Looking for Good Players For Private FFA's

[CraigMak]

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*

No shift moves involved. Skirmish is the standard for team play, that's how people play team games. If you don't do that you lose period.

You blame your lack of skill on the game being broken instead of a severe lack of knowledge when it comes to team games.

I played plenty of starcraft 1 & 2. Guess what, in team games it is a cheesy low tier unit spam. The more players you add to a game the cheesier it gets. An FFA game of SC2 would involve the most teching up. A 3v3 or 4v4 is pure rush unless of course you're playing with noobs. I know this because I was masterleague in 2v2 3v3 & 4v4 and high diamond in 1v1 when I moved over to Civ.

You just lack experience/knowledge in both games and are not good enough to decide what is broken. You just want to complain and refuse to learn/get better at the game.

 

[jko1]

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."

This isn't true. My first game with borg was a public duel and he didnt "pwn" me. He created the game and you joined it. Warring early on is just simply playing the settings for that game. Teamers and duels are played for players who like war. Sometimes we play public teamers and duels, and you cant blame us if you join and don't like how it turned out.

Besides, Borg and I mostly play ffa's so you wouldn't have to complain about any of this if you did decide to play with us.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

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."

This is a peculiar opinion. "randoming into" a situation, you are picking out this as being a determinant of the evaluation of the player.
And by the way, is that the argument? We're deciding something about a player, not about the game? So let me try and comprehend your position and argument.

->You find something very wrong with guys who go fishing in lobbies with wonked game settings in which a certain objectionable, degenerate gameplay will occur and quickly conclude the game. Let's put aside all the guys who indeed are looking for games to feel powerful over other people because they are emotionally stunted, (with the power of mathematical set construction, even though knowing precisely who these people are is nontrivial) and all the players who would raqequit under certain circumstances (who at least are trivial to spot when they do).

: Any people in the set as it stands after those exclusions are, hypothetically, playing in said games without predatory or cruel motives and have commitments to sportsmanship in the event their plan goes south. What is your opinion about the contents of this set? Is this set nonempty?

->You believe that the degenerate gameplay of Composite Bows + city spamming + maybe "upgrading" to a MOAR archer if time goes that long, is objectionable in that persons who bring this gameplay about are actually vicious in some way. They are bad, immoral, improper, shameful, or something like this.

: Do those players' shame extend in all circumstances at all times? Modulo your answer to, and subsequent opinions on, the previous question, everyone who broadcasts a game of ciV MP and then plays like this, they are the wicked ones? Creating rooms or joining ones, is that different? You've had an argument about teamers vs. FFA. Those settings are in the setup that get consensus from all the players involved. You weren't arguing that the settings are objectionable or shameful, you're talking about what players do after that? I have much less of a guess here, at this point.

You do offer this: "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." You do use the word 'strategy', suggesting you admit to the value of playing to win.
You might hope that Civ games work out like something else, but what counts as the strong strategy is a fact. I think you are well-worn with seeing this response. Here's the followup point perhaps no one has given you quite sympathetically: You might suppose that Civ games being played out a certain degenerate way is agreeably pointless or unworthy, and want to nurture a community that plays in not that way. Here is your dilemma:
If you disincentivize a certain kind of play to promote the alternatives, you have to define what is being disallowed. Because telling players to tend away from "a certain kind of play", but still wanting them to play to win, is telling them to do one thing and not that thing at once, if the game in fact bends all paths to that 'kind of play'. What is the breaking point that makes certain play different? How can a player who wants to try out a differently balanced game - say, me - know whether or not he is about to "cheese" the game? You tell me. Because I, and the players I represent, are in your MP game looking to play civ, looking to make hard and thoughtful choices that are the best for our civilizations, and you gotta tell me what the legal moves are so I can make that strategy or the chance to make that strategy, otherwise, I don't know what I'm doing there.

*
You mentioned 'randoming into' something. I think I got a glimpse of what your thinking is, but I have too many of these other questions first. It is odd, though, for you to make a factor in the judgment of a player, who sets up a game scenario, to be whether the game settings were random or not. If you're playing any game that offers randomness between more-or-less discrete possibilities, then if you wanna sit down and drill your performance in any actual one of those possibilities, then you set up a game with an -actual- setting, not the random one.
And yet I don't expect to make a point with that, because such a point would be that random settings are beside the point. Yet it's obvious to me that this point *IS* your point, so I need to hear more about what you mean and why that is.

