The level of micro in a mirrored civ team game would be equivalent to 1v1 more or less but that's stupid because there'd be an atypical amount of micro compared to most team games. Why should the tournament be different than what's normally played? There'd be a lot less strategizing in a mirrored civ game too since people would be going for the same buys. RCB skill nowadays in team and ffa is all about macro and minimal micro combined with foresight (i.e. needing to be able to beat people around you).
I made that list of civs like 2 years ago when I wasn't as good at RCB. Replace p7 with a different civ and it's probably fine.
Fairish civs would look like this son:
Turk
Japs
Mong
Celts
Maya
Vik
Sar
Aztec
or something like that, however, to make it fair mirror would be best.... everybody but you agrees -.-
Mirrored civ sounds quite boring and will have many issues like I mentioned before. I probably won't be playing regardless. I'd only join if it was a ffa tournament. I've never cared much for team games; I get sad when I can't kill my ally. I will support the tournament though since I love the map.
BTW lol. You have japs vs mongols too. That's just a bad call imo. Mayan is going to get pwned by Celt too.
mirror civ will not be boring....If you want an idea of a "boring" game = all 8 players 1 civ, for example Jap war! With mirror you'll be able to see which team is able to play with "every" civ, something that imo is necessary in order to win this = brings more skill to this too = better tourney!
so people will just team together in 2v2v2v2 like in anoy other rcb game go for strongest team 2v2v2v2 in tourney is ridiculous
1v1 2v2 3v3 4v4 is the only way to go
cant we have two torneys? one for the elite few and one for the masses.
Also set civs might work. With mirror each team will have the same set of civs which means 2 civs in the entire game but it would be fun as well.
I dont play or care much for RCB but any tournament where civs have certain advantages over others... you NEED to do same civ or mirror... random is beyond stupid... just my opinion
Playing WITH every civ is not true skill. True skill is playing AGAINST every civ. Think of all the possible combinations in RCB and a true player can win in almost any situation no matter who they're against. This is why having set civs or straight out random is a better idea. However, I wouldn't vote for random since 2011 isn't all that balanced. I would support going random in 2013 though but I'm not done with the new map yet.
Teaming will be much more rampant in mirror civ games with everyone going for the same units and it'll be much more clear which team is winning which isn't always something noticeable in regular games.
not sure.. never did a 2v2v2v2 mirror but does it give 4 civs and they spread them around randomly to a player... or is it the same 2 civs for every team? If the 2nd one then its probably fine.
Point is Mirror/same is the way to go.. random sucks.
not sure.. never did a 2v2v2v2 mirror but does it give 4 civs and they spread them around randomly to a player... or is it the same 2 civs for every team? If the 2nd one then its probably fine.
Point is Mirror/same is the way to go.. random sucks.
Again. Hardly anyone plays 1v1. Sure that'd be a great tournament for those that play it but if you want more people and a tournament for the wider player base you should do 2v2v2v2 or 2v2, although I don't agree with the latter.
I also wouldn't do best of 5 for 2v2v2v2 games. Bo3 would be fine imo.
I like to play ffa or 2v2v2v2 Rambit which is like the map is played normally be something epic. but has no logic play same civilization, because some team would give more food than another, random either because civilization would have advantages. So for me it would be more logical 1v1, 2v2 3v3 4v4 as salvage says
sry english
me gustaria jugar rambit ffa o 2v2v2v2 que es como el mapa se juega normalmente seria algo epico. pero no tiene logica jugarlo misma civilizacion, porque algun equipo daria mas alimento que otro, tampoco aleatorio porque habrian civilizacion con ventajas. Entonces para mi lo mas logico seria 1v1, 2v2 3v3 4v4 como dice salvage
I like to play ffa or 2v2v2v2 Rambit which is like the map is played normally be something epic. but has no logic play same civilization, because some team would give more food than another, random either because civilization would have advantages. So for me it would be more logical 1v1, 2v2 3v3 4v4 as salvage says
sry english
me gustaria jugar rambit ffa o 2v2v2v2 que es como el mapa se juega normalmente seria algo epico. pero no tiene logica jugarlo misma civilizacion, porque algun equipo daria mas alimento que otro, tampoco aleatorio porque habrian civilizacion con ventajas. Entonces para mi lo mas logico seria 1v1, 2v2 3v3 4v4 como dice salvage
I agree, but i don't think we'll ever get enough people in order to have a 3vs3/4vs4...
Imo 1vs1/2vs2 is the best choice (mirror civ).
I made that list of civs like 2 years ago when I wasn't as good at RCB. Replace p7 with a different civ and it's probably fine.
Fairish civs would look like this son:
Turk
Japs
Mong
Celts
Maya
Vik
Sar
Aztec
or something like that, however, to make it fair mirror would be best.... everybody but you agrees -.-
BTW lol. You have japs vs mongols too. That's just a bad call imo. Mayan is going to get pwned by Celt too.
1v1 2v2 3v3 4v4 is the only way to go
Also set civs might work. With mirror each team will have the same set of civs which means 2 civs in the entire game but it would be fun as well.
Teaming will be much more rampant in mirror civ games with everyone going for the same units and it'll be much more clear which team is winning which isn't always something noticeable in regular games.
Point is Mirror/same is the way to go.. random sucks.
Point is Mirror/same is the way to go.. random sucks.
I also wouldn't do best of 5 for 2v2v2v2 games. Bo3 would be fine imo.
I like to play ffa or 2v2v2v2 Rambit which is like the map is played normally be something epic. but has no logic play same civilization, because some team would give more food than another, random either because civilization would have advantages. So for me it would be more logical 1v1, 2v2 3v3 4v4 as salvage says
sry english
me gustaria jugar rambit ffa o 2v2v2v2 que es como el mapa se juega normalmente seria algo epico. pero no tiene logica jugarlo misma civilizacion, porque algun equipo daria mas alimento que otro, tampoco aleatorio porque habrian civilizacion con ventajas. Entonces para mi lo mas logico seria 1v1, 2v2 3v3 4v4 como dice salvage
sry english
me gustaria jugar rambit ffa o 2v2v2v2 que es como el mapa se juega normalmente seria algo epico. pero no tiene logica jugarlo misma civilizacion, porque algun equipo daria mas alimento que otro, tampoco aleatorio porque habrian civilizacion con ventajas. Entonces para mi lo mas logico seria 1v1, 2v2 3v3 4v4 como dice salvage
I agree, but i don't think we'll ever get enough people in order to have a 3vs3/4vs4...
Imo 1vs1/2vs2 is the best choice (mirror civ).