View Full Version : Hi all (MP chat)
Hallo Puzz, CBR, Ra's and Tosa
its been a while, i hope you are all doing fine. I will return to the Sunday mp sessions from tomorrow since gladly my life duties are starting to loosen up.
I got a couple of questions:
1. I noticed in a thread in the Jousting fields that Ra's mentions a return to beta_5 due to random desync problems; is beta_5 the version that i need to wear?
2. I also read about a set of larger maps in a thread here; do i need to install that to play?
Thanks in advance and see you all tomorrow
Noir
Yes install the beta5 and mappack to a clean MTW/VI install and you are ready for Sunday. R'as has also released a small addon https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1649919#post1649919 but it is not required to play
CBR
R'as al Ghul
08-26-2007, 13:38
I smell 4v4's. :2thumbsup:
Probably something of the order of 4 Vs 3 & 1/2 Ra's :laugh4: it's been a while since i last played TW.
R'as al Ghul
08-27-2007, 15:47
Probably something of the order of 4 Vs 3 & 1/2 Ra's :laugh4: it's been a while since i last played TW.
You played well enough. :shame:
I've completely missed that my Yari-Cav was shot at by your Archers. When I realized it it had gone to 36 men. :wall:
It was so nice being able to play without desyncs. Ok, we had the occasional lag but that didn't interfere too much. Now I only need to work on winning games. :clown:
R'as
Thanks Ra's,
i realised that you meant your YC being shot, but i was "trotting" along the battle line to control the reinforcements i've sent against Tomi on the other side of the map and couldn't reply.
Thank you for the games - it was great - after you've retired we played 2 or 3 4v4s i think and 2 or 3 3v3s for a total of 8 hours straight... It was an amazing session even with the moderate lag.
Noir
R'as al Ghul
08-27-2007, 19:38
Seems I missed a lot of Fun. I want the replays.
But it's good to hear that 4v4 worked, too.
R'as
Seems like people were having fun because the guys in Europe stayed up all night playing! I posted the replays: five 3v3 and two 4v4. The final 3v3 has a particularly well executed attack, and was probably the best played game of the night. There were no desyncs or drops except for that one game with Warman. He's going to check for a new video driver. The lag might be being caused by my internet connection. Next week I'll sit out of a game, and we'll see if that clears up the lag.
Jochi Khan
08-27-2007, 22:12
I finally decided to give Beta 5 a whirl. It's been a long time.
Had to keep 'thinking', been playing RTW and M2TW for so long, a few years now.
Had a great evening/night, yes Yuuki, it was past 2.00am when I went to bed.
Yes it was very long and great session we had yesterday. Lots of good games, good company and chatting :beam:
CBR
Togakure
08-28-2007, 00:37
Yesterday was great fun, great company, great games. I am sooo glad I was able to get back online to enjoy the afternoon/evening (late night for our Hardcore! European Samurai Warlords). Hope y'all get a good night's sleep tonight, heh.
It was especially nice to have Jochi Khan, Noir/AsanoRin, and Fool join us. Please come again. :bow:
I find myself really looking forward to these meets. :yes:
Cheers, and thanks all.
Tomisama
08-28-2007, 00:40
It sounds like an oxymoron, but I believe is true to say that we are serious about our fun. And that is why it is so intriguing, drawing us back week after week. The Samurai Warlords mod is all about balance. We all have the same money and opportunity for the same units. This places the demands squarely on the player’s skills. And not just their individual prowess, as we play team games, they must excel as team members also.
After this last Sunday, I realize that this to me is the best part. The teamwork is the thing above all else that I enjoy. And I would like to invite any and all who are also serious about their fun, and who also truly enjoy being a member of a team fighting for a common cause, to come out and join us. We have some of the best team players I have ever seen. These guys are the greatest! Come out and see :charge:
R'as al Ghul
08-28-2007, 09:09
The final 3v3 has a particularly well executed attack, and was probably the best played game of the night.
Some impressions from that game:
Defenders:
Red - Mori - MizuYuuki/Puzz3D
Fawn - Ryuzoji - Asanorin/Noir
Dark Green - Shimazu - Fool
Attackers:
Light Green - Satake - Masamune
Light Blue - Imagawa - MizuCBR
Blue - Date - MizuTosaInu
https://img297.imageshack.us/img297/3286/39pk0.jpg
https://img213.imageshack.us/img213/5752/41cg8.jpg
https://img101.imageshack.us/img101/2816/46no5.jpg
:bow:
Nice screenshots Ra's,
after watching that replay, i realised why the final phase after the attackers stormed the hill was so extremely chaotic: Fool aided by Yuuki and myself managed to beat back with his melee forces the infantry line of the attackers (Masamune and CBR), however his melee forces (WMs,YS & ND) got spread out at the resulting chase. Tosa's numerous cavalry and relatively intact melee infantry made a final push at that time aided by CBR's remaining infantry and deadly-as-always cavalry.
Fool's forces were isolated while chasing off the retreating Masamune and CBR from my last nucleous of teppo and YS on the hill at that time and were off the hill; they were picked off by CBR, Tosa and later Masamune almost one by one. Notably 1 WM, 2 YS and 1 ND of his were routed and chased off almost full strength. Masamune also rallied just before the edge of the map and came back to finish off with the others.
I realised after watching the replay that it was a very close game - closer than i realised while we were playing. Had Fool's forces stayed on the hill more coherently after the second attack the game would have had another melee phase that the defenders had a good chance of withstanding melee wise and reasonably enough guns to play the end game if needed. Fool played very well; it was indeed true chaos after the 2nd attack and it was impossible to foretell the outcome of decisions made (chase more or not? etc).
Myself and Yuuki lost substantial cavalry and melee infantry to very little enemy losses in the initial skirmish and first attack; Yuuki mainly in the skirmish and me while trying to initially aid the skirmish and later while attempting to "cover" his retreating/fleeing infantry units during Masamune's first attack depicted above.
The 1st attack was very good and quite scary; Masamune moved all his line together and Yuuki's forces as can be seen on the 2nd shot were either retreating or on the run; you can see that he is also commiting all his melee reserves. On the right of the 2nd screenshot 2 ND of mine attempted to slow down the attackers bearing the grunt as well as very few men of my YC that moves to meet Msamune's. BTW that screenshot is probably the last time anyone saw them.
*edit* = Needless to say that Tosa and CBR coordinated with the 1st attack very well. Notice for instance Tosa's Naginata Cavalry that charged my ND and the other that is about to engage Yuuki's WMs. The effect was deadly as the defending forces already outnumbered and half surrounded either routed or got flanked and exterminated to the last. For the truth of that, notice that Yuuki is left with something more than 2 depleted melee units on the 3rd screenshot that covers the shootout after the defenders retrenched on the hill.
It was really a great game as are most on these sessions. I think i can safely say that Samurai Wars mp is the best TW experience that i've ever had and as things look, the best TW experience that i will ever have.
Many thanks to all that worked to produce this exceptional gameplay (with lovely aesthetic touches like the great mons etc) and to all that had the willingness & patience to introduce me into it.
Noir
I did manage to get 759 kills, but it would have been more prudent for me to initially deploy along the line shown in the 3rd image that R'as posted.
I was by far the least effective of our team getting just over 450 kills i think (470?) and so costing us dearly.
The main reasons probably were:
1. I helped the skirmish initially with the wrong unit (HC instead of YC) and almost sacrificed one YC as it arrived to the skirmish too late - i had better saved it.
2. Twice small parts of my melee infantry were anhihilated trying to buy time during the first and second assaults. On second thought it would have been better to keep them tight and commit them with Fool's troops in the second assault.
3. Last but not least my last pocket of men (3-4 teppos and 2 YS) were isolated by Fool's infantry at the chase. I reckon that had our forces stayed closer we had a better chance - but it happen otherwise.
There were plenty of lessons to learn and re-learn for me in that game.
Noir
Togakure
08-29-2007, 04:03
In my review of replays, I find myself thinking: "Why the heck did I do that?" or "Why the heck didn't I do this?!" It's humorous and annoying at the same time. Really, we can analyze replays up the yin-yang, but making effective use of what we see is a long time coming. Knowing is easy; doing isn't, etc.
During the featured battle, there was one point in the initial cav skirmish where I saw CBR's YC coming right behind me as I charged Yuuki's second YC unit. I decided in a flash to divert my YC's charge, to backstab Yuuki's other YC that was refusing to kow-tow on the far flank (*shakes fist at Yuuki*). I figured CBR's cav would intercept Yuuki's second YC in the flank or rear as it chased me, and we'd get both without big losses.
Unfortunately, CBR saw the farside backstab opportunity at the same time and saw where I was initially headed, and diverted for the far flank as well. As it turned out, my YC got hit in the side as I tried to correct back to Yuuki's second YC, and CBR also slowed and turned. My second YC unit took a bigger hit than it needed to despite eventually driving off Yuuki's YC. CBR ended up getting in a great charge against AsanoRin's incoming support YC--connecting right through the middle of Yuuki's CA, which routed them instantly.
Battle dynamics--when we watch replays we think Gah! it's so obvious! But it really isn't in the heat of the moment. There are only a handful of players I've seen (not that I've played MP nearly as much as some) who eventually develop that "no mind"-ish sense, where in this example, I would intuit what CBR would do, and he would know what I would do. I think this comes with a lot of games played together, and a certain amount of natural blend in style of play.
It was my army's "honor" to be the vanguard of the attack in that battle, but taking my entire infantry line in when I did was not my commander's idea, but my rather opportunistic (some would say "reckless") nature. I'm not a big fan of the long drawn out shooter game--reminds me too much of smoking an entire pack of cigarettes waiting for a pav war to finish in VI. CBR was probably having heart palpitations when he saw me go in with everything, heh.
I've noticed most of you keep reserves. In this mod this seems to work especially well because units rally a lot, much more than in STW MI 1.02 MP (which is the TW MP game I've played the most). In MI, if you routed the enemy's main line in your attack, chances were that your enemy would rout completely, and even if some stalwarts managed to rally, it was not difficult to rout them again permanently afterward. Hence, most used their infantry line as a carefully timed and precisely executed all-or-nothing attack like I tried to do here. As far as I was concerned, CBR and Tosa were my reserves, and my job in the vanguard was to hit, and hit hard. Your team did a great job in halting my momentum before I gained the hill, and CBR wisely held back the majority of his infantry despite my troops eventually getting pushed back and away. During the game I was thinking "Gah! ... put the sake away and git your monk butts up here, CBR!" But watching the replay, it made sense. Fool was camped for the most part, waiting to take advantage of the late battle after we'd tired ourselves out--a static but prudent decision considering your team's superior position, and that two enemy armies were expending themselves with vigor but not yet threatening the heart of your formation.
In that game I got less kills than in the others. But I felt I did a much better job in my role than in the other games that day, and it was much more exhilirating. This is an example of why I don't think using kills as the sole metric is a good way to determine performance in a battle.
TosaInu is so often an "unsung hero" in these games. During the battle, I hardly noticed what he was doing until my attack was spent and I took a backseat for the remainder of the game. Watching the replay, it was brilliant to see Tosa all over the map, assisting CBR and me here and there and everywhere very effectively. In the end, it was Tosa who saved the day for us.
In another thread, I commented on how chasing routing units can be tricky, and this game was an example of why. Seemingly eager for kills, Fool chased some pretty small, low-threat units clear across the map, giving our remaining units and Tosa's relatively fresh units time to clean up the hill. If he had returned sooner, I think things might have turned out differently.
I've not seen anyone use an ashigaru unit as general until that game. I figured it was pumped with upgrades, but my log file proves otherwise. An odd choice, that. I wonder what the rationale behind it was.
Tosa is simply deadly; his armies fight with mobility, tenacity, snipping and wearing down and with calculated precision of deployment during attacks that he often executes in calculated infantry waves with cavalry flankings @ key times and locations.
Togakure
08-29-2007, 05:38
I was by far the least effective of our team getting just over 450 kills i think (470?) and so costing us dearly.
The main reasons probably were:
1. I helped the skirmish initially with the wrong unit (HC instead of YC) and almost sacrificed one YC as it arrived to the skirmish too late - i had better saved it.
2. Twice small parts of my melee infantry were anhihilated trying to buy time during the first and second assaults. On second thought it would have been better to keep them tight and commit them with Fool's troops in the second assault.
3. Last but not least my last pocket of men (3-4 teppos and 2 YS) were isolated by Fool's infantry at the chase. I reckon that had our forces stayed closer we had a better chance - but it happen otherwise.
There were plenty of lessons to learn and re-learn for me in that game.
Noir
Well, I must disagree with you here. Your support of Yuuki was not badly timed, and crucial. Yuuki (and for that matter, CBR and Tosa) can do with one unit what I need two or three to do, so you not only helped preserve the assets of a shrewd general (*shakes fist at Yuuki*), but depleted mine significantly. Your nods, in tandem with Yuuki's monks, halted my momentum and prevented me from reaching the hill. Even though Fool's many infantry were there (and your other half), CBR's infantry was waiting to pounce, and Tosa had his full infantry on the other side to sandwich. If I had reached the hill and spent myself, chances are good that in pursuit of my retreating troops (heh, I like that word "retreating" ...), Fool's infantry would have met both CBR's and Tosa's main infantry, and the remainder of our cav. Not good odds there. You played a pivotal role in your team's defense. Again, kills are just not a good indicator of overall performance in MP; it's one factor.
Here's more to boost that opinion: Fool sent one NC to help with the initial engagement, and sent it late--into a cav skirmish, in which NC do not excel. It wasn't effective (27 kills). Later, well after I launched my infantry attack, with CBR and Tosa backing me with lots and lots of cav, he sent one ysam to assist. He didn't commit other units until Tosa's cav hit his flank gun unit. Then he sent his YC to chase down Tosa's cav and protect his own guns. Of course he dominated the end game; he didn't do much to help you guys in the opening and mid-game. He got more kills that you did because he cleaned up our exhausted units. But your kills were worth three times his in glory and teamwork.
I don't understand the tendency to think so much in terms of cost and match-ups in this group (I affectionately think of it as "Yuuki-itis," lol). It's just not that simple. The dynamic factors--terrain, weather, timing, speed, formation, grouping and positioning, style and moment-to-moment choices by team mates on the field and how you respond to them--wreak havoc on the numbers and one-to-one unit matching in my opinion.
I hope I'm not sounding overly critical here, it's just my opinion. It was a great game.
My positioning was generally correct - however when it comes down to the actual numbers they betray the fact that several of my units were eliminated or routed before inflicting casualties that would have given other members of the team a better chance - i think the numbers or the Yuuki-itis if you want, tell an undisputable part of the story - not necessarily as you say the full story, but nonetheless.
For instance i should have moved the YC first for the initial skirmish - the HC could help better in melee against infantry; also i should have combined the 2 ND with a YS that would have make their life duration better against Tosa's NC. And finally i should have grouped my two monks and stay behind Fool and close to my guns on the hill.
It was a really great game nonetheless :)
Noir
R'as al Ghul
08-29-2007, 11:02
I don't understand the tendency to think so much in terms of cost and match-ups in this group (I affectionately think of it as "Yuuki-itis," lol). It's just not that simple. The dynamic factors--terrain, weather, timing, speed, formation, grouping and positioning, style and moment-to-moment choices by team mates on the field and how you respond to them--wreak havoc on the numbers and one-to-one unit matching in my opinion.
I hope I'm not sounding overly critical here, it's just my opinion. It was a great game.
Yuuki-itis! :laugh4:
Yes I guess we're all infected to different degrees but that doesn't nessecarily mean that we think in spreadsheets when playing. Nevertheless, it's important to know the rules of the game and that includes match-ups. But match-ups are only the basics when considering what unit to engage with which. The dynamic factors, as you call them, are important modifiers for the basic match-up rules. They can be expressed in numbers, too.
However, in the heat of a battle like the one we've been discussing, you can't always make solid number based decisions, I agree with you there. What helps in those situations is the fact that the whole "unit vs unit" is very intuitive and logical.
R'as
Togakure
08-29-2007, 13:29
My positioning was generally correct - however when it comes down to the actual numbers they betray the fact that several of my units were eliminated or routed before inflicting casualties that would have given other members of the team a better chance - i think the numbers or the Yuuki-itis if you want, tell an undisputable part of the story - not necessarily as you say the full story, but nonetheless.
For instance i should have moved the YC first for the initial skirmish - the HC could help better in melee against infantry; also i should have combined the 2 ND with a YS that would have make their life duration better against Tosa's NC. And finally i should have grouped my two monks and stay behind Fool and close to my guns on the hill.
It was a really great game nonetheless :)
Noir
Your nods sure did better in one-to-one matchups than mine. I can only figure mine didn't get up velocity for a good charge, and were probably co-mingling and thus losing combat efficiency. I expected my nods to lose to Yuuki's monks without assistance from support units, but I thought I'd do much better, much faster against your nods. As it turned out, yours only broke when I brought my ashigaru unit behind and attacked from the rear.
I tease about the number-emphasis because I am more of an intuitive player than a numbers player (in real life I'm often the opposite, which is odd). I think that's why my play is mediocre when facing human calculators ( :clown: again, with affection--it's a drag no one can hear my voice when I post here, as I tend to "speak" with a lot of tongue-in-cheek and self-mockery that isn't apparent in written word).
Your team's cav did well (and I made some critically poor choices in the heat of it all). We had Yuuki's cav outnumbered at the onset of the skirmish, and when you responded we brought our Gens in, and Tosa brought some over too. We had really tipped the numbers in our favor at that point. Yet, your team managed to reduce my cav by about two-thirds (3200 koku value; a third of my total army investment), which clipped my claws nicely. A good thing CBR and Tosa had plenty of cav in that game to support during and after, and tend to have better unit control and be less impetuous than me.
I don't understand the tendency to think so much in terms of cost and match-ups in this group (I affectionately think of it as "Yuuki-itis," lol). It's just not that simple. The dynamic factors--terrain, weather, timing, speed, formation, grouping and positioning, style and moment-to-moment choices by team mates on the field and how you respond to them--wreak havoc on the numbers and one-to-one unit matching in my opinion.
I agree with you that dynamic factors are very important, and can offset loss of material. However, a dynamic advantage is temporary, and must be capitalized upon in a timely way otherwise you will be left with the material loss without compensation. That material loss will be significant in Samurai Wars if you don't get good matchups because you can't use upgrades to moderate the differences in combat power between the unit types. The morale is also high enough that you can't depend on chain routing a fresh enemy army simply by outnumbering it, although, outnumbering does cause units to rout sooner than they would otherwise. There is a balance between attritional and positional gameplay in this mod, so both are important.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
08-29-2007, 19:28
I might return this Sunday.... Depends on how I feel and rather or not BF2 is running around my ass.
Best Experpience I ever had, is here on Samurai Warlords :-)
My positioning was generally correct - however when it comes down to the actual numbers they betray the fact that several of my units were eliminated or routed before inflicting casualties that would have given other members of the team a better chance - i think the numbers or the Yuuki-itis if you want, tell an undisputable part of the story - not necessarily as you say the full story, but nonetheless.
Remember there is a morale penalty on a unit that is outnumbered by enemy units, and this penalty increases the more the unit is outnumbered. This morale penaly can be as large as -18 if a unit is heavily outnumbered and flanked. So sending a single unit, even if it's a high morale unit, into the proximity of a large number of enemy units will not be effective. I saw a fresh but heavily outnumbered WM with 53 men rout on contact in this battle. This was during the second attack near the small hill on the defender's left. When I saw the enemy infantry advancing, I messaged to pull back from the left, but I guess you missed it. In the replay, you can see my teppo pull out and head for the main hill which is just after I issued the message.
Outnumbered 2 to 1: up to -4 (range = about 75 meters)
Outnumbered 10 to 1: up to -12 (range = about 75 meters)
Outclassed in quality and speed: modifies the outnumbered penalty.
One flank threatened: -2 (range = about 60 meters)
Two flanks threatened: -6 (range = about 60 meters
For instance i should have moved the YC first for the initial skirmish - the HC could help better in melee against infantry; also i should have combined the 2 ND with a YS that would have make their life duration better against Tosa's NC. And finally i should have grouped my two monks and stay behind Fool and close to my guns on the hill.
I sent my remaining infantry in to support the units that you sent in to support the units that I already had engaged. I was trying to retrieve the YS, but Masa's infantry attack caught me by surprise, and the two YS were lost. It was a case of trying to support each other in a situation where we should have fallen back, and not tried to save the first cav units already commited. Fool is actually playing correctly by not sending his units into a hopeless situation.
Togakure
08-30-2007, 16:16
Not a lot of time, but to clarify my comments:
I meant your HC, not YC, in my stories above AsanoRin. Noticed in additional reviews of the replay and conversation with CBR. Thought it was a YC initially, and that your HC was on the far side for some reason.
My opinions about Fool's gameplay extend to several games, and I still think his inactivity during the skirmishes and initial attack put you two in a difficult position. CBR, Tosa and I were all in motion. There were points during and after the infantry attack where a unit or two of his would have made a different for you guys imo. But we can analyze it to death ... it was what it was.
On the flip side, Fool's support of Tomi in the first game I played in was exemplary. An interesting contrast to his playing in the subsequent games.
My opinions about Fool's gameplay extend to several games, and I still think his inactivity during the skirmishes and initial attack put you two in a difficult position.
If ShingenMitch had been playing at defender's center, he would have said "refuse the flank", and I could have stayed out there confident that he would send adequate support to do that. In this case, it would have been his whole army, and Asanoirin would move over to center. It's not my place to say refuse the flank because I don't control the center army.
If the center ally is going to stay at home, the wingman really has no choice other than to fall back in the face of a double team close to the center ally. However, if the defenders compress their armies too much, they will suffer many back kills during the teppo skirmish. It's not as though I'd be dropping straight back. I'd be falling back into Fool's army which is why I was reluctant to fall back all the way to the high ground.
An alternative strategy would be a counter double team attack on Tosa by Fool and Asanorin. I'd do my best to block Masamune and CBR from coming to assist Tosa.
Jochi Khan
08-31-2007, 19:16
It is a shame that an otherwise great fun evening/night should be spoilt IMO by this so called analising.
