On the resource checking...
On the resource checking...
Often I've seen casters make questionable (to say the least) rehost calls based on supposed bad resource distribution. I think it's about time to discuss general guidelines for map rehosting based on resource unbalances.
First of all it's important to notice that maps are not all identical so res distribution/amount is not the same either.
Secondly it's important to stress that lot of maps are not supposed to be mirror. In fact no map should be necessarily be a mirror but since many EP maps are coded that way casters tend to interpret all maps in that sense.
Well the general rule, which is valid for all maps (fixed mirrors or not), is that if players get the minimum guaranteed amount of resources for that specific map, the map is fine. How do you know what's the minimum amount a players should get? Aside from knowing the maps well by spawning it several times there is a a specific google sheet that was made for reference.
Practically this means that casters should not go too (stupidly) picky about perfect symmetry of resources, unless perhaps for very decisive matches (e.g important mirrors, last game of a series, etc.). In particular it's just stupid to overthink on stuff like 3rd-4th hunts when hunts in general move a lot by themselves in this game.
In any case casters should at least also check other things such as treasures (one good treasure can compensate a potentially slightly inferior hunt spawn) and contextualize the resource distribution for each situation (e.g who cares about perfect hunts if one player plays Japan).
Casters should ask themselves if it is really worth to rehost the game. Rehosting is never pleasent for the players nor the viewers. Also randomness is an important part of many maps. Players should be prepared for that and not give for granted that map will look symmetric and always the same (with all the relative implications). Exposed resources make for important strategic choices such as going proxy or investing in strategic walling.
In general, if rehosting can be avoided the better.
I'll try to give an example of what I mean, hoping everyone can agree after the necessary clarifications.
These two spawns have been rehosted in a tourney match on the map Fertile Crescent. This map intentionally have big but rather scattered hunt patches. After spawning the maps few times it's clear that players can get a minimum of just a 2nd hunt and a very lucky situation of 3 extra reasonably close hunts. 70% of times it will be a clear (in fact coded) 2nd hunt plus a reasonable 3rd hunt nearby the TC area. A spawn like that is actually quite conservative, granting enough hunts for 10-12 minutes without even moving vills outside of your close portion of the map. And that without even considering 3k berries in base plus a likely 3k berries somewhere near.
Now, first spawn displays one player having 2 reasonable hunts and the other player have lucky 3 ones. Mines are almost symmetrical. The game wasn't decisive for the series although it was a mirror. This spawn is certainly playable but casters could discretionally rehost that since other hunts also seem a bit more accessible for the blue player. However I think that a spawn like this should be actually played because luck on the exact res placement is part of this game. Here both players got enough stuff to carry on their respective strategies and everything within the first 10-12 minutes of game should be totally fair. This map also has berry patches that can easily substitute a hunt in precarious situations and may actually be better in some cases (harder to scout).
Maybe one player decides to proxy and then the game flow will be totally unrelated to the hunt disposition. Casters should let these things happen for what it is possible.
For the record, I don't know the treasure situation (wasn't considered by casters) but here it could have very well helped the player with 2 hunts making it, in fact, a good spawn for him.
Second spawn is even a more obvious case of spawns that should not be rehosted. Mines are mirror and hunts are very close to that too. Both players got a sided 3rd hunt and even a pocket 4th hunt across the river on the same side of the TC. This is as fortunate as the hunt situation can be on this map and certainly is not challenging at all for players. I think it's important to stress the last point since that's in the end what really matters. "Will be one player struggling significantly more than the other player in controlling the resources given the very starting situation?". This is what casters should ask themselves. And clearly the answer here is not since both players got 2nd and 3rd hunts, allowing for a nice game to be played. Then what comes next is not predictable since too many things can happen and those 4th-5th etc. hunts can just move closer or farther.
First of all it's important to notice that maps are not all identical so res distribution/amount is not the same either.
Secondly it's important to stress that lot of maps are not supposed to be mirror. In fact no map should be necessarily be a mirror but since many EP maps are coded that way casters tend to interpret all maps in that sense.
Well the general rule, which is valid for all maps (fixed mirrors or not), is that if players get the minimum guaranteed amount of resources for that specific map, the map is fine. How do you know what's the minimum amount a players should get? Aside from knowing the maps well by spawning it several times there is a a specific google sheet that was made for reference.