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*

That is comical, I admit. You and everyone all agree that the Composite Bows and the rush are strongest in Civ V two teams play. You've all agreed on that. Repeating it - why?

 

[LordBalkoth]

You clearly lack an understanding of how team games work. The OPTIMAL strategy in teamers is to spam cities and ranged units.

I can see how that would definitely be optimal on Archipelago and East vs West maps, for example. Chariot Archer and Composite Bowmen to the max.

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.

I didn't say you cheated or exploited. I just said you were a jerk as you deliberately tried to take advantage of the fact I had already hit "end turn" (rather than wait until the turn timed out to avoid stuff like that).

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

It can't be OP if everyone is Attila. You're already trying to force everyone to go Liberty and city spam on a purely land map (that's massively larger than Pangaea as well), remove Barbarians because it could favor one side over the other, use strategic balance (I think) to avoid favoring one side over the other, removing ruins because it could favor one side over the other, and possibly some other stuff I'm forgetting. Don't wimp out on me now -- everyone should also be the same civ to ensure the most competitive game possible. And Attila would be optimal in this case, and you're all about being optimal, right?

You blame your lack of skill on the game being broken instead of a severe lack of knowledge when it comes to team games.

This might be my favorite part -- you don't seem capable of realizing that I'm plenty able to play in that manner. I had never seen that idiocy prior to your game so I was caught by surprise, yes, but I'm not sitting here claiming it's impossible to play that way or something. I just pointed out that it's *stupid.*

You just lack experience/knowledge in both games and are not good enough to decide what is broken.

Forgive me, oh great one, I merely hit Diamond in team SC2 and high Platinum 1v1 in under a month before getting distracted by another game. I could have easily hit Masters in Team and Diamond in 1v1 if I had enough interest to keep going.

Teamers and duels are played for players who like war. Sometimes we play public teamers and duels, and you cant blame us if you join and don't like how it turned out.

Obviously, which is why none of the first half dozen or so team games I played either in public lobbies or with people I met in those lobbies (or Civ groups) were anything like that (I'm just ignoring games with RL friends for now since we're talking the broader picture).

And I absolutely can blame you for switching the teams without saying anything and then acting like jerks in-game (which had nothing to do with the playstyle of Liberty/Chariot/etc spam and solely to do with you as people). One or two things might have been accidental. But all of that? That was a pattern.

Besides, Borg and I mostly play ffa's so you wouldn't have to complain about any of this if you did decide to play with us.

I already run into way many jerks in public lobbies, why would I want to sign up to play with more?

Any people in the set as it stands after those exclusions are, hypothetically, playing in said games without predatory or cruel motives and have commitments to sportsmanship in the event their plan goes south. What is your opinion about the contents of this set? Is this set nonempty?

I'm not sure.

See, the problem is that the people hosting the lobby (the "home team" if you will) would have to believe they have a reasonable chance of winding up with a competitive game. The better those two people believe they are relative to random public players the less likely they'll think they'll get a relatively "fair" match, skill-wise. So if they're in a situation where they expect to curb-stomp 95%+ (somewhat arbitrary number but you get the general idea) of other "teams" (which again involve two random people who don't know each other, unlike the "home team") then that speaks of predatory motives.

And I realize it might not have been obvious, but CraigMak is rather full of himself.

Expanding on the team idea above, a person would also not be setting up a team with a person he thought of his relative equal -- because he (or she) knows that, on average, they're massively stacking the deck in their favor (both of them think they're much better than the average) which means it's even less likely to find a remotely competitive game. In fact, in that situation the two of them would put themselves on opposite teams and each deal with a random teammate to have the highest odds of getting a competitive game (since we're assuming that's their goal and not to "pwn n00bs").

On the flip side, people who are closer to the average are unlikely to be interested in (or even know of) this "style" of gameplay and thus they wouldn't be hosting lobbies like that. Hence why you generally see team games that involve more typical maps (aka, not "hypercompetitive" pure land maps with no CSes, no barbarians, and no ruins) and more varied gameplay in public lobbies (again, talking about teamers specifically).

