Looking for Good Players For Private FFA's

Hi,

Me and some friends are looking for a few more good players for private FFA's with no quitters, trolls or laggers.

We are looking for good players to participate. Preferably people with more than 1000 hours of experience under their belt.

We are in The United States so people in Europe, Asia etc.. will not work out due to high pings.

We generally host 6 - 8 man FFA's on Pangea, Skirmish, Terra and other non-island type maps. Normal settings with ruins, CS and barbs. All going random or picking with top tier civs banned.

Games most often start around 7 - 8PM Pacific Time and run until 12 - 1AM at the latest.

If interested, please respond to this post or add me on steam. "CraigMak" AKA "The Borg".

 

Hey I would love to start multiplayer. Ive been playing civ since Civ 3.

Steam is mtbsickrider

edit: Steam says 70 hours, i just bought the game on steam last week .. lol Im a bit of a addict when I get the game.

 

define "good".

i don't quit though, unless i've clearly lost or someone acts like a douchebag.

played enough MP to the point where i'm okay. low tolerance for the d-bag behavior that is common among player base. would likely get stomped in war. is still better to lose every time than put up with douchebaggery.

i don't have all DLC though. tbh i find the DLC civs and wonders gamebreaking and dumb, or underpowered in a few cases.

 

Were looking for people who know their way around the game and/or are willing to learn and get better. We are tired of quitters and trolls so we would rather to private FFA's than public.

BNW and G&K are 100% required. The other DLC's are optional as we often ban babylon, inca, korea and mongolia anyways because they are OP. Ancient Wonders is also not optional. Artemis and Halicarnassus are fun wonders.

Just let me know your steam ID and I'll send an invite.

 

Invite sent.

 

imho Civilization No Quitters Steam Group good enough
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/NQCiv

 

You NQ guys are like Mormons knocking on the door of every post you see....

 

i really like this comment, CraigMak.

P.S. NQ POWER will come for you in time!

 

I would be interested in this as well, however I would only be able to play on the weekends (Friday and Saturday evenings, also during the day on sat and sun) because I generally need to be asleep around 10pm EST.

Steam name is same as here - ajar1189. I also have roughly 900 hours in-game with 95%+ of it being in multiplayer.

 

My steam ID is copper4eva
I'm already friends with craigmak, but if anybody else wants to shoot me an invite I'm happy to play with you regardless of skill level. Just, you know, don't quit .

 

Hey Copper, I'll be sure to send you an invite when we have another FFA. Maybe tonight.

 

Is this the same "The Borg" that likes to set up 2v2 "matches" with a friend and do nothing but spam out cities as Liberty into Chariot Archer/Composite Bowmen spam?

 

Who wouldnt?

 

That's what you do in a teamer.
Teamers are not FFA's.

But it's more like city spam into chariot spam until xbow spam. This is team play at its highest levels.

Are you not familiar with how team games work?

 

Teamer and duel games are all about war. It's a setting where liberty pretty much rules and of course army does as well.

 

Im interested; steam id is nihilen

 

Well, that's sort of a three part answer.

1, I initially asked because I think I encountered this guy and he was, well, a jerk. Did stuff like wait until my random partner and I had hit end turn (with no active fighting occurring) to move several units into range of a city (from the fog of war), attack, and immediately hit end turn. Which gave me all of like, I don't know, 3-4 seconds to notice his units and respond? And since I wasn't paying rapt attention to the screen (due to having hit end turn) I failed to un-end my turn before he successfully ended the turn for everyone. He was basically trying to abuse simultaneous turns and effectively get two turns in a row. So I mentioned that due to his antics I would no longer be ending turns early -- the consequences of him having terrible sportsmanship. He and his partner got rather upset. Called me a "noob" and several other things which would violate the forum guidelines if I posted them here.

2, he and his friend were clearly just looking to beat up random people and get their kicks from that. When I entered the lobby he had himself and his friend on different teams so I put myself on his team (since it was team 1)...and then once the other random joined he apparently switched the teams to put myself and the random together and said to ready up without mentioning that fact. Yeah, I could have noticed that he changed the teams at the last minute but I didn't expect I'd need to look for that type of behavior. They also picked this "Skirmish" map which claimed to be intended for 2v2 but had more land area than a 6 person Pangaea map...possibly even as much as an 8 person Pangaea map. So they literally just spammed out 10+ cities each and then pumped out Chariot Archers (until they ran out of Horses) and Composite Bowmen. While constantly insulting my random partner and myself and bragging about how amazing they were. In all fairness, my partner wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed (went Liberty and made three, maybe four cities -- and not in the "3 city NC then expand to 6+" idea or whatever...just those cities, period, as Liberty) but that doesn't justify being arrogant and condescending.