From Post#16 onwards this Topic has detereated, again IMO. These types of posts are not constructive.
I only hope that Fool is not a member of .Org. Just imagine his reaction on reading this....
Masamune[/B]"]Here's more to boost that opinion: Fool sent one NC to help with the initial engagement, and sent it late--into a cav skirmish, in which NC do not excel. It wasn't effective (27 kills). Later, well after I launched my infantry attack, with CBR and Tosa backing me with lots and lots of cav, he sent one ysam to assist. He didn't commit other units until Tosa's cav hit his flank gun unit. Then he sent his YC to chase down Tosa's cav and protect his own guns. Of course he dominated the end game; he didn't do much to help you guys in the opening and mid-game. He got more kills that you did because he cleaned up our exhausted units. But your kills were worth three times his in glory and teamwork.
Suddeny Masamune ............:no: I'll say no more.
That is enough to turn away a player. I am not so sure that I would want to be involved with this type of play.
Samurai Warlords is having difficulties getting enough players as it is to make MP viable.
That is enough to turn away a player. I am not so sure that I would want to be involved with this type of play.
The discussion is about the importance of total kills, and isn't a criticism of the way Fool played. Fool has played very well in every battle that he's been in even though he has very little experience with Sam Wars. He played very well in the battle under discussion. The mistake of using an NC to counter a YC is one I've seen many players make, but look at what I did in that battle trying to hold back an NC with a CA which was probably the worst play in the entire battle. I also got caught trying to fend off an NC with a no-dachi because it's all I had in the vicinity.
It's up to each individual player how much assitance they want to send to an ally, and it's only by experience that you get to know how much assistance a particular player is likely to provide. I wasn't sure how much assistance Fool would provide, and I was preparing to fall back to the central hill when I saw Asanorin's units come over. However, it was still a mistake for me to stay out there. I think Masa's point is that killing routers isn't as impotant as those kills you get before the enemy routs, so a player's total kills can be misleading. My point is that getting more kills is better than getting fewer kills because it reduces the grand total kill burden on your allies that's necessary to win the battle.
Jochi Khan
08-31-2007, 22:25
The discussion is about the importance of total kills, and isn't a criticism of the way Fool played. Fool has played very well in every battle that he's been in even though he has very little experience with Sam Wars. He played very well in the battle under discussion.
There has been no mention of the importance of total kills. My quote of Masamune in my earlier post
Here's more to boost that opinion: Fool sent one NC to help with the initial engagement, and sent it late--into a cav skirmish, in which NC do not excel. It wasn't effective (27 kills). Later, well after I launched my infantry attack, with CBR and Tosa backing me with lots and lots of cav, he sent one ysam to assist. He didn't commit other units until Tosa's cav hit his flank gun unit. Then he sent his YC to chase down Tosa's cav and protect his own guns. Of course he dominated the end game; he didn't do much to help you guys in the opening and mid-game. He got more kills that you did because he cleaned up our exhausted units. But your kills were worth three times his in glory and teamwork.
was a total criticism of Fools play in that last game you played.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
08-31-2007, 22:28
Now Now, Lets keep our tempers under control :-)
Jochi Khan
08-31-2007, 22:32
Who is losing their temper??
It is called open discussion.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
08-31-2007, 23:15
Who is losing their temper??
It is called open discussion.
No, It seems people were getting little upset (no offense, but i.e. you).
http://www.wikihow.com/Make-up-With-Friends
How to Make up With Friends
Everybody has friends. Everyone has enemies. Whether we like it, or believe it, it is true. There will always be someone who doesn't like you for whatever reason they can find. But sometimes a friend may find something about you that causes them to change their opinion about you, be it something you said or someone you dated, or even something as obscure as a TV show you watched. Or maybe you and your friend got in a big argument about something personal. Now your friend "hates" you. Well if they are your friend they will find a way to forgive you.
Steps
Let some time pass. Allow your friend to cool off and think about what happened and possibly move on with their lives without you. Patience is key. Don't push for redemption.
Send an IM or email to your old friend out of the blue just to see what's up. If your friend answers you, this means that they've calmed down and want to talk to you. Be friendly. Don't bring up the subject of why your friend is mad at you in the first place. Talk casually-- "What's been going' on" "How's the basketball team doing" "I see you got that scholarship" simple things like that. If they keep up the casual conversation it’s a good sign that they are warming up to your presence once again.
Grab the chance to ease into a conversation about the troubles between you. Wait for the opportune moment. It’s better if they mention it first, but if they don't, you will have to. Swallow your pride and apologize for whatever upset your friend. Try to resolve the issue while both of you are calm rather than with loud voices and misunderstandings.
Try your best to resolve any issues between you and your friend. Talk calmly about what really happened between you two. Talk about what is true about the situation what got fabricated through the grapevine. Maybe the entire event was caused by a lie perpetrated by someone else. If you know you were the one at fault be sure to explain to your friend why you did what you did, apologize for it, and reassure your friend that it won't happen again, and that you value their friendship greatly.
Tips
Patience is key.
Remember that no argument can be solved if the conditions are hostile between the two of you.
Think before you speak.
Be casual, don't move right into talking about the issue right off the bat.
Be cool.
Warnings
If you genuinely hurt your friend, it may take more time than you like.
If your efforts are rejected don't keep persisting, give up for a while and maybe try again later.
No means no.
This might not work all the time, sometimes people honestly don't like you.
Things You'll Need
Open mind and an open heart
Lack of pride
Grip on reality
Realization of what really happened
Facts
Togakure
09-01-2007, 00:33
Hmm .. just seeing this new development. A misunderstanding, surely. I think you are taking my comments as personal, and they're not. I had assumed Fool does read here ... he found us, after all. It's not a criticism of him. I just didn't agree with some of his choices in game. I did compliment his play in another game too.
Frankly Jochi, I think you are letting our historical conflict color your interpretation of me and what I write. Let's really think about what we say on this from this point on. I will remain calm and try to understand the point of view expressed. Let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill. Let's try and let that water under the bridge flow.
I am at still work after a 12 hour day and four hours of sleep, exhausted, and it is my last day here for 12 days before I leave on a trip back west on family business (unfortunately, not a vacation). I'll respond more to this if necessary when I am home and rested a bit.
If you'd prefer not to play with me, I can post when I will be there and when I won't. This weekend I will likely be there; the next, I will be back West and won't be able to attend. Enjoy.
Fool played very well IMO in the battle under discussion, and in every other i've seen of that session and of other sessions that i wasn't there - that is all the more true since as Yuuki says he is a new player to SWs.
Post #16 on this thread (my post) states the above explicitly.
Originally posted by Noir
I realised after watching the replay that it was a very close game - closer than i realised while we were playing. Had Fool's forces stayed on the hill more coherently after the second attack the game would have had another melee phase that the defenders had a good chance of withstanding melee wise and reasonably enough guns to play the end game if needed. Fool played very well; it was indeed true chaos after the 2nd attack and it was impossible to foretell the outcome of decisions made (chase more or not? etc).
Noir
Again, kills are just not a good indicator of overall performance in MP; it's one factor.
Here's more to boost that opinion: Fool sent one NC to help with the initial engagement, and sent it late--into a cav skirmish, in which NC do not excel. It wasn't effective (27 kills). Later, well after I launched my infantry attack, with CBR and Tosa backing me with lots and lots of cav, he sent one ysam to assist. He didn't commit other units until Tosa's cav hit his flank gun unit. Then he sent his YC to chase down Tosa's cav and protect his own guns. Of course he dominated the end game; he didn't do much to help you guys in the opening and mid-game. He got more kills that you did because he cleaned up our exhausted units. But your kills were worth three times his in glory and teamwork.
The last sentence of the previous paragraph in Masa's post clearly indicates he's talking about kills as not being a good indicator of performance. Yes Asanorin's intent was good to actively support me, but we weren't effective enough in terms of inflicting losses on the enemy. Fool probably recognized that Asanorin and I were taking too much risk. We left Fool with a situation where he had to get around 950 kills in order to win, and he had already lost 2 units trying to help us. It's not at all clear that, if he had sent more units to the left, they would have been effective. The truth is that I hadn't seen such aggressive play from Masamune before this game, and I misjudged the situation because of that.
If a player doesn't pull his weight in kills, his allies have to make up the difference. Army size is 900 + the general's unit which puts total army size for each side in a 3v3 at between 2733 and 2880. Looking at the 3v3 game previous to the one under discussion, the winners got 2215 total kills and the loosers got 2187. It was a close battle, and I only got 548 kills in that game. Masa got 735 and CBR got 932. Clearly, CBR made up for my 200 shortage in kills.
The winners of a 3v3 need to average around 700 to 750 kills each. In the final game which is the one we have been discussing, the winners got 2165 total kills and the loosers got 1976 total kills. In one of the other 3v3, winners got 2254 and loosers 2054. In another 3v3 which was a decisive win, the winners got 2424 kills and the loosers got 1495 kills. So it appears that you have to knock out about 80% of the enemy army to win.
R'as al Ghul
09-01-2007, 12:49
Moderator's note:
I feel a bit uncomfortable with the turn of the discussion.
I didn't read Masamune's opinion about Fool's play as a personal attack. Criticism yes but nothing out of line.
Jochi's post made me rethink that and I've looked for passages that I might've misinterpreted.
I can see Jochi's point but I think he has misinterpreted Masamune, who has admitted that his posting style may lead to that.
Given Masa's last response and the fact that members have also pointed out how well Fool played, I come to the conclusion that this is not a flaming of a player, but criticism of one style of play and a misunderstanding. Yuuki also pointed out that Fool actually played correctly in that situation.
I know nothing about a past quarrel between Masamune and Jochi. If you have one I'd ask you to clear that in private, please.
The discussion on battles, style of play, tactics and whatever may continue, even if the player in question has no account yet. I think it's fair because a) his real identity is unknown and b) I consider the games "public" and open to discussion. I'll ask Fool to join .org as soon as I meet him, though.
At last I ask you to remember that communication via a text medium is difficult and often leads to misunderstandings.
:bow:
R'as
R'as al Ghul
09-03-2007, 08:51
Fool was there again yesterday and I've asked him to join totalwar.org. I tried to explain to him what's going on here and he said it wasn't his "scene". But he seemed surprised that we engage in a battle "discussion" at all. Perhaps I made him curious enough to check out the forum.
-------------------------
Apologies to Asanorin for double-rushing him and kicking him out of the game so early. It's not exactly good form. To our excuse I've to say that the map and the rain made such a move nessecary.
I still need to work on my micromanagement. Especially gun micro. My teppos were raided two times when I was busy elsewhere. I have rarely used any shortcuts apart from "Group" or "Run" till now but I think I need to start to. Being able to toggle "Fire at will" for the guns quickly is essential.
R'as
R'as al Ghul
09-03-2007, 11:00
Remember there is a morale penalty on a unit that is outnumbered by enemy units, and this penalty increases the more the unit is outnumbered. This morale penalty can be as large as -18 if a unit is heavily outnumbered and flanked. So sending a single unit, even if it's a high morale unit, into the proximity of a large number of enemy units will not be effective. I saw a fresh but heavily outnumbered WM with 53 men rout on contact in this battle.
Yuuki,
if two allied armies with 5 units each meet one enemy army with 10 units, do the two smaller armies suffer from being outnumbered each or are the allied units in the vicinity factored in?
R'as
if two allied armies with 5 units each meet one enemy army with 10 units, do the two smaller armies suffer from being outnumbered each or are the allied units in the vicinity factored in?
Allied units in the vicinity (i.e. within 75 meters) are factored in. The only morale penalty that is army specific is the death of the general. However if an army routs as a result of death of the general, it will affect the moral of nearby allied units because they loose any morale support the routing units were providing, and there is a morale penalty to units that are in the proximity of routing friendies. So, if you have a weak unit it may be detrimental to engage that unit within the proximity of allied units because if it routs it will give the allied units a morale penalty.
Apologies to Asanorin for double-rushing him and kicking him out of the game so early. It's not exactly good form.
Doubling an isolated player is a fundamental team strategy. It's very effective against teams that are slow to respond. It's something that players should learn how to handle because it's necessary for a doubled player to survive long enough in order for his team to implement a hammer and anvil counter strategy. Samurai Wars has the necessary defensive capability in the gameplay for a hammer and anvil strategy to work if the hammer moves promptly to hit the flank of the enemy after the anvil is engaged.
Jochi Khan
09-03-2007, 14:19
R'as[/B]"]Criticism yes but nothing out of line.
R'as[/B]"]I can see Jochi's point but I think he has misinterpreted Masamune
Throughout my post criticism was the operative word and no mention or indication of anyone 'flaming' a player..
It was Masamune that read otherwise into it. He chose to bring up something that had happened years ago that, as far as I was concerned, was dead and buried and was irrelevant to this post.
I will say no more on this post.
...I come to the conclusion that this is not a flaming of a player, but criticism of one style of play...
Yes that's it. Some players don't want their mistakes pointed out. This kind of analysis is done all the time in chess. I think it's ok as long as the replay is available to prove or disprove the analysis. Maybe some players won't join a group that analyzes games, but other players will join because they benefit from the analysis.
Thanks for the consideration Ra's but there is no need to apologise; i enjoyed particularly that game very much. BTW i was trippled rather than doubled as after Tosa's 4 NC and your YC (2,3?) initial charge CBR smashed in his main line to break my Naginatas, and i think your infantry came upon me too. For a few milliseconds before the charge i felt a certain awe for what i was witnessing (a bit of a Migata-ga-hara feeling) - Tomi felt that too from what he messaged in the team channel..
I did realatively well given the fact that the mount isolated me from assistance for quite some time getting 450+ kills; Masamune in the mean time cleared plenty of Tosa's and CBR's gunners before joining Tomi to the resque resulting in a victory for our team. It was a very enjoyable game, and honestly as i said many times i enjoy watching as much as playing.
The "nothing personal i hope" was a joke and i felt i should put it in the message as parenthesis (joke) as i did to avoid misinterpretations.
Doing fighting retreats in order to escape from the doubleteam in the flank or learning to make a stand against a double team is essential in 3v3's i find. While we were playing mostly 2v2 games, double teams worked less effectively as the defending team is more promptly capable of helping each other due to the smaller space occupied by the armies (less distances to run). 3v3 games on the other hand are less "stable" as dynamic systems as if the double team works effectively then the rest of the defense is bound to collapse very rapidly because of the larger number of units on the field in absolute terms.
I feel that i have accumulated enough experience to be a relatively worthile addition as a co-player and as an opponent in 2v2's - however in 3v3's i have much less experience (i have played only one 3v3 prior to my return last session i think) in what armies to take (that relate to the map and the position that one takes center or flank) and what decisions to make during the game and expectedly i perform better if i am on the flank with an experienced co-player taking the center.
The center position is very tricky as it requires to take leadership decisions (good judgement) as well as giving assistance to the flanks and simultaneously holding the center (good control); conversely i feel that the most challenging 3v3's are those with one of the more experienced players in the group taking up that position in each team.
Noir
Hello Noir,
The only thing we knew about that map is that it was large and flat, I knew to be on the flank, so let's take 4 NC, 2 YC, 2 CA, 1 hatamoto, 4 wm and 3 teppo. I was not the only one surprised by the huge hills.
We decided to open the attack on the left, I would move the 4 NC and 2 YC over there, the hill and woods would (almost) cover this manoeuvre. The 2 CA were trying to trick Masamune in believing action would happen there, the infantry was hidden in the forrest and that was big enough to hide a whole army. The six NC/YC moved quickly to the left, a glimpse can be seen in the replay from the defenders side. Masamune moved up, but the CA seemed to do their distraction job.
R'as al Ghul and CBR advanced to the left/left center, everything seemed calm and peaceful and we had a 2.5 force on the left.
We didn't really decide what to do next, but an opportunistic sentiment took control. I decided to launch the attack (more units, CBR was angled to hold off Tomisama, Masamune far away, rain to render Asanorins teppo less effective). The six charged (dense pack to make it look like an innocent skirmish).
R'as quickly charged his cavalry too, but there was no proper infantry backup, the spears would hurt the NC, viewed from a unit matchup it was not too great, but there's more in a battle.
This was what should have happened: CBR's guns were already setup to fence off Tomisama, R'as al Ghul would reinforce CBR's left flank and back with spears and a few guns, his cavalry and shock/other gun and perhaps some of CBR's monk/cavalry (but he would mostly stay where his guns were) would help to remove Asanorins army.
Then it would become a 3v2/3v2.1 and time permitting, the right infantry flank (still concealed) would advance and add extra pressure.
That was my impulsive plan and it was not communicated, sorry for making a mess.
A very nice mess, if i am allowed to say :)
I saw the plan materialised, and it worked; it was Tomi's mass response and Masamune's swift attack on your teppo and circling move on the right that saved the day after quite some hard fighting.
I remember that you employ in lines to hide the intentions and i realised that this was no skirmish when i saw 4 cavalry flags come straight on at full speed!
The monks held back was also brilliant as it would hammer Masamune on the back while assisting.
Noir
Hello,
The money, not the karma.
It was a 4vs4 36,000 per team, only 6 players could play and thus everyone had 12k at his disposal. I spent all of it, sorry. :embarassed:
I started to think about the army and the cost this afternoon, but only checked the log just now, hence the uneasy comment.
There were some very good moves in the battle, Masamunes sacrifice of ashis to slow my wm was superb.
Right, in this case i'll alter slightly part of my above post:
"I did realatively exceptionally well given the fact that the mount isolated me from assistance for quite some time getting 450+ kills..."
:laugh4:
Hunter KIng George
09-05-2007, 05:50
Gah! I'm missing all the fun...:drama1:
Hopefully I'll be up and ready this Sunday.
Hello Hunter KIng George.
R'as al Ghul
09-05-2007, 10:00
Throughout my post criticism was the operative word and no mention or indication of anyone 'flaming' a player..
Yes that's it. Some players don't want their mistakes pointed out. This kind of analysis is done all the time in chess.
Jochi,
I thought that you saw Masamune’s criticism as too much in so far that it borders on a personal attack. I now understand it was only the criticism you object to.(?) Yuuki’s post seems to confirm that.
In that case I’ve to say that I’m all for a discussion of battles and players’ playing styles. I will keep a close eye on the posts and their wording, but discussing and criticizing is generally perfectly alright with me.
R’as
R'as al Ghul
09-05-2007, 10:04
Thanks for the consideration Ra's but there is no need to apologise; i enjoyed particularly that game very much. BTW i was trippled rather than doubled as after Tosa's 4 NC and your YC (2,3?) initial charge CBR smashed in his main line to break my Naginatas, and i think your infantry came upon me too. For a few milliseconds before the charge i felt a certain awe for what i was witnessing (a bit of a Migata-ga-hara feeling) - Tomi felt that too from what he messaged in the team channel..
The "nothing personal i hope" was a joke and i felt i should put it in the message as parenthesis (joke) as i did to avoid misinterpretations.
Noir
Doubling an isolated player is a fundamental team strategy. It's very effective against teams that are slow to respond. It's something that players should learn how to handle because it's necessary for a doubled player to survive long enough in order for his team to implement a hammer and anvil counter strategy.
I generally agree with Yuuki but in this particular game though we rushed Asanorin with 6 NC and 4 YC :grin2:. From my perspective it was as if his army just seized to exist. One second it was there and then it was routing or gone. When Asanorin posted his “nothing personal I hope” I felt a bit guilty that we had kicked him out of the game in such a short time.
R'as
One second it was there and then it was routing or gone.
That's why i said in the chat later on that "i will enjoy the replay, especially the first part as that is the part i saw less" :laugh4:
I generally agree with Yuuki but in this particular game though we rushed Asanorin with 6 NC and 4 YC.
In Samurai Wars you can construct balanced armies that can defeat all cav armies of twice the value.
My line almost held to the initial cavalry charge as i moved my 3 YC and 2 YS forward and they met them.. spear in hand. It was CBR's infantry attack and those cavarly that sneaked on the rear (which i could not hold as... i had no more units to do that) that did the damage as they circled my main line of Naginata's that had entered the fray and cleared the teppos i took behind to avoid the melee.
Noir
My line almost held to the initial cavalry charge as i moved my 3 YC and 2 YS forward and they met them.. spear in hand. It was CBR's infantry attack and those cavarly that sneaked on the rear (which i could not hold as... i had no more units to do that) that did the damage as they circled my main line of Naginata's that had entered the fray and cleared the teppos i took behind to avoid the melee.
You had a very good army for countering this type of attack. I can tell you a better way to handle this situation. Don't advance any units. Put you naginata's in hold formation flanked by the two YS which can be set back a bit. Keep your YC in reserve to counter flanking cav. If there are too many enemy cav units, put the YC into a wide deployment and hold formation so that each one can block more then one enemy cav. Drop your teppo back behind your naginata line when you see the enemy charge, and put them in hold formation so that they won't skirmish backwards. If you have any swords, position them near your YS to protect them against enemy swords. Use your general to bolster your weakest point after everything is engaged. The longer you can hold the line, the more damage your teppo will inflict, and since you haven't advanced, the enemy's flank will be more exposed to your ally.
Yes that's true, i was lucky in that department. If i had plenty of shooters or weak swords it would have been really disastrous.
Thanks for the advice; in my view this is where instinctively knowing the match ups in every situation matters. To do promptly this kind of response i would need to be 100% tuned in with "this type of attack" as well as "the type of army" that i was playing.
This type of awareness is definitely linked to how much you need to manage at the same time at a particular phase of a battle and also on how concentrated you are i guess.
However it mostly relates to how much the gameplay has rubbed off on you IMO. As an example of this awareness i will say that in the previous session i was consciously snipping YC with SA at various games. In one game, i took down about 34 (with your help by CA) before they withdrew to safety and about 27 in another game (the occasions are completely different and the numbers included only for indication purposes). When i started diverting fire to one of CBR's YC with one of my teppo in the game we previously were discussing in order to do the same, he took them out of range as soon as the first of his cavalry man fell and had totally three casualties. This sort of "tuning" with match ups, that is knowing where to persist and where to avoid things and give way is a key element and needs practice, observation, conscious effort and time so as to be achieved IMO.