So to have a non-empty set you'd need either a person hosting alone (even if he thinks he's much better than average and still expects to nearly always win -- since if he gets three perfectly average other players then his team has the advantage -- he's not stacking the deck even further in his favor) or a team hosting that doesn't consider themselves significantly better than average.

->You believe that the degenerate gameplay of Composite Bows + city spamming + maybe "upgrading" to a MOAR archer if time goes that long, is objectionable in that persons who bring this gameplay about are actually vicious in some way. They are bad, immoral, improper, shameful, or something like this.

If they seek out "n00bs" to "pwn" in public lobbies (as a pre-defined team, no less), yes. If it's a group of four real friends who want to play a game like that, no (regardless of the skill level of the teams). If it's some sort of private match where everyone expects it and the teams are roughly balanced, no.

You weren't arguing that the settings are objectionable or shameful, you're talking about what players do after that? I have much less of a guess here, at this point.

I think the settings are stupid, but if some people really want to play in that manner then that's their problem. If your favorite book series is "My Little Pony" (I'm guessing they have books about it but I apologize if not) then, y'know, whatever. Doesn't hurt others.

But thinking that you're significantly better than average (that alone is not shameful/objectionable, to be clear) and teaming up with a friend to go "pwn n00bs" in a public lobby where people don't expect the peculiar playstyle you intend to force on them? That is shameful/objectionable. Doubly so when you switch teams at the last second and taunt the other team in-game (along with acting like a jerk in other ways).

You do use the word 'strategy', suggesting you admit to the value of playing to win.

Of course. I lead a WoW guild that's ranked in the top 0.5% of players and which is the best two-night a week guild in the entire U.S. I obsess over how to gain a 1% increase in performance.

You might hope that Civ games work out like something else, but what counts as the strong strategy is a fact.

Given the very specific circumstances, yes, it becomes the best strategy. But it isn't the best strategy in all team games (map dependent), let alone all Civ MP games. Minor point but wanted to be clear on that.

Here is your dilemma:
If you disincentivize a certain kind of play to promote the alternatives, you have to define what is being disallowed.

To some extent, yes. A lot could be controlled by map choice, though -- if I host a map where two teams start on different continents with no iron (period), then obviously I am massively constraining any ability to wage war until Battleships.

I say that merely as an example where I don't need to define anything in words -- not because I think that's the ideal map or something.

Nukes/Stealth Bombers/Xcoms are often explicitly banned in many games, though, as an example of what you're saying. Harder to say something like that for early game, though.

You mentioned 'randoming into' something. I think I got a glimpse of what your thinking is, but I have too many of these other questions first. It is odd, though, for you to make a factor in the judgment of a player, who sets up a game scenario, to be whether the game settings were random or not.

Is it odd, though?

Last week I encountered a rather amusing host in a six player FFA. He chose the Terra map (meaning everyone is very cramped on one landmass), refused to put it on Strategic Balance (not my request, several others in the lobby asked), and then chose...Attila. Predictable results ensued (except he was terrible, failed in his attack (on another player, not me), and ragequit (also predictably)). Even before the match started I had made a judgment about the player due to his effort to obscenely stack the deck in his favor. Do you think I was wrong to do so?

On the flip side, say he had picked "Random Civilization" rather than Attila specifically. I wouldn't have made the same judgment about him...even if he randomed into Attila and the exact same sequence played out.

In this case, I had made no judgment about CraigMak prior to the match due to the settings. For all I knew he just wanted to remove some RNG with barbarians/ruins and hated water units (since they are pretty stupid in general, doubly so until theModern Era). It was only after I realized his whole team's deliberate "strategy" (in large part due to his taunts and such) and it was clear that this was pre-planned that I made such a judgement.

Repeating it - why?

Well, it started as me trying to figure out if this was the same guy I ran into (if it was a different "The_Borg" then I would have indicated interest -- plenty of repeated names on Steam).

Then it became something amusing that I mainly bothered replying to since other people besides CraigMak got involved in the conversation.

I think that's everything, or close to it. Been waiting for caffeine to wear off so I could try to sleep for an hour or so before work so I've been writing this at 6 AMish...so I apologize in advance for typos or unclear phrasing that resulted from me being slightly braindead. Boss needed some stuff done for today and it wound up taking me most of the night.

