Players Wanted for a Private FFA No Quitters

[CraigMak]

Hi guys,

Me and a few friends are trying to get some good games going but it's incredibly difficult considering how inconsistent the public is. Even despite a large friend list it is hard to get people together.

I am looking for some good players to play with us and not quit when something doesn't go their way or their GF/Wife/Mom/Dog demands it. If some one legitimately needs to quit we will save for a later time.

What we are looking for is:
-Good and active players
-Above average skill level(Most likely 2000 hours minimum unless you're a prodigy)
-No trolling
-No quitting
-Any skill level if willing to learn and be trained

Game settings/rules:
-Skirmish type maps, 4 courners, oval, Pangea etc..
-Declare war on sight with everyone, no trading, no scheming, true FFA.
-NO Great Wall
-NO Terracotta Army
-NO OP Civs such as Spain, Attila, Babylon etc..
-No Shift Moving
-Some Faiths such as +4 faith pantheon and +100 gold may be banned
-No Ruins
-No Barbs
-No CS

Regular teamer/duel rules/settings basically

 

[Kyp Durron]

Hit me up on steam and we will get our groups together.

 

[CraigMak]

Hit me up on steam and we will get our groups together.

Alright, feel free to add me on Steam as well. Same name as on the forum. If you see more than one person with my name, my icon is a borg cube.

 

[Tabarnak]

I'm interested. And i would gladly record it too

I don't know what you think about the no pillaging rule too(from NQ)? I would agree with the no pillaging thing. I always think that this part is too overpowered for the attacker. So i agree with that particular NQ rule. But i will play with pillaging enabled too...i don't care.

What about no cs? They prevent massive worker steal but on the other side they are great add ons into the game despite the cs locations anomalies that we can see sometimes. When you see no cs around while your neighbor is surrounded by 4-5 of them with a mountain range it's not cool.

I am looking for some good players to play with us and not quit when something doesn't go their way or their GF/Wife/Mom/Dog demands it.

I have a cat...but she doesn't ask much excepted food and cuddles

 

[CraigMak]

I'm interested. And i would gladly record it too

I don't know what you think about the no pillaging rule too(from NQ)? I would agree with the no pillaging thing. I always think that this part is too overpowered for the attacker. So i agree with that particular NQ rule. But i will play with pillaging enabled too...i don't care.

What about no cs? They prevent massive worker steal but on the other side they are great add ons into the game despite the cs locations anomalies that we can see sometimes. When you see no cs around while your neighbor is surrounded by 4-5 of them with a mountain range it's not cool.



I have a cat...but she doesn't ask much excepted food and cuddles

Hey Tabarnak, good to hear from you. I am not familiar with NQ rules because I never really played with them. I think pillaging is pretty fair however, bringing a worker with you to pillage and repair and pillage repeatedly is not fair play.

As for CS, yes I forgot to mention that CS are turned off because they just plain get in the way and stealing workers is OP.

Does NQ say no pillaging? That seems kind of odd to me.

 

[tommynt]

U might edit thread tile so it doesnt involve "no quitters".
Every 2nd public game calls itself no quitters, every 2nd group calls itself NQ or no quitters - and every single one of them is horrible.
I hope u dont want make another one of those horrible groups. Espacilly not the one advertising itself all the time while quitting/scraping is standard of their players.

Not quitting games should not be the requirement but the standard, rather give your game a name like:
"Clever people"
"Good games"
or whatever

Just my opinion

if so I might be interested.

 

[Silverfuturist]

Game settings/rules:
-Skirmish type maps, 4 courners, oval, Pangea etc..
-Declare war on sight with everyone, no trading, no scheming, true FFA.
-NO Great Wall
-NO Terracotta Army
-NO OP Civs such as Spain, Attila, Babylon etc..
-No Shift Moving
-Some Faiths such as +4 faith pantheon and +100 gold may be banned
-No Ruins
-No Barbs
-No CS

Regular teamer/duel rules/settings basically

I am interested! With these settings, civs which need trade will probably not be played. I like the idea also of not picking civs with OP units, like no longbows, camels, etc.

With no-trade kind of games, "soft alliances" do pop up, where 2 players who are at war do not attack each other for a long time. They don't plan this, it just happens this way... or 2 players decide to attack the same person, they don't plan a 2x1, but it ends up like that.

Raises the question: for a 6 man FFA, what are fair groups of civs to pick from? Here is idea of rough categories (perhaps some civs can be changed):

Power civ FFA: Babylon, Inca, Poland, Maya, Shoshone, Korea... maybe Aztec Egypt and Ethiopia might be able to fit in there? Although Babylon's free academy and scientists might be too OP, same with Poland's free policies when combined with start bias? If Inca gets their ideal start bias though, I would prefer them over Babs and Poland... that means safe cities and tactical superiority in hills.

 

[CraigMak]

U might edit thread tile so it doesnt involve "no quitters".
Every 2nd public game calls itself no quitters, every 2nd group calls itself NQ or no quitters - and every single one of them is horrible.
I hope u dont want make another one of those horrible groups. Espacilly not the one advertising itself all the time while quitting/scraping is standard of their players.

Not quitting games should not be the requirement but the standard, rather give your game a name like:
"Clever people"
"Good games"
or whatever

Just my opinion

if so I might be interested.

Hey Tommy,
Yes, this has nothing to do with the NQ group and I myself had distasteful experiences playing with NQ so I don't. You should come join us. We played one last night that was pretty good aside from two people who will not be invited back because they quit. It was a 7 player game on skirmish.

I think our settings and rules will bring about skilled, balanced play.

 

[CraigMak]

I am interested! With these settings, civs which need trade will probably not be played. I like the idea also of not picking civs with OP units, like no longbows, camels, etc.