Noir
Tomisama
09-06-2007, 03:09
I would like to put forward something I am trying to work out for my self, let’s call it conceptual thinking for lack of any real title. It is really just specification driven imagination, developing a character idea for each unit type.
For example, the Samurai Archer’s range capabilities are not well employed against armor bearing units. The more armor, the less chance of making a kill, so looking at battle from the SA’s point of view, it is probably best to create target classifications.
First priority would be the light and unarmored swords, the No Dachi and Warrior Monks’s.
Next the light and medium armored, all other range units (SA, CA, PT, JT), and all spear units (YA, YS, YC).
And last, the heavily armored Naginata infantry and cavalry (NA, NC), and most of all the Heavy Cavalry, are best left to the Japanese Teppos for shooting (if at all).
I believe that the above is correct, but in any case you can see that personification of a particular unit type, and imagining things from their perspective, can be a way to understand match-up priorities.
For me this is very much a work in progress. I just though I would throw
It out there for whomever it might help :wink:
Hello,
That position doesn't leave great flanking options to either the defender or attacker. Sit still when you're shaved. My experience from STW classic and up is that immobile armies are tougher to beat than expected. Turn them on hold and be the anvil for your hammer allies.
It's interesting to know how to co-operate with allies in team games while taking into account the sort of army picked; for example i realised at some point that a Naginata heavy selection (with lots of cavalry to complement) has a natural anvil strength either for flanking with one's own cavalry or in a team manner (engaging enemy line and allowing the ally to act as the hammer). I often made the mistake to engage my monks or melee cavalry first (as they timely join melee), but the right thing to do is to engage the NA line and search for opportunities to flank or allow such opportunities to your allies(y).
Team coordination is essential and builds up slowly by reckognizing the allie's army selection, playstyle and dynamic conditions of the game at hand.
MP is a very different beast than SP altogether and takes the game to the limit; its really a shame that it doesn't get the attention it deserves in TW as the game has great potential.
I understand it though from a sales point of view; a really good MP game like STW for example could do with engine improvements ignoring incarnations but the appeal would be more difficult to establish and elnarge in absolute terms compared with the graphical emphasis and variety that sells the SP game; few people have the nerve to endure the string of defeats and slaughters that is to be expected in the first few tens if not hundred battles. Most probably want a hostorical/war "escapade" on their own terms and time.
Its also difficult in the interpersonal level as without a group that makes you feel at home and allow you to slowly improve, its easy to feel lost.
However i have to say that once you "taste blood" its hard to go back; MP battles are many times more interesting, satisfying and fun even to watch than SP battles that are repetitive and limited to the AI's capabilities. Bugs and misbalances though hurt the MP game badly as does an innapropriate pace.
Team coordination is essential and builds up slowly by reckognizing the allie's army selection, playstyle and dynamic conditions of the game at hand.
Teams games bring an additional strategic layer to the gameplay. At the highest level, army composition and playing style become subject to the strategic plan, and players can be assigned starting positions that allow them to make good use of their individual skills in the execution of the battleplan. However, players must master basic tactics before the teamgames can be played at this strategic level. The strategic plan will likely fail if the team members haven't mastered basic tactical play, and at the very least, tactical errors on either side rob a battle of theoretical value when evaluating a particular strategy.
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
However, players must master basic tactics before the teamgames can be played at this strategic level. The strategic plan will likely fail if the team members haven't mastered basic tactical play, and at the very least, tactical errors on either side rob a battle of theoretical value when evaluating a particular strategy.
Very true
Togakure
09-18-2007, 03:18
I thought I'd commend the group on some very fun games this weekend. Lots of interesting things going on in the replays.
Shout out to my team m8s in various games: those were particularly fun games sweeping attacker left in 4v4 with a lot of cav, followed up rapidly by infantry engagement, no dilly-dallying. You guys were right there, and it ROCKED. :thrasher:
There were moments when I felt like I was playing with my old wingm8, and I can give no higher compliment than that. Great fun, all.
I thought the games on Sunday demonstrated that poor strategy in 4v4 battles cannot be offset by good tactics.
R'as al Ghul
09-18-2007, 13:58
I thought the games on Sunday demonstrated that poor strategy in 4v4 battles cannot be offset by good tactics.
Did you have a strategy?
Just curious, because we had none. We didn't even chat.
I'm beginning to think that we should take the 2 or 3 extra minutes to communicate some basic plan before the game starts. :wink:
I watched the replay of the 4v4 and I think the defenders made two mistakes. First, it would've been better if Tosa had deployed his teppos in front of the forest. The way they were positioned they couldn't open fire on Masamune who had deployed very foward. I don't know if that would've been within Tosa's zone, though.
Secondly, I hesitated too long to join Tosa in that situation. By that time, Fool had joined Masamunes attack and there were too many enemy units for us to defeat. In the end we were tripled on that flank. Masamune's initial attack was quite bold and I think if he didn't have Fool coming right behind him we probably would've repelled that charge.
I'm still fretting about the horrible mistakes I made that evening. In the first game I clearly defeated myself.
R'as
Togakure
09-18-2007, 15:38
Strategy before a game consisted of a few words during deployment: attack right, attack left. etc., nothing specific.
That several of the coordinated attack openings went well overall was what delighted me, and why I said it was beginning to feel like I was playing with my old wingm8. Several of the attacks felt intuitive--flowing with the events that were occuring. Support was lent by two other armies, and coordination of arrival at the attack line was good. Timing of infantry support, and third-party cav support, was good. Use of mass to affect morale was good. Each team m8 did well in complimenting the actions of the others, and the attacks were effective, though we had only a very simple strategy.
There was one point in a game where I was in Attacker Front Left position and the strategy was attack left. I advanced but was taking too long, caught up in a shoot out. A senior team m8 suggested I attack soon, etc., so I did, but long after the action started on the right. I said I would need assistance, and was assured, so we were communicating a little during battles. Not often though. It was funny watching the replay of that game, all hell breaking loose on the far right side (Yuuki and Tosa attacked the Attacker Right position, KensaiSylvan's army, and I'm stuck in a shoot out with well-positioned opponents).
Deployment position is obviously a crucial part of battle strategy, particularly for attackers. I set up out front in a couple, but had communicated to team m8s, who assured support. I was also prepared at opening to do any of a number of things. The starting position of Attacker Left Front in 4v4 is a "hotseat" position; I play it better aggressively than defensively provided I have effective support from Center and Back Left.
I've been paying attention to how each of us plays in the replays. I'm beginning to get a sense of how much support one will provide given their position on the field, how much support they might require given their position on the field, etc.. How fast and discerning, how quick to respond, accuracy of response, the nature of judgment. I wouldn't set up far front if I knew that the army behind and to the right of me weren't likely to respond effectively, or if there were terrain features that would prevent response. Or if my enemy was Yuuki (*shakes fist at Yuuki*).
Don't let the tough games get ya down. I've had my fair share, ramping up to SW and how it plays. I sat out on the end of several of those games, my army wiped out. I think a key is to try new things. Analysis is cool; application is key.
R'as al Ghul
09-19-2007, 11:15
I've been paying attention to how each of us plays in the replays. I'm beginning to get a sense of how much support one will provide given their position on the field, how much support they might require given their position on the field, etc.. How fast and discerning, how quick to respond, accuracy of response, the nature of judgment. I wouldn't set up far front if I knew that the army behind and to the right of me weren't likely to respond effectively, or if there were terrain features that would prevent response. Or if my enemy was Yuuki (*shakes fist at Yuuki*).
Don't let the tough games get ya down. I've had my fair share, ramping up to SW and how it plays. I sat out on the end of several of those games, my army wiped out. I think a key is to try new things. Analysis is cool; application is key.
No, I'm not down, just a bit angry about my own mistakes. But that's okay.
I've watched the replays of the three games I had and it wasn't as bad as I first thought. Of course, I faced you three times and I lost three times but I know what I did wrong and that's most important to me.
Next time I'll crush you. I hope you don't mind being my personal nemesis? (you devil :laugh4: )
:bow:
R'as
P.S.: Anyway.....my taisho won that 4v4 after single handedly killing Yuuki's taisho and hatamoto. Noobs! :yes:
Togakure
09-20-2007, 03:59
...
I've watched the replays of the three games I had and it wasn't as bad as I first thought. Of course, I faced you three times and I lost three times but I know what I did wrong and that's most important to me.
Next time I'll crush you. I hope you don't mind being my personal nemesis? (you devil :laugh4: ) ...
:bow:
R'as
P.S.: Anyway.....my taisho won that 4v4 after single handedly killing Yuuki's taisho and hatamoto. Noobs! :yes:
Now That's the spirit! :devil:
You give me a good game every time R'as, and have knocked me off my horse on several occasions, and will again many times, I'm sure. Remember the week before? That was a great back and forth cat-n-mouse exchange, and you ended up chasing me off the field.
I know how you feel--my nemesis is this Sashimi Kojiro guy. You want to get frustrated? Play that ... :stwmean: in ten 1v1s in a row, and see how you feel afterward. I would get SO FRUSTRATED. But I learned a lot playing against him. I had to get very creative to achieve much of anything. He knew responses to all the "normal" things and could execute them near-perfectly with consistency--and did so with this casual matter-of-fact indifference that drove me frikkin' bonkers. I had to come up with unexpected things, and ones that worked. He must have thought I was insane given some of the things I tried. When I did manage to win a game against him--as much as I hate to admit it--it made me feel really good. That insufferably excellent dweeb gets my MP Nemesis of the First TW Decade award, hands down. But you know ... for every good player out there, there's another who's better.
The replays reveal so much that I don't notice in game. Yes indeed, anything could have happened in a great many situations. Any one of them could have easily gone the other way. Little things can make big differences.
When I find myself cranky after a game because of my perceived crappy performance, I remind myself that this is team play in MP--it isn't all up to me. I can do all the "right" things; it doesn't mean squat if my opponents team better than we do, or my team doesn't gel well in a particular game. If I made mistakes, well, so does everyone else at one point or another. It happens. So I just shrug it off and focus on the next game. Sucks a bit when it happens in a bunch of games in one day. But, it happens. There are some really good days too.
I think several of the victories happened because I was correctly guessing what CBR would do in response to what I did, and AsanoRin too (as team mates). In the game with Fool, I didn't do as well because I hesitated, not sure what Fool would do with all those cav, and with his infantry, which was still way behind us. In a complete attack like that, cav is not enough. Success rides on the correct timing of attack waves, unit match-ups, and how well or not the opponents respond, etc.. I've noticed even the Great Yuuki-sama holding units back, or withdrawing from a risky charge, when in my mind, had he followed through. and committed those reserves, the results would have made a big difference. I say if you're going to attack, GO FOR IT. I've seen other teams in 4v4 absolutely CRUSH (and I mean CRUSH) opponents in such a superb coordinated attack that two attacked players were out within a few minutes--attacking and defending (when the defenders chose to attack as their initial strategy). It's a huge glory feeling to pull this off, and a week-long sulk to be hit by it. Had a number of those.
Earlier I did a lot of ribbing about those who emphasize the numbers. I didn't do that just to annoy peeps. It drew out responses that clarified much more specifically why they felt how they did. I consider and adjust. Changes in unit choices has resulted in a dramatic increase in average kills for me over the last couple of sessions. Yuuki made a simple but oh-so-true point that each player really needs to achieve a certain number of kills or it becomes difficult for his team to make up the deficit and win the game. In most of the battles last weekend, I had very little left during End Game--but I felt I'd done a decent job, damaging and perhaps demoralizing opponents. I had my hata left in some of them, and so could run around with the other generals during the final mop up. That was fun.
Your respect and candor honor me, thank you :bow:. Please crush me as best you can; I ever desire an opponent's best game. You can count on me to give you mine. I do enjoy teaming with you too ... I like having lots of cav on my side :yes:
In an ideal TW MP team game, I don't want to have to discuss much strategy at the onset--just a general intent, subject to change at any time given unexpected developments, and perhaps some stated projections of what might happen and how we adjust if such events occur. I want to achieve "no mind" partnership with good players on the battlefield, where talk is rarely needed; where familiarity, intuition, and coordinated action is such that the left hand knows what the right, and feet, will do--more "reflex" than action--where we don't really think about it, just do it. I have had moments like this in STW MP with my wingm8 Anskar, and man ... do I hunger for it again. This particular TW "high" satisfies like no other MP game. A distant second is, of course, collecting as many enemy heads as possible.
R'as al Ghul
09-20-2007, 13:10
Now That's the spirit! :devil:
You give me a good game every time R'as, and have knocked me off my horse on several occasions, and will again many times, I'm sure. Remember the week before? That was a great back and forth cat-n-mouse exchange, and you ended up chasing me off the field.
:bow: I need to review that game to boost morale.
I know how you feel--my nemesis is this Sashimi Kojiro guy. You want to get frustrated? Play that ... :stwmean: in ten 1v1s in a row, and see how you feel afterward. I would get SO FRUSTRATED. [..] When I did manage to win a game against him--as much as I hate to admit it--it made me feel really good. That insufferably excellent dweeb gets my MP Nemesis of the First TW Decade award, hands down. But you know ... for every good player out there, there's another who's better.
I know Sasaki Kojiro/Mimesaka Akechi/Shinano and I played him many times. An exceptional player, I think he even won the "Most feared player" award. I once managed to defeat him with nifty gunwork, as he said to me.
Your respect and candor honor me, thank you :bow:. Please crush me as best you can; I ever desire an opponent's best game. You can count on me to give you mine. I do enjoy teaming with you too ... I like having lots of cav on my side :yes:
I'll sure try my best. :charge:
I also enjoy teaming with you and I'm glad you take my post as intended, as a friendly....."Could you please remove your neck guard so that I can cut off your head?" :grin2:
Looking forward to future matches.
:bow:
R'as
P.S.: Love your haiku. I didn't realise that you've changed it.
Togakure
09-21-2007, 00:28
Thanks for the compliment on my haiku. I change it from time to time, depending on my mood. This one just popped out when I was replying to your post. I wrote the previous one after looking in on my Goddaughter as she slept. She was my candle in a time of darkness and despair.
Just to be sure no one misunderstands: Sasaki was the first person I got to know here at the Org, and the only person I've met in person. I make fun of his name in humor only.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-21-2007, 13:56
Hey Tosa,
You still need to finish that third 1v1 with me.
Well, if you guys can tell your stories, I will to :2thumbsup:
Last Time I played Beta 8 Regulary, I played TOsa twice in a 1v1. THe First game, we fought on a,hmmmm,don't remember what map, got the replay though. on a hilly/forest map. Ironically, he had the forest/hill, and I was attacking :yes:
But he move down a bit, but I told him to stay on the hill, I want and needed a challage. so I went, musket fight,etc... But I sent my army over to a somewhat hiller part, so my musket won't be at a complete dis-advantage. I also had 1 foot archer unit and 1 HA, and my HA routed after I attacked of his muskets. Then I him with the HA and expose some of his units. Then I prounce on it. but he lured my guys back just a bit up the hill, mabye that was his plan all along, and even into the forest, where I discovered a bigger force.
"Uh Oh!", then we fought. I started to rout his cav on his left flank I think, then my right flank started to fail, and I routed.
2nd game, we played on a flatland map, then has a little ditch in the middle...
TOsa put his army up against the line, going to rush.
"son of a" I thought "I'm in touble"
so I hurried and got my muskets ready. I purosuly had 1 unit of archers (foot) all the right on my right flank, instead of normal closeby flank. THen he rush and slam into me. I was barley holding on, but my archers and such I flank pr partialy flank TOsa guys, so they could fire easily into his guys. then his Gen, a Hamoto, snuck around my flank. THen I send my Hamoto and killed his gen, and sent a yari after mine, only to have it get destroyed, and his army getted routed at the right time. Any longer and I would have been a particular word that starts with a F :laugh4: .
Good 1v1's. Only ones I fought. I had so Many Team games on Beta7/8 with them, (few on Beta 8 that worked for me, but still :yes: ) the only ones I could tell a story about is my first 2 3v3's, which I won, but hm, can't really tell them all.
I will return this SUnday!! :yes:
Hello {BHC}KingWarman888,
There's a 3rd?
We can play it this Sunday?
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-21-2007, 22:00
yup there's a 3rd. This SUnday will be a excellet Time Tosa :-).
Originally posted by Puzz3D
I thought the games on Sunday demonstrated that poor strategy in 4v4 battles cannot be offset by good tactics.
Agree on that despite being present in 3 games only. Lots of predisposition for immediate offense without it being always the best option, bad initial deployment and miscommunication in the sense that play some times didn't consider ally position.
In 3v3's and above its crucial to play with the others and the other's actions and relative position in mind as doublings and triplings are way more effective than in 2v2's that ally communication lines are shorter and more immediate IMO.
I suggest to distribute evenly experienced players in teams so in a 4v4 say, there are 2 experienced players in each team in most games (they can be different every time so the line up changes). 4v4's that line a team with 3 exerienced players vs a team with 1 can be a bit one sided i feel.
Noir
Jochi Khan
09-22-2007, 11:43
I suggest to distribute evenly experienced players in teams so in a 4v4 say, there are 2 experienced players in each team in most games (they can be different every time so the line up changes). 4v4's that line a team with 3 exerienced players vs a team with 1 can be a bit one sided i feel.
Noir
I agrree with you Noir
I was going to make this same suggestion next Sunday in the SamWars Foyer.
After having played a few games now and watched a few replays, I have also noticed the trend that certain players seem to ally with the same players each game.
Not to compare with M2TW but, when a group of us played we made a point of playing with anyone regardless of skill levels. To clarify, a lot of the players were 'new' to the game so we tended to play 50-50 teaming to allow others to get a 'fairer' game.
I hope this reads as I write it. No offence intended.
Tomisama
09-22-2007, 14:11
The last three 4v4s I played in last weekend, the teams were:
Attackers: CBR – Yuuki – Tomi – Masa
Defenders: Nomad – Fool – Tosa – Rin
Attackers: CBR – Rin – Sil – Masa
Defenders: Nomad – Yuuki – Tomi – Tosa
Attackers: CBR – Tomi – Tosa – Masa
Defenders: Nomad – Sil – Yuuki – Rin
There does seem to be a bit of a pattern, but I think when you see who won, it’s importance fades a little.
Wining teams:
Nomad – Fool – Tosa – Rin
CBR – Rin – Sil – Masa
CBR – Tomi – Tosa – Masa
I do think we could mix it up a bit more, but don’t believe that any particular team insures a win.
:bow:
Originally posted by Tomisama
I do think we could mix it up a bit more, but don’t believe that any particular team insures a win.
Its not about a particular set of team winning, its about the team with the less experienced players playing with leadership/strategy suggestions from the more experienced players that will improve the quality of the games and their play.
To give an example in a 3v3 sometime ago Masamune&CBR&Fool vs Rin&Tomisama&Ra's Tosa who was on our team as observer directed my self to attack at the right moment on the flank. It was the best action, but i doubt that i would have come with it on my own and execute it at the right time.
In other games, when experienced players holding center - with their play and suggestions, flank player performance appears better to an observer when less experienced players take on the center position. I doubt that i for example play much better or much worse, it seems to me that its the team play that makes it look different.
A second example is one of the 4v4 of last weekend, Rin&KensaiSilvan&Jochi&Yuuki vs Tosa&CBR&Masamune&Tomisama.
I called out on Silvan in 3 instances on the team channel to withdraw in the hills back that would place us closer to our allies and closer between ourselves. Silvan however goaded me on to attack the lines in front of us and i supported his action as it would be foolish to leave him vulnerable to counter attacks even though we were on the defensive and it made no sense at all. After that we further got separated from our allies and each other and we ended up in a hill each.
It turned out that in the mean time Jochi and Yuuki got tripled and then me and Silvan got doubled separately. Not a very fun game for our allies and ourselves too of course, no matter how well you play on the tactical side. By the time Jochi and Yuuki "scolded us" it was too late.
Had we been deployed say like this: Yuuki - Rin - Jochi - KensaiSilvan then i am positive that the team would play with more coherence; experienced players will always give the right tone whenever i play with/next to them. Offensives and defensives are coordinated and timed rather than individual and so more effective - games get on the line instead of "tripling - doubling - chase routers - next"
This is not a "weakness" plead; in 2v2 games i am sure of myself giving a solid challenge, but in 3v3 and 4v4 the effectiveness of doubling is a few powers up more important and so strategy is essential. I can't play for everyone as the team can't play for me.
There is quite some offensive play lately, and i think that it succeeds so effectively because there are many new players that have little idea how to cooperate in the strategic level as a team with their allies against that. I am certainly one of them.
Mixing the experienced players between teams and in deployment in between the same team should solve part of that.
In my view that will make the games really a level up in terms of challenge and enjoyability.
Noir
I suggest to distribute evenly experienced players in teams so in a 4v4 say, there are 2 experienced players in each team in most games (they can be different every time so the line up changes). 4v4's that line a team with 3 exerienced players vs a team with 1 can be a bit one sided i feel.
Style of play is also a factor. For instance, if a player likes to attack quickly in a 2v2 and his ally can assists it can work fine. However, put that same player in a 4v4 and a quick attack will most likely fail even if the adjacent ally assists because the two attackers will run into 3 defending armies. The same kind of thing happens if a player becomes too isolated from his allies either when he moves away from his allies or his allies move away from him. The unit morale is high enough that some separation of armies is possible, but there is a limit beyond which you can't help an ally because he'll be gone by the time you get there.
Designating teams is not going to improve the strategy used in team games. I observed the situations I described in 4v4 team games that did have 2 experienced players on each side. I raised the issue to point out that improvements could be made in the area of team strategy in these large games. We don't stack teams in these games, and we don't have a lot of experience in large team games using Samurai Wars. If occasionally a team is composed of players who all cooperate well, then it's an opportunity to see the kind of team play that can be achieved.
Originally posted by Puzz3D
Designating teams is not going to improve the strategy used in team games. I observed the situations I described in 4v4 team games that did have 2 experienced players on each side.
