Riotcoke wrote:Yes, dutch ryut falc was such a great thing to watch over and over sure took a massive amount of skill too.
Ye, except it was skirm pike (or huss) semi FF, vs FF, vs 3bank ruyt falc FF. It was 3 different strats for the same mirror and Grunt came up with the best build.
Nowadays mirrors are more complex than that anyway, mostly because EP maps allow for different strats and also because civ balance is better overall.
Hazza54321 wrote:i would probably play mostly france, kaiser with germans, mitoe with fre or china, skirmisher with china, garja with japs( because for some reason he thinks hes a god with that civ), turk with mostly japs and bwinner with mostly otto, for examples.
Ye, and that's because the best way to win would be to try hard with one civ. In Stracraft II for example, there is not a single player who plays random (while it gives you an advantage because the opponent needs to scout to know your race).
I would probably switch to 100% China or 100% France if I had to prepare a tournament without civ rules, because you need to play a MU 100 times if you want to master it.
yeah and only mindless robots play 1 civ, just getting rewarded for not exploring the game, makes no sense
Good players play one civ. Nubs play many civs cause "it's fun".
what the fuck is this argument, get good lol and stop crying because you cant play exclusively japs
Hazza54321 wrote:i dont see the benefit of seeing more mirrors or more of the same civs, boring to play and boring to watch as less civs are utilised. Less civ strengths vs weakness are played into account which are usually the most interesting games to play and watch anyway. Really dont know why it needs changing at all it is good atm, only the winner always being counterpicked isnt ideal but if it works it works
Mirrors are fun to play/watch. Treaty is not.
what does treaty have anything to do with this, mirrors being fun to watch/play is an unpopular opinion
Hazza54321 wrote:i would probably play mostly france, kaiser with germans, mitoe with fre or china, skirmisher with china, garja with japs( because for some reason he thinks hes a god with that civ), turk with mostly japs and bwinner with mostly otto, for examples.
Ye, and that's because the best way to win would be to try hard with one civ. In Stracraft II for example, there is not a single player who plays random (while it gives you an advantage because the opponent needs to scout to know your race).
I would probably switch to 100% China or 100% France if I had to prepare a tournament without civ rules, because you need to play a MU 100 times if you want to master it.
yeah and only mindless robots play 1 civ, just getting rewarded for not exploring the game, makes no sense
Good players play one civ. Nubs play many civs cause "it's fun".
what the fuck is this argument, get good lol and stop crying because you cant play exclusively japs
Hazza54321 wrote:i dont see the benefit of seeing more mirrors or more of the same civs, boring to play and boring to watch as less civs are utilised. Less civ strengths vs weakness are played into account which are usually the most interesting games to play and watch anyway. Really dont know why it needs changing at all it is good atm, only the winner always being counterpicked isnt ideal but if it works it works
Mirrors are fun to play/watch. Treaty is not.
what does treaty have anything to do with this, mirrors being fun to watch/play is an unpopular opinion
So is the opinion about treaty, and you are playing treaty. It's a fuckin comparison. It means that opinions are just...opinions.
Hazza54321 wrote:i would probably play mostly france, kaiser with germans, mitoe with fre or china, skirmisher with china, garja with japs( because for some reason he thinks hes a god with that civ), turk with mostly japs and bwinner with mostly otto, for examples.
Ye, and that's because the best way to win would be to try hard with one civ. In Stracraft II for example, there is not a single player who plays random (while it gives you an advantage because the opponent needs to scout to know your race).