With no-trade kind of games, "soft alliances" do pop up, where 2 players who are at war do not attack each other for a long time. They don't plan this, it just happens this way... or 2 players decide to attack the same person, they don't plan a 2x1, but it ends up like that.

Raises the question: for a 6 man FFA, what are fair groups of civs to pick from? Here is idea of rough categories (perhaps some civs can be changed):

Power civ FFA: Babylon, Inca, Poland, Maya, Shoshone, Korea... maybe Aztec Egypt and Ethiopia might be able to fit in there? Although Babylon's free academy and scientists might be too OP, same with Poland's free policies when combined with start bias? If Inca gets their ideal start bias though, I would prefer them over Babs and Poland... that means safe cities and tactical superiority in hills.

Hi,
We would be happy to have you join us. We had one game last night and some discussion led us to rule out many civs. We decided on Spain, Attila, Babylon, Maya, Inca, Poland, Shoshone, Mongols, Arabia, England, China, Russia all being far too strong, having op units or a little bit too strong. Also thinking about setting a rule that Egypt can't make more chariots than they have horses. Chariot spam is a bit too effective.

I would be interested in finding a balanced map which allows either everyone to have a NW or there to be no NW's at all.

 

[brindle]

no barbs hoses a lot of races (like Germany). it also makes honor opening totally useless. it just lets people safely spam settlers.

 

[tommynt]

i m pretty sure that i m better at stealing settlers as barbs,
pls think before posting

 

[MadHaxxor]

I dont know if you are familiar with the term learning curve, but after about 500 hours in civ 5 very little progress is made in terms of getting generally better at playing the game. Anyway I am a good player with 800 hours and I dont quit because you can still have fun even if you are losing terrible. I have actually made multiple come backs and snagged victory when it seemed impossible. Ill add you on steam under the name "wildwood" and I can play on some weekends.

 

[CraigMak]

no barbs hoses a lot of races (like Germany). it also makes honor opening totally useless. it just lets people safely spam settlers.

No barbs is quite standard for duels and team games. Barbs create an undesired element of luck in the game.

They also narrow your options as far as build order. The point is for the human players to be fighting each other and not barbs.

If you are not familiar with this setting you are not familiar with competitive play in Civ 5.

Honor is already pretty useless as a starting tree. Nothing it provides is on par with the massive benefits of tradition or liberty. I would say that Germany's best attribute is being able to field a larger army with the same amount of gold anyways. Economy is very tight on our settings.

 

[CraigMak]

I dont know if you are familiar with the term learning curve, but after about 500 hours in civ 5 very little progress is made in terms of getting generally better at playing the game. Anyway I am a good player with 800 hours and I dont quit because you can still have fun even if you are losing terrible. I have actually made multiple come backs and snagged victory when it seemed impossible. Ill add you on steam under the name "wildwood" and I can play on some weekends.

Alright, we just had two nights and and two games so far. One is was saved and will hopefully be continued.

We will give you a try and see where you stand. If you get rolled over due to lack of skill we are happy to train.

 

[Silverfuturist]

I dont know if you are familiar with the term learning curve, but after about 500 hours in civ 5 very little progress is made in terms of getting generally better at playing the game.

This is a good topic - it isn't about the quantity of hours it is about the quality!

If somebody is willing to get smashed by top players, their first 50 hours will be more valuable than 500 hours playing with mediocre players! Of course part of fighting the learning curve is asking what you did wrong after the game!

BUT - how do you identify top players? It isn't by how strongly they post an opinion in a forum!

 

[tommynt]

If somebody is willing to get smashed by top players, their first 50 hours will be more valuable than 500 hours playing with mediocre players!

Ya I remeber training some civ3/4 oldtimer about a year ago. He was really clueless (no mp, sp experience not THAT much either) but after like 6 duels with me (which didnt really take too long) he was ready for semi top teamers and d have proly outbuilt 98/100 players

 

[CraigMak]

Ya I remeber training some civ3/4 oldtimer about a year ago. He was really clueless (no mp, sp experience not THAT much either) but after like 6 duels with me (which didnt really take too long) he was ready for semi top teamers and d have proly outbuilt 98/100 players

Yes, I remember playing a teamer with you a long time ago when I had not really done teamers before Tommy. I observed what you did during that game very closely and it completely changed the way I play teamers. My teamer/duel play improved 3x over night thanks to that one game.

 

[civjou]

Honor is already pretty useless as a starting tree. Nothing it provides is on par with the massive benefits of tradition or liberty. I would say that Germany's best attribute is being able to field a larger army with the same amount of gold anyways. Economy is very tight on our settings.

You've never wanted that early (extra) general in multiplayer?

 

[CraigMak]

You've never wanted that early (extra) general in multiplayer?

It's not worth the opportunity cost of missing out on all the juicy stuff that liberty or tradition provide. Honestly, liberty is better at early war than honor IMO.

You get an extra hammer in your cities early to help pump out those units, You get a free settler to make another city which allows you to work more gold to field a larger army and produce more units plus that free city can be in a strategic location blocking attacks. If an honor player wants to get a 2nd city up he has to sacrifice hammers on units to make it.

After that you get a free worker so that you don't have to waste hammers on building a worker, just keep making units with liberty and you're fine for a while. An honor player on the other hand will have to hard build a settler and worker to keep up and couldn't possibly have the same size army when doing that.

I use the early war scenario because when you start out practically bumping elbows is when honor might be viable. However even in that situation, liberty is superior in many ways. IMO. Unless you can use the general to snag their most important land from their cap it is not worth it at all.

 

[jaffa_cake_99]

Add me on steam please, new to civ... radiactive_fish