It didn't have them distributed along the length of the line. I try to make a point on that in the post above. Also "designated" teams is not what i am talking about.
Originally posted by Puzz3D
We don't stack teams in these games, and we don't have a lot of experience in large team games using Samurai Wars. If occasionally a team is composed of players who all cooperate well, then it's an opportunity to see the kind of team play that can be achieved.
Agreed, however, i have a feeling that in many 4v4's in particular and quite a few 3v3's good cooperation is a function of how things turned out on that particular game rather than conscious skillful blending with the co-players and the situation. The latter is present way less often IMO.
The point i try to make is that if a player can "balance" his style between offence, defense and teamplay choosing instinctively when its appropriate to apply each then he is experienced - when he applies the same trend all the time then in my perspective cannot be called "experienced".
What you call "style" in your post should be adjustable in order to match the circumstances. I have observed this trend in the more experienced players in the group. They act when a gap is presenting itself, they don't act because they like a gap to be present, if you know what i mean.
This sort of play can make or break team game. Its easy to observe as far as i am concerned that its presence or absence makes the difference between win and loss.
Noir
Togakure
09-22-2007, 16:17
This was a long time writing and several have since posted. I started this response after the posts by Noir and Jochi.
Regarding how players end up in teams: unbalanced games happen. Obviously, the stagger of entry into game setup affects where people end up. Some like to attack and will gravitate there; others like to defend, or feel more comfortable defending. This can seem like players gravitating to other players. It's often just preference of game role. I like to attack, for example.
Sometimes, like in the last game last weekend, a clan will ask to team together. I think this is fine, much better than it usually was in VI, where a clan teamed together all the time and just rolled opposition again and again. I'm glad that is not the norm here in SW.
Some players aren't here for fun alone. I come to have fun, but I have an agenda--to develop my SW MP tactical skills (teaming)--and to do that as rapidly as I can. If I see someone whose play style compliments mine during set up, I will gravitate towards that person's team if the stagger order permits. Playing with that person allows me to apply what I learned playing with them before. I can try things learned from watching the replays. I will also avoid players who have been consistently contrary, or hesistant, or unsupportive; we simply see things differently, and that doesn't make for a good team most of the time, because egos interfere with perception, evaluation, decision, and action. I will play a game, maybe two, under these conditions, but more would be a waste of my time.
Sometimes my choice of which side to go to is affected by whom I want to oppose. Some players are particularly effective against my style of play and make for challenging opponents. I like going up against Yuuki for this reason. It guarantees a work out.
By whose judgment would who is "experienced" and who is not be determined? This is sticky. The group's judgment? This is a recipe for argument and ego contests. This cannot be effectively managed by trying to systematically determine who plays with who ahead of time.
If someone has an issue in how teams fall out, say something. The group can discuss specific issues as they arise.
Two "experienced" players don't always compliment each other's style of play. I have been inclined in the past to avoid certain very good players because our styles of play, and preferred strategy, differed consistently. This one tends towards cautiousness and enjoys the long game; this one is aggressive and strives for the coordinated sweep and faster, more glorious victory. This one is magnanimous in supporting his flankers, even to the point of putting himself at risk; this one does his own thing because he disagrees with what others think should be done most of the time. This one tries to balance it all, and is effective half of the time.
Players who end up on a team not having teamed much together previously tend to be tentative, which can translate into hesitance, and the ego factor is amplified in regard to just about every team issue. It can be difficult to reach a group decision, and the bond of assured support is not there, limiting choices on the field.
Experienced players, in my book, are those that take these things into consideration, balance their egos with those of their team m8s, determine Command and intent, support it with skillful action, and adapt effectively to situations as they arise--always working toward a state of intuitive response with each other. They recognize each others' style and tendencies, capitalize on each others' strengths, and bolster weaknesses. If not in Command and intent has been established, they execute with zeal, without question. They balance opportunity with risk, keeping the whole team and Victory in mind.
One of the most frustrating aspects of teaming with my former clan m8s was that Command was rarely taken and Decision rarely reached during placement and at the onset of the game. There were often a lot of alternatives considered, but no intent established by someone in Command. They are all great players, but we struggled constantly with coordination of attack and defense. Individual skill yielded more victories than teamplay in the majority of games I played with them.
Togakure
09-22-2007, 16:29
... The point i try to make is that if a player can "balance" his style between offence, defense and teamplay choosing instinctively when its appropriate to apply each then he is experienced - when he applies the same trend all the time then in my perspective cannot be called "experienced". ...
Heh, what you call trend, I call practice. Bruce Lee once said something like: I fear a man who has practiced one kick ten thousand times, over a man who practices ten tousand kicks one time. Repetition with adaptation brings excellence--a dozen years of serious classical piano training and achievement helped me to recognize this a long time ago.
What you call "style" in your post should be adjustable in order to match the circumstances. I have observed this trend in the more experienced players in the group. They act when a gap is presenting itself, they don't act because they like a gap to be present, if you know what i mean.
Some wait for opportunities. Some create them.
Some players aren't here for fun alone. I come to have fun, but I have an agenda--to develop my SW MP tactical skills (teaming)--and to do that as rapidly as I can. If I see someone whose play style compliments mine during set up, I will gravitate towards that person's team if the stagger order permits. Playing with that person allows me to apply what I learned playing with them before. I can try things learned from watching the replays. I will also avoid players who have been consistently contrary, or hesistant, or unsupportive; we simply see things differently, and that doesn't make for a good team most of the time, because egos interfere with perception, evaluation, decision, and action. I will play a game, maybe two, under these conditions, but more would be a waste of my time.
Thanks for clearing that up
By whose judgment would who is "experienced" and who is not be determined? This is sticky. The group's judgment? This is a recipe for argument and ego contests.
Yuuki had little trouble locating "experienced" players among the group in the above post. So i guess this is sticky indeed, as also is your very long asnwer to a a suggestion and one that seems to be getting nowehere nonetheless.
Since however you declare publicly that you systematically choose allies and opponents as to be able to repeat succesfully and with less frutration your playstyle and also that you are not playing for fun - then that does it for me.
Togakure
09-22-2007, 16:50
... and also that you are not playing for fun -...
I did not say this.
"Does it for you?" I'm surprised at this anger. I play to have fun while forwarding my skill development as a team player with focus and energy. You have "heard" what you have wanted to hear in what I wrote.
And this is quite a twist:
Since however you declare publicly that you systematically choose allies and opponents as to be able to repeat succesfully and with less frutration your playstyle and also that you are not playing for fun - then that does it for me.
You are publicly declaring your interpretation of what I wrote, not what I wrote. Do take everything in my post in context, and please don't impute that I said something when it is very clear I didn't.
Tomisama
09-22-2007, 16:51
Then, is it time to start the ranking system up?
Knowing who has achieved superior results on the battlefield might give them a greater voice in team coordination.
It will also allow us to balance teams with a little more evenness when possible.
I believe the last proposal was for kills minus losses (total killed and captured) on a ten level point scale, 100 to 1000 Points (white belt to black belt respectively).
We could also add a stripe system to show years of service (gold bands).
Would this help?
Observation Comment:
We are at an evolutionary stage of Samurai Warlords community development. The need to consider a broader scope of variables is now “necessary”, as it will be required by your team mates. You must be aware of “everything” concerning a particular battle, and act appropriately to each individual situation. And every battle must be fought as if it were the only battle ever to be fought. This is truly the way of the Samurai…
Edit : Edit: (Sorry) Make that 100 (and below) white, 200 yellow, 300 orange, 400 violet, 500 green, 600 blue, 700 brown, 800 red, 900 (and above) black.
Togakure
09-22-2007, 17:13
I think we just need to meet up on Sunday, join games, work out any issues, play, play well and have fun, and then do it again. One weekend of solid play by a few players and there's this stuff. Take it to the field, where it belongs. Focus on what you do as a player, not what someone else does or doesn't do.
Tomisama, with all due respect, I think a ranking system is premature at this point. There are tensions already, so inducing more competition doesn't make a lot of sense. Your comments on focus are spot on.
I'm surprised at this anger
I couldn't care less about this matter in a sense - much less feel angry about it. TW MP is a hobby for me.
"It does it" for me since i do not wish to play with and against someone that systematically chooses opponents and allies for his own agenda no matter what that agenda is. I never did so and one of the things that made the sessions so much fun is that nobody else did as well to the best of my knowledge - much less come out and say it loud and clear.
I play to have fun while forwarding my skill development as a team player with focus and energy. You have "heard" what you have wanted to hear in what I wrote.
Did i really? - i'll repeat your words:
Some players aren't here for fun alone. I come to have fun, but I have an agenda--to develop my SW MP tactical skills (teaming)--and to do that as rapidly as I can.
Everyone tries to improve their play - i hope you don't think you are the only one - but i doubt that they come up saying that they have an "agenda" of doing so and "as rapidly" as they can, by selectively choosing who to ally and who to play against, most of the time.
I'm afraid that it sounds very clear to be misunderstood.
Tomisama
09-22-2007, 17:23
On the battlefield please :bow:
Togakure
09-22-2007, 17:39
... "It does it" for me since i do not wish to play with and against someone that systematically chooses opponents and allies for his own agenda no matter what that agenda is. I never did so and one of the things that made the sessions so much fun is that nobody else did as well to the best of my knowledge - much less come out and say it loud and clear.
That's your choice. I think it's silly. Everyone who has ever played TW MP makes choices of who to team with in every game.
Everyone tries to improve their play - i hope you don't think you are the only one - but i doubt that they come up saying that they have an "agenda" of doing so and "as rapidly" as they can, by selectively choosing who to ally and who to play against, most of the time.
I'm afraid that it sounds very clear to be misunderstood.
Here, you impute based on twisted interpretation again. I have no problem with the quote I made, and stand by it. Your interpretation however, I have issue with. "Most of the time?" I said no such thing.
Yes Tomisama, you are right. Feel free to PM me Noir, if you have more to say on this matter. Let's give the others a break.
Hunter KIng George
09-22-2007, 17:45
Can we all just get along...:no:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-23-2007, 00:30
On the battlefield please :bow:
Everyone can Talk the Talk, But If you good enough, you can prove your words on the battlefield.
What Tomi Said :yes:
I leave it at that.
cya tomarrow :yes:
R'as al Ghul
09-23-2007, 12:39
... "It does it" for me since i do not wish to play with and against someone that systematically chooses opponents and allies for his own agenda no matter what that agenda is. I never did so and one of the things that made the sessions so much fun is that nobody else did as well to the best of my knowledge - much less come out and say it loud and clear.
That's your choice. I think it's silly. Everyone who has ever played TW MP makes choices of who to team with in every game.
I'm very surprised which turn the discussion took.
I certainly do not need to remind anyone how fragile this little game community is that we have. When we started this it was the 4 Mizus + Tomi and whoever happened to drop in. We hardly got enough players to fill 3v3's, not to mention 4v4's. It was often the case that one of the regulars would step back and offer his spot in a game to someone who just arrived and hadn't played yet.
During these sittings it was always my impression that it's more important to give new/ infrequent players a chance to play rather than to assemble a winning team on one side. Meaning that we did not deliberately choose our allies. I think that by doing so we managed to attract new players who keep coming back. I doubt that would've been possible if we had teamed up differently.
So, I agree with Noir that we indeed did not choose our allies but accepted the spot offered by the game. (I think this holds true for the most part even if one player has chosen to change to the attackers/ defenders).
So I think it's not true that "Everyone who has ever played TW MP makes choices of who to team with in every game". (Of course I could be so naive that I didn't recognize it happen. )
I think Masamune's agenda to improve his skills is nothing extraordinary. We all have that goal in mind. I don't think anyone is 100% satisfied with his play, there's always room for improvement. I think that the word agenda itself might have hit a nerve with Noir. It certainly didn't occur to me that we choose our allies and I was surprised to hear the charge at all.
I can't tell anybody what to do, which side of a battle to choose or how to play. I just think we can't afford to have some players choose the sides while the others accept the random slots. We all need to make sure that teams are balanced and fair. In my opinion we always did that but then again I haven't been there for all the time.
If a player is in a team with players whose play-style doesn't complement his own than it should be considered as a challenging opportunity to improve one's own play and that of the others by working on a plan that both can and want to follow.
There's also always the possibility of channeling the rivalry into battles.
I'd appreciate it if others could post their opinions, too.
R'as
P.S.: Masamune and Noir, I urge you both to solve your problem for the greater good. Personally I'd hate to loose either of you as players.
During these sittings it was always my impression that it's more important to give new/ infrequent players a chance to play rather than to assemble a winning team on one side. Meaning that we did not deliberately choose our allies. I think that by doing so we managed to attract new players who keep coming back. I doubt that would've been possible if we had teamed up differently.
That is indeed the case. I wish to thank all of the players that endured my nubiness and clumpsiness and by constant attention, encouragement and discussion and humour made me feel at home and want to improve for the sole purpose of playing more satisfying games, despite the fact that my inadequate/inexperienced play many times gave them a frustrating game especially at the beginning.
The sessions i have played with the group without a miss between April 2007 and July 2007 before retiring temporarily due to real life duties for about 2 months, were the best TW experiences i ever had.
I will remember and cherish all those games.
Thank you all.
P.S.: Masamune and Noir, I urge you both to solve your problem for the greater good. Personally I'd hate to loose either of you as players.
On a side note, may i ask that such (with all due respect) meaningless comments are avoided. Things are far more complicated than that.
I am 100% aware that your intention is perfectly good, however the point of view is totally false as you are "out" of the problem and for you Tomi or anyone else is easy to say "solve it" or "save it for then" or whatever.
"Urging" peope to solve things of this sort that are not of the leaders/organisers on behalf of the "greater good" makes no sense at all to me.
This is best dealt with in private and i would be obliged if we can all keep it that way from now on.
Thanks
Togakure
09-23-2007, 16:52
Speaking to the rest of the group:
First, R'as, I'm sorry. I realize you are doing your job, and beyond that, you care a lot about SW and the group. Thanks.
Second, if someone has an issue with the way things fall out in game setup, say something. We can discuss it right there, decide as a group, and get to business.
Your observation about the interpretation of the word "agenda" is astute. I resent that I am portrayed as stacking odds "most" of the time. I've played many games with the "less experienced," and have done so without even thinking about it. My highest kill game was with Tomi and AsanoRin, defending against, CBR, Tosa, and R'as! Frankly, I'm hardly a player to make such a fuss over, lol. I've had a couple of good weekends. What goes up must come down. I've looked at the game data and replays for 9/2 and 9/16. I think this whole issue isn't really the issue....
The point made, that it's a challenge for experienced players to team with less experienced players successfully, is obvious. Equally obvious is that the opposite is true--less-experienced players do well to meet and overcome the challenges presented by facing a team of "experienced" players. I've played countless games facing a stack of very skilled clannies over the last four years in VI and STW. It's a fact of TW MP life, and SW MP is not bad at all compared to VI or what STW used to be like.
I see Tomisama quietly play many games each weekend. Among many other things, he is committed to improving his play, and has. He's ended up in difficult positions time and time again. I don't hear him complaining, despite a long and frustrating climb to his goals. I do see him practicing. He sets a fine example, focusing on what he can do to actualize his vision, instead of what others are doing that seemingly make it hard for him.
My "agenda" hasn't changed since I was with the Hunters; they've heard me on my pedestal, pitching focused, organized team-skill practice plenty of times before. My bottom line is: if I continue to play, I will continue to make every effort to further develop team role skills with team-focused players, who understand what that means and work diligently towards excellence. I've had it before, I want it again. If the game stagger permits when joining a game, I will gravitate to attack 3 times out of 5, and will allow myself to play with the players who best compliment my style of play when opportunity permits from time to time. There's nothing wrong with a clan wanting to play as a team sometimes, either. It's practice, which is key to developing skills and achieving goals. And how one practices is very, very important.
I'm chuckling, because I think the "powers that may or may not be" may be at work here. I should spend today preparing for an important interview I have this Wednesday. I am inclined at this point to bow out today, or come later, so AsanoRin will play, seeing as he has indicated that he will quit if I play. Really, I shouldn't let this stuff wreck my wa and potentially affect other important ... agendas, lol. It's too bad the wa here has been disturbed.
I am on MSN, undecided about today. It's time for the others to offer their points of view. I will make a decision on how to spend this afternoon based on what develops between now and then.
seeing as he has indicated that he will quit if I play
No i have made clear that i have quit SWs for the time being. Feel free to join without regrets. Good luck with your interview.
Noir
Togakure
09-23-2007, 17:04
Thank you. It's not a man's place to tell another man what to do. But I hope you will reconsider. Peace.
Tomisama
09-24-2007, 12:52
And a great time was had by all (except for missing a few folks, both old and new, who were not able to make it).
Ten Samurai Warlords battled it out over approximately 5 hours, with heads taken in thousands on several occasions.
In one game alone CBR had racked up 1081 kills, and Fool topped that at 1117. The most interesting part was that they were on opposing teams :charge:
Good games and good fun everyone :beam:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-24-2007, 13:33
Yea, sry about last game, accidently end task out when I was closing pop ups lol (had to alt ctrl delete so I could do so).
But Yes, Very good games indeed. Think I rack up over 2000 heads in my 3 games. :yes:
Yes another good Sunday. I tried to use team chat more last night in an attempt to improve the teamwork. I hope people dont feel I was bossing around too much with my sometimes very specific requests/orders heh
CBR
R'as al Ghul
09-24-2007, 14:04
Yes another good Sunday. I tried to use team chat more last night in an attempt to improve the teamwork. I hope people dont feel I was bossing around too much with my sometimes very specific requests/orders heh
CBR
Not at all. I for one thought it improved our play.
We almost had them, too, in that 4v4 with Jochi. If only you, Jochi and Tomi had gone for the hill instead of rushing to my aid, I think we would've won. Of course this insight was gained after watching the replay. I had a hunch during the game but couldn't communicate that fast enough. When Tosa and Masa came down the hill, they're all bunched up and on the other flank they hadn't any teppos left.
I was wondering during the game if what I do is any good for the team. Me, and Tomi did tie up (a chess expression, don't know the actual translation) a good portion of their army by threatening to flank. To actually risk that maneuver wasn't really an option, though. I'd have expected them to call the bluff.
R'as
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-24-2007, 15:25
Hey Tosa,
you think the xroads map would be a good team map? :laugh4:
(gg that game, can't believe I won it:yes: )
But No Sersiuoly, be somewhat challaging, but I think it would make it close team game.
If anyone never played on that xroads map, I think Puzz posted up a replay packages from yesterday, so check out the 1v1 replay if he has it up. :yes:
Glad to hear that the session was a success. I wish the best for the group and the sessions.
Noir
Jochi Khan
09-24-2007, 16:24
Ten Samurai Warlords battled it out over approximately 5 hours, with heads taken in thousands on several occasions.
In one game alone CBR had racked up 1081 kills, and Fool topped that at 1117. The most interesting part was that they were on opposing teams :charge:
Just as well they were not on the same team. :help:
Yes another good Sunday. I tried to use team chat more last night in an attempt to improve the teamwork. I hope people dont feel I was bossing around too much with my sometimes very specific requests/orders heh
That is what made it so much more interesting. Not eveyone sees all the opportunities presented in the heat of battle. :whip:
Not at all. I for one thought it improved our play.
We almost had them, too, in that 4v4 with Jochi. If only you, Jochi and Tomi had gone for the hill instead of rushing to my aid, I think we would've won. That game was a very close call R'has. Difficult to say which option was the best at the time. But still, a very enjoyable game. I find them more interesting when the end result is that close.
I was wondering during the game if what I do is any good for the team.
Of course it is. Each player plays his/her part in team games. Sometimes what we do as a team is good and sometimes not so good.
Looking forward to next Sunday's session.:beam:
What we faced in that battle was the usual "Attackers dilemma" To successfully attack it generally requires overpowering one of the two wings. And in that process attackers will extend more than the defenders. If not careful they risk running right into more defenders as the defenders in general are closer to each other and can assist faster.
I have only watched the replay once, but my impression was that you ended up sending your whole army in for no real reason. Now you might have spotted an opportunity, and you and Tomi did manage to rout several units and started to go up the hill, but then Warman and Yuuki assisted with several units.
If Jochi and I had gone in right away we might have had a chance but we had no way of knowing the scale of what was going on. And my main army was still in the back when it started IIRC.
In some 4v4's one army could easily be in a situation that involves more waiting than fighting. In that game I did request for Tomi to move closer to me and IIRC had just told him to start engaging Warman's guns. It seemed to me Tomi's focus was more on the right wing along side you than on the center to assist the left side push.
Overall we were doing ok on the left and had forced Yuuki to pull back. But I was never tempted into forcing the issue as I didnt feel we were strong enough with just two armies.
Now having Tomi closer to us would have meant you would have had to be more defensive, even pulling slightly back and to the left. Even if Masa and Tosa felt like attacking you they would have moved away from Warman and Yuuki. And Tomi would be nearby too. Your army would still have posed a threat to their flank if they give up the hill slope to assist a fight on the other wing.
CBR
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-24-2007, 16:28
What we faced in that battle was the usual "Attackers dilemma" To successfully attack it generally requires overpowering one of the two wings. And in that process attackers will extend more than the defenders. If not careful they risk running right into more defenders as the defenders in general are closer to each other and can assist faster.
I have only watched the replay once, but my impression was that you ended up sending your whole army in for no real reason. Now you might have spotted an opportunity, and you and Tomi did manage to rout several units and started to go up the hill, but then Warman and Yuuki assisted with several units.
If Jochi and I had gone in right away we might have had a chance but we had no way of knowing the scale of what was going on. And my main army was still in the back when it started IIRC.
In some 4v4's one army could easily be in a situation that involves more waiting than fighting. In that game I did request for Tomi to move closer to me and IIRC had just told him to start engaging Warman's guns. It seemed to me Tomi's focus was more on the right wing along side you than on the center to assist the left side push.
Overall we were doing ok on the left and had forced Yuuki to pull back. But I was never tempted into forcing the issue as I didnt feel we were strong enough with just two armies.
