Forums
-
Who's Online 5 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1.296 Guests (See full list)
-
Latest updates
-
-
Newest Posts
-
By gandalf_deluxe · Posted
@user1 HK_10 terminated a rated game without resigning when he started losing. My username is gandalf_deluxe metadata.jsoncommands.txt -
By Thorfinn the Shallow Minded · Posted
That is patently untrue. Fast castle strategies are high risk since they involve surrendering map control and walling your base. This can mean that you can lose access to key resources; the advantage comes in either being able to build two Town Centres to boom economically or potentially do a knight rush, both of which have a means to counter. Playing a game with 115 villagers and only 5 military units is only plausible on a map like Arena, and that sort of greedy strategy can usually be punished. Given the emphasis on micro in Age of Empires battles, smaller armies are a good thing. -
One of my friends is a musician and wants to perform some of the soundtracks from the game, specifically the Celtic tracks. It's not for a large concert. It's more on the scale of entertaining people waiting in line to get into fairgrounds or table hopping. -
.thumb.jpeg.6593e9caa97375b0d0fe3e8d0b0480a4.jpeg)
Solutions: 1. Keep suggesting balance to the host until everyone agrees 2. Don't let trolls in. You question unknown users until you are sure that they are here to play and have a decent level. A good question to ask is " how many pop at min 10" 3. Choose civs wisely. Don't do random civs -
There is a huge range of skill levels in the lobby so it's often impossible to balance teams perfectly. Even if the player skills are balanced, civs and counter units screw it up again. Having broken champ cavs doesn't help and civs not having basic counter units make it worse. Furthermore, you get smurfs misreporting their level or noob players claiming to be pro just to be allowed into a game. And then there is Geriatrix trolling you with new accounts every day, in which he plays badly on purpose or throws tantrum and ruins the game for everyone. It's also possible for a theoretically stronger team to lose badly because one guy throws the game or if someone ragequits.
-
There are some efforts. The 1v1 rating in the lobby is a elo rating which could help to some point. A strong player in 1v1 is not weak in team games. Weaknesses: Not everyone plays regularly rated 1v1s and some have low elo on purpose (for fun). Smurf accounts start again at 1200 or they gained their elo years ago and don't play rated again. Local ratings mod rates the players based on their scores. This score usually is skewed for some players. ValihrAnt e.g. is one of the best and rated mediocre. One could develop this further and check where the score lacks. But it would always be a system where you expect a player to act in a way and not rate how successful the team actually is. Local ratings with elo or glicko-2 rating based on pure wins of teams do not get enough games to divide good and bad players from 4v4 games. I did a sketch of this, the results weren't satisfying. Maybe it would work if the databases of 4 heavy players join their databases. A team lobby rating like the 1v1 might work, is untested though. This would also require that games are often labeled as rated. Some players do indeed complain a lot until their team is very unlikely to lose. Ideally the player would lose and win 50% of the games and just rank up in the rating. -
By wowgetoffyourcellphone · Posted
It doesn't have to be as complicated as I outlined.
-
.thumb.png.ce58cea22940c255f5b0a735d5abee36.png)
