Yes, thanks for that. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
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.
Printable View
Yes, thanks for that. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
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.
European structures take away from the atmosphere, but not really from gameplay. It's nice to get rid of those in this mod.Quote:
Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul
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 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:Quote:
I can live better with an occasional windmill
at the bottom.Quote:
windmill 4
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.Quote:
What do you think about Medieval towns etc.?
Noir
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
I agree with everything you said. Thanks for the feedback.
:laugh4:Quote:
windmill 4
He escaped, I'm sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir
:laugh4:
Bad match up eh?
This is exactly what I had in mind R’as :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
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.
Sorry, I didn't explain properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomisama
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Tomisama: are you going to follow geography a bit? Hills for the inland provinces and plains for the coastal and delta ones?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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
[/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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.
Do you have a partner who wants to pair up with you every game? If you do, then play with him all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
An excellent idea!Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
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:
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:
***
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by puzz3D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomisama
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
Ok that must be me you are referring to then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
The quote seems to be emphasising the importance of kills.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
The goal of achieving intuitive team play is laudable. It's not something we can achieve now or in the immediate future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
I was unaware of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
I think it's important that players feel the game is being conducted in a fair way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
I don't understand. Doesn't the player you want to ally with have the option of not allying with you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
I can see that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
I think you placed too much expection on these players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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:
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Heh, rather than expectation, I'd say I have faith. But doubt anyone is getting that picture from me at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
But this is all moot. Good to know what your thinking though. I'm glad you chose to speak up.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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
It doesn't always show it works, and if it works, can we say it worked? There is no plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
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.
I'll leave the thread open.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
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.
You're being highly competitive whether you see it that way or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
You have faith, but you quit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
I believe the aggressive style of play you are using is unsound in Samurai Wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
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.Quote:
I believe the aggressive style of play you are using is unsound in Samurai Wars.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
No, I do not set standards. If anyone wants something I'll try.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Playing with and against you is good.Quote:
If I meet that standard, do you want me on your team rather than playing against me?
I've never noticed.Quote:
Do you're teamates prevent you from being the best that you can be?
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.Quote:
Do you enter a group activity to pursue individual excellence independently of others?
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.Quote:
Do you object when the group wants to do something that's in the best interest of the group?
I try to play 1v1 at times.Quote:
If so, this game has a 1v1 mode for you.
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.Quote:
We agreed to try to balance the teams.
No, I don't recall so.Quote:
Nothing was said about excluding specific teammates from pairing.
He's just in the other team and in the same game as me.Quote:
If a player declines to pair with you, that's his perrogative.
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.Quote:
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.
Martial arts clubs require club spirit, but not team spirit.
Noir
Hello Noir,
Some, not all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir
There isn't a teamspirit like in soccer, though soccer does also have a club spirit.Quote:
Martial arts clubs require club spirit, but not team spirit.
Noir
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,
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).Quote:
Originally posted by TosaInu
Some, not all.
Agreed.Quote:
There isn't a teamspirit like in soccer, though soccer does also have a club spirit.
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).
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.Quote:
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.
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
It's not self competition when the answer is yes to the points I raised.Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
Best for the group vs best for the individual often do exclude each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
Hello Noir,
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir
[quote]..that more than one people are needed to demonstrate a particular task../QUOTE]
In demonstrations yes, but also for other reasons.
Yes. But good for the group and good for the individual does not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
This has to agreed with. As 'best' implies everything is 100%. That is unlikely to happen when more than one person is involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
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.
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.
*****
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:
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
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?
Yes. And when there's more than one involved in means watering down/not obtaining the best of everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
On the contrary.Quote:
The issue at hand cannot be solved by handicapping.
It's said that he wanted a certain style and appreciated that he found players who could support that style.Quote:
The player wants 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.Quote:
A number of players said they don't want unbalanced teams. Which is in the best interest of the group; balanced or unbalanced teams?
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.
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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomisama
Teamwork is absolutely necessary for teams to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomisama
By using other good players to assist them in getting the high scores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomisama
Simply put but very true Tomisama :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomisama
Hello Tomisama,
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomisama
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.
Without individuals there is no group.Quote:
The problem is not with the group, but with the individual.
Totalwar is not a normal teamgame.Quote:
In team games, the team is absolutely everything, period!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jochi Khan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
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.
You're right Tomisama, this may be blunt stereotyping, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomisama
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.
Yes, or to fool the opponent/wear his patience. That can give opportunities.Quote:
People will play conservatively if they are uncertain about what’s going to happen.