Now having Tomi closer to us would have meant you would have had to be more defensive, even pulling slightly back and to the left. Even if Masa and Tosa felt like attacking you they would have moved away from Warman and Yuuki. And Tomi would be nearby too. Your army would still have posed a threat to their flank if they give up the hill slope to assist a fight on the other wing.
CBR
I was and am lucky my cav, some of them anyhow, didn't die in the fight when I rushed down that hill.That helped me take out Ras's guns (that was his guns I attacked right?don't remember).
I should have not went down that hill that fast. it would have been better if I waited, but I was to impatient, and was worried that Tosa and them would get flanked.
It was not too easy to judge the dynamics of that battle.
Ah yes I did plan to comment on that but forgot to add it.
Yeah I think it was a mistake too but OTOH my army was not deployed properly (I was still advancing wondering what to do) and I took more losses and time to deal with your units than I should have IMO.
CBR
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-24-2007, 16:46
Ah yes I did plan to comment on that but forgot to add it.
Yeah I think it was a mistake too but OTOH my army was not deployed properly (I was still advancing wondering what to do) and I took more losses and time to deal with your units than I should have IMO.
CBR
Yea. I was to eager, but mabye that was a good thing, since I was able to catch you off guard, at the cost of my army though.
Like I said, I was lucky my Gen and some of my cav were over helping tosa and Puzz and them, because they wasn't at the forfront of my army, and they survived and help me get Ras's Gen dead and rout CBR's gen and take out Ras's guns. My Cav did rout on a few occsions, but fortuayl I was able to rally them.
Hey Tosa,
you think the xroads map would be a good team map? :laugh4:
It's hard for teamgames as we are used to play them, but when players know the map and select armies that suit it, it will work.
Did you ever play Rugged?
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-24-2007, 16:52
It's hard for teamgames as we are used to play them, but when players know the map and select armies that suit it, it will work.
Did you ever play Rugged?
Ok TOsa, lets do 1 Xroad team game next Sunday, I wanna see how it works out.
:beam:
No, never did rugged. Lets test that out 1v1 next week.:yes:
Ok TOsa, lets do 1 Xroad team game next Sunday, I wanna see how it works out.
:beam:
Sure. Perhaps people will give it a look in custom, so they know what to buy?
No, never did rugged. Lets test that out 1v1 next week.:yes:
Lots of guns, many spears, even more horses and victory is in danger.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-24-2007, 18:00
Sure. Perhaps people will give it a look in custom, so they know what to buy?
Lots of guns, many spears, even more horses and victory is in danger.
Tosa is always one step ahead of me! Yea, people can take a look at it at custom, and see if they wanna do it next week.
I'll take a look at Rugged at custom myself, and watch some replays also. Need my Pratice/map scouting.:yes:
R'as al Ghul
09-24-2007, 19:10
I have only watched the replay once, but my impression was that you ended up sending your whole army in for no real reason. Now you might have spotted an opportunity, and you and Tomi did manage to rout several units and started to go up the hill, but then Warman and Yuuki assisted with several units.
If Jochi and I had gone in right away we might have had a chance but we had no way of knowing the scale of what was going on. And my main army was still in the back when it started IIRC.
My remark wasn't meant as complaint, you couldn't have known what was going on on our side.
As it is so often it was a dynamic development. It started with a charge against Tosa's unprotected Teppos. I was willing to sacrifice a unit of HCav in exchange for 3 of Tosa's teppos. then Tomi sent a YariCav to help them out, then Masa send his YariCav, etc. Then Masa moved down the hill while Tomi and my units that we had had up front where withdrawn or destroyed. I then thought that because of the low number of enemy guns and the unfavourable position of their units that this would be an opportunity to engage. Tomi then joined in and it looked okay first but I didn't engage my infantry quickly enough and Tomi lost his general on the flank. I think it was the morale drop caused by the death that broke us.
In some 4v4's one army could easily be in a situation that involves more waiting than fighting. In that game I did request for Tomi to move closer to me and IIRC had just told him to start engaging Warman's guns. It seemed to me Tomi's focus was more on the right wing along side you than on the center to assist the left side push.
I also encouraged him to move his infantry and just leave some cav but we're in a skirmish at that time and busy clicking. There were two situations when we're attacked and it was good that Tomi's cav was there.
Overall we were doing ok on the left and had forced Yuuki to pull back. But I was never tempted into forcing the issue as I didnt feel we were strong enough with just two armies.
Now having Tomi closer to us would have meant you would have had to be more defensive, even pulling slightly back and to the left. Even if Masa and Tosa felt like attacking you they would have moved away from Warman and Yuuki. And Tomi would be nearby too. Your army would still have posed a threat to their flank if they give up the hill slope to assist a fight on the other wing.
CBR
True. I could've moved my army to the other hill/forest on the left.
We'll do better next time. Watching replays helps to understand the large battles' dynamics.
Togakure
09-24-2007, 19:28
Good games, though not as many as we usually get in. It was nice to see a new face--thanks for coming, VDM_Alexandros. I was hoping for a third weekend with at least one game of 1200 or more kills, but I failed :cry: . This will probably bring my average kills over the last 18 games down below 800. Congrats to CBR on three out of four games with over 1000 kills, and to Fool's first breach of the 1000 mark that I've seen. CBR's average kills per game should be well above 800 now.
It sounds like some of what I wrote a few posts back was happening on more teams this weekend:
... determine Command and intent, support it with skillful action, and adapt effectively to situations as they arise ... If not in Command and intent has been established, they execute ... They balance opportunity with risk, keeping the whole team and Victory in mind.
Effective command (which implies team commitment to whomever commands) makes a big difference. The choices in balancing opportunities and risks made for some interesting turn-arounds. It seems players were actively communicating, listening, and cooperating.
I have an all-night work project this coming Sunday, and will not be able to attend the next session. I hope everyone has yet another good weekend.
My remark wasn't meant as complaint, you couldn't have known what was going on on our side.
I certainly did not see your post as a complaint in any way.
We'll do better next time. Watching replays helps to understand the large battles' dynamics
Yes next time it wont even be close, so they better prepare for the sour taste of defeat. :beam:
CBR
Tomisama
09-25-2007, 12:55
I have only watched the replay once, but my impression was that you ended up sending your whole army in for no real reason. Now you might have spotted an opportunity, and you and Tomi did manage to rout several units and started to go up the hill, but then Warman and Yuuki assisted with several units.
I went to look at it this morning to see what it was I saw that made me think that charge would succeed. I saw or thought I saw something at that particular moment, and remember at the time being in surprised disbelief, when it did not. It seemed at the time that the counter came from nowhere. Perhaps concealed by trees, or hidden from view by the hill it’s self?
Well, I was so despondent over my mistaken assessment, that I did not save the replay. I remember when the opportunity came up to do so, saying to myself, “ I don’t believe that happened”! And thinking that it was something I didn’t want to ever see again, neglected the save.
Now I do want to see what happened…lol
:dizzy2:
Jochi Khan
09-25-2007, 13:05
Well, I was so despondent over my mistaken assessment, that I did not save the replay. I remember when the opportunity came up to do so, saying to myself, “ I don’t believe that happened”! And thinking that it was something I didn’t want to ever see again, neglected the save.
Now I do want to see what happened…lol
:dizzy2:
Tomisama Check out the replays that Yuuki has posted in the MP Replays sticky. :idea2:
Tomisama
09-26-2007, 12:53
Thanks Jochi :smile:
Posible reason for our whole army attacks (from sts 4v4 41 replay).
https://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k57/tomisama/stw4v441.jpg
If Warman's yari comming over the hill (not yet visable) had not intercepted our cavalry, we may have closed the deal from behind :wink:
But then again Yuuki was on his way too (but no one could see that comming either).
:bow:
P.S. I have 3 units of monks off screen (lower left) :charge:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-26-2007, 13:36
pretty picture :2thumbsup:
Yea, I mostly kill off my army unexpectely. I sent some cav to help TOsa and that, and sent the rest of my cav and inf to fight Ras and them, only for them to hold for a bit and rout, but my Cav helped them push back you guys.
Can't wait for next week :2thumbsup:
Warman's cav support arrived just in time to prevent Tomi from sweeping up the back of the hill. That was critical because it gave my infantry (I had no cav left) time to get up on the hill, and help drive back the attack and be ready to repel Jochi's attack. In general, I would say the best strategy when trying to take a hill is for all of the attackers to assault the hill at the same time.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-26-2007, 15:06
Warman's cav support arrived just in time to prevent R'as from sweeping up the back of the hill. That was critical because it gave my infantry (I had no cav left) time to get up on the hill, and help drive back the attack. I didn't think Warman should have gone forward to attack with his inf, but it did delay the attackers from that side which gave me time to return to the hill and repel Jochi's attack. In general, I would say the best strategy when trying to take a hill is for all of the attackers to assault the hill at the same time.
Yea, that was my fault, I panicked when I saw Jochi and them coming, and I was like "uh oh" when my army was starting to go, but Yuuki came in at the right time.
Plus I forgot my hamoto gen that was there, good thing I didn't get him killed, so I used him to round up Ras's muskets and that at the end.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-26-2007, 15:08
I don't remember if My 1v1 with Tosa was with the MP replay pack Puzz had, I was watching it when I was making my map, so if it was, What you guys think of that game?
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-26-2007, 16:51
Although I got Hunting classes untill 3PM (19 GMT) next week :inquisitive:
but hopefully they don't keep me long :yes:
R'as al Ghul
10-02-2007, 15:05
I think we need a list that tells people who host which maps are suitable.
It happened a few times that we've chosen a map that....well sucked. Also, for me it's an atmosphere killer to have windmills or any medieval housing. Yes, I'm that picky. :beam:
It's bad enough that we can't play beta_8 but we shouldn't have to put up with medieval villages and stuff.
I'll start later to post the maps that were okay, meaning no medieval features, no insane hills or bottomless holes in the middle of the map.
R'as
Edit:typo
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-02-2007, 15:22
I think we need a list that tells people who host which maps are suitable.
It happened a few times that we've chosen a map that....well sucked. Also, for me it's an atmosphere killer to have windmills or any medieval housing. Yes, I'm that picky. :beam:
It's bad enough that we can't play beta_8 but we shouldn't have to put up with medieval villages and stuff.
I'll start later to post the maps that where okay, meaning no medieval features, no insane hills or bottomless holes in the middle of the map.
R'as
Argeed. I don't mind Forests, I don't care if it has hills or whatever, but no buidings or insane drops, annoys the hell out of me. Just Normal Flat/Hilly maps. :yes:
Jochi Khan
10-02-2007, 16:52
I'll start later to post the maps that were okay, meaning no medieval features, no insane hills or bottomless holes in the middle of the map.
Why?? When you go to battle you fight on whatever terrain you meet. If you're not going to have buildings, trees, hills, valleys etc you might just as well host flat maps for each game.
Sorry, this would take the interest out of the gameplay for me.:thumbsdown:
Part of the enjoyment is overcoming obstacles that are in the way. Why players need to discuss their planned methods of attack/defend. That is part of the challenge.
What would be the next.....no long shootouts at start of game....no cav rushing....just to highlight how rules would creep into an otherwise pleasant game.
I think the host should decide which map (unless another map is requested for a particular game).
R'as al Ghul
10-02-2007, 17:55
Jochi, this is clearly a misunderstanding.
I'll explain later.
:bow:
Hills can offer an interesting challenge, and I'd be disappointed if hills cannot be sucessfully attacked in Samurai Wars because you could successfully attack them in STW. Large holes on the other hand are problematic because the defender will set up on the far side of the hole, and the attacker really has no option except to go around the hole. If the attacker succeeds in pushing the defender away from the edge of the hole, the attacker hasn't really gained an advantage because the defender isn't going to go down into the hole. As a terrain feature, hills are worth capturing, but holes aren't.
R'as al Ghul
10-02-2007, 19:27
Why?? When you go to battle you fight on whatever terrain you meet. If you're not going to have buildings, trees, hills, valleys etc you might just as well host flat maps for each game.
I didn't say anything about trees, hills or valleys. Buildings, yes. I think it's a matter of atmosphere with the buildings. We have the Japanese building models in beta_8 and they are very nice. I wouldn't object to them at all. What I mean is that silly (fl)fast_flat with the windmills we played Sunday for example. Or the one where the whole center of the map is one village which you can't really enter. I forgot the name. There are some other large maps in the Mappack that were originally designed for NTW and have way too many obstacles for our gameplay.
Concerning hills, I have nothing against hills. If they don't become mountains.
(fl)_alx_08 is an example we've played that I don't want to play again. There is a big mountain pillar in the middle which takes away a good portion of the map. Same with this huge holes in the middle of the map where nobody wants to go because he would put himself at an extreme disadvantage. So the hole, like the mountain, take away space and become huge obstacles. We had one map, I think amp_battlefield_01, where CBR parked his whole army on a mountain. Only that half of them were looking like flies on a wall, so steep was the incline. That's ridiculous.
In all the examples the reactions of others were equal to mine. Like
"Err, Tosa did you know this?"
"Ah, sorry I'd no idea"
or
"Oh no, it's that map again"
etc.
I propose that we collect a list of mapnames that those few of us that host can have ready to decide easier. Nobody can know all the maps by heart. We could start with those that we played, which were fine, like Mizulands, Realm, farmlands, ulus etc.
What would be the next.....no long shootouts at start of game....no cav rushing....just to highlight how rules would creep into an otherwise pleasant game.
I'm only making a suggestion. It's not like I make any rules anyway.
We didn't need a written rule to deal with the issue Asanorin pointed us at and I don't think we need one now. I'm just asking that we avoid certain maps and I thought it would make it easier for the hosts if we had a list.
:bow:
Togakure
10-03-2007, 00:25
...
We didn't need a written rule to deal with the issue Asanorin pointed us at and I don't think we need one now. :bow:
Specifically, how was the issue Asanorin pointed us at 'dealt with?'
I saw that Asanorin played this weekend, though previously he wrote that he'd "quit SWs for the time being." I mentioned here that I was not going to be there last weekend, one weekend after his declaration, which suggests that it is me with whom he has a problem. Now it is alluded that the situation has been dealt with. How so?
It may be better that this question be answered privately. If so inclined--by all means. I am not blind, can read between the lines, and have an idea of the answer already. But I'd like to hear it from those who assumed responsibility for making the decision for the group.
Now, another suggests that he would not be inclined to play if we don't play the way he likes. Hmm.
I have overlooked a lot of things I don't particularly "like" about some of the players and how we go about things, and just played. Overall, I have enjoyed most of the people and games, and just adapted to what goes on that I would prefer didn't happen. Given the complaining, and the nature of the issues over the last few weekends, I am no longer inclined to participate. I'm sure there are at least two players who will be glad to hear this, and that's a good percentage, considering how small the group is. "A bad apple can spoil the whole bunch," and this statement can been seen from both sides of the fence here.
I have enjoyed working with some of you, improving coordinated play. The results have been dramatic in the short term. Unfortunately, I don't see growth proceeding at an acceptable pace, given the decisions that have been alluded to. Our "agendas" diverge. This is ok--you can't please everyone, and the underlying powers that be choose to please whom they choose to please, for whatever reasons. No way around that.
I'm going to divert my Sunday leisure time to other fun activities. I wish you all great games, and thank you all for the fun I've had. Cheers. :bow:
Originally posted by Masamune
I saw that Asanorin played this weekend, though previously he wrote that he'd "quit SWs for the time being." I mentioned here that I was not going to be there last weekend, one weekend after his declaration, which suggests that it is me with whom he has a problem.
I reply to this part because it concerns me directly and not for any other reason. I played because i would play anyway you being there or not. I quit on the session that the incident happened, yes. My decision to return was on my own account and it was due to enjoy playing and not for any other reason.
I have no problem with you. I look forward seeing you at the forthcoming sessions and playing together; you are most welcome on my account. I didn't try to avoid you - it simply happened.
This is by no means personal.
*edit* my decision to play again came long before the weekend arrived - just for information.
Noir
Masamune I can understand why you read between the lines the way you do, but its not that at all.
Nothing has changed so there is really no reason to leave like that.
CBR
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-03-2007, 02:59
Masamune I can understand why you read between the lines the way you do, but its not that at all.
Nothing has changed so there is really no reason to leave like that.
CBR
Yea. When I left months ago, and came back a few months back, what was going on here in SW was the same thing going on, so no need to leave like that.
But I wish you luck anyhow Masa m8 :yes:
R'as al Ghul
10-03-2007, 10:05
I'm just a guy whose intentions are good. Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.
Specifically, how was the issue Asanorin pointed us at 'dealt with?'
I saw that Asanorin played this weekend, though previously he wrote that he'd "quit SWs for the time being." I mentioned here that I was not going to be there last weekend, one weekend after his declaration, which suggests that it is me with whom he has a problem. Now it is alluded that the situation has been dealt with. How so?
It may be better that this question be answered privately. If so inclined--by all means. I am not blind, can read between the lines, and have an idea of the answer already. But I'd like to hear it from those who assumed responsibility for making the decision for the group.
:bow:
Hi Masamune.
I didn't mean to be cryptic in that sentence. There's no secret command decision been made.
With the "issue" I meant the problem of "unbalanced teams" not you or Asanorin personally. We "dealt" with it by voicing our opinions in this thread and acknowledging that a problem exists. We increased awareness to the issue of "balancing teams" and have since then made it a habit to check with people if they are comfortable and feel that the Teams are ok. In the games we've tried to coordinate our teams better by chatting on the allied channel. Nothing more, nothing less.
Concerning Asanorin, it is my understanding that he just made up his mind.
I honestly don't know what you're reading between lines. You weren't there this last Sunday and as such had no chance to observe this little change we made. If you talk to others I think they'll assure you that that's all.
those who assumed responsibility for making the decision for the group
I've come across this idea in this thread for a few times, that some of us are seen as leaders of the group who are supposed to make decisions for the group.
I'm telling all of you it's not working like that!
Sure, I'm a moderator here and as such have to look after certain things. Tomi certainly has spent the most time of us for promoting the mod. It's also true that this board serves as a communication platform for the MP meetings.
But I for one have always regarded this community as a democratic collective when it comes to our MP meetings. I don't consider any of us as a leader.
We can either proceed in this matter and continue to discuss problems as they arise or, if people feel we need leaders we can elect some that take the full responsibility. I expect you all to voice your opinions and make suggestions.
Masamune, I hope that you reconsider your decision and won't leave over a misunderstanding.
:bow:
P.S.: I'm quite busy but will try to check with some of you via PM to clear things up.
Hi Masamune.
We "dealt" with it by voicing our opinions in this thread and acknowledging that a problem exists. We increased awareness to the issue of "balancing teams" and have since then made it a habit to check with people if they are comfortable and feel that the Teams are ok. In the games we've tried to coordinate our teams better by chatting on the allied channel. Nothing more, nothing less.
Hello Masamune,
That's the only thing I noticed. I think we already tended to do that (I won't claim balances always turned out 100%), but it seemed more outspoken/coordinated last Sunday. People who were present last Sunday could have heard prior to host hitting ready: 'Teams ok like this?' I don't recall anyone saying: 'No I want in the other team.' That was an option though, as has always been.
I expect that I'll get into my old habit again: a dog can't bark and bite at the same time. But it's just that it becomes less worded, not that I don't try.
Tomisama
10-03-2007, 15:04
Everyone brings something special to the game.
Beyond their different skill and experience levels, they bring their personality.
This adds another layer of variables to every situation, multiplies the complexities, and increases the dynamics of each encounter.
We need everyone (every honourable player) we can get, to provide the most challenging and there by the most enjoyable games that we can have.
It is not purely a selfish thing when I ask (as I expect that you will enjoy playing future battles as much as I do), but I am personally asking all who can mount up and show up every Sunday, to please do so.
We need you. Things will not be the same without you. The loss of any player diminishes us all.
:bow:
Tomisama
10-03-2007, 15:48
I think we need a list that tells people who host which maps are suitable.
It happened a few times that we've chosen a map that....well sucked. Also, for me it's an atmosphere killer to have windmills or any medieval housing. Yes, I'm that picky. :beam:
It's bad enough that we can't play beta_8 but we shouldn't have to put up with medieval villages and stuff.
I'll start later to post the maps that where okay, meaning no medieval features, no insane hills or bottomless holes in the middle of the map.
R'as
R’as, there you go peeking into my head again, or am I peeking into yours :laugh:
I started yesterday looking at some possibilities.
I am not a map maker. I tried to tinker a bit, but it will take me to-long to become proficient enough to perform the task I had planed to put together.
What I am proposing is the “Samuraization” of the large maps of the 1-3 map pack.
It would involve:
1. European fixture purging (windmills, etc., must go)
2. Major feature de-enhancing (change only the three most recognizable terrain features, just enough to be something new)
3. Name changing (create an sw_mapname set of maps named for all of the original STW provinces)*
4.
*Note: These “would not” be attempts to recreate larger versions of those originals.
The objective is to provide a set of maps that can be used in a map driven competition.
https://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k57/tomisama/MapoSmall.jpg
This could be done 5 maps at a time, and tested every week. When the testing was completed, the competition would begin :smile:
Jochi Khan
10-03-2007, 16:49
Masamune
By this...
Now, another suggests that he would not be inclined to play if we don't play the way he likes. Hmm.
Are you referring to my...
Sorry, this would take the interest out of the gameplay for me.:thumbsdown:
If so, please read what is written, the operative words being interest and gameplay.
No mention was made of not being inclined to play
This is supposed to be a place for people to put forward ideas, as has already been pointed out. Why is there the need to make issues out of certain peoples points of view?
I have no intention of getting involved in a slanging match with anyone but I am entitled to put forward suggestions the same as anyone else.
Tomisama
I am not a map maker. I tried to tinker a bit, but it will take me to-long to become proficient enough to perform the task I had planed to put together.
What I am proposing is the “Samuraization” of the large maps of the 1-3 map pack.
There are some fine maps in the O_ maps. Many were used in the CWC games.
Now, another suggests that he would not be inclined to play if we don't play the way he likes. Hmm.