My partner then wound up launching a pretty terrible attack as I was fighting over one of my cities and claimed the other team was cheating and quit. I honestly wasn't really paying attention to that battle but I doubt the other team actually changed the game code or something. Worst case shift-clicking -- but like I said, wasn't watching closely (and my teammate quit as soon as he declared they were cheating). At that point I was annoyed enough with their attitude and antics that I just left the game running and went to run an errand.

All that said, there are dozens if not hundreds of people on Steam named "The_Borg" or something very similar so it very well might not have been the OP here...but you can see why I'd want to know before saying I was interested in playing Civ matches involving that person (and given the attitude I've seen in his posts on this forum I suspect it is in fact the same person).

3, if all you (general you, not you specifically) want to do is have fast matches that are primarily focused on combat and spam 1-2 main units at the start of the tech tree with little to no attention paid to science/culture/faith/etc...there are a hell of a lot of better games for that style of gameplay (such as the Starcraft and Command and Conquer series) which offer far better combat engines, controls designed for that gameplay (like, say, the ability to select multiple units at once...crazy), more depth (due to more units with unique traits, counters, synergies, and so on), etc. So I wouldn't, for one, and I know quite a few other people who wouldn't either.

The fact that you presumably wrote those two sentences (in a row, no less) with a straight face highly amuses me.

Sure I am. There are pre-defined factions that share technology, have automatic open borders, share war status, and share victory or loss. It avoids the threat of getting backstabbed by a temporary "ally" and the concern of every other player ganging up on you if it appears you have an advantage. There's a few other things but that's the main gist of it.

Oh, but you were trying to dictate a specific definition to how they SHOULD work? Well, let's look at my experiences so far...

1. I've played 2v2s with real life friends both involving all humans and involving two humans vs two AIs. Ditto for 3v3s. Some of those games involved war in later eras if someone got a clear tech lead, some of them involved a race to science victory, some resulted in Diplomatic victory with repeated World Leader votes amongst City States being wiped out in war, etc. None of them involved Chariot Archer spam...hell, none of them even involved Crossbowmen spam.

2, I've played 2v2s and 3v3s with some people I've met online (not random public games). A few of them involved crossbowmen rushes, none of them involved meat grinders with chariot archers, and mostly definitely none of them involved maps where you spammed out 10+ cities to feed a said meat grinder.

3, I've played some 2v2s in pure public lobbies, usually on the East vs West map (not games I hosted, games I joined). People had 5-6 cities max and usually 2-4 (depending on terrain and how many cities their teammate had). Never chariot archer spam, very rarely crossbow spam, usually no direct warfare until at least frigates or beyond.

All of those games also involved city states, barbarians, and ruins.

But go on, tell me how the "true" definition of team play is a map with massive amounts of land per player, everyone going Liberty and spamming cities, and then everyone vomiting out Chariot Archers and Composite Bowmen...without city states, barbarians, or ruins of course. Naturally, since we're trying to be perfectly optimized everyone is also going to be Attila, right?

Let's sell this to a new player!

"Dude, you should totally try Civ V multiplayer, it's awesome."

"Huh. Tell me about it."

"Well, your entire goal is to use an army to wipe the other team off the map."

"All right, what types of units will I use?"

"You're going to spam these ranged units called Composite Bowmen and attack the enemy with them."

"Okay. What else will I use in combination with those?"

"Uh...some Chariot Archers if you have Horses."

"...and how are those different?"

"Well, they can move farther per turn, are slightly cheaper, and upgrade into something worse than what Composite Bowmen do if your initial Zerg rush fails."

"Oh, cool, you can upgrade units! What do Composite Bowmen upgrade into?"

"Crossbowmen."

"Okay, and what changes with the upgrade?"

"Bigger numbers."

"Sure, it's stronger, but what else?"

"Nothing."

"So...it acts exactly in the same manner...just with larger numbers."

"Yep!"

"Right. Um, what other units will I have? Siege units to attack strongholds? Melee units to shield the ranged?"

"No siege units, they basically suck until Artillery and the game should be long over before you reach the last 70% of the tech tree."

"Oh, but melee units then?"

"Like...maybe a few because you need them to capture cities, but 90%+ ranged units."

"How can you shield the fragile ranged effectively, then?"

"You don't, the entire battle is about ranged units vs ranged units. Ranged units beat melee units, siege units, and other ranged units."