Practically this means that casters should not go too (stupidly) picky about perfect symmetry of resources, unless perhaps for very decisive matches (e.g important mirrors, last game of a series, etc.). In particular it's just stupid to overthink on stuff like 3rd-4th hunts when hunts in general move a lot by themselves in this game.
In any case casters should at least also check other things such as treasures (one good treasure can compensate a potentially slightly inferior hunt spawn) and contextualize the resource distribution for each situation (e.g who cares about perfect hunts if one player plays Japan).
Casters should ask themselves if it is really worth to rehost the game. Rehosting is never pleasent for the players nor the viewers. Also randomness is an important part of many maps. Players should be prepared for that and not give for granted that map will look symmetric and always the same (with all the relative implications). Exposed resources make for important strategic choices such as going proxy or investing in strategic walling.
In general, if rehosting can be avoided the better.
I'll try to give an example of what I mean, hoping everyone can agree after the necessary clarifications.
These two spawns have been rehosted in a tourney match on the map Fertile Crescent. This map intentionally have big but rather scattered hunt patches. After spawning the maps few times it's clear that players can get a minimum of just a 2nd hunt and a very lucky situation of 3 extra reasonably close hunts. 70% of times it will be a clear (in fact coded) 2nd hunt plus a reasonable 3rd hunt nearby the TC area. A spawn like that is actually quite conservative, granting enough hunts for 10-12 minutes without even moving vills outside of your close portion of the map. And that without even considering 3k berries in base plus a likely 3k berries somewhere near.
Now, first spawn displays one player having 2 reasonable hunts and the other player have lucky 3 ones. Mines are almost symmetrical. The game wasn't decisive for the series although it was a mirror. This spawn is certainly playable but casters could discretionally rehost that since other hunts also seem a bit more accessible for the blue player. However I think that a spawn like this should be actually played because luck on the exact res placement is part of this game. Here both players got enough stuff to carry on their respective strategies and everything within the first 10-12 minutes of game should be totally fair. This map also has berry patches that can easily substitute a hunt in precarious situations and may actually be better in some cases (harder to scout).
Maybe one player decides to proxy and then the game flow will be totally unrelated to the hunt disposition. Casters should let these things happen for what it is possible.
For the record, I don't know the treasure situation (wasn't considered by casters) but here it could have very well helped the player with 2 hunts making it, in fact, a good spawn for him.
Second spawn is even a more obvious case of spawns that should not be rehosted. Mines are mirror and hunts are very close to that too. Both players got a sided 3rd hunt and even a pocket 4th hunt across the river on the same side of the TC. This is as fortunate as the hunt situation can be on this map and certainly is not challenging at all for players. I think it's important to stress the last point since that's in the end what really matters. "Will be one player struggling significantly more than the other player in controlling the resources given the very starting situation?". This is what casters should ask themselves. And clearly the answer here is not since both players got 2nd and 3rd hunts, allowing for a nice game to be played. Then what comes next is not predictable since too many things can happen and those 4th-5th etc. hunts can just move closer or farther.
Re: On the resource checking...
just dont make random nonsense happen maybe?
Re: On the resource checking...
Randomness is the best thing of this game.
Thank you for not reading the post anyway.
Thank you for not reading the post anyway.
- QueenOfdestiny
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Aug 9, 2016
- ESO: QueenOfdestiny
Re: On the resource checking...
Especially in a mirror hunts are important... Would you go and win a soccer game with one team 11 players and the other only 8?
Ofc team 11 win they will have more endurance and better control! The team with 8 players will lose bc they run out of endurance and less control.
I know my example sucks but I'm not up to wasting my time with something like this! It's a tournament not a gamble.
Anyway should ask the tournament admins what they think about it... Btw are you even know what esoc wants from casters? Yes always check the hunts that they fair... Btw why is 2.2c not in the download maps? Weird
Ofc team 11 win they will have more endurance and better control! The team with 8 players will lose bc they run out of endurance and less control.
I know my example sucks but I'm not up to wasting my time with something like this! It's a tournament not a gamble.