Not really. R'as wants to make a list of the maps on which he doesn't enjoy playing, but this would just be a preliminary list subject to modification after feedback from other players. Although his post implies that he will decide which maps won't be used, I don't think that's his intention. This issue has arisen because Tosa has been hosting a wider variety of maps. Unfortunately, the mappack is not composed of all high quality maps. When I was hosting I tended to stick to a limited set of maps from the fl (flat large) category, but the downside of that is we were missing out playing on some interesting maps.
I have enjoyed working with some of you, improving coordinated play. The results have been dramatic in the short term. Unfortunately, I don't see growth proceeding at an acceptable pace, given the decisions that have been alluded to. Our "agendas" diverge.
The decision to keep the teams balanced? It sounds like you want a more competitive atmosphere. I'm concerned that would drive away about half the people currently playing in this small Samurai Wars community. If we can expand the community, then I think clan based rivalries would develop, and people would be playing with regular teammates which allows a higher level of coordination in team play.
.. me to-long to become proficient enough to perform the task I had planed to put together.
Hello,
I think this is a key here: time. Even the basic textures are different between STW and MTW (and beta 8?). Totomi hosted last Sunday, has pretty basic textures and even that can look weird.
Texturing a map can consume some time, more even if there isn't a suited texture that can link two terraintypes.
I think we should first decide on which textures we will use now and in future, otherwise we'll end up redoing maps.
Perhaps it's my LCD monitor: but the original MTW textures seem to have a better resolution.
Tomisama
10-03-2007, 19:47
Hi Tosa :smile:
Got the replay...will be looking at it this evening...thanks!
What I have in mind is much simpler (if I am understanding what you are saying).
“Minor” modifications of existing good maps that we already use.
Not trying to make imitations of their namesake originals.
The sw_totomi will not look like any that already exist. More likely a minorly revised realm 02 (or something).
I propose we "convert" 60 maps for our own use.
Making only changes to necessary to de-euroize them, modify any outstanding identifiable characteristic, and rename them.
I believe keeping it very simple is absolutely necessary to ensure completion in a reasonable length of time (thinking we could have used these yesterday :wink: ).
When I posted 5 a week above, I had not counted the provinces. I have now :smile:
1. Aki
2. Awa
3. Awaji
4. Bingo
5. Bitchu
6. Bizen
7. Bungo
8. Buzen
9. Chicugo
10. Chikuzen
11. Dewa
12. Echigo
13. Echizen
14. Etchu
15. Harmina
16. Hida
17. Higo
18. Hitachi
19. Hizen
20. Hoki
21. Hyuga
22. Iga
23. Inaba
24. Ise
25. Iwami
26. Iyo
27. Izu
28. Izumo
29. Kaga
30. Kai
31. Kawachi
32. Kazusa
33. Kii
34. Kozuke
35. Mikawa
36. Mimasaka
37. Mino
38. Musashi
39. Mutsu
40. Nagato
41. Noto
42. Omi
43. Osumi
44. Owari
45. Sado
46. Sagami
47. Sanuki
48. Satsuma
49. Shimosa
50. Shimotsuke
51. Shinano
52. Suo
53. Suruga
54. Tajima
55. Tamba
56. Tosa
57. Totomi
58. Wakasa
59. Yamashiko
60. Yamoto
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-03-2007, 19:56
Hi Tosa :smile:
Got the replay...will be looking at it this evening...thanks!
What I have in mind is much simpler (if I am understanding what you are saying).
“Minor” modifications of existing good maps that we already use.
Not trying to make imitations of their namesake originals.
The sw_totomi will not look like any that already exist. More likely a minorly revised realm 02 (or something).
I propose we "convert" 60 maps for our own use.
Making only changes to necessary to de-euroize them, modify any outstanding identifiable characteristic, and rename them.
I believe keeping it very simple is absolutely necessary to ensure completion in a reasonable length of time (thinking we could have used these yesterday :wink: ).
When I posted 5 a week above, I had not counted the provinces. I have now :smile:
1. Aki
2. Awa
3. Awaji
4. Bingo
5. Bitchu
6. Bizen
7. Bungo
8. Buzen
9. Chicugo
10. Chikuzen
11. Dewa
12. Echigo
13. Echizen
14. Etchu
15. Harmina
16. Hida
17. Higo
18. Hitachi
19. Hizen
20. Hoki
21. Hyuga
22. Iga
23. Inaba
24. Ise
25. Iwami
26. Iyo
27. Izu
28. Izumo
29. Kaga
30. Kai
31. Kawachi
32. Kazusa
33. Kii
34. Kozuke
35. Mikawa
36. Mimasaka
37. Mino
38. Musashi
39. Mutsu
40. Nagato
41. Noto
42. Omi
43. Osumi
44. Owari
45. Sado
46. Sagami
47. Sanuki
48. Satsuma
49. Shimosa
50. Shimotsuke
51. Shinano
52. Suo
53. Suruga
54. Tajima
55. Tamba
56. Tosa
57. Totomi
58. Wakasa
59. Yamashiko
60. Yamoto
Histroy Question,
22.Iga
Isn't that where Alot of the Ninjas came from, the Iga areas? I might be wrong.
Hello Tomisama,
What I actually say is that there are some different maptextures. There are made by 7b7Polar that just change the quality of the vanilla MTW ones. But when you look at a map made for STW using MTW textures, grass will become rock, woods will become road. It will look weird, recall Totomi I hosted first?
Of course, you can make large and small changes to maps, but it all has to be redone when the used textureset changes again. It will be good to start there.
Histroy Question,
22.Iga
Isn't that where Alot of the Ninjas came from, the Iga areas? I might be wrong.
That's correct {BHC}KingWarman888. Oda Nobunaga waged war against them.
Hunter KIng George
10-04-2007, 01:29
Hate to intrude like this but I got a problem...I been trying to get beta 5 install unto a fresh new copy of a patched VI. BUT when I try to open the downloaded mod to open...it wont. I get like an error message which says "This file contains invalid data". This happens with all 3 downloads...beta 5, the add-on, and the mappack.
Can you guys help a poor unfortunate soul? :help:
R'as al Ghul
10-04-2007, 08:11
Hate to intrude like this but I got a problem...I been trying to get beta 5 install unto a fresh new copy of a patched VI. BUT when I try to open the downloaded mod to open...it wont. I get like an error message which says "This file contains invalid data". This happens with all 3 downloads...beta 5, the add-on, and the mappack.
Can you guys help a poor unfortunate soul? :help:
The downloads from Yuuki's signature work for me.
Maybe the problem is the .exe format? Are you on Vista?
The error is unfamiliar. Please try to download again.
R'as
Hello Hunter KIng George,
You could download http://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/MD5-Checker-Download-22900.html (or any other MD5.exe tool) and verify the download is not to blame. If the download is 100%, the has for beta5 in Yuukis signature should be: C979754B814B45F131DF436BBC7EC42B .
R'as al Ghul
10-04-2007, 09:58
Not really. R'as wants to make a list of the maps on which he doesn't enjoy playing, but this would just be a preliminary list subject to modification after feedback from other players. Although his post implies that he will decide which maps won't be used, I don't think that's his intention. This issue has arisen because Tosa has been hosting a wider variety of maps. Unfortunately, the mappack is not composed of all high quality maps.
Puzz, I'm Puzzled. :clown:
It's actually the other way round. I want to have a list of maps I/ we enjoy playing. Of course everything is open to discussion and I'm happy for any feedback. I'm not aware how I've implied that I decide which maps won't be used but the result of the discussion would be that we determine which maps are good to play and which aren't. The underlined quote is exactly the reason.
I repeat. I would like that we as a group decide which maps of the Mappack 1-3 are suitable for our gameplay. The list I'm proposing would tell hosts which maps are good to choose and which are better avoided due to extreme terrain.
:bow:
R'as al Ghul
10-04-2007, 10:18
Tomisama,
your idea to select 60 maps from the Mappack1-3 and to repack them as a Samurai-MapPack is good. There's already a large group of maps which don't need any editing. Others could be easily modified if it's just the deleting of models or slightly elevating a spot to get rid of a hole.
Info on textures and maps:
All the maps from Mappack1-3 are designed with the vanilla MTW texture set which we also use in beta_5. The maps we've done for beta_8 use a completely different set. Although the format of the single tiles is exactly the same as in vanilla MTW, the imported STW tiles are differently designed. You couldn't zoom in that close in STW as you can in MTW and thus the tiles of STW had to be slightly modified to look good on MTW. That's what Tosa describes as pixelated. It's a matter of taste and maybe display but I think that the edited STW-textures look very nice in beta_8.
If you want to take a beta_8 map and re-texture it for beta_5 you have to start from scratch. All Textures will be wrong. It took me hours to re-texture the Saigawa map I designed for beta_8 and the result is not satisfying.
I'm just explaining this so that all understand.
Tomi further proposes that we rename the selected maps or associate them with one of the 60 provinces of feudal Japan for a competition.
For example:
1. Aki = Mizulands_01
2. Awa = Ulus of Orda_1
3. Awaji = O_Realm_03
4. Bingo = Bachs_farmlands
....
etc.
This proposal would mean that one needs to load a map in the editor, evaluate it, delete models, perhaps make minor terrain modifications etc. The textures wouldn't need any change for the most part. I can do ca. 10 maps per hour that way.
R'as
Tomisama,
If you want to take a beta_8 map and re-texture it for beta_5 you have to start from scratch. All Textures will be wrong. It took me hours to re-texture the Saigawa map I designed for beta_8 and the result is not satisfying.
I'm just explaining this so that all understand.[/INDENT]
Yes, and even minor edits now, means we end up investing hours. That's not a problem, but if we decide to go with the beta8 textures a bit later. We better decide what to use first now and avoid extra work.
The MTW textures are crisper, but textures from original STW are missing.
R'as al Ghul
10-04-2007, 13:31
We better decide what to use first now and avoid extra work.
Yes, but we need to run tests with the textures first.
We also still need to find out which component of beta_8 causes the desyncs. The desyncs we had with beta_7 could point at a problem with the textures. But we also had some animation changes in beta_7 iirc. The models came with beta_8 I think.
Anyway, CBR and I had started a series of tests but didn't finish because I had no time.
It's actually the other way round. I want to have a list of maps I/ we enjoy playing. Of course everything is open to discussion and I'm happy for any feedback. I'm not aware how I've implied that I decide which maps won't be used but the result of the discussion would be that we determine which maps are good to play and which aren't. The underlined quote is exactly the reason.
So you'll make a list of maps that you enjoy, and then other players will add to that list maps that they enjoy? I was thinking the list would be of maps that everyone found to be unsuitable.
I repeat. I would like that we as a group decide which maps of the Mappack 1-3 are suitable for our gameplay. The list I'm proposing would tell hosts which maps are good to choose and which are better avoided due to extreme terrain.
You mentioned medieval structures as objectionable.
R'as al Ghul
10-04-2007, 13:43
So you'll make a list of maps that you enjoy, and then other players will add to that list maps that they enjoy? I was thinking the list would be of maps that everyone found to be unsuitable.
I think we mean the same. I only wanted to stress that I don't intend to force any decisions on the group. The bottom line is that by listing we devide the Mappack into suitable and unsuitable maps.
You mentioned medieval structures as objectionable.
Yes I did and I still think so. However, since only Tomi has agreed to this so far and others haven't voiced their opinion on the matter I'm inclined to postpone that matter until all other misunderstandings are cleared up. I can live better with an occasional windmill than with a mountain pillar in the center of the map.
What do you think about Medieval towns etc.?
So you'll make a list of maps that you enjoy, and then other players will add to that list maps that they enjoy? I was thinking the list would be of maps that everyone found to be unsuitable.
I think it's a half full vs a half empty glass :)
So it's a list of maps people enjoy 100% or consider acceptable. This is the same as saying no maps we all dislike, just nicer wording. A whitelist instead of a blacklist :)
R'as al Ghul
10-04-2007, 13:53
A whitelist instead of a blacklist :)
Yes, thanks for that. :2thumbsup:
I did change my wording in the process of this discussion in the hope to make clear that I don't intend to decide alone but am making a suggestion.
Yes I did and I still think so. However, since only Tomi has agreed to this so far and others haven't voiced their opinion on the matter I'm inclined to postpone that matter until all other misunderstandings are cleared up. I can live better with an occasional windmill than with a mountain pillar in the center of the map.
What do you think about Medieval towns etc.?
European structures take away from the atmosphere, but not really from gameplay. It's nice to get rid of those in this mod.
A mountainpillar is a steep mountain of several km high, not a big hill. Big hills are good, small hills are good, plains are good, woods are good, ridges are good, trenches are good, holes are good. Mountainpillars and holes to the earth's core are good for Christmas.
The idea to bookmark the maps is good as far as i am concerned.
I can live better with an occasional windmill
I thought that Tosa pick that one up that so we can enjoy the toulips. Flat & windmills = ..? Unless it was spain as the Don Chichote charge suggested. I don't think anybody noticed that in the list of kills there was the following:
windmill 4 at the bottom.
What do you think about Medieval towns etc.?
Unsure about the medieval structures - agree that it feels better without seeing them, but several maps we played with such structures were actually nice for gameplay, especially very large ones for 4v4s.
Noir
R'as al Ghul
10-04-2007, 14:17
European structures take away from the atmosphere, but not really from gameplay. It's nice to get rid of those in this mod.
A mountainpillar is a steep mountain of several km high, not a big hill. Big hills are good, small hills are good, plains are good, woods are good, ridges are good, trenches are good, holes are good. Mountainpillars and holes to the earth's core are good for Christmas.
Just to clarify: When I say mountainpillar I think of (fl)_alx_08 where the mountain in the middle has steep sides with unpassable terrain and you had to tilt the camera way back to see the top.
I agree with everything you said. Thanks for the feedback.
windmill 4
:laugh4:
windmill 4
He escaped, I'm sorry.
:laugh4:
Bad match up eh?
Tomisama
10-04-2007, 14:39
Tomi further proposes that we rename the selected maps or associate them with one of the 60 provinces of feudal Japan for a competition.
For example:
1. Aki = Mizulands_01
2. Awa = Ulus of Orda_1
3. Awaji = O_Realm_03
4. Bingo = Bachs_farmlands
....
etc.This is exactly what I had in mind R’as :wink:
As much as I loved the beautiful Beta 8 maps, there is too much that needs to be done to get there-from-here, at this time. Someday you Mizu wizards will solve the problems of that mod for MP. But right now we need to up the quality of play for Beta 5, as simply and quickly as possible. I believe a Samurai Warlords map pack for Beta 5 would be the key.
I am not a moder, an am only looking at this from the aspect of a community developer. I organize, and promote projects that bring people together to have fun. At certain times there seems to be windows of opportunity to start new things, or kick existing projects up a notch.
With the resurgence of interest we are currently experiencing in Samurai Warlords, I think that now is a crucial time to act. Even without all of the refinements we would like to have, we can still re-encourage our former Samurai mates with what we can do right now.
The total SW map project includes a supersized web page master contest map, that can be scrolled across to see everything (if you don’t have a 2560x1600 screen). Click on a province name, and you will bring up a blown-up terrain radar map and picture of that map. There is more to the story, but we need to do this first.
This web page is something that I can do right now, and will get started on it, to have something to show.
So it's a list of maps people enjoy 100% or consider acceptable.
I'm opposed to this. I like a map and you don't, so I can't host it? My team wants to attack a huge hill, but we can't because it's not on the list of acceptable maps? Any map that anyone objects to won't make the 100% whitelist.
The objective of Samurai Wars was to restore STW gameplay. You could successfully attack extreme maps in STW, and now a proposition is being made to eliminate those kind of maps from use.
I'm opposed to this. I like a map and you don't, so I can't host it? My team wants to attack a huge hill, but we can't because it's not on the list of acceptable maps? Any map that anyone objects to won't make the 100% whitelist.
Sorry, I didn't explain properly.
It's a list of maps we all as a group consider either 100% or acceptable. This does not rule out maps featuring big hills. The whitelist is not going to include only maps that everyone will consider 100% (that would be a very short list: zero).
I also guess the other maps will still hang around, so if we want, we host them. It's just that we have a flagged pool of maps we all like (more or less).
Put it in other words: there are maps some outright dislike, which are not on the favourites list of others either. Instead of making a 'this map stinks' list, we list the maps we like and use them in the campaign as suggested by Tomisama. SW-Aki, SW-. So whenever a SW map is hosted we know that all of us will enjoy it to some degree, instead of some grumbling and others not being really amused.
Tomisama
10-04-2007, 16:28
I believe we will be hard pressed to find 60 large maps in the first place. I have not had a chance to look yet, but I can easily imagine that all of the large maps you have ever played on in MP, will be there. We may have to create a few new ones, just to fill out the inventory.
And this interm move has nothing to do with origional goals, thay are still and will be on going. This is about re-securing our community, so that there will be people to play the future and beter versions of this mod.
Lets collect the maps up, publish the pack, and if there are any objections, make revisions. I believe we all want the same thing basically. Nobody is looking to take anything away from anybody. It just needs to be organized so we can consistantly provide the best experience for all, and to be able to put together a competition to put a face on the whole thing.
The Carpathian pass we played last time as well as the map where there was a hill storming were very good maps and among the nicest games played IMHO.
I would find less enjoyable perhaps featureless maps (ironboard type) as well as maps with many extreme features that essentially cut out all fluidity in army movements/maneuvers and make the game static.
Noir
It seems to me that Tomisama's campaign is going to require a set of maps with more moderate terrain features than the ones used outside of the campaign. In the last Samurai Warlords campaign, some players felt it was unfair because the rules forced them to attack maps that were highly favorable to the defender.
I believe we will be hard pressed to find 60 large maps in the first place. I have not had a chance to look yet, but I can easily imagine that all of the large maps you have ever played on in MP, will be there. We may have to create a few new ones, just to fill out the inventory.
There are 77 maps in the category flat large alone, there are the hilly, misc and river categories (I think we can drop the castles). Then there are the vanillamaps and mediummaps should be good for 3v3-4v4 too.
I think you are right (at least largely) when you say that every large map played in MP will be there. Because, it's mostly a small pool of maps that are regularly hosted (perhaps because we are unsure about those others). It will definetly be a good thing to review this all again and label a big pool of maps that we know we will play and play again.
The Carpathian pass we played last time as well as the map where there was a hill storming were very good maps and among the nicest games played IMHO.
I would find less enjoyable perhaps featureless maps (ironboard type) as well as maps with many extreme features that essentially cut out all fluidity in army movements/maneuvers and make the game static.
Noir
Those two were indeed very good. Ironboard has its uses and I don't mind playing on it. Adding a red, a blue and a black Ironboard is a bit too much.
It seems to me that Tomisama's campaign is going to require a set of maps with more moderate terrain features than the ones used outside of the campaign. In the last Samurai Warlords campaign, some players felt it was unfair because the rules forced them to attack maps that were highly favorable to the defender.
Perhaps. It should be added that more extreme terrainfeatures can be incorporated in such a way that it will become a challenge for both sides. A series of big hills on the defenders side and deep holes on the attackers is making a defenders map. A big hill in the center is a different story.
Tomisama: are you going to follow geography a bit? Hills for the inland provinces and plains for the coastal and delta ones?
Tomisama
10-04-2007, 18:10
Just to get the numbers up. According to my count there are 139 large maps in the 1-3 map pack. This is all (fL), (hL), (mL), but does not include the 5 (cL) maps.
There may be other large maps that are not identified as such, but that would have to be discovered. Maybe file size would give a clue?
My work so far…just a place holder for now.
http://www.clanwarscomp.org/samwarsmapindex.html
Going to hold off a bit…do something else until I hear more positives on directions to go.
Hello Tomisama,
A clue yes. Small ~ 20 kb, medium ~40 kb, large ~60 kb. But it's not conclusive. Models can increase the filesize.
Togakure
10-04-2007, 22:14
Not really. R'as wants to make a list of the maps on which he doesn't enjoy playing, but this would just be a preliminary list subject to modification after feedback from other players. Although his post implies that he will decide which maps won't be used, I don't think that's his intention. This issue has arisen because Tosa has been hosting a wider variety of maps. Unfortunately, the mappack is not composed of all high quality maps. When I was hosting I tended to stick to a limited set of maps from the fl (flat large) category, but the downside of that is we were missing out playing on some interesting maps.
The decision to keep the teams balanced? It sounds like you want a more competitive atmosphere. I'm concerned that would drive away about half the people currently playing in this small Samurai Wars community. If we can expand the community, then I think clan based rivalries would develop, and people would be playing with regular teammates which allows a higher level of coordination in team play.
First quote and paragraph: Nope, this isn't what concerned me at all. I think map research ahead of time is a good idea. I think maps with variety--flattish, hillish, and those with odd obstacles--make games more interesting. I have no issues at all with the discussion concerning maps.
I do take issue with players leveraging their willingness to play in an attempt to influence what we do as a group. As I see it, my departure is a fitting response to such behavior, and the choice to leave under these circumstances precludes any reconsideration--not that I feel any inclination to.
I was referring to Jochi's comment. I'm not going to respond to his retort. Let's face it: he and I can't seem to get past this adversarial posturing, and it's become apparent, to me at least, that it's not likely going to change.
Second quote and paragraph: No. I absolutely don't want a more competitive atmosphere. Recall that I asked if I would have to participate in the ranking system if I wanted to play SW once it was implemented.
The idea of "balanced" teams is subjective to what each of us thinks is "balanced." The issue with maps has similarities to the issue of team composition. Always the same (not the same players; the same "balance")=boring. A case in point: I can't speak for the rest of the players in the game I'm thinking of, but when three ronin repulsed three clannies, one of whom accidentally overspent and had a very strong army, and I got 1231 kills in the process, I felt quite a sense of accomplishment. So-called team balance isn't always what it's made out to be. On the otherhand, I recognize the need to mix it up some. I wish this had never become such an issue. I think we were doing just fine.
I do want the freedom to choose to team with players whose style of play compliments mine more often than not, and I don't want a debate before every game as to who can team with whom. I tend to be an aggressive player, and need team mates who know how to support this style of play. Some players adapt beautifully, and we kick ass together more often than not. On the flip, too many times I have asserted my army in full when an opportunity presented itself, to be destroyed because of lack of support from certain players. I should look forward to this? Or play like a sheep because others are timid or self-righteous and will not support an assertive wing mate? I noted you saying you adjust your play to compensate for this often, Yuuki. Do you have fun doing this? I do not.