 

[jko1]

I think the settings are stupid, but if some people really want to play in that manner then that's their problem. If your favorite book series is "My Little Pony" (I'm guessing they have books about it but I apologize if not) then, y'know, whatever. Doesn't hurt others.

Well said. But, if that's what you believe, then why are you still complaining about borg's settings?

If you like play team games without much war you can play a peaceful duel/teamer. I have a few friends who like to play peaceful duels on a mirror map script. It's mostly just to improve our skills at building up an empire.

my steam id is copper4eva

I'm cool with literally any settings you come up with if you wanna play some with me. If we decide to play on a skirmish map I'm totally gonna liberty spam though (unless we make some gentleman's agreement on having a peaceful game). I play to win without cheap exploits (like bribing AI to dow people in a ffa, shift clicks ect.), and on a skirmish map liberty/honor mix is the best idea usually.

 

[CraigMak]

I can see how that would definitely be optimal on Archipelago and East vs West maps, for example. Chariot Archer and Composite Bowmen to the max.

Archipelago and WvsE are not competitive teamer maps. Those are simcity fest maps for noobs. You will surely find no good players in those games. Skirmish is the standard for competitive team play. If you find a top 50 player in a WvsE teamer then he is just messing around.

I didn't say you cheated or exploited. I just said you were a jerk as you deliberately tried to take advantage of the fact I had already hit "end turn" (rather than wait until the turn timed out to avoid stuff like that).

Moving and then ending your own turn is not being a jerk anymore than using a pick & roll in basketball is being a jerk. It's playing to win. This move is done so often in competitive play that you don't even think about it. It's not an exploit it's being smart. You are going to say that ending ones turn is unfair? So when am I allowed to end my turn and not end my turn? This is equivalent to some one encountering a pick & roll in basketball for the first time and raging over it being cheesy and unfair. The people doing it will be like what? This is standard play, if you don't do this you're pretty new to the basketball scene.

It can't be OP if everyone is Attila. You're already trying to force everyone to go Liberty and city spam on a purely land map (that's massively larger than Pangaea as well), remove Barbarians because it could favor one side over the other, use strategic balance (I think) to avoid favoring one side over the other, removing ruins because it could favor one side over the other, and possibly some other stuff I'm forgetting. Don't wimp out on me now -- everyone should also be the same civ to ensure the most competitive game possible. And Attila would be optimal in this case, and you're all about being optimal, right?

You have clearly missed the point of the settings which are used in competitive teamer play. The settings are used to eliminate luck and cheesy OP advantages as much as possible. This leaves skill alone to be the biggest factor in the game. OP civs create a skewed environment in which balanced and fair play is not possible.

Many things are removed or banned in order to create a balanced match. This includes OP civs, certain wonders, specific religious beliefs and re-rolling the map if particular natural wonders pop up which are OP.

These settings are in place to maximize the emphasis on skill and minimize the effects of luck. No one is being forced into anything, liberty spam is used because it is the most effective strategy in said environment. Although people do occasionally go Tradition if they are in the back with really nice land.

This might be my favorite part -- you don't seem capable of realizing that I'm plenty able to play in that manner. I had never seen that idiocy prior to your game so I was caught by surprise, yes, but I'm not sitting here claiming it's impossible to play that way or something. I just pointed out that it's *stupid.*

The fact that you admit to not seeing liberty spam play before is evidence of your complete lack of experience in team play. ALL good players play in this manner when in a team game that's on a land based map. It is not stupid, it is optimal strategy and is actually difficult to master. Why don't you tell the top 10 players in the world that their strategy in teamers and duels is stupid. They will absolutely laugh in your face because they are the best in the world and that's a fact.

Good games can actually get to artillery and unit spam vs skilled players usually doesn't even start until xbow tech because well placed cities can not be taken down by composites and chariots effectively. This is something that you clearly don't understand. Team play is not so 1 dimensional. There is a huge amount to understand and apply to your technique beyond spamming cities and units.

Obviously, which is why none of the first half dozen or so team games I played either in public lobbies or with people I met in those lobbies (or Civ groups) were anything like that (I'm just ignoring games with RL friends for now since we're talking the broader picture).

All of the games that you played were apparently with abysmal players. I know plenty of players who are not even considered average that have enough sense to liberty spam in a teamer.