Anyway should ask the tournament admins what they think about it... Btw are you even know what esoc wants from casters? Yes always check the hunts that they fair... Btw why is 2.2c not in the download maps? Weird
shit juice
Re: On the resource checking...
tfw people don't bother reading and addressing the original post and only post to share their borderline irrelevant opinions
Pay more attention to detail.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: On the resource checking...
Randomness is aoe3. I'm not sure why people seem to still think otherwise.
Preferably I only rs if a hunt or mine is clearly missing.
A lot of people fail to herd properly then act like hunt wandering is not a thing. It is. In mid game when villager mass is really ramping up it's a good idea to preemptively herd to minimize walking time and to corral those babies in. Herding exists outside of age 1 and its transition period. It's part of the skill ceiling and a lot of good players act like it isn't.
That being said I'd rehost map one every given chance and would rehost map two if it were an especially high profile game.
It's better to rehost on the off chance a map might actually be unfair than it is to have an illigitamte match.
Preferably I only rs if a hunt or mine is clearly missing.
A lot of people fail to herd properly then act like hunt wandering is not a thing. It is. In mid game when villager mass is really ramping up it's a good idea to preemptively herd to minimize walking time and to corral those babies in. Herding exists outside of age 1 and its transition period. It's part of the skill ceiling and a lot of good players act like it isn't.
That being said I'd rehost map one every given chance and would rehost map two if it were an especially high profile game.
It's better to rehost on the off chance a map might actually be unfair than it is to have an illigitamte match.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: On the resource checking...
Gendarme wrote:tfw people don't bother reading and addressing the original post and only post to share their borderline irrelevant opinions
It's a somewhat irrelevant topic poorly formatted and entirely too long.
Re: On the resource checking...
Iowa really is quite bad, sometimes, though.
In other news I think Garja is being misunderstood again.
In other news I think Garja is being misunderstood again.
Re: On the resource checking...
Whether it is a good thread or not, saying something that already has been addressed in the original post but that you missed because you didn't bother reading it is bad. Not participating in the thread is a better choice if you think it's a bad one. This shit happens way too fucking often.deleted_user wrote:Gendarme wrote:tfw people don't bother reading and addressing the original post and only post to share their borderline irrelevant opinions
It's a pretty irrelevant topic poorly formatted and entirely too long.
Pay more attention to detail.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: On the resource checking...
Gendarme wrote:Whether it is a good thread or not, saying something that already has been addressed in the original post but that you missed because you didn't bother reading it is bad. Not participating in the thread is a better choice if you think it's a bad one. This shit happens way too fucking often.deleted_user wrote:Gendarme wrote:tfw people don't bother reading and addressing the original post and only post to share their borderline irrelevant opinions
It's a pretty irrelevant topic poorly formatted and entirely too long.
You act like my opinion is irrelevant because garja or someone else holds it and expressed it too. I read the thread and gave my opinion. It may be reinforcing his already made points or it may not. I believe people take what I have to say into consideration so I said it.
Re: On the resource checking...
I posted before you did; I was not referring to you. Perhaps I should have chosen the more appropriate pronoun one instead of you. By irrelevant I meant already addressed/explained in the original post, not inherently worthless.
Pay more attention to detail.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: On the resource checking...
I wouldn't say queen's post is irrelevant either.
Nonetheless not everyone can be expected to read an essay on resource distribution - and she makes a good point.
Nonetheless not everyone can be expected to read an essay on resource distribution - and she makes a good point.
Re: On the resource checking...
The part I hate about casting is that I'm forced to make these calls on whether or not the map is balanced and honestly I'm just not sure of my calls ever.
I just count hunts and mines within a certain radius and be like "oh ok this looks ok. maybe"
I just count hunts and mines within a certain radius and be like "oh ok this looks ok. maybe"
Re: On the resource checking...
Keep it simple; check for outright missing hunts and mines. Don't think about in too much detail – you're probably both unfit to and uninterested in doing so.kami_ryu wrote:The part I hate about casting is that I'm forced to make these calls on whether or not the map is balanced and honestly I'm just not sure of my calls ever.
I just count hunts and mines within a certain radius and be like "oh ok this looks ok. maybe"
- QueenOfdestiny
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Aug 9, 2016
- ESO: QueenOfdestiny
Re: On the resource checking...
zoom wrote:Keep it simple; check for entirely missing hunts and mines. Don't think about in too much detail – you're probably both unfit to and uninterested in doing so.kami_ryu wrote:The part I hate about casting is that I'm forced to make these calls on whether or not the map is balanced and honestly I'm just not sure of my calls ever.
