P1 will go for charlemagne since it does well against koreans but will have a hard time getting it since koreans are strong in the beginning. Then later in game Koreans can utilize range more against p1/p2 to do well along with utilizing p7 to help.
P2 will probably try for robin, and get it as long as they get quick razes in mid, which is good against saracens but only if you have pop. P1 Aztec Charlemagne also beats Mamelukes.
P3 will go imperial and/or villager route. Based on the civs I'd go villager to make some cav archers and possibly heavy camels along with mamelukes.
P4 will be forced to go instant imperial asap against celts since celts will also go instant imperial.
P5 will go instant imperial and maybe martel later if they play well garnering enough food. Another decent option would be beli.
P6 will go imperial straight away and/or villager and later on will most likely go subo unless they're doing really well in which case they may try for mid but that'd be really risky. If they push their luck and go higher than subo they may get rushed and die but the mongol castles do well.
P7 Japs will probably go instant imperial and then if I was P7 in this game I'd go instant robin since it'd probably take too long to get enough kills for martel/subo and plus imp robin, pop permitting, will beat mongols.
P8 will need to go imperial. If they try getting 20 razes and then going instant subo they could easily die from p1 rushing.
....
The beginning/initial part of the game would be fairly even and who wins would depend on later game skills.
2v2v2v2 ... you need to control too many variables, ie feeders... purpose feeding.... grouping ie. all on 1 .................. fair civs etc..... it's too unfair, very unlikely the best players will even go through haha.
2v2 is a way of putting you and your allies ability vs theirs, in terms of speed, map knowledge, micro, team work ........... also putting same civs makes it totally fair and doesn't allow variables such as civ/rdm civs to control games ... it allows skill to, id rather play a tournament with 8 decent players and 8 good players rather than 8 decent players, 8 good players and 50 noobs... lol
the roll the dice tournament was 2v2v2v2 and the winners of first game would gang on the better team in hope they could get some easy games in future rounds
one could say why not remove the winning team? but this would change gameplay and would be unfair against winning and losing team
yes lets do a bo4 2v2v2v2 with the chances of crashing being high and letting the tournament drag out for days
Still doesn't change that practically no one plays just 2v2. They play 2v2v2v2.
If you don't want the chance of it freezing to be so high then wait till the end of the summer for the tournament. Then the next version will be done where I'll be disabling looped triggers when they aren't needed along with combining the unit creation mechs of 2013 and 2011 so it'll have the lowest chance to freeze.
2v2v2v2 ... you need to control too many variables, ie feeders... purpose feeding.... grouping ie. all on 1 .................. fair civs etc..... it's too unfair, very unlikely the best players will even go through haha.
2v2 is a way of putting you and your allies ability vs theirs, in terms of speed, map knowledge, micro, team work ........... also putting same civs makes it totally fair and doesn't allow variables such as civ/rdm civs to control games ... it allows skill to, id rather play a tournament with 8 decent players and 8 good players rather than 8 decent players, 8 good players and 50 noobs... lol
Being a good RCB player is all about controlling that feeding and using it to your advantage though. That is, if someone is feeding stop whoever from feeding on them and make them your food. Plus, with the exception of charlemagne, robin, and martel it's easy to traverse the map with most civilizations/super units so you shouldn't have an excuse not to stop the feeding/make it your own food.
Like I said before. As long as you don't get greedy you'll have a very good chance to win. Most people die from grouping up only because they were greedy and waited too long to buy something.
I straight out told you how the beginning of the games would go. Later in games may be chaotic but that's the fun.
RCB is chaos and anything less wouldn't be a true tournament imo. I'd vote for a ffa tournament if it could be done but the logistics of that are just too hard. I think 2v2v2v2 set civ is the next best thing.
in short in my oponion ffa of 8 plyrs in best of 3 rounds. (2 or 3 winners will go to next round)
or 2v2v2v2 is better than 2v2 bcz no1 plays 2v2 , every1 plyrs 2v2v2v2 or ffa
I've seen matches on same civ 1v1 1 guy buys khan other guy buys martel. both extremely skilled players, but one with more unit control than the other, should we punish a player for having better unit control than the others? this guy buys harrald or khans on a 2v2v2v2 he's dead. he will surely get teamed and then people might get d/q for doing so, remember its a tournament not regular match so teaming on someone would not be allowed yet people would still do it just to win. point is to reward good players for their skills and show people some good games. since its a tournament cant have unfair stuff going around. and also if game crashes after 2 hours would have to repeat same game all over again and on a 2v2v2v2 Bo3 game crashing is not an option lol. ffa would have to be a Bo7 even a Bo5. If 10 players join could do 2 teams 5 ffa 5 ffa that's 10 games that hopefully none will crash. have to be mirror civ as stated above cant have unfair advantages on a tournament. thats 5 people patrolling celts. imagine the effect it will create on match, i've had 5/6 player same civ ffa on RIP_ and its not a pretty game, its long and laggy lol also the teaming would come into effect here as well.