I would probably switch to 100% China or 100% France if I had to prepare a tournament without civ rules, because you need to play a MU 100 times if you want to master it.
yeah and only mindless robots play 1 civ, just getting rewarded for not exploring the game, makes no sense
Good players play one civ. Nubs play many civs cause "it's fun".
what the fuck is this argument, get good lol and stop crying because you cant play exclusively japs
Hazza54321 wrote:i dont see the benefit of seeing more mirrors or more of the same civs, boring to play and boring to watch as less civs are utilised. Less civ strengths vs weakness are played into account which are usually the most interesting games to play and watch anyway. Really dont know why it needs changing at all it is good atm, only the winner always being counterpicked isnt ideal but if it works it works
Mirrors are fun to play/watch. Treaty is not.
what does treaty have anything to do with this, mirrors being fun to watch/play is an unpopular opinion
So is the opinion about treaty, and you are playing treaty. It's a fuckin comparison. It means that opinions are just...opinions.
i didnt even state my opinion about treaty and is irrelevant to this discussion, you just used it because your argument is flawed
Hazza54321 wrote:i dont see the benefit of seeing more mirrors or more of the same civs, boring to play and boring to watch as less civs are utilised. Less civ strengths vs weakness are played into account which are usually the most interesting games to play and watch anyway. Really dont know why it needs changing at all it is good atm, only the winner always being counterpicked isnt ideal but if it works it works
Mirrors are fun to play/watch. Treaty is not.
what does treaty have anything to do with this, mirrors being fun to watch/play is an unpopular opinion
So is the opinion about treaty, and you are playing treaty. It's a fuckin comparison. It means that opinions are just...opinions.
i didnt even state my opinion about treaty and is irrelevant to this discussion, you just used it because your argument is flawed
You did state your opinion about mirros (which I like) I did state mine about treaty (which you must like as you're playing a lot). Again it's a comparison. Just because you think mirrors are boring it doesn't mean they are.
Hazza54321 wrote:i would probably play mostly france, kaiser with germans, mitoe with fre or china, skirmisher with china, garja with japs( because for some reason he thinks hes a god with that civ), turk with mostly japs and bwinner with mostly otto, for examples.
Ye, and that's because the best way to win would be to try hard with one civ. In Stracraft II for example, there is not a single player who plays random (while it gives you an advantage because the opponent needs to scout to know your race).
I would probably switch to 100% China or 100% France if I had to prepare a tournament without civ rules, because you need to play a MU 100 times if you want to master it.
yeah and only mindless robots play 1 civ, just getting rewarded for not exploring the game, makes no sense
Good players play one civ. Nubs play many civs cause "it's fun".
what the fuck is this argument, get good lol and stop crying because you cant play exclusively japs
the "mirror meta" concern is only valid if u remove civ rules entirely (ie. no more counter picks - players have to agree on a MU for every game in a series)
honestly why entertain that idea to its logical extreme? the more metered option is to remove civilization restrictions, but maintain counterpicking rules (winner picks first, etc.). doing this system might lead to slightly lower civ diversity but it wouldn't lead to a "mirror meta". the difference is that now you would see greater intra-civ depth of play, while also allowing players to play most often at their very best.
Cometk wrote:the "mirror meta" concern is only valid if u remove civ rules entirely (ie. no more counter picks - players have to agree on a MU for every game in a series)
honestly why entertain that idea to its logical extreme? the more metered option is to remove civilization restrictions, but maintain counterpicking rules (winner picks first, etc.). doing this system might lead to slightly lower civ diversity but it wouldn't lead to a "mirror meta". the difference is that now you would see greater intra-civ depth of play, while also allowing players to play most often at their very best.
Removing counterpicking rules and keeping civ restrictions is better than the opposite imo.
Maybe you could make it a mixture: The players could have to decide before the tournament starts if
EITHER they start as a one-civ-player, but then are not allowed to play any other civ (even if they would like to counter-pick the opponent at a certain point with a certain civ -- that s not allowed anymore then)
OR they can play multiple civs, but then are not allowed to play one civ too often (like it is now)
richard wrote:Maybe you could make it a mixture: The players could have to decide before the tournament starts if
EITHER they start as a one-civ-player, but then are not allowed to play any other civ (even if they would like to counter-pick the opponent at a certain point with a certain civ -- that s not allowed anymore then)
OR they can play multiple civs, but then are not allowed to play one civ too often (like it is now)
That's exactly to prevent people from playing only one civ that we go for this rule. If you want to prove yourself, learn a 2nd and a 3rd civ.
As a viewer/casual player myself, current rules are great. (pre defined map pool, agree on first MU, counterpicks after, one win per civ.) personally I like loser picks first, but alternating picks is also just fine.