I just count hunts and mines within a certain radius and be like "oh ok this looks ok. maybe"
shit juice
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: On the resource checking...
You both are right. The answer to this thread from a caster's standpoint and not from an individual, top player and map designer's standpoint is to "be reasonable." As long as you can do that then no one has a hard case vs you and everyone will be mostly happy.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10278
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: On the resource checking...
You're literally stating your opinion, and saying it's the absolute truth. Discussing with you is really useless honestly. But I'll still try, though I'm not sure why.
Who said the map should be a mirror? I don't care if it's perfectly symmetrical or not. I just want both players to start the game with roughly equal chances, as in, approx the same amount of resources in range of each tc (and also approx the same amount of resources on each side of the map, though this one is less important obviously, and a fair margin of error can definitely be tolerated here).
Yeah so that's pure bullshit. You arbitrarily decided that a given map has a minimum guaranteed amount of resources. So you mean that if both players have at least 2 hunts for example, 2 hunts being the minimum amount, it's automatically a good spawn? Doesn't matter that one player might have, say, 4 hunts, while the other has only 2? This makes no sense, and is definitely not the way you can rule a tourney. It's far from being a competitive setting. Now I understand why you've been ranting in the chat everytime there was a rehost, you just don't seem to understand what a fair spawn is, and that a tournament should theoretically only involve fair spawns (though for practical reasons it's not always possible, but at least let's try to get close to that...).
Yeah, when your opponent has 2 more hunts than you in range of tc, and your third hunt is half map or so, everything is definitely gonna get fixed when the hunts start moving...
Treasures are inherently random. That's the luck factor, and it shouldn't be compared to the resources, which shouldn't be that random.
You also can't start making decision based on the civ someone is playing... Then I can also rehost until the brit guy gets 5 hunts while we're at it?
Of course, I also wish I wouldn't need to rehost. But I'd rather rehost and get a competitive setup, than be lazy and go for an unfair game. Also having exposed resources is fine, as long as your opponent's are exposed as well... I don't see why I'd be forced to rush in a french mirror, while my opponent can just semi-ff safely just because of the map, and win the match-up this way.
After spawning the map 2 times, it was clear that it was shit spawns. Anything else is bullshit tbh.
First time, blue could herd 2 hunts under his tc, and another one close to his tc, while red could realistically grab only 1 hunt. This is not competitive.
Second time, blue could herd only 1 hunt under his tc, while red could bring 2 hunts under tc and another one close to it. This is not competitive.
Funnily enough, when we rehosted the second spawn, we did get better. So no, it wasn't "as fortunate as it could be". We had a very low hunt spawn in the second rehost, with only 1 hunt for each player, but it was fair, and that's what matters. Idk, just get glasses and look againat the mini-map, it's just so obvious that it was super unfair.
I appreciate that you made a lot of maps, and they're very enjoyable to play on. But it doesn't mean that you're a kind of map god who can set up his own rules and decide when games should be rehosted or not, regardless of the spawn being (at least a little bit) fair or not. You're just always ranting when they rehost, even if 90% of the chat consistently agrees with the casters. It's ridiculous at this point, just admit that your maps can be flawed, or fix them idk...
Garja wrote:Secondly it's important to stress that lot of maps are not supposed to be mirror. In fact no map should be necessarily be a mirror but since many EP maps are coded that way casters tend to interpret all maps in that sense.
Garja wrote:Practically this means that casters should not go too (stupidly) picky about perfect symmetry of resources, unless perhaps for very decisive matches (e.g important mirrors, last game of a series, etc.).
Who said the map should be a mirror? I don't care if it's perfectly symmetrical or not. I just want both players to start the game with roughly equal chances, as in, approx the same amount of resources in range of each tc (and also approx the same amount of resources on each side of the map, though this one is less important obviously, and a fair margin of error can definitely be tolerated here).
Garja wrote:Well the general rule, which is valid for all maps (fixed mirrors or not), is that if players get the minimum guaranteed amount of resources for that specific map, the map is fine.