I have mentioned several times the strong desire to achieve intuitive team play--and the reason why I have tended to achieve more, faster, than others in real life is because of how I approach my development. I don't have a problem teaming with those whose style of play doesn't particularly match mine well from time to time, but not most of the time.
Thanks for your feedback and clarification. I have other things I can and want to do. My departure is a good solution, for me and for the group. There will be other players. My personality is just too intense for some, and frankly I don't much appreciate some of the multi-faced personalities in this group. I grow intolerant ... best to leave. My decision was not made lightly, and stands. It was never an attempt to "get my way." That would be dishonorable. Good luck, have fun, all.
Originally posted by Masamune
My personality is just too intense for some, and frankly I don't much appreciate some of the multi-faced personalities in this group. I grow intolerant ... best to leave. My decision was not made lightly, and stands. It was never an attempt to "get my way." That would be dishonorable. Good luck, have fun, all.
If in this last part you are refering to me, i can only say that i have honestly and genuinely accepted your play style and intense personality before deciding to return and i made sure that no ill feelings were residing somewhere within me before doing so.
In light of this, i have read without replying various statements that you posted since the incident that weren't very much true (or accurate) in my view. I put up with them silently though because i felt your frustration that must have been equal to mine and i appreciate that arguing over something that means different things to different people and is felt in different ways isn't particularly wise and also because i genuinely thought that accepting the others as they are and not as one hopes they would be is the way to go and that this might hopefully result in reciprocal acceptance in regards to the game and otherwise, in time.
I am certainly not a cynic or indifferent but if for being willing to take this course i get to be called multi-faced and marked down as a dishonorable person that sets up a drama to get his way, then all i can tell you is good luck and take care.
Noir
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-05-2007, 01:42
[/QUOTE]
First quote and paragraph: Nope, this isn't what concerned me at all. I think map research ahead of time is a good idea. I think maps with variety--flattish, hillish, and those with odd obstacles--make games more interesting. I have no issues at all with the discussion concerning maps.
I do take issue with players leveraging their willingness to play in an attempt to influence what we do as a group. As I see it, my departure is a fitting response to such behavior, and the choice to leave under these circumstances precludes any reconsideration--not that I feel any inclination to.
I was referring to Jochi's comment. I'm not going to respond to his retort. Let's face it: he and I can't seem to get past this adversarial posturing, and it's become apparent, to me at least, that it's not likely going to change.
Second quote and paragraph: No. I absolutely don't want a more competitive atmosphere. Recall that I asked if I would have to participate in the ranking system if I wanted to play SW once it was implemented.
The idea of "balanced" teams is subjective to what each of us thinks is "balanced." The issue with maps has similarities to the issue of team composition. Always the same (not the same players; the same "balance")=boring. A case in point: I can't speak for the rest of the players in the game I'm thinking of, but when three ronin repulsed three clannies, one of whom accidentally overspent and had a very strong army, and I got 1231 kills in the process, I felt quite a sense of accomplishment. So-called team balance isn't always what it's made out to be. On the otherhand, I recognize the need to mix it up some. I wish this had never become such an issue. I think we were doing just fine.
I do want the freedom to choose to team with players whose style of play compliments mine more often than not, and I don't want a debate before every game as to who can team with whom. I tend to be an aggressive player, and need team mates who know how to support this style of play. Some players adapt beautifully, and we kick ass together more often than not. On the flip, too many times I have asserted my army in full when an opportunity presented itself, to be destroyed because of lack of support from certain players. I should look forward to this? Or play like a sheep because others are timid or self-righteous and will not support an assertive wing mate? I noted you saying you adjust your play to compensate for this often, Yuuki. Do you have fun doing this? I do not.
I have mentioned several times the strong desire to achieve intuitive team play--and the reason why I have tended to achieve more, faster, than others in real life is because of how I approach my development. I don't have a problem teaming with those whose style of play doesn't particularly match mine well from time to time, but not most of the time.
Thanks for your feedback and clarification. I have other things I can and want to do. My departure is a good solution, for me and for the group. There will be other players. My personality is just too intense for some, and frankly I don't much appreciate some of the multi-faced personalities in this group. I grow intolerant ... best to leave. My decision was not made lightly, and stands. It was never an attempt to "get my way." That would be dishonorable. Good luck, have fun, all.
And with that,written Beatufilly by Masa:yes: , I will also depart from Beta 5. These arguments been going long way to long, and frankly, I really don't much care at this point, since I will not sour my TW playing time, or my MP playing time in general with petty arguments over Teams and maps.
I do want the freedom to choose to team with players whose style of play compliments mine more often than not, and I don't want a debate before every game as to who can team with whom. I tend to be an aggressive player, and need team mates who know how to support this style of play. Some players adapt beautifully, and we kick ass together more often than not. On the flip, too many times I have asserted my army in full when an opportunity presented itself, to be destroyed because of lack of support from certain players. I should look forward to this? Or play like a sheep because others are timid or self-righteous and will not support an assertive wing mate? I noted you saying you adjust your play to compensate for this often, Yuuki. Do you have fun doing this? I do not.
I will not waste my time typing a huge article, when Masa already did, and I am suprise to say, I argee with this part very well. And with This, I will depart. Mabye in a few weeks or Months when you guys dedice to stop arguing then I will come back. I am sersiouly getting to old for this (MP wise, not RL ofc).
I was referring to Jochi's comment. I'm not going to respond to his retort. Let's face it: he and I can't seem to get past this adversarial posturing, and it's become apparent, to me at least, that it's not likely going to change.
Just play the game. I've played against chess players who I don't like, and it doesn't interfere with my game because I play the board.
Second quote and paragraph: No. I absolutely don't want a more competitive atmosphere. Recall that I asked if I would have to participate in the ranking system if I wanted to play SW once it was implemented.
I'm not aware of any planned ranking system. I thought you wanted more competitive play because you talk about a personal goal of getting the highest kills (1200+) in team games.
The idea of "balanced" teams is subjective to what each of us thinks is "balanced." The issue with maps has similarities to the issue of team composition. Always the same (not the same players; the same "balance")=boring.
It's not boring to me because it's more difficult to win with balanced teams. I'm bored with unbalance teams because the outcome is usually a foregone conclusion.
A case in point: I can't speak for the rest of the players in the game I'm thinking of, but when three ronin repulsed three clannies, one of whom accidentally overspent and had a very strong army, and I got 1231 kills in the process, I felt quite a sense of accomplishment. So-called team balance isn't always what it's made out to be.
You realize that, in that game, Tosa played very aggressively without telling his teammates he was going to do that. I'm not taking away from your accomplishment of refuting his play especially since he accidentally overspent. It was very nice to see that attack defeated because it should be an unsound attack given the design of Samurai Wars.
On the otherhand, I recognize the need to mix it up some. I wish this had never become such an issue. I think we were doing just fine.
Apparently we were not doing fine. I didn't realize this until the issue was raised. I don't think we are at the point where we can form regular teams.
I do want the freedom to choose to team with players whose style of play compliments mine more often than not, and I don't want a debate before every game as to who can team with whom.
You can play on the team of your choice. The problem was some players thought that changing teams was not allowed. The solution was advising them that changing teams was allowed.
Last Sunday no one requested to change sides when asked if the teams were ok. They were always ok no matter what they were. There was some changing of sides before the last player was in, and this has been sufficient to prevent 3 experienced players from teaming against 3 inexperienced players.
I tend to be an aggressive player, and need team mates who know how to support this style of play. Some players adapt beautifully, and we kick ass together more often than not. On the flip, too many times I have asserted my army in full when an opportunity presented itself, to be destroyed because of lack of support from certain players. I should look forward to this? Or play like a sheep because others are timid or self-righteous and will not support an assertive wing mate?
Do you have a partner who wants to pair up with you every game? If you do, then play with him all the time.
I noted you saying you adjust your play to compensate for this often, Yuuki. Do you have fun doing this? I do not.
I want to be a flexible player. I try to play with my ally, and not impose the demands of a particular style on him. Each player has their strengths and weaknesses, and I want my ally to play to his strength so that we have the best chance of wining the battle.A predictable player, as opposed to a more flexible player who uses a variety of styles, will have an increasingly hard time as opponents adjust to that player's style.
Another aspect of the gameplay is that hammer and anvil works in Samurai Wars, so doubling a single enemy army is not a sound strategy unless the enemy army is isolated or the enemy team doesn't know how to use hammer and anvil. Aggressive tactical play is the best in certain situations, but probably not in most situations you face in Samurai Wars team games.
I have mentioned several times the strong desire to achieve intuitive team play--and the reason why I have tended to achieve more, faster, than others in real life is because of how I approach my development. I don't have a problem teaming with those whose style of play doesn't particularly match mine well from time to time, but not most of the time.
Then don't do it, but as far as I can see you don't have a team. If anyone has a team it's my clan since we are the only clan playing Samurai Wars in any numbers. I think we need a larger community before we can have the kind of intuitive team play that you want. Right now, we're just trying to show players how to improve their game.
Thanks for your feedback and clarification. I have other things I can and want to do. My departure is a good solution, for me and for the group. There will be other players. My personality is just too intense for some, and frankly I don't much appreciate some of the multi-faced personalities in this group. I grow intolerant ... best to leave. My decision was not made lightly, and stands. It was never an attempt to "get my way." That would be dishonorable. Good luck, have fun, all.
By all means, if you aren't getting enough enjoyment out of this game then do something else, but you quit without even trying the game after the issue with Noir was resolved. It's clear enough that you aren't getting the kind of support on the battlefield that your aggressive style requires. I don't think there is a solution for that at this time because we only have a couple of players in the group who can support that style of play. In a 3v3, two armies attacking three with one holding back is very risky, and in a 4v4 it's even worse odds.
Tomisama
10-05-2007, 13:58
Tomisama: are you going to follow geography a bit? Hills for the inland provinces and plains for the coastal and delta ones?
An excellent idea!
We (PMs with R’as this morning) will try to follow this as much as is practical, taking clues from the Shogun map. A sample (4 maps) will be first up. Hopefully done before this Sunday.
Thanks Tosa :bow:
I'm not aware of any planned ranking system.
Apparently we were not doing fine. I didn't realize this until the issue was raised.I think we need to close this thread, and in the future post specific topics, using the forums the way they were designed to be used. The possibility to miss things is very real with so many topics colliding on each other.
I am not even sure where the posts are about the subjects you responded to Yuuki-san, and am not inclined to look them up. If they come up again (ranking might), hopefully they will have their own thread :wink:
Togakure
10-05-2007, 14:39
Noir: Your last post rings True. Thank you. I apologize for misjudging your intent, and for writing what I did. Those words served no positive purpose and shouldn't have been expressed. Please excuse me. :bow:
***
... I'm not aware of any planned ranking system. I thought you wanted more competitive play because you talk about a personal goal of getting the highest kills (1200+) in team games.
...
Puzz: I've never stated a personal goal of getting the highest kills. Please quote me if I am being remiss. Earlier, I tried to de-emphasize the importance of kills alone when considering how players might be ranked, and have, several times, clearly emphasized a goal of achieving intuitive team play. I have referenced high kills several times to emphasize significant improvement in a short period of time on my part, and that "inexperienced" players are not always unsuccessful against "experienced" players. A proposed ranking system has been put forward by Tomisama--yellow, green, blue ... red, black, etc., and my understanding was that it is waiting in the wings for the right time.
Apparently we were not doing fine. I didn't realize this until the issue was raised. I don't think we are at the point where we can form regular teams.
I'm not suggesting that regular teams be formed, but I can see how you might arrive at that inference. My issue is with insisting that players team or not team in a particular way each game because someone thinks it's unbalanced. As you say: just play the game. Interesting that you respond to me thus, but not to the others when their concerns were brought up. I see this as expressed frustration because my departure works against your goal of getting more players to play SW. I realized this conflict of interest amongst friends before making this decision--it was the primary reason why the decision was difficult, and why I've hesitated to make it until now.
You can play on the team of your choice. The problem was some players thought that changing teams was not allowed. The solution was advising them that changing teams was allowed.
Fair enough. It doesn't prevent those of like mind from switching and thwarting the desires of players of different mind though. I sensed that happening the last weekend I played. Key word is "sensed"--I'm not saying it was, but it sure felt like it.
Do you have a partner who wants to pair up with you every game? If you do, then play with him all the time.
You know damn well that I do not Puzz. There is a player whose style of play works well with mine most of the time. We were playing many games together without deliberate intent, I think because we both like to attack and were experiencing success. Remember that I am a 'new' player to SW too. You commented once that I was getting up to speed fast. Why do you think that is? Do you think it might have something to do with how I approach my development? When this issue was brought up, that player avoided me the weekend after in order to assuage the disgruntled others. I cannot force anyone to team with me, and that player has acted in the way he feels is best for the group. That is his choice, and fine for the group, but it frustrates me. Nothing I can do about it though--except leave if I'm not enjoying the game, the pace of my development, and the company commensurate with the investment of precious leisure time.
I want to be a flexible player. I try to play with my ally, and not impose the demands of a particular style on him. Each player has their strengths and weaknesses, and I want my ally to play to his strength so that we have the best chance of wining the battle.A predictable player, as opposed to a more flexible player who uses a variety of styles, will have an increasingly hard time as opponents adjust to that player's style.
Me too. I approach this--and most things I do when learning--like the piano (you are a chess player; I am a pianist). What you see as predictable is repetition to achieve excellence in a particular set of techniques and style. Once achieved, focus is shifted to other techniques and styles. When one tries to improve everything at once without prioritization and focus, the result is long-term mediocrity. Too many extraordinary achievers have emphasized this in my life for anyone here to change my belief in this.
Then don't do it, but as far as I can see you don't have a team. If anyone has a team it's my clan since we are the only clan playing Samurai Wars in any numbers. I think we need a larger community before we can have the kind of intuitive team play that you want. Right now, we're just trying to show players how to improve their game.
The team to which I refer is the team in the game at hand. I am not talking about a permanent team. I disagree. Intuitive team play can be achieved by any team of players. It doesn't have to be a permanent team. It will take longer, and won't be as consistent, but it is achievable.
By all means, if you aren't getting enough enjoyment out of this game then do something else, but you quit without even trying the game after the issue with Noir was resolved. It's clear enough that you aren't getting the kind of support on the battlefield that your aggressive style requires. I don't think there is a solution for that at this time because we only have a couple of players in the group who can support that style of play. In a 3v3, two armies attacking three with one holding back is very risky, and in a 4v4 it's even worse odds.
Not true about quitting before trying. I played the weekend before last. Noir's issue was raised before that. I noted that the player with whom I'd been teaming well seemed to avoid me, for reasons I can understand under the circumstances. Remember what I said too, about aggressive style (on the right attack wing, specifically) being my chosen developmental focus for now. Remember how unaggressive I was for the first few weeks? Take it all in context please.
Perhaps we have only a couple of players capable of that level of support now. If other "new" players chose to be truly cooperative and focused on developing this type of support skill, I do not think it would be long before I had many such team mates available. None of the players here are inherently weak. All have the potential to be great. It's been a matter of opinion, choice, and to a degree, with whom to align--and I don't mean in game.
I'm late. Gotta run.
R'as al Ghul
10-05-2007, 14:51
I think we need to close this thread
I was about to close this beast several times this week. I'll leave it open until tonight 24:00 GMT+2 in case anybody has something he wants to get off his chest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to comment on some loose ends:
- we're all very different individuals, if we want to keep this community and maybe expand it, we'll all need to work on that together
- the discussion on MP tactics should continue sometime, I think there's much we can learn from each other
- my proposal to make a list of maps was poorly formulated. I didn't take the time to explain my reasons properly as I thought I'd find consensus immediately. But other members took my suggestion as a proposal to eliminate a large number of maps from the pool and understood me as being opposed to major map features like hills. That wasn't my intention. To add insult to injury I've to admit that I apparently have exxagerated my points more than would be warranted. Not only that but my memory failed me. I've reviewed some maps yesterday, those I cited as examples, and wanted to make some telling screenshots. Imagine my surprise when I had to realise that the maps weren't as bad as I remembered them. I don't know what went on in my head. Seems I mixed them up with maps from the community mappack of STW. I feel rather silly. Tosa's definition to my "mountainpillar" should've been a clue but I didn't get it because I remembered the map differently.
My apologies for any offense or confusion I may've caused.
(I offer to list those maps that I know have been played on Sundays. Maybe add a little comment or a screenshot as a handy reference, but otherwise I consider this matter to be closed)
- The map project that Tomisama suggested is to be seen seperately from the above. The two of us will continue as suggested by Tomi/ Tosa and eventually complete a pack with maps that represent the 60 provinces. Of course it's questionable if we can ever put it to use in a Tournament as we plan, seeing that the community would've to grow a bit more before.
- the ranking of players was originally suggested some time back in the context of a Tournament. Tomi and I've talked about that idea again in the past days in private. I do recall that Masamune asked at some point, while it was discussed in public (don't have a link) if one had to join such a ranking system in order to participate in games.
:bow:
When this issue was brought up, that player avoided me the weekend after in order to assuage the disgruntled others.
Ok that must be me you are referring to then.
Before that weekend I had collected statistics on 5 sessions of beta5 games to see who had allied with who, and both individual wins as well as what combination of players(pairs and trios) that had the highest wins. If Im not mistaken I sent you the results.
The combination of my experience/feel for which player is strong or "weak" and the statistics (that just confirmed most of it) meant I/we now had a good way of knowing when one team simply was too weak to make a reasonably fair game.
I recall I switched team a couple of times during that Sunday. Not because you were on it but because for example you and Yuuki or Alex were already there.
Just take a look at the logfiles for that day and compare with the statistics I sent you. I happen to be on the "weaker" side in pretty much every battle.
That day I spent more time than usual formulating plans and communicating to players in some the battles. Some of the players dont have that much experience, and I hoped better communication not only would improve the chances of winning but also because that is the only way their teamplay and battle strategy will improve over time.
Some of the battles did turn out closer than what we could have expected. I cannot of course take all credit for that, but overall I think the extra "coaching" did improve on it and hopefully so will their skill for each battle.
I decided on communicating more, based on the games the week before as I noticed several classic mistakes that some people did in 4v4 games. 4v4 games are different than smaller games and the mistakes made were one of the reasons why you and I were involved in several victories that week.
Personally I love winning battles of course but what is the point if its too easy? I want to do what I can to increase the average skill level to make battles as challenging as possible. We are a rather small group of players with various skill level and MP experience. Players can improve their army control but will also have to improve their teamwork and that includes a better sense of strategy and better communication during a battle.
We only play like 5-8 battles a week and some players less than that as they leave earlier. There are fun battles and there are frustrating battles but I keep showing up on Sundays. Just ask Tosa Yuuki or Ras about all my whining on TS heh. Overall I see it as a challenge: knowing the strengths and weaknesses of both opponents and teammates and do what I can to improve the chances not only of my team winning but of increasing the overall level of skill as that IMO ensures more fun for us all.
If you thought I was avoiding you why didnt you talk to me on MSN about it? Just seems to me your conclusion is based on one Sunday combined with a few remarks in this thread.
CBR
Togakure
10-05-2007, 19:38
CBR: I am not upset by your choices. Again, you acted in the best interests of the group. I respect that. But it was frustrating for me. Geezus H. Chryst ... it seems that despite my ability to write, my ability to communicate effectively is just shyte.
Of course I was refering to you. Of course I remember our MSN discussion, the statistics, your comment about "you seem to like me :P" I remember it all, clear as a bell.
You made those choices for good reasons--I was just frustrated by you feeling the need to do that, and that I couldn't continue to practice against the dynamic of you backing me up regularly, so I could refine my part of the attack with a reliable ally.
I didn't speak to you about it on MSN because I didn't want to burden our friendship with it. The group was discussing it here, and I figured if you had something to say, you'd say it. I tried not to refer to you directly, though it would be apparent to those who've been there, whom I was talking about. The choices you made were in response to, not part of, the problem. The side effects impacted my ... AGENDA! ... negatively.
All of this is really beside the point. Come on: the real issue is obvious--I don't fit in this social group. I push everybody's buttons, in the foyer, in game, here. That's what I'm really basing my decision on, bottom line. And that's ok! Sometimes things just don't work between people. Doesn't make you folks bad, doesn't make me bad. This isn't the first time it's happened with me. We just don't see eyes to eyes. It's OK.
Let's part as friends.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-05-2007, 19:51
I really hope this gets close. It's turning moreso into a huge argument instead of a map making tournment thing whatever Tomi and them was talking about. This will be my last post here regrading this, not like anyone will care.
Puzz: I've never stated a personal goal of getting the highest kills. Please quote me if I am being remiss.
Good games, though not as many as we usually get in. It was nice to see a new face--thanks for coming, VDM_Alexandros. I was hoping for a third weekend with at least one game of 1200 or more kills, but I failed . This will probably bring my average kills over the last 18 games down below 800. Congrats to CBR on three out of four games with over 1000 kills, and to Fool's first breach of the 1000 mark that I've seen. CBR's average kills per game should be well above 800 now.
The quote seems to be emphasising the importance of kills.
Earlier, I tried to de-emphasize the importance of kills alone when considering how players might be ranked, and have, several times, clearly emphasized a goal of achieving intuitive team play.
The goal of achieving intuitive team play is laudable. It's not something we can achieve now or in the immediate future.
I have referenced high kills several times to emphasize significant improvement in a short period of time on my part, and that "inexperienced" players are not always unsuccessful against "experienced" players.
I agree that experience isn't actually the determining factor. Style of play, management skill, hand-eye coordination, visualization, perception, manual dexterity, understanding of the game mechanics, flexibility in adapting to a changing situation, etc are all factors that affect to what degree a player can master the game.
A proposed ranking system has been put forward by Tomisama--yellow, green, blue ... red, black, etc., and my understanding was that it is waiting in the wings for the right time.
I was unaware of that.