this is why i suggested a 2v2, since its little similar to 2v2v2v2 and it's made to test your skills in terms of speed, map knowledge, micro, team work against other teams/clans etc.
also i would not rule out a ffa tournament since players do enjoy ffa rcb but i dont think it can be done with maps we have now
ffa will need much more planning and a better map..lets do a 2v2 or a 2v2v2v2 with the current 2011v4 map. Teaming up on the leading palyer in a 2v2v2v2 is a part of the game and in my opinion is a very fair strategy.
I've seen matches on same civ 1v1 1 guy buys khan other guy buys martel. both extremely skilled players, but one with more unit control than the other, should we punish a player for having better unit control than the others? this guy buys harrald or khans on a 2v2v2v2 he's dead. he will surely get teamed and then people might get d/q for doing so, remember its a tournament not regular match so teaming on someone would not be allowed yet people would still do it just to win. point is to reward good players for their skills and show people some good games. since its a tournament cant have unfair stuff going around. and also if game crashes after 2 hours would have to repeat same game all over again and on a 2v2v2v2 Bo3 game crashing is not an option lol. ffa would have to be a Bo7 even a Bo5. If 10 players join could do 2 teams 5 ffa 5 ffa that's 10 games that hopefully none will crash. have to be mirror civ as stated above cant have unfair advantages on a tournament. thats 5 people patrolling celts. imagine the effect it will create on match, i've had 5/6 player same civ ffa on RIP_ and its not a pretty game, its long and laggy lol also the teaming would come into effect here as well.
this is why i suggested a 2v2, since its little similar to 2v2v2v2 and it's made to test your skills in terms of speed, map knowledge, micro, team work against other teams/clans etc.
also i would not rule out a ffa tournament since players do enjoy ffa rcb but i dont think it can be done with maps we have now
My mantra is if you got teamed and died you deserved to die (i.e. you got greedy) and that stays true in most cases.
Temporary alliances should be allowed... they've always been a part of RCB. A part of RCB is about deception and/or like I said before not getting greedy. If someone tries to go instant khan/harald they'll probably die but they should die because no civ should really go instant the top units (instant as in the first 20 or so minutes... sure civs like saracens, koreans, persians go for khan as their first unit often). However, it doesn't really matter because in most team games the team that wins mid has a very high chance to win the game and they'll systemically wipe out each team using their house guards.
If you're going to have a tournament it should be representative of how the game is played. You simply CANNOT do 2v2v2v2 without teaming because of simply the towers in the beginning of the game. They will get taken out by more than one team of players, guaranteed.
I disagree with the way to do a ffa tournament but now isn't an appropriate time to discuss that since we're discussing a team tournament here.
No matter what RCB has a high chance to crash. So IMO crashes will be seen in both 2v2 and 2v2v2v2. I've had it crash with just two people left and no one was even fighting.
Hardly anyone one plays RCB mirror civ either. If you're going to do a tournament with teams, set civ is the only proper way to encourage balance. RCB is all about knowing how to play against all the different civs. If you remove that aspect it won't be a representative tournament of true RCB skill.
I can agree with weapon as I've been asked many times if its a 2v2v2v2 or ffa and it would be better if it was, yet i have not seen anyone post in the actual thread lol, might have to advertise some more. I have no problem with it being 2v2v2v2 actually could turn out to be a good one. need to make some rules and adjustments to tournaments in terms of long games crashing and how it's going to go down. like a bo3 or bo5 2v2v2v2 using a point system to establish who wins it or what
civs wont matter, they can me the same for everyone or we can make a list on first round and let people choose civs to make it more interesting
Civs will matter...this isn't RCB 2013 where things are more even. The civ you are in 2011 plays a much larger determining role in the outcome of the game. If you're going to have people pick them you have to be very careful about what people can choose.