"...okay then. Well, at least I can do things like tell four of my bowmen to simultaneously attack an enemy bowman to instantly destroy it so it can't retreat."

"You can't do that either."

"...yeah, I think I'm going to go play Starcraft 2 instead."

"But this is team play at its highest levels!"

 

1. The 2 moves thing you mentionned is called the double move trick. Ctrl Shift moves before turn end result into ''double moves'' when next turn is engaged. It's usually banned among serious players. It sux when it happens and i try to avoid this when playing(trying to find suited players).

2. Again, playing public enhances odds of being trolled by host. Craig Mak...just befriend him so you will know who he is

3. 1vs1(team or alone) match ups involves pretty straight forward strategies. Blame the game, not players, who simply try to win.

I myself play rarely these duel/team matches so if you don't like, do FFA games instead. I don't like these duel/team match ups...but it's not a reason for me to blame anyone. I just avoid what i don't like.

I prefer FFA games because i like map randomness and access of wider strategies. Team games can involve team speak and anything that can directly help teamers into better coordinations but my english sux so i'm disavantaged.

Play what you like.

 

@LordBarkoth.

You clearly lack an understanding of how team games work. The OPTIMAL strategy in teamers is to spam cities and ranged units. The way in which you and your friends play team games is irrelevant. The top 100 team players all play like that.

You are simply complaining about how the game works and that you don't understand the game.
The skill in team play is in placement of cities and ramping up your MFG. Finessing military and science is actually quite difficult without CS to exploit for gold.

The game in question was played on a TINY skirmish map. The golden standard for 2v2 play. Again your ignorance of team play is quite evident.

I did move my units and then end my turn. Yes, that's what people always do. There was no shift moves involved or any kind of cheats or exploits.

Did I talk some smack to you? Absolutely, you spewed absolute ignorance at me and trolled the timer thus ruining the game. When some one behaves like a troll I'm not going to be polite to them.

FYI: OP civs such as attila are always banned in teamers. Nobody plays Attila or other chariot spam civs.

Team play is not meant for new players. I definitely would not suggest a new player play a team game. They need to stick with SP and MP FFA's. So, I wouldn't try to sell teamer play to a newcomer.

As Tabarnak said, IF you don't like team games then don't play them because that's how they are played at higher levels of skill. If you don't spam cities and units in a team game you will lose to anyone who is doing so.

I don't even play team games that much, mainly when I don't have enough time in the night for a full FFA. I play FFA 9/10 games and those are played 100% differently.

 

I honestly don't know if he did that, multiplayer can lag a bit, I *thought* I actually had a second or two between me seeing the "enemy unit has entered your territory" and the turn ending. Meaning he just moved those units quickly and ended his turn quickly -- like I said, I had hit "end turn" and wasn't paying close attention.

But it is possible that he did the double move trick. I'm just not 100% sure about it. My random partner did seem to think they were doing it to him, at least, from what I recall.

Well, friending him on Steam wouldn't answer the question in and of itself -- like I said, there's multiple people called "The_Borg" I believe and as long as at least two of those play Civ V...

But yeah, I've been doing a lot less public games lately. One game was really hilarious -- had a host choose Terra, refused to use Strategic Balance...and picked Attila. We all knew exactly why he did that and what he was going to try to do...suffice to say he failed miserably and ragequit. Was one of the most fun games I've ever had despite the rest of us agreeing to stop prior to turn 100. Hilarious to witness.

Except it's the players who create those situations. It's not like they did random map and wound up with Skirmish -- they specifically set up a situation to try to "pwn n00bs."

I'm also not sure I agree with the thrust of the argument in general -- in the ORIGINAL Starcraft, Zergling rushes were insanely overpowered (I can explain in more detail if you're not familiar with it). Blizzard wound up fixing it reasonably quickly, but if someone deliberately picked Zerg with the intend of always doing that strategy (that they know is brokenly overpowered) then that speaks volumes about the person. Not like they randomed into it and thought "Well, guess I need to Zergling rush since."

Civ V won't be "fixed" in any way at this point, it seems, so I do feel comfortable blaming players who intentionally choose insanely cheesy strategies.

I like the idea of team games that don't involve the "intrigue" of FFA just like I enjoy team games in Warcraft 3, Starcraft 2, Command and Conquer, etc. None of those games make people say "It's a team game and therefore the game becomes about spamming one low tech unit to rush."

And those games are even explicitly about nothing but combat and fighting, which makes it even more hilarious.

*shrug*