I'm not suggesting that regular teams be formed, but I can see how you might arrive at that inference. My issue is with insisting that players team or not team in a particular way each game because someone thinks it's unbalanced.
I think it's important that players feel the game is being conducted in a fair way.
As you say: just play the game. Interesting that you respond to me thus, but not to the others when their concerns were brought up. I see this as expressed frustration because my departure works against your goal of getting more players to play SW. I realized this conflict of interest amongst friends before making this decision--it was the primary reason why the decision was difficult, and why I've hesitated to make it until now.
I said that because you made an issue about Jochi leveraging the group by supposedly threatening to quit over the map list. First of all he didn't threaten to quit, and second of all we are not so desperate for players that those threats will work. Noir didn't leverage the goup either because we always tried to keep the teams balanced for the last 3 years except for some rare occasions where the Mizus requested to play a game as allies. If someone isn't enjoying playing the game then they should leave for their own well being. I just don't like to see people leave because they don't get along with another player when they actually enjoy the game. In your case, it's now clear to me that you can't enjoy the game without an ally that will support your aggressive style of play, but you keep throwing up stuff about player's personalities such as the 'multi-faced players' comment that is confusing as though it's a reason for leaving.
Fair enough. It doesn't prevent those of like mind from switching and thwarting the desires of players of different mind though. I sensed that happening the last weekend I played. Key word is "sensed"--I'm not saying it was, but it sure felt like it.
I don't understand. Doesn't the player you want to ally with have the option of not allying with you?
You know damn well that I do not Puzz. There is a player whose style of play works well with mine most of the time. We were playing many games together without deliberate intent, I think because we both like to attack and were experiencing success.
That's my point that you can't expect to get this player as an ally more than about half the time that you're both in the same game unless you agree to be partners, and then there will be games were you aren't both in the same game. So, you're looking at less than 50% teaming with that player.
Remember that I am a 'new' player to SW too. You commented once that I was getting up to speed fast. Why do you think that is? Do you think it might have something to do with how I approach my development?
Yes. You got the feel of the game and then decided to turn it up. Unfortunately, most of the player can't keep up with you.
When this issue was brought up, that player avoided me the weekend after in order to assuage the disgruntled others. I cannot force anyone to team with me, and that player has acted in the way he feels is best for the group. That is his choice, and fine for the group, but it frustrates me. Nothing I can do about it though--except leave if I'm not enjoying the game, the pace of my development, and the company commensurate with the investment of precious leisure time.
I can see that.
Me too. I approach this--and most things I do when learning--like the piano (you are a chess player; I am a pianist). What you see as predictable is repetition to achieve excellence in a particular set of techniques and style. Once achieved, focus is shifted to other techniques and styles. When one tries to improve everything at once without prioritization and focus, the result is long-term mediocrity. Too many extraordinary achievers have emphasized this in my life for anyone here to change my belief in this.
I don't understand why your being so competitive with Samurai Wars. You weren't joining a clan to develop a particular style of play when you came onboard. This is a very small group of players with diverse playing styles.
The team to which I refer is the team in the game at hand. I am not talking about a permanent team. I disagree. Intuitive team play can be achieved by any team of players. It doesn't have to be a permanent team. It will take longer, and won't be as consistent, but it is achievable.
I think you placed too much expection on these players.
Not true about quitting before trying. I played the weekend before last. Noir's issue was raised before that. I noted that the player with whom I'd been teaming well seemed to avoid me, for reasons I can understand under the circumstances. Remember what I said too, about aggressive style (on the right attack wing, specifically) being my chosen developmental focus for now. Remember how unaggressive I was for the first few weeks? Take it all in context please.
The issue hadn't been resolved yet. I think you jumped the gun a bit, but I also don't think your goal is achevable now or in the near future with this group. I actually don't think Samurai Wars gameplay is conducive to the style you are trying to develop.
Perhaps we have only a couple of players capable of that level of support now. If other "new" players chose to be truly cooperative and focused on developing this type of support skill, I do not think it would be long before I had many such team mates available. None of the players here are inherently weak. All have the potential to be great. It's been a matter of opinion, choice, and to a degree, with whom to align--and I don't mean in game.
You're expectation is for players to adapt to your style, but not all players want to be a 'support' player to an aggressive player. You see them as uncooperative, but you could be viewed by them as being uncooperative as well.
Togakure
10-05-2007, 21:23
I want to respond to this in particular because it is very important to understand if you want to understand where I'm coming from:
...I don't understand why your being so competitive with Samurai Wars. You weren't joining a clan to develop a particular style of play when you came onboard. This is a very small group of players with diverse playing styles.
It's not competitive with others ... it's striving for excellence in myself!--totally independent of and having nothing to do with anyone else (except in the sense that the focus is on team play capability).
...I think you placed too much expection on these players. ...
Heh, rather than expectation, I'd say I have faith. But doubt anyone is getting that picture from me at this point.
... actually don't think Samurai Wars gameplay is conducive to the style you are trying to develop. ...
Huh?! You don't think intuitive team play is possible in SW? Like it is amongst experienced players who get together for VI games and mix it up, and nevertheless play excellently as a team? Why is that? That really throws me for a loop. I suspect you misinterpret the "style I am trying to develop."
...You're expectation is for players to adapt to your style, but not all players want to be a 'support' player to an aggressive player. You see them as uncooperative, but you could be viewed by them as being uncooperative as well.
Fair enough. So whose way should we do it? Mine? Theirs? A compromise? CBR took command, and results were better--because players listened and acted. They followed. My results improved too, when I followed the general direction set by the de facto team leader. I expect a team to make a decision and then follow up. If they don't, results usually reflect.
But this is all moot. Good to know what your thinking though. I'm glad you chose to speak up.
Come on: the real issue is obvious--I don't fit in this social group. I push everybody's buttons, in the foyer, in game, here. That's what I'm really basing my decision on, bottom line. And that's ok! Sometimes things just don't work between people. Doesn't make you folks bad, doesn't make me bad. This isn't the first time it's happened with me. We just don't see eyes to eyes. It's OK.
And that is where I think you are jumping to conclusions. Ok I guess Im no people's person so I might be oblivious to the volcano just about to explode...but I just dont see this group falling apart because you are in it. The most obvious one based on this thread is Asanorin but he has stated his opinion on the matter. You have spoken of Jochi and, ok I dont know his inner thoughts on it, but I have not noticed any bigger issue between you and him based on this thread. Only what you have brought up really.
You say its happened before. It seems to me your earlier experiences might have made you sensitive to potiential problems and you want to leave at the slightest sign of trouble.
That you feel you are causing problems and therefore want to leave for the benefit of the group is commendable, but why not wait until there is a problem? Because I just dont see where the fire is.
CBR
The goal of achieving intuitive team play is laudable. It's not something we can achieve now or in the immediate future.
It doesn't always show it works, and if it works, can we say it worked? There is no plan.
I recall a game where the whole communication were about six words before the very start of the battle. The ally was not someone I ally with regularly: the battle was a great succes, even had we lost.
This is not a rare exception, there've been more battles like that.
I can't bark and bite at the same time, and really: I feel it's not the best thing to try.
Intuitive team play is there.
R'as al Ghul
10-05-2007, 23:45
I'll leave the thread open.
Togakure
10-06-2007, 03:43
And that is where I think you are jumping to conclusions. Ok I guess Im no people's person so I might be oblivious to the volcano just about to explode...but I just dont see this group falling apart because you are in it. The most obvious one based on this thread is Asanorin but he has stated his opinion on the matter. You have spoken of Jochi and, ok I dont know his inner thoughts on it, but I have not noticed any bigger issue between you and him based on this thread. Only what you have brought up really.
You say its happened before. It seems to me your earlier experiences might have made you sensitive to potiential problems and you want to leave at the slightest sign of trouble.
That you feel you are causing problems and therefore want to leave for the benefit of the group is commendable, but why not wait until there is a problem? Because I just dont see where the fire is.
CBR
Well, perhaps you are right in this. I don't mean to make it sound like the group is falling apart. I absolutely don't want to risk contributing to that. I just feel like I'm perceived as a negative force, and that doesn't make me feel good. I can't bring myself to compromise who I am and the values I hold in order to "fit in." This would be insincere. If I continue, then there is the risk of further misunderstanding, controversy, pain--for people I care about, whom I respect, whom I consider my friends. The rest of you seem to get along without significant problems.
I have to run as we are locking up for the night. I will continue this later. Thanks for the kindness of taking the time to write and express your heartfelt thoughts on the matter.
It's not competitive with others ... it's striving for excellence in myself!--totally independent of and having nothing to do with anyone else (except in the sense that the focus is on team play capability).
You're being highly competitive whether you see it that way or not.
Heh, rather than expectation, I'd say I have faith. But doubt anyone is getting that picture from me at this point.
You have faith, but you quit?
Huh?! You don't think intuitive team play is possible in SW? Like it is amongst experienced players who get together for VI games and mix it up, and nevertheless play excellently as a team? Why is that? That really throws me for a loop. I suspect you misinterpret the "style I am trying to develop."
I believe the aggressive style of play you are using is unsound in Samurai Wars.
Fair enough. So whose way should we do it? Mine? Theirs? A compromise? CBR took command, and results were better--because players listened and acted. They followed. My results improved too, when I followed the general direction set by the de facto team leader. I expect a team to make a decision and then follow up. If they don't, results usually reflect.
Intuitive teamplay has to be developed. We may well have other experienced players enter the group and then leave because the teamplay isn't up to the level they desire. We may eventually have clans playing in clan based teams, and then it's going to become even tougher on the ronin players.
You're being highly competitive whether you see it that way or not.
Self competition: wanting to do it better than yesterday, wanting to have more fun than yesterday, enjoying the game whatever happens, maybe it's some sort of training to benefit in real life for some. Different goals, but they shouldn't exclude each other.
I believe the aggressive style of play you are using is unsound in Samurai Wars.
I don't think so. People go to a martial arts dojo for different reasons. There are do's and dont's, but the degree of devotion is generally not a reason to reject a person. When skill differences become appearant, the sensei will pit you against two opponents. There's always something to learn and/or enjoy for everyone.
There is no sensei in the samwars dojo and there shouldn't be one. But nothing prevents us to tweak so all can enjoy it.
4 vs 3? Handicap in koku, number of units? More challenging maps?
Self competition: wanting to do it better than yesterday, wanting to have more fun than yesterday, enjoying the game whatever happens, maybe it's some sort of training to benefit in real life for some.
Do you set a standard of play that I have to meet? If I meet that standard, do you want me on your team rather than playing against me? Do you're teamates prevent you from being the best that you can be? Do you enter a group activity to pursue individual excellence independently of others? Do you object when the group wants to do something that's in the best interest of the group? If so, this game has a 1v1 mode for you.
Different goals, but they shouldn't exclude each other.
We agreed to try to balance the teams. Nothing was said about excluding specific teammates from pairing. If a player declines to pair with you, that's his perrogative.
Do you set a standard of play that I have to meet?
No, I do not set standards. If anyone wants something I'll try.
If I meet that standard, do you want me on your team rather than playing against me?
Playing with and against you is good.
Do you're teamates prevent you from being the best that you can be?
I've never noticed.
Do you enter a group activity to pursue individual excellence independently of others?
That depends really. When you look at sports there's more than just a team and individualistic discipline. It's not accidentely that I mentioned a dojo. People have different reasons to go to a dojo. There's room for team players, individualistic people and anything in between. It works quite well, when there's a little give, take and appreciation.
Do you object when the group wants to do something that's in the best interest of the group?
If I wanted something, I hope it can be done in such a way that both I and the group get something out of it. For example by fighting two opponents or handicapping myself (or grabbing 3k extra and lose :embarassed: ). But, when the group hadn't voiced, I may not be aware of a problem.
If so, this game has a 1v1 mode for you.
I try to play 1v1 at times.
We agreed to try to balance the teams.
Yes. Balance doesn't just mean 4v4, 9k each. 4v3, works too. You can keep the number of fielded units equal. So one team has extra eyes and less to micromanage, the other has agressive players.
Nothing was said about excluding specific teammates from pairing.
No, I don't recall so.
If a player declines to pair with you, that's his perrogative.
He's just in the other team and in the same game as me.
Originally posted by TosaInu
It's not accidentely that I mentioned a dojo. People have different reasons to go to a dojo. There's room for team players, individualistic people and anything in between. It works quite well, when there's a little give, take and appreciation.
Most martial arts condense and prepare participants for a 1v1 basis - perhaps the dojo isn't the best of examples, for what is being discussed.
Martial arts clubs require club spirit, but not team spirit.
Noir
Hello Noir,
Most martial arts condense and prepare participants for a 1v1 basis
Some, not all.
Martial arts clubs require club spirit, but not team spirit.
Noir
There isn't a teamspirit like in soccer, though soccer does also have a club spirit.
Yet, martial arts is not a 100% not team sport. It can be, but often you need a partner, a pool of partners or even teambuddies.
Hi Tosa,
Originally posted by TosaInu
Some, not all.
From the top of my head, the most established: Judo, kung-fu, karate, kendo, aikido, muy-thai/kickboxing, capoeira, taekwondo, jujutsu, taichi are all individual-oriented or concentrated on 1v1 fighting - particulalry at those clubs that have dropped the martial art and are practising them more as sports (emphasis on gaining points rather than ko-ing the opponent(s) - the majority nowdays).
There isn't a teamspirit like in soccer, though soccer does also have a club spirit.
Agreed.
There is the notion of team fighting or of one vs many in all of the above especially when they are practised as martial arts, but it is usually underdeveloped and ignored until long after one passes the first dan (black belt).
Yet, martial arts is not a 100% not team sport. It can be, but often you need a partner, a pool of partners or even teambuddies.
You need partners to train, yes. You certainly don't fight in any other way than 1v1 in squad training and competitions though. There is no need for teamplay in that respect.
There is a certain need for team spirit in exhibitions, that more than one people are needed to demonstrate a particular task - but it is more in the sense of absolute trust, rather than in the sense of responding together in ever changing dynamic situations.
Just for the sake of argument.
Noir
Self competition: wanting to do it better than yesterday, wanting to have more fun than yesterday, enjoying the game whatever happens, maybe it's some sort of training to benefit in real life for some.
It's not self competition when the answer is yes to the points I raised.
Different goals, but they shouldn't exclude each other.
Best for the group vs best for the individual often do exclude each other.
Hello Noir,
You certainly don't fight in any other way than 1v1 in squad training and competitions though.
I guess it happens that more than 1v1 never happens in some dojos, other schools do. But even then: how many schools can exist with only two pupils?
..that more than one people are needed to demonstrate a particular task../QUOTE]
In demonstrations yes, but also for other reasons.
[quote=Puzz3D]Best for the group vs best for the individual often do exclude each other.
Yes. But good for the group and good for the individual does not.
Yes. But good for the group and good for the individual does not.
I don't know why you take that position. It's easy to think of examples where group interests are bad for an individual in the group. For instance, a group increases its dues, but some individuals in the group cannot afford the increase.
Best for the group vs best for the individual often do exclude each other.
This has to agreed with. As 'best' implies everything is 100%. That is unlikely to happen when more than one person is involved.
Good for the individual and good for the team (good is less than 100%) is achievable. But that's a bit of give and take.
If a player can't keep up with the rest of the group, or if one player is miles ahead of the group (for whatever reason), either positive or negative handicaps can be applied to make it good for everyone.
Tomisama
10-11-2007, 04:09
Some thoughts...
*****
The old saying is that, “there is no I in TEAM”.
However! If every member of the team is not dedicated to providing their full potential (total I), then the whole team will suffer.
The truth may be that, “TEAM is totally composed of I’s, working together to be something more than any of them could possibly be alone. The whole being greater than the sum of it’s parts.
*****
Evaluating personal performance must be qualified by the team dynamic one is operating in. Being good in one arena, can not be taken to insure success in any other.
1v1, 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4, all require different mind sets. For example a 3v3 is in no way a 1v1 + 1v1 + 1v1, or any other combination of separates’. There is just no way that that will work on a single battlefield against experienced team players.
*****
Tomisama
10-12-2007, 02:48
An elaboration:
1v1s are independent.
And this is a no brainer, team skill wise. You are responsible only to your self, and have full view, and control of everything.
2v2s are partnerships.
These are natural and relatively easy. Most battles can be handled spontaneously, without much if any communication, as everything is most always directly visible.
3v3s are companies.
The complexity level is now raised, and a minimum of communication is necessary at some point to coordinate activities. And at least one of your allies will probably be beyond your view most of the time.
4v4s are corporations.
Of course, the most complex of all, and the most difficult to be a member of. We now have new possibility for the specialized roles, beyond center and flanks. There is also the added problem of not being able to clearly see almost half of what is going on. And too, the need to communicate more than a simple direction is now truly an imperative to winning the battle.
The point:
Though they may be skilled individual players, not everyone is well suited to play team games. And the major indicator is, that they don’t think that there is a difference…
:bow:
As 'best' implies everything is 100%.
Best (superlative of `good') when used as an adjective means having the most positive qualities; "the best film of the year"; "the best solution"; "the best time for planting"; "wore his best suit".
The issue at hand cannot be solved by handicapping. The player wants unbalanced teams. A number of players said they don't want unbalanced teams. Which is in the best interest of the group; balanced or unbalanced teams?
Best (superlative of `good') when used as an adjective means having the most positive qualities; "the best film of the year"; "the best solution"; "the best time for planting"; "wore his best suit".
Yes. And when there's more than one involved in means watering down/not obtaining the best of everything.
The issue at hand cannot be solved by handicapping.
On the contrary.
The player wants unbalanced teams.
It's said that he wanted a certain style and appreciated that he found players who could support that style.
A number of players said they don't want unbalanced teams. Which is in the best interest of the group; balanced or unbalanced teams?
Add me to the list please. While I think it's ok to throw a challenge every now and then (body needs moderate stress to grow), I don't want every battle to be a one sided walkover. I think we tended to balance already.
But balance doesn't mean that everything has to be equal. If one is skilled and agressive and the others can't keep up, play 4vs3. Each player (on average) in the team/'team' of 3 needs to beat more than just one army of 960 to win. Each player (on average) in the team/'team' of 4 needs to beat less than one army of 960 to win.
I do not claim that above example does work, it's just an example of many things that can be done.
Tomisama
10-13-2007, 03:29
I don’t think we need to do any compensations, we are fine.
The problem is not with the group, but with the individual.
“One monkey don’t make no show.”
In team games, the team is absolutely everything, period!
A strong self focused individual player in any sport, can ruin teamwork.
And teamwork is absolutely necessary for teams to win.
Simple as that…
Some people think that because they can crank out some high scores, that they are better than other folk, and should have some special privileges.
On the other hand, we have players in our little community that are hard a work trying to help other players develop their skills, and increase their capabilities to become better team players.
Their sacrifices are many, including not counting the cost to their individual scores, while working to support and encourage others.
These are the truly superior players in my book.
Salute!
Jochi Khan
10-13-2007, 11:01
I don’t think we need to do any compensations, we are fine.
The problem is not with the group, but with the individual.
In team games, the team is absolutely everything, period!
A strong self focused individual player in any sport, can ruin teamwork.
Teamwork is absolutely necessary for teams to win.
Some people think that because they can crank out some high scores, that they are better than other folk, and should have some special privileges.
By using other good players to assist them in getting the high scores.
On the other hand, we have players in our little community that are hard a work trying to help other players develop their skills, and increase their capabilities to become better team players.
Their sacrifices are many, including not counting the cost to their individual scores, while working to support and encourage others.
These are the truly superior players in my book.
Salute!
Simply put but very true Tomisama :bow:
Hello Tomisama,
I don’t think we need to do any compensations, we are fine.
..
Their sacrifices are many, including not counting the cost to their individual scores, while working to support and encourage others.
Yes, I think so too: we were doing fine. And apart from a couple of less balanced games (blame that on the lack of individuals who played and still wanting to mix or something else) we quietly tried to balance.
Obviously, and the second part seems to suggest this too, some do not unleash the full potential. I do not say it's bad to think about the others, but I do say that this group should be flexible enough to provide the individual what he/she needs. A 1vs1 simply isn't the same as having more than one opponent and maybe some sort of ally.
SamWars was fine, and as long as the dojo spirit is high, it will remain fine. Cheating, namecalling, abuse, deception, that will ruin it, not a style of playing the game. Apart from me spending 3k too much and hiding monks in the woods, there have been none such a thing.
The problem is not with the group, but with the individual.
Without individuals there is no group.
In team games, the team is absolutely everything, period!
Totalwar is not a normal teamgame.
By using other good players to assist them in getting the high scores.
Yes, the anvils, blackbirds, baits, fakers and so on. This can be complemented by either an aggressive or passive player. I can be accused of all of these.
Yes, the anvils, blackbirds, baits, fakers and so on. This can be complemented by either an aggressive or passive player.
Having a passive and an aggressive player on the same team doesn't work very well if neither are willing to change their style of play. They will each end up fighting the enemy team separately, and be defeated in detail.
Tomisama
10-14-2007, 15:31
Having a passive and an aggressive player on the same team doesn't work very well if neither are willing to change their style of play. They will each end up fighting the enemy team separately, and be defeated in detail.
True, but I don’t think that I would classify any player as passive (only reactive), perhaps cautious or conservative, but I may be mincing words.
People will play conservatively if they are uncertain about what’s going to happen. Communication and experience with a given set of players will bring them into better supportive, and eventually more active lead roles.
But this takes time, and effort. And to expect someone to be your (not you personally) “wingman of years”, in only a months time (and only playing weekends), is fairly preposterous. And this is exponentially exaggerated when there was no communication effort made.
True, but I don’t think that I would classify any player as passive (only reactive), perhaps cautious or conservative, but I may be mincing words.
You're right Tomisama, this may be blunt stereotyping, sorry.
I also think players show more than one of these stereotypes in each battle. An anvil player (yes, I know :embarassed: ) for example can have some cavalry to hammer, harass or chase.
People will play conservatively if they are uncertain about what’s going to happen.
Yes, or to fool the opponent/wear his patience. That can give opportunities.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.