Just to add something different to the discussion: as a viewer having the one win per civ rule is great: it means that more civs will be represented in every series. More people will have the chance to see at least one game where their favorite civ is represented (instead of 5x german vs fre or something), so whatever player gets in the finals, I know there will be at least a few games with "my" civ.
richard wrote:Maybe you could make it a mixture: The players could have to decide before the tournament starts if
EITHER they start as a one-civ-player, but then are not allowed to play any other civ (even if they would like to counter-pick the opponent at a certain point with a certain civ -- that s not allowed anymore then)
OR they can play multiple civs, but then are not allowed to play one civ too often (like it is now)
That's exactly to prevent people from playing only one civ that we go for this rule. If you want to prove yourself, learn a 2nd and a 3rd civ.
But there are several players who identify themselves as one-civ-players though, like poissondu44, skirmisher1380, irishfaithful, etc. for example. Why do you want to prevent them from playing their civ? Sure, they are a minority, but that cant be your reason to try prevent them from doing what they like i guess. Do you think their advantage in a tournament would be too large if they started as a one-civ-player, or what s your reason?
richard wrote:Maybe you could make it a mixture: The players could have to decide before the tournament starts if
EITHER they start as a one-civ-player, but then are not allowed to play any other civ (even if they would like to counter-pick the opponent at a certain point with a certain civ -- that s not allowed anymore then)
OR they can play multiple civs, but then are not allowed to play one civ too often (like it is now)
That's exactly to prevent people from playing only one civ that we go for this rule. If you want to prove yourself, learn a 2nd and a 3rd civ.
But there are several players who identify themselves as one-civ-players though, like poissondu44, skirmisher1380, irishfaithful, etc. for example. Why do you want to prevent them from playing their civ? Sure, they are a minority, but that cant be your reason to try prevent them from doing what they like i guess. Do you think their advantage in a tournament would be too large if they started as a one-civ-player, or what s your reason?
I'm not preventing them from playing their civ, I'm preventing them from playing their civ every game.
One civ players are a minority atm because of the civ rules, just like otto/iro players were a minority at the start of ESOC, because these civs were banned, but if you remove civ rules, then you'll get more and more one civ players because yes, playing 1 or 2 civs instead of 8 is a huge advantage with no civ rules.
richard wrote:Maybe you could make it a mixture: The players could have to decide before the tournament starts if
EITHER they start as a one-civ-player, but then are not allowed to play any other civ (even if they would like to counter-pick the opponent at a certain point with a certain civ -- that s not allowed anymore then)
OR they can play multiple civs, but then are not allowed to play one civ too often (like it is now)
That's exactly to prevent people from playing only one civ that we go for this rule. If you want to prove yourself, learn a 2nd and a 3rd civ.
But there are several players who identify themselves as one-civ-players though, like poissondu44, skirmisher1380, irishfaithful, etc. for example. Why do you want to prevent them from playing their civ? Sure, they are a minority, but that cant be your reason to try prevent them from doing what they like i guess. Do you think their advantage in a tournament would be too large if they started as a one-civ-player, or what s your reason?
I'm not preventing them from playing their civ, I'm preventing them from playing their civ every game.
One civ players are a minority atm because of the civ rules, just like otto/iro players were a minority at the start of ESOC, because these civs were banned, but if you remove civ rules, then you'll get more and more one civ players because yes, playing 1 or 2 civs instead of 8 is a huge advantage with no civ rules.
Did you ever ask a black person not to be black every day, diarouga?
Anyways, i think it would be very interesting to try this option for the next few tourneys, to see if it would come true what you predict. Ofc it may be strong for some players to specialize on 1 civ, but dont forget that you cant counterpick anymore as a one-civ-player. So the overall benefit would be low maybe. I think it also would be interesting how the one-civ-players compete, some of them in their best environment would make an interesting addition to the competition. I doubt that many people would change to one-civ-players because they still would want to counterpick their opponent every game like the faggots that they are
Jokes aside, it would be nice to hear another answer from you, diarouga.
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 ..