Code of Conduct Clan CCC ...some rules for better multiplayer experience?

[zzippy]

Hi!

Ever played a multiplayergame, lets say a 1v1, where you owned 75% of the map, but opponent constantly spammed champion units paid by 2 markets merchandising caravan beyond walls across the map?

Or played vs romans spamming 5 army camps around your base CC without any intention to build them up, just to irritate you?

Ever seen 3 warships in the smallest puddle on a non naval map?

My idea is to found kinda clan, CCC, which is marked in player name, eg: zzippy(CCC). Members of CCC would agree to:

- not building any walls

- not using caravan between 2 markets/ports

- no ships (ports allowed for wood gathering) on non-naval maps

- no use of roman armycamps

Any thoughts?

greets, zippy

[bouke]

Without trade the game ends when all resources are gathered. So you need trade.

bb

[FeXoR]

Yep, I have some thoughts on this:

Fix things by balancing them - not by adding arbitrary non-implemented people dependent rules you will never be able to check if sticked to.

The main reason for this is:

- If a game is balanced you don't need any of those rules.

- If you add PPL dependent rules you need a vast amount of man power to check if sticked to (and usually such things lead to different points of views, conflict, stress and anger and that's bad for the PPL)

Better do it the "healthy" way (though I'm not exactly sure what "healthy" is but I guess you get the point ^^).

I hope that was not to forthright...

Edited May 8, 2014 by FeXoR

[bouke]

what are the rules over fishing boats?

bb

[zzippy]

Without trade the game ends when all resources are gathered. So you need trade.

bb

No, unless you want an endless game. When resources are all gathered, the final combat will decide who wins.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Not , it's impossibly use trade to win.

[zzippy]

what are the rules over fishing boats ..

Yep, this would be a question. i would say: Fishing boats are ok.

[FeXoR]

(it already started, faster than I though BTW)

Edited May 8, 2014 by FeXoR

[zzippy]

Not , it's impossibly use trade to win.

Maybe when real good players fight each other. Sure you can attack a caravan, bad thing is they are pretty fast. I already lost games (sure, i am a noob) cuz I did no merchandising but opponents did.

Also caravans cause huge lag.

Edited May 8, 2014 by zzippy

[sanderd17]

In the next release, it should be pretty easy to chase (and kill) a trading caravan with cavalry.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Maybe when real good players fight each other. Sure you can attack a caravan, bad thing is they are pretty fast. I already lost games (sure, i am a noob) cuz I did no merchandising but opponents did.

Also caravans cause huge lag.

I have lag to.

What kind of match setting you play regularly?

1v1 300 pop max I haven't lag in my SVN ( developer version)

1v1v1(3 free for all) 300 pop max is very laggy specially with new AI Petra.

So I setting 1v1v1 with 150 max population.

[Andjety]

1) not building any walls

2) not using caravan between 2 markets/ports

3) no ships (ports allowed for wood gathering) on non-naval maps

4) no use of roman armycamps

I don't understand the rage against whose who are playing with the rules of the game...

No walls? I really like walls, and they are a great part of the game. If some player build a great fortres around his CC, then you have to siege of his town. That is great and fun. Well it takes time, so what.

Other are the same. Some civilizations have some avantage, others are not.

You will never be able to make people accepte extra rules as the rules of the game. Me for example will never accept to engage, no to make walls.

I understand you wish to play with people that agree with that. May be, better to makes a mod with differents rules.

[Andjety]

Actually, i think walls should be harder to destroy (except the door), but fire nothing except if they are guarded by mens. And there should be weapons that are able to makes mens pass over the walls without to destroy it.

[Stan`]

In the end, I think it is planned that only siege weapons can destroy walls.

[zzippy]

I don't understand the rage against whose who are playing with the rules of the game...

No rage at all. Just a little tired of ingame discussions about wall/merch abuse. In fact already quite a few players I know agree about walling and nonmerchandising. Just an agreement, marked somehow to the playername.

Maybe it would be better, as Tango suggested, to do this in the hostname instead.

[Lion.Kanzen]

You guys perform an early rush, the walls can be placed until 2 phase.

And if are not completed try to ignore them, the towers can be more letal but now in new A16 only range unit have the boost of extra fire.

[Andjety]

In the end, I think it is planned that only siege weapons can destroy walls.

I find that really great and logic.

No rage at all

Rage may not be the good world (my english is the worth of the universe). But being accused of "wall abuse", is a sort of annoying critic, and not at all justified (it seems to me), except if there was an agreement (like you wish).

[Lion.Kanzen]

I find that really great and logic.

Rage may not be the good world (my english is the worth of the universe). But being accused of "wall abuse", is a sort of annoying critic, and not at all justified (it seems to me), except if there was an agreement (like you wish).

Exactly how you describe that wall abuse?

[Andjety]

For me, there is no such thing as wall abuse. I don't understand the concept.

[FeXoR]

zzippy: You call it "abuse" but you are talking about "game features".

If they really are imbalanced (e.g. to strong), they will be balanced (e.g. made weaker).

But as I understand it you (and maybe some other PPL) just don't like the game features.

If this is the case a mod that weakens (or removes) those features would help you (as long as you can find PPL playing them).

That would make the ingame "discussions" obsolete also.

If you like to socialize in a clan is IMO an entirely different thing though...

Edited May 8, 2014 by FeXoR

[bouke]

In the end, I think it is planned that only siege weapons can destroy walls.

that was already so in a more early version

[zzippy]

@ Lion.Kanzen, Andjety

To get an idea of "wallabuse", a screenshot :

[Andjety]

Well, if he has no doors, he will be starving (out of ressources) very fast. Puting 15 catapults (with + 5 bonus), protected by mens and cav will put this walls down enough fast. Without doors, he can't even attac the catapult with cav or a hero, so it should be very fast.

The wish to have an absolute security within autarcic walls is an illusory desire of power, because without ressources, there is no way to survive. But having a main town, strongly protected by double walls, whereas a big army is colonizing other territories could be a good strategic advantage (i find it worth trying).

Edited May 9, 2014 by Andjety

[zzippy]

The wish to have an absolute security within autarcic walls is an illusory desire of power, because without ressources, there is no way to survive.

..combined with merchandising there are enough resources. .in my opinion a game killer. If you enjoy besieging walltowers with 150000 health, np. I do not and I know that other players also think wall(tower)s are overpowered extremely. Until this is fixed in the main version, we will not tolerate the use of walls in our host.

A "CCC" in the playername (we already agreed that in hostname might be better) would show wall_merch_players not to join. Thats all.

[Andjety]

You need ressources to build merchants. That, ans the price of building an army, makes it impossible to defend against any opposent with ressources, and merchandising, and an army.

But i have no objection against your CCC club, except i will not play within.