Mirror civs 2v2v2v2... I just don't know. I've never done it and it seems like you'd use skills not typical to RCB/more typical to 1v1 RCB same civ than 2v2v2v2 games.
I still vote for a set civ arrangement. That way you'd still get some of the predictability of a mirror civ game and some of the randomness/knowing what beats what with a variety of civs in there. I suppose it'd be best to come up with another alternative for set civs too if that route is taken. For instance, the first round(s) could comprise the arrangement I had above. Then the semi finals could be another one and then the finals wouldn't be announced until the game is about to launch for more accurate representation of skill since they wouldn't have the ability to think about it ahead of time or the final round could just be all random and best of 5.
This tournament may take awhile but I think it'd be worth it.
let me clear 1 thing to u guys... i bet none of u hv tried mirror with rcb . if one did then it must be only 1 match.
i hv plyd few rcb matches in mirror with brit nd persia. u cant believe that it took nearly 3-4 hours to decide who is winner nd in the end game crashes nd even noob with 15++ had higher kills bcz gud plyrs tried to take out other gud plyrs who could b thread to them in future... nd it results in the temporary teams as well.
But the game crashed after 3-4 hours. though camping is not allowed in this tournament but some people did .( becoz bettter than feeding).
Let m clear 1 more thing to u,...
RCB is also about luck. even a man with global also dies by chance by nevaski or some other bad-luck thought in every eyes he is winning... so in my oponion there should b no time limit. as it is not hero.
only people do camping with willi or theo. nd that camping hardly last for 15 mins just to powers up...
in my opnion ffa of 8 plyrs nd best of 3 should b for tounaments the winner of these 3 games should b adnvd to next round.
or 2v2v2v2
P1 - Aztecs
P2 - Mayans
P3 - Saracens
P4 - Chinese
P5 - Celts
P6 - Mongols
P7 - Japs
P8 - Koreans
P1 will go for charlemagne since it does well against koreans but will have a hard time getting it since koreans are strong in the beginning. Then later in game Koreans can utilize range more against p1/p2 to do well along with utilizing p7 to help.
P2 will probably try for robin, and get it as long as they get quick razes in mid, which is good against saracens but only if you have pop. P1 Aztec Charlemagne also beats Mamelukes.
P3 will go imperial and/or villager route. Based on the civs I'd go villager to make some cav archers and possibly heavy camels along with mamelukes.
P4 will be forced to go instant imperial asap against celts since celts will also go instant imperial.
P5 will go instant imperial and maybe martel later if they play well garnering enough food. Another decent option would be beli.
P6 will go imperial straight away and/or villager and later on will most likely go subo unless they're doing really well in which case they may try for mid but that'd be really risky. If they push their luck and go higher than subo they may get rushed and die but the mongol castles do well.
P7 Japs will probably go instant imperial and then if I was P7 in this game I'd go instant robin since it'd probably take too long to get enough kills for martel/subo and plus imp robin, pop permitting, will beat mongols.
P8 will need to go imperial. If they try getting 20 razes and then going instant subo they could easily die from p1 rushing.
....
The beginning/initial part of the game would be fairly even and who wins would depend on later game skills.
2v2 is a way of putting you and your allies ability vs theirs, in terms of speed, map knowledge, micro, team work ........... also putting same civs makes it totally fair and doesn't allow variables such as civ/rdm civs to control games ... it allows skill to, id rather play a tournament with 8 decent players and 8 good players rather than 8 decent players, 8 good players and 50 noobs... lol
one could say why not remove the winning team? but this would change gameplay and would be unfair against winning and losing team
now put that 2v2v2v2 crap out of your head
Still doesn't change that practically no one plays just 2v2. They play 2v2v2v2.
If you don't want the chance of it freezing to be so high then wait till the end of the summer for the tournament. Then the next version will be done where I'll be disabling looped triggers when they aren't needed along with combining the unit creation mechs of 2013 and 2011 so it'll have the lowest chance to freeze.
2v2 is a way of putting you and your allies ability vs theirs, in terms of speed, map knowledge, micro, team work ........... also putting same civs makes it totally fair and doesn't allow variables such as civ/rdm civs to control games ... it allows skill to, id rather play a tournament with 8 decent players and 8 good players rather than 8 decent players, 8 good players and 50 noobs... lol
Being a good RCB player is all about controlling that feeding and using it to your advantage though. That is, if someone is feeding stop whoever from feeding on them and make them your food. Plus, with the exception of charlemagne, robin, and martel it's easy to traverse the map with most civilizations/super units so you shouldn't have an excuse not to stop the feeding/make it your own food.
