KINGofOsmane wrote:the one civ tourney could be super interesting as an weekend or one week tourney
clearly :japanese:
KINGofOsmane wrote:the one civ tourney could be super interesting as an weekend or one week tourney
Timba wrote:I'd like to see a tournament where there are no civ resets. Players will be forced to widen their repertoire of civs which I think is a greater test of skill.
Timba wrote:I'd like to see a tournament where there are no civ resets. Players will be forced to widen their repertoire of civs which I think is a greater test of skill.
Garja wrote:At this point both one-game-one-civ or one-player-one-civ rules would be better than current civ rules.
No civ restriction is also interesting except that players would probably converge to the same civs out of popularity and also there would be again problems with infinite counterpicking (especially with map being more standardized and balance closer).
Garja wrote:At this point both one-game-one-civ or one-player-one-civ rules would be better than current civ rules.
No civ restriction is also interesting except that players would probably converge to the same civs out of popularity and also there would be again problems with infinite counterpicking (especially with map being more standardized and balance closer).
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 ..
Kaiserklein wrote:Why would you need to play 9 different civs to win the tourney...
Goodspeed wrote:Probably unpopular but imo the finals should be best of 7.
Goodspeed wrote:I know we've been over this but I and probably around 90% of the community including other big donators would have preferred to see forum bans separated from tournament bans. ESOC has effectively removed Diarouga, a top level player with a lot of potential as a contributor, not only from ESOC but from the game itself which is a sad loss. Over the long term people often change for the better in such cases, just look at Marco, but if you remove their ability to compete you are discouraging them from playing the game and they might just leave for good. We as a community can't afford that. Please consider changing the rules so that the only way to get banned from a tournament is breaking tournament rules or being a known cheater.
Kaiserklein wrote:Why would you need to play 9 different civs to win the tourney...
breeze wrote: they cant even guess how much f***ing piece of stupid retarded they look they are trying to give lesson to people who are over pr35 and know the best mu. im pretty sure that we need a page that only pr30+ post and then we could have a nice discussins.
from a competitive perspective though unless you or Ryan or bsop join diarouga will just rape every one especially since Iro and Aztec are some of his better civslordraphael wrote:Diarouga should ne allowed to Play in The next tourney. Maybe just allow him to Play in The upcoming twc tourney. Hes one of The few Players who actually plays them ans its also a semi official tourney because spank You funded it entirely.
Furthermore in every society people who have disobeyed The rules get a chance to comeback into society. Same should ne applied here. If You give him a way back his behaviour will improve
pecelot wrote:Kaiserklein wrote:Why would you need to play 9 different civs to win the tourney...
You actually need only 5!
Hazza54321 wrote:Id even favour a no reset, to make the games more unpredictable and a higher variety of civs, favours people with a bigger civ pool and rightfully sov
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 ..
Garja wrote:At this point both one-game-one-civ or one-player-one-civ rules would be better than current civ rules.
No civ restriction is also interesting except that players would probably converge to the same civs out of popularity and also there would be again problems with infinite counterpicking (especially with map being more standardized and balance closer).
Kaiserklein wrote:pecelot wrote:Kaiserklein wrote:Why would you need to play 9 different civs to win the tourney...
You actually need only 5!Hazza54321 wrote:Id even favour a no reset, to make the games more unpredictable and a higher variety of civs, favours people with a bigger civ pool and rightfully sov
lordraphael wrote:Diarouga should ne allowed to Play in The next tourney. Maybe just allow him to Play in The upcoming twc tourney. Hes one of The few Players who actually plays them ans its also a semi official tourney because spank You funded it entirely.
Furthermore in every society people who have disobeyed The rules get a chance to comeback into society. Same should ne applied here. If You give him a way back his behaviour will improve
The series are too long, there's no way you can keep focus for that long as a player. Iirc this last one took 5 hours and the games were average length. Imagine water play with that. It reduces the quality of games, too, because players get tired.pecelot wrote:Goodspeed wrote:Probably unpopular but imo the finals should be best of 7.
Elaborate, then!
Why ?EAGLEMUT wrote:Goodspeed wrote:Over the long term people often change for the better in such cases, just look at Marco
umeu wrote:Garja wrote:At this point both one-game-one-civ or one-player-one-civ rules would be better than current civ rules.
No civ restriction is also interesting except that players would probably converge to the same civs out of popularity and also there would be again problems with infinite counterpicking (especially with map being more standardized and balance closer).
You could still have first pick and second pick without having a restriction on how many times a civ can be played
Goodspeed wrote:The series are too long, there's no way you can keep focus for that long as a player. Iirc this last one took 5 hours and the games were average length. Imagine water play with that. It reduces the quality of games, too, because players get tired.pecelot wrote:Goodspeed wrote:Probably unpopular but imo the finals should be best of 7.
Elaborate, then!
Mostly I just don't think it's necessary. To find out who the better player is, a best of 7 is plenty.Why ?EAGLEMUT wrote:Goodspeed wrote:Over the long term people often change for the better in such cases, just look at Marco
Goodspeed wrote:The series are too long, there's no way you can keep focus for that long as a player. Iirc this last one took 5 hours and the games were average length. Imagine water play with that. It reduces the quality of games, too, because players get tired.pecelot wrote:Goodspeed wrote:Probably unpopular but imo the finals should be best of 7.
Elaborate, then!
Mostly I just don't think it's necessary. To find out who the better player is, a best of 7 is plenty.Why ?EAGLEMUT wrote:Goodspeed wrote:Over the long term people often change for the better in such cases, just look at Marco
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
ovi12 wrote:Well people pay to see games. Imo just give the players a 20 minute or so intermission after 4 games, during which we could either have a show match, or talk about/analyze how the series is going so far.
Jerom wrote:Because marco didn't change one bit.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests
Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?
Which streams do you wish to see listed?