And I absolutely can blame you for switching the teams without saying anything and then acting like jerks in-game (which had nothing to do with the playstyle of Liberty/Chariot/etc spam and solely to do with you as people). One or two things might have been accidental. But all of that? That was a pattern.

Not sure where you got the switching teams thing from. Obviously I'm going to play with my friend and not against him. I am definitely not a player that's known for talking smack, in fact I often tell others who are more abrasive than I not to. My impolite behavior began only after you spewed ignorant bull crap all over the chat and proceeded to troll the timer which is grounds for kicking in any environment.

You did in fact talk trash first and you did in fact troll the timer. Neither me nor my teammate were anything but cordial until you entered ignorant troll mode and raged over standard play.

I already run into way many jerks in public lobbies, why would I want to sign up to play with more?

You in fact were the jerk in the game. It's absolutely spectacularly humorous that you don't realize you were the one being a troll. You talked trash first and actually trolled the game. If you don't want people to be rude to you then don't be rude to others. Ever heard of the golden rule? Do unto others.

See, the problem is that the people hosting the lobby (the "home team" if you will) would have to believe they have a reasonable chance of winding up with a competitive game. The better those two people believe they are relative to random public players the less likely they'll think they'll get a relatively "fair" match, skill-wise. So if they're in a situation where they expect to curb-stomp 95%+ (somewhat arbitrary number but you get the general idea) of other "teams" (which again involve two random people who don't know each other, unlike the "home team") then that speaks of predatory motives.

So apparently you think that anyone who is good at the game is not allowed to host a public lobby? That has got to be the dumbest thing you have said the entire time. Trying to play a game is not predatory. Setting up competitive settings is not predatory. In fact those settings are more likely to attract highly skilled players than noobs. If I created a WvsE Team game, that would truly be a noob stomp attempt because that's a garbage noob map.

Notice at the beginning of this very thread I stated that I was looking for good players with 1000+ hours. If my motives were to stomp noobs why on Earth would I be seeking out players with experience and ability to play with? Actually 90% of the time I play with my friends who I know to be skilled so that the games are interesting. Otherwise it's just a boring quit fest.

What would be the point of hosting games where some noob quits on turn 20 because he let me steal his worker... BORING. Not what I am looking for. All the people that I invite to my FFA's are experienced players any of which have a shot at winning.

Do I play public matches? absolutely, It's nearly impossible not to because people I know are not always online. Hence the reason for this thread. Looking for more skilled players to play with.

Expanding on the team idea above, a person would also not be setting up a team with a person he thought of his relative equal -- because he (or she) knows that, on average, they're massively stacking the deck in their favor (both of them think they're much better than the average) which means it's even less likely to find a remotely competitive game. In fact, in that situation the two of them would put themselves on opposite teams and each deal with a random teammate to have the highest odds of getting a competitive game (since we're assuming that's their goal and not to "pwn n00bs").

This is just pure nonsense. I have friends and I have a right to play with the people I like. If you are not up to the challenge that is not my fault. If you think that is predatory you are ignorant. I have hosted games by myself plenty. I have hosted 1vs2, 2vs3, 2vs4 matches plenty of times in an attempt to get an interesting and fun game. The problem is that most people are not willing to play on a lopsided team. They believe that match is absurd and my team has no chance at winning. Thus these types of games are very difficult to obtain although they are much more challenging and fun. Your whole premise if flawed and you project motives that do not exist. It is not possible for you to know what people are thinking or attempting to accomplish.

Basically what happened is I hosted a public 2v2 with a friend in an attempt to get a game in with no time for an FFA. You and some other guy joined that game. The settings were what we consider standard.

For you the settings are not normal and you found them to be some how skewed towards predatory behavior. You found my behavior skewed towards predatory behavior when I was simply playing the standard way in which people play a skirmish teamer.

You found my play style to be some how rude in your mind and proceeded to talk trash and troll the timer. After that you were met with equal trash talk. Like receives like.

You were new to team play and were surprised and appalled by our style of play. Your mind found it so offensively effective and counter intuitive that you became angry. You were not used to being so handily obliterated and were extremely annoyed.