Like I said before. As long as you don't get greedy you'll have a very good chance to win. Most people die from grouping up only because they were greedy and waited too long to buy something.
I straight out told you how the beginning of the games would go. Later in games may be chaotic but that's the fun.
RCB is chaos and anything less wouldn't be a true tournament imo. I'd vote for a ffa tournament if it could be done but the logistics of that are just too hard. I think 2v2v2v2 set civ is the next best thing.
or 2v2v2v2 is better than 2v2 bcz no1 plays 2v2 , every1 plyrs 2v2v2v2 or ffa
this is why i suggested a 2v2, since its little similar to 2v2v2v2 and it's made to test your skills in terms of speed, map knowledge, micro, team work against other teams/clans etc.
also i would not rule out a ffa tournament since players do enjoy ffa rcb but i dont think it can be done with maps we have now
this is why i suggested a 2v2, since its little similar to 2v2v2v2 and it's made to test your skills in terms of speed, map knowledge, micro, team work against other teams/clans etc.
also i would not rule out a ffa tournament since players do enjoy ffa rcb but i dont think it can be done with maps we have now
My mantra is if you got teamed and died you deserved to die (i.e. you got greedy) and that stays true in most cases.
Temporary alliances should be allowed... they've always been a part of RCB. A part of RCB is about deception and/or like I said before not getting greedy. If someone tries to go instant khan/harald they'll probably die but they should die because no civ should really go instant the top units (instant as in the first 20 or so minutes... sure civs like saracens, koreans, persians go for khan as their first unit often). However, it doesn't really matter because in most team games the team that wins mid has a very high chance to win the game and they'll systemically wipe out each team using their house guards.
If you're going to have a tournament it should be representative of how the game is played. You simply CANNOT do 2v2v2v2 without teaming because of simply the towers in the beginning of the game. They will get taken out by more than one team of players, guaranteed.
I disagree with the way to do a ffa tournament but now isn't an appropriate time to discuss that since we're discussing a team tournament here.
No matter what RCB has a high chance to crash. So IMO crashes will be seen in both 2v2 and 2v2v2v2. I've had it crash with just two people left and no one was even fighting.
Hardly anyone one plays RCB mirror civ either. If you're going to do a tournament with teams, set civ is the only proper way to encourage balance. RCB is all about knowing how to play against all the different civs. If you remove that aspect it won't be a representative tournament of true RCB skill.
civs wont matter, they can me the same for everyone or we can make a list on first round and let people choose civs to make it more interesting
Mirror civs 2v2v2v2... I just don't know. I've never done it and it seems like you'd use skills not typical to RCB/more typical to 1v1 RCB same civ than 2v2v2v2 games.
I still vote for a set civ arrangement. That way you'd still get some of the predictability of a mirror civ game and some of the randomness/knowing what beats what with a variety of civs in there. I suppose it'd be best to come up with another alternative for set civs too if that route is taken. For instance, the first round(s) could comprise the arrangement I had above. Then the semi finals could be another one and then the finals wouldn't be announced until the game is about to launch for more accurate representation of skill since they wouldn't have the ability to think about it ahead of time or the final round could just be all random and best of 5.
This tournament may take awhile but I think it'd be worth it.
i hv plyd few rcb matches in mirror with brit nd persia. u cant believe that it took nearly 3-4 hours to decide who is winner nd in the end game crashes nd even noob with 15++ had higher kills bcz gud plyrs tried to take out other gud plyrs who could b thread to them in future... nd it results in the temporary teams as well.
But the game crashed after 3-4 hours. though camping is not allowed in this tournament but some people did .( becoz bettter than feeding).
Let m clear 1 more thing to u,...
RCB is also about luck. even a man with global also dies by chance by nevaski or some other bad-luck thought in every eyes he is winning... so in my oponion there should b no time limit. as it is not hero.
only people do camping with willi or theo. nd that camping hardly last for 15 mins just to powers up...
in my opnion ffa of 8 plyrs nd best of 3 should b for tounaments the winner of these 3 games should b adnvd to next round.
or 2v2v2v2