if I doubt that. Your posts made me feel you really need that money or something. Like why would you go on rampage about our team rejoinin' to the event.
I'm not sure we actually really care about how much money I have. Anyway if I were poor I wouldn't waste so much time on aoe and I wouldn't live in Paris. What annoyed me with your team was simply that you seemed quite venal.
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
zoom wrote:I noticed map vetos are now a thing. Was there ever an announcement on this?
Also, with six total vetos per match, I think you could include maps like Tibet, and potentially more sea maps.
Zoo?
Announcement:
Map vetoes are now a thing. I'll look into adding a few more maps, though there's a clause which says that any map is fine as long as all parties are fine with it. There are maps like Indonesia and such which are in the map pool which may deserve a veto. Adding too many veto-worthy maps may just make veto'ing irrelevant and simply make things as if there were no vetoes and the maps did not include the less popular maps, if that makes sense.
If you only get three vetoes and are interested in not playing on the less popular (though not lesser quality) maps, then you're going to veto Tibet, Indonesia, Cascade Range right off the bat, I think.
You're also going to veto those every time.
Here you are:
Team Maps:[spoiler=Team Maps]EP ESOC Adirondacks EP ESOC Arizona EP ESOC Arkansas EP ESOC Baja California EP ESOC Bengal EP ESOC Cascade range EP ESOC Colorado EP ESOC High Plains EP ESOC Hudson Bay EP ESOC Indonesia EP ESOC Kamchatka EP ESOC Klondike EP ESOC Manchac EP ESOC Manchuria EP ESOC Mendocino EP ESOC Pampas Sierras EP ESOC Tassili EP Silk Road EP Siberia EP Himalayas EP Himalayas Upper EP Painted Desert EP Andes EP Deccan EP Yellow River Dry[/spoiler]
That is the current TEAM map set, if you feel like some maps deserve to be added, please state which ones you think would be nice to have in. Just Tibet? That could be doable.
I would veto whatever maps are the least beneficial to me, in net terms. As should anyone else with a competitive mindset. On that note, each team shouldn't have three vetos – it should have two at most. Also, vetos should be mandatory; not optional. My suggestion:
"– At the beginning of a Stronk2World match, both teams must veto two maps each from the map pool, taking turns. These four maps are then removed from the map-pool for the match. The challenging team vetos a map first."
Look at the size of the map pool, why does 4 over 6 maps matter?
Map vetoes are also a hassle for people, who already have trouble just setting up the games to play. Making it mandatory would also be a hassle. Something to keep in mind.
iNcog wrote:Look at the size of the map pool, why does 4 over 6 maps matter?
Map vetoes are also a hassle for people, who already have trouble just setting up the games to play. Making it mandatory would also be a hassle. Something to keep in mind.
Because too many maps won't see play with more than one or two vetos per team and match.
It's really very simple, honestly. It's just bad form making it optional, but I'll apply it regardless so in practice it's not a big deal.