To be honest your ally was actually better at team play than you. He actually made a few cities and launched a semi-threatening attack that might have taken a city. You were completely out of your element and had no idea what you were trying to accomplish in the game. Then a stream lined, efficient play style collided with your aimless random play and cut through it like a knife through warm butter.

Do I seek out this type of game? Certainly not, it's boring. As I said previously 90% of my games are FFA in which war is the last thing you want to do. Do I play teamers Yes I do. Do I play teamers with public people? Yes I do. Do I ever prey on people for easy kills? That is a projected motive from your imagination. I make games and let random people join. Nothing more and nothing less.

Do I talk trash to people who talk trash to me first? Absolutely. Do I troll and talk trash to people unprovoked? No, I don't.

 

[LordBalkoth]

Well said. But, if that's what you believe, then why are you still complaining about borg's settings?

Because of the sentence after the one you quoted:

"But thinking that you're significantly better than average (that alone is not shameful/objectionable, to be clear) and teaming up with a friend to go "pwn n00bs" in a public lobby where people don't expect the peculiar playstyle you intend to force on them? That is shameful/objectionable. Doubly so when you switch teams at the last second and taunt the other team in-game (along with acting like a jerk in other ways)."

If you like play team games without much war you can play a peaceful duel/teamer. I have a few friends who like to play peaceful duels on a mirror map script. It's mostly just to improve our skills at building up an empire.

I added you on Steam. I don't mind war in Civ and I certainly understand it as a balancing factor to punish people who over-expand and/or wonder-whore. But I'm playing Civilization, not Total War, if you get my drift. When war (and particularly early war spamming composities/chariots/xbows) is your first, last, and only resort...

Archipelago and WvsE are not competitive teamer maps. Those are simcity fest maps for noobs.

That's funny, I could have sworn I saw some goalposts over here a moment ago...

"You clearly lack an understanding of how team games work. The OPTIMAL strategy in teamers is to spam cities and ranged units."

You are going to say that ending ones turn is unfair? So when am I allowed to end my turn and not end my turn?

If you see that the other people have ended their turn and are waiting on you, you shouldn't move in units and try to end your turn before they can react. That's being a jerk and poor sportsmanship. And it makes them think they shouldn't end their turn early because they see you trying to abuse it.

All you had to do was move your units in and just wait like 10 seconds to make sure they had time to start reacting. But nope -- gotta try to abuse simultaneous turns and get a free move in.

OP civs create a skewed environment in which balanced and fair play is not possible.

Explain to me how everyone being Attila is overpowered. Mirror-match up and it actually *reduces* some potential imbalances (difference distribution of/easy access to horses).

Not sure where you got the switching teams thing from. Obviously I'm going to play with my friend and not against him. I am definitely not a player that's known for talking smack, in fact I often tell others who are more abrasive than I not to. My impolite behavior began only after you spewed ignorant bull crap all over the chat and proceeded to troll the timer which is grounds for kicking in any environment.

You did in fact talk trash first and you did in fact troll the timer. Neither me nor my teammate were anything but cordial until you entered ignorant troll mode and raged over standard play.

This is pretty hilarious.

1, you started trash talking the moment the game started as soon as I indicated surprise that you switched the teams. I had no way of knowing that you two were friends...except, of course, until I realized you switched the teams. I thought we were all randoms at that point.

2, if you don't want people to wait the turn timer out, you shouldn't try to abuse the turn timer. If you act like a jerk with poor sportsmanship, people will guard against it. I had plenty of time and a book to read, turns taking longer didn't bother me. And if you hadn't tried to abuse the turn timer by taking advantage of our good nature, I never would have started waiting it out.

In fact those settings are more likely to attract highly skilled players than noobs.

Well, especially in your view, you failed miserably. 0/2 in that game.

If my motives were to stomp noobs why on Earth would I be seeking out players with experience and ability to play with?

Because you and your friend wanted to "stomp noobs" at that particular point in time but don't necessarily always want to "stomp noobs?"

Basically what happened is I hosted a public 2v2 with a friend in an attempt to get a game in with no time for an FFA.

Aka, you wanted to "stomp noobs" quickly.

Cause going by that statement you definitely didn't want a situation where

"Good games can actually get to artillery and unit spam vs skilled players usually doesn't even start until xbow tech because well placed cities can not be taken down by composites and chariots effectively."

as you didn't have enough time for that.