Yeah so that's pure bullshit. You arbitrarily decided that a given map has a minimum guaranteed amount of resources. So you mean that if both players have at least 2 hunts for example, 2 hunts being the minimum amount, it's automatically a good spawn? Doesn't matter that one player might have, say, 4 hunts, while the other has only 2? This makes no sense, and is definitely not the way you can rule a tourney. It's far from being a competitive setting. Now I understand why you've been ranting in the chat everytime there was a rehost, you just don't seem to understand what a fair spawn is, and that a tournament should theoretically only involve fair spawns (though for practical reasons it's not always possible, but at least let's try to get close to that...).
Garja wrote:In particular it's just stupid to overthink on stuff like 3rd-4th hunts when hunts in general move a lot by themselves in this game.
Yeah, when your opponent has 2 more hunts than you in range of tc, and your third hunt is half map or so, everything is definitely gonna get fixed when the hunts start moving...
Garja wrote:In any case casters should at least also check other things such as treasures (one good treasure can compensate a potentially slightly inferior hunt spawn) and contextualize the resource distribution for each situation (e.g who cares about perfect hunts if one player plays Japan).
Treasures are inherently random. That's the luck factor, and it shouldn't be compared to the resources, which shouldn't be that random.
You also can't start making decision based on the civ someone is playing... Then I can also rehost until the brit guy gets 5 hunts while we're at it?
Garja wrote:Casters should ask themselves if it is really worth to rehost the game. Rehosting is never pleasent for the players nor the viewers. Also randomness is an important part of many maps. Players should be prepared for that and not give for granted that map will look symmetric and always the same (with all the relative implications). Exposed resources make for important strategic choices such as going proxy or investing in strategic walling.
In general, if rehosting can be avoided the better.
Of course, I also wish I wouldn't need to rehost. But I'd rather rehost and get a competitive setup, than be lazy and go for an unfair game. Also having exposed resources is fine, as long as your opponent's are exposed as well... I don't see why I'd be forced to rush in a french mirror, while my opponent can just semi-ff safely just because of the map, and win the match-up this way.
Garja wrote:I'll try to give an example of what I mean, hoping everyone can agree after the necessary clarifications.
These two spawns have been rehosted in a tourney match on the map Fertile Crescent. This map intentionally have big but rather scattered hunt patches. After spawning the maps few times it's clear that players can get a minimum of just a 2nd hunt and a very lucky situation of 3 extra reasonably close hunts. 70% of times it will be a clear (in fact coded) 2nd hunt plus a reasonable 3rd hunt nearby the TC area. A spawn like that is actually quite conservative, granting enough hunts for 10-12 minutes without even moving vills outside of your close portion of the map. And that without even considering 3k berries in base plus a likely 3k berries somewhere near.
After spawning the map 2 times, it was clear that it was shit spawns. Anything else is bullshit tbh.
First time, blue could herd 2 hunts under his tc, and another one close to his tc, while red could realistically grab only 1 hunt. This is not competitive.
Second time, blue could herd only 1 hunt under his tc, while red could bring 2 hunts under tc and another one close to it. This is not competitive.
Garja wrote:Now, first spawn displays one player having 2 reasonable hunts and the other player have lucky 3 ones. Bullshit
Mines are almost symmetrical. No one complained about the mines
The game wasn't decisive for the series although it was a mirror. Who fucking cares? Shouldn't influence anything.
This spawn is certainly playable but casters could discretionally rehost that since other hunts also seem a bit more accessible for the blue player. However I think that a spawn like this should be actually played because luck on the exact res placement is part of this game. "exact res placement" like starting with 2 extra hunts?
Here both players got enough stuff to carry on their respective strategies and everything within the first 10-12 minutes of game should be totally fair. This map also has berry patches that can easily substitute a hunt in precarious situations and may actually be better in some cases (harder to scout). Berries can't be compared to hunts. And you don't reach 12 min in game with 1 hunt Garja.
Maybe one player decides to proxy and then the game flow will be totally unrelated to the hunt disposition. Casters should let these things happen for what it is possible. Again, shouldn't force one payer to proxy, while the other doesn't need to. It is not competitive, it's called quicksearch. Plus, even if you rush, you can still get raided when you have low food.
For the record, I don't know the treasure situation (wasn't considered by casters) but here it could have very well helped the player with 2 hunts making it, in fact, a good spawn for him. No one cares about treasures in this debate
Garja wrote:Second spawn is even a more obvious case of spawns that should not be rehosted. Mines are mirror and hunts are very close to that too. Both players got a sided 3rd hunt and even a pocket 4th hunt across the river on the same side of the TC. This is as fortunate as the hunt situation can be on this map and certainly is not challenging at all for players. I think it's important to stress the last point since that's in the end what really matters. "Will be one player struggling significantly more than the other player in controlling the resources given the very starting situation?". This is what casters should ask themselves. And clearly the answer here is not since both players got 2nd and 3rd hunts, allowing for a nice game to be played. Then what comes next is not predictable since too many things can happen and those 4th-5th etc. hunts can just move closer or farther.
Funnily enough, when we rehosted the second spawn, we did get better. So no, it wasn't "as fortunate as it could be". We had a very low hunt spawn in the second rehost, with only 1 hunt for each player, but it was fair, and that's what matters. Idk, just get glasses and look againat the mini-map, it's just so obvious that it was super unfair.
I appreciate that you made a lot of maps, and they're very enjoyable to play on. But it doesn't mean that you're a kind of map god who can set up his own rules and decide when games should be rehosted or not, regardless of the spawn being (at least a little bit) fair or not. You're just always ranting when they rehost, even if 90% of the chat consistently agrees with the casters. It's ridiculous at this point, just admit that your maps can be flawed, or fix them idk...
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 ..
Re: On the resource checking...
I actually mean I suspect he doesn't know enough about map spawns and directions on the subject, and I get the impression he isn't overly fond of checking spawns. I do like myself some offensive ambiguity, though.queenofdestiny wrote:zoom wrote:Keep it simple; check for entirely missing hunts and mines. Don't think about in too much detail – you're probably both unfit to and uninterested in doing so.kami_ryu wrote:The part I hate about casting is that I'm forced to make these calls on whether or not the map is balanced and honestly I'm just not sure of my calls ever.
I just count hunts and mines within a certain radius and be like "oh ok this looks ok. maybe"
Thank you both for casting today. I enjoyed it!
Re: On the resource checking...
What about if you're playing vs Russia or India and both sides only get one hunt?
That's not a fair game
That's not a fair game
Re: On the resource checking...
As long as you don't tolerate missing hunts or mines and don't make decisions based on player civilizations, order of the game in the series or the weather outside your window, you're free to be as reasonable as you like.deleted_user wrote:You both are right. The answer to this thread from a caster's standpoint and not from an individual, top player and map designer's standpoint is to "be reasonable." As long as you can do that then no one has a hard case vs you and everyone will be mostly happy.
Re: On the resource checking...
It's either a bug or a feature, but it's certainly not objectively unfair to only have one hunt. If it's a possibility that you only get one hunt the players should take that into consideration when choosing their civilization - unless it happens extremely rarely.IAmSoldieR wrote:What about if you're playing vs Russia or India and both sides only get one hunt?
That's not a fair game
Pay more attention to detail.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 8049
- Joined: May 4, 2015
- ESO: PrinceofBabu
Re: On the resource checking...
IAmSoldieR wrote:What about if you're playing vs Russia or India and both sides only get one hunt?
That's not a fair game
pick a better civ for the map
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: On the resource checking...
zoom wrote:As long as you don't tolerate missing hunts or mines and don't make decisions based on player civilizations, order of the game in the series or the weather outside your window, you're free to be as reasonable as you like.deleted_user wrote:You both are right. The answer to this thread from a caster's standpoint and not from an individual, top player and map designer's standpoint is to "be reasonable." As long as you can do that then no one has a hard case vs you and everyone will be mostly happy.
Thankfully the conglomerate body of the community is made up of peoples other than yourself. I stand by my theory of reason. It's great with the right amount of awareness.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10278
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: On the resource checking...
IAmSoldieR wrote:What about if you're playing vs Russia or India and both sides only get one hunt?
That's not a fair game
If you green up vs those civs in a map from the official map pool, which is supposed to have only 1 hunt, it's definitely fair.
If the map should have more safe hunts, it's arguably problematic, but it's another topic
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 ..
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: On the resource checking...
True, the much more interesting question is whether equally shitty spawns is fair.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests