/* * ======================================== * end IE5/6 hover menu fixes * ======================================== */ #nav_shadow{ background: url(style_images/rts-sanc/nav_shadow.gif) repeat-x 0 0; height: 4px; font-size: 0; padding: 0; overflow: hidden; } #userlinks, #userlinksguest{ height: 33px; margin: 0; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; clear: both; background: #11191b url(style_images/rts-sanc/userlinks_top.gif) repeat-x 0 0; border-bottom: 1px solid #000; color: #fff; } #userlinks a:link, #userlinks a:active, #userlinks a:visited, #userlinksguest a:link, #userlinksguest a:active, #userlinksguest a:visited{ color: #87e6be; } #userlinks a:hover, #userlinksguest a:hover{ color: #338396; } #submenu p, #userlinks p, #userlinksguest p{ background: transparent !important; border: 0 !important; font-size: 11px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: 1px; margin: 0 !important; padding: 7px 0 7px 0; text-align: right; } #userlinks p, #userlinksguest p{ font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: 0; } #userlinksguest p.pcen{ text-align: center; } #submenu p.home, #userlinks p.home, #userlinksguest p.home{ float: left; } #submenu a:link, #submenu a:visited{ background: transparent; color: #3A4F6C; padding: 0 6px 0 6px; text-decoration: none; } #submenu a:hover, #submenu a:active{ background: transparent; color: #5176B5; } .rc{ background: #e6e6e6 url(style_images/rts-sanc/navstrip.gif) no-repeat -7px 2px; } .rc_l{ background: url(style_images/rts-sanc/rc_border.gif) repeat-y 0 0; height: 100%; } .rc_t{ background: url(style_images/rts-sanc/rc_border.gif) repeat-x 0 0; height: 100%; } .rc_r{ background: url(style_images/rts-sanc/rc_border.gif) repeat-y 100% 0; height: 100%; } .rc_b{ background: url(style_images/rts-sanc/rc_border.gif) repeat-x 0 100%; height: 100%; } .rc_tr{ background: url(style_images/rts-sanc/rc_tr.gif) no-repeat 100% 0; height: 100%; } .rc_br{ background: url(style_images/rts-sanc/rc_br.gif) no-repeat 100% 100%; height: 100%; } .rc_bl{ background: url(style_images/rts-sanc/rc_bl.gif) no-repeat 0 100%; height: 100%; } .rc_tl{ background: url(style_images/rts-sanc/rc_tl.gif) no-repeat 0 0; height: 100%; } .rc_content{ padding: 8px; } #navstrip{ background: transparent; color: #434547; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; padding: 8px 8px 8px 40px; } #navstrip a:link, #navstrip a:visited{ color: #434547; text-decoration: none; } #navstrip a:hover, #navstrip a:active{ background: transparent; color: #338396; text-decoration: none; } #navstrip h1 { background: transparent; color: #434547; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: -7px; margin-left: -40px; margin-top: -15px; } #navstrip2{ background: transparent; color: #434547; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; padding: 8px 8px 8px 40px; } #navstrip2 a:link, #navstrip2 a:visited{ color: #434547; text-decoration: none; } #navstrip2 a:hover, #navstrip2 a:active{ background: transparent; color: #338396; text-decoration: none; } .navsub { background: transparent; color: #434547; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0; /*there is something being inherited here that is fucking with the margins */ margin-left: 0; /* here too */ margin-top: -7px; } .toplinks{ background: transparent; color: #565656; margin: 0; padding: 0 0 5px 0; text-align: right; } .toplinks span{ color: #565656; font-size: 11px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 5px; } .toplinks a { color: #686868; } .copyright{ font-size: 11px; margin: 0; padding: 4px; } .skin_cr{ height: 20px; margin: 0; padding: 7px; background: #11191b url(style_images/rts-sanc/userlinks_bottom.gif) repeat-x 0 0; border-top: 1px solid #000; color: #fff; text-align: center; font-size: 11px; } .skin_cr a:link, .skin_cr a:active, .skin_cr a:visited{ color: #87e6be; } .skin_cr a:hover{ color: #338396; } /* * ======================================== * print page styles * ======================================== */ #print{ margin: 20px auto 20px auto; padding: 0; text-align: left; width: 85%; } #print h1, #print h2, #print h3, #print h4, #print p{ color: #036; font-size: 18px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 8px; } #print h2, #print h3, #print p{ border-bottom: 1px solid #999; font-size: 11px; font-weight: normal; } #print h3{ background: #F5F5F5; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0 0 10px 0; } #print h4{ background: #F9F9F9; font-size: 11px; } #print p{ margin: 0 0 5px 0; padding: 10px; } #print p.printcopy{ border: 0; color: #000; text-align: center; } #networknavbar { background: #11191B url(style_images/rts-sanc/userlinks_top.gif) repeat-x 0 0; color: #FFFFFF; height: 35px; } #networknavbar ul { float: right; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 3px; margin-bottom: 0px; position: relative; z-index: 10000; padding: 0px; } #networknavbar li { color: white; list-style: none outside none; float: left; font-size: 13px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px; } #networknavbar li a { color: #FFFFFF; display: block; padding: 5px 6px; text-decoration: none; } #networknavbar li a:hover { background: none repeat scroll 0 0 #0D1B2A; border-radius: 4px 4px 4px 4px; } #networknavbar .main { width: 955px; }

Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

RTS-Sanctuary _ TAD News _ TAD Tournament - Tournament Information

Posted by: Amhaye Dec 22 2014, 04:51 PM

Age of Empires 3: Spring Championships

The tournament information can be found http://eso-community.net

Posted by: Umeu Dec 23 2014, 06:50 AM

BO11?!!?

i hope its not boneng vs heroes in the finals, you will be garantueed that every game atleast one of them will camp the corner of the map for 60 minutes, trying to play their way out of a hopeless situation. your finals will take longer than a cricket match tongue.gif

anyway, nice effort, i hope it will succeed! GL to all the participants


btw have you posted it on the official forums too, and perhaps pk?

Posted by: Garja Dec 23 2014, 09:09 AM

Ye if there is one thing we can learn from PK tourney is no bo9-bo11, they're overkill

Posted by: Umeu Dec 24 2014, 10:49 AM

QUOTE(Garja @ Dec 23 2014, 02:09 PM)
Ye if there is one thing we can learn from PK tourney is no bo9-bo11, they're overkill
*



also you might want to take a look at your civ rules, most notably civ rule 2.3

because imo right now your civ rules massively encourage playing iro otto india etc in game1 and as a result whoever wins game1 is massively favored.

take a bo3

game1
p1 goes iro, p2 goes otto
p1 wins

game2
p1 goes brits, p2 goes anything
p2 wins

now with 1-1 a piece, your rule 2.3 excludes p2 to play anything that can reasonably be excepted to stand up to india iro otto japan (dunno why sioux is in there, aztec or even brits would make more sense), specially since map3 is sag, which is a good map for all 4 of these civs.

game3
p1 goes iro p2 can't play an op civ and will most likely lose.

in any case, it's pretty unfair that one player gets such a big handicap in a crucial game in a series, based only on the fact that he lost the first game, which shouldnt matter too much in an extended series.


a bo5 or 7 wouldnt pan out much different

game1
p1 goes iro, p2 goes otto
p1 wins

game2
p1 goes brits, p2 goes iro
p2 wins

game3
p1 goes india, p2 goes brits
p1 wins

game4
p1 goes french, p2 goes otto
p2 wins

game5
p1 goes iro, p2 goes anything and loses

for bo7 there would be a game6 also
p1 goes germans, p2 goes PORTS
p2 wins

and here comes the real problem with this rule, even tho p2 won the previous game with ports for crying out loud, he is now not allowed to play a civ that can match what p1 is allowed to field in the final game.


(unless rule 2.1 means you cant play any of the op civs more than twice. aka either iro iro, or otto iro, or jap india will make you reach your cap, then it would be slightly more fair in a bo5+)

Posted by: Garja Dec 24 2014, 11:39 AM

problem with the winning civ rule is that you have series of one win apiece in every round. It is much better to ban winning and losing civ after everygame

Posted by: Umeu Dec 24 2014, 12:15 PM

QUOTE(Garja @ Dec 24 2014, 04:39 PM)
problem with the  winning civ rule is that you have series of one win apiece in every round. It is much better to ban winning and losing civ after everygame
*



i would agree if the max best of would be a bo7. and the winner of the previous has to lock in his civ first in the next one.

Posted by: Garja Dec 24 2014, 02:39 PM

I don't get why the winner has to be penalized more than the loser.

Posted by: Amhaye Dec 24 2014, 08:18 PM

We changed the civilization restrictions now for every bracket stage. This should improve the balance of the match-ups and the laming in the tournament as you can not play a 'lame' civ more than once in a BO3, more than twice in BO5 and 7 and not more than three times in a BO9/11.

Posted by: Umeu Dec 24 2014, 08:29 PM

QUOTE(Garja @ Dec 24 2014, 07:39 PM)
I don't get why the winner has to be penalized more than the loser.
*



its not so much that there has to be a penalty, but you have to find a way to counter endless civ changing, and it makes more sense to give this (slight) disadvantage to the one that already has an advantage, instead of the one who has a disadvantage.

ps what are the changes, i dont see any on the site.

Posted by: Amhaye Dec 24 2014, 08:37 PM

(You should now, i changed it biggrin.gif)

We also had another concept:
The player who loses a game may pick the next map.

Posted by: Umeu Dec 24 2014, 08:47 PM

QUOTE(Amhaye @ Dec 25 2014, 01:37 AM)
(You should now, i changed it biggrin.gif)

We also had another concept:
The player who loses a game may pick the next map.
*




ah i see it now. does that mean that any of those 5 civs can only be used once? or that each of them, can only be used once

anyway, i dont like the map concept, for a tournament imo things should be as fair as possible, so both sides should have the same advantages and disadvantages, i prefer a predetermined mapset, although it should be balanced out, giving all types of styles the chance to appear. i think PK clan did a pretty good job at that usually, although their first map was sometimes a bit problematic.


Posted by: Garja Dec 24 2014, 10:05 PM

QUOTE(Umeu @ Dec 25 2014, 03:29 AM)
QUOTE(Garja @ Dec 24 2014, 07:39 PM)
I don't get why the winner has to be penalized more than the loser.
*



its not so much that there has to be a penalty, but you have to find a way to counter endless civ changing, and it makes more sense to give this (slight) disadvantage to the one that already has an advantage, instead of the one who has a disadvantage.

ps what are the changes, i dont see any on the site.
*


But that problem is easily solved by just banning both winning and losing civ (basically banning all already used civs for each player).
The only thing is that it would reasonably lead to only mirrors which btw is fine since it's planned to have bo9/bo11

I agree that custom map pool and map choice don't fit together.

Posted by: Neur0n Dec 24 2014, 10:24 PM

Why not just simply play FP 1.2, if you go to such great lengths to fix the imbalance in the game by making up such complicated rules, that more than 100 players will have trouble understanding or following.

Or do the whole tourney exclusively with euro civs (no Otto) and then nobody will complain about lame stuff. It might actually be more impressive if a player can win the tourney without ever using Iro, India, Otto, etc. So why not do a tourney without them?

Posted by: Alaron Dec 25 2014, 03:42 AM

I agree that the map set should be predetermined. The map counter-pick idea was suggested by someone outside of the tournament administration, and was only briefly considered; predetermined maps are much more fair.

QUOTE(Neur0n @ Dec 24 2014, 09:24 PM)
Why not just simply play FP 1.2, if you go to such great lengths to fix the imbalance in the game by making up such complicated rules, that more than 100 players will have trouble understanding or following.

Or do the whole tourney exclusively with euro civs (no Otto) and then nobody will complain about lame stuff. It might actually be more impressive if a player can win the tourney without  ever using Iro, India, Otto, etc. So why not do a tourney without them?
*



Well, Fanpatch isn't perfect; balance is still an issue, though smaller than on RE patch. Additionally, very few active players have actually played fanpatch, and those that have haven't played it for a long time. To offer a tournament on a completely different patch and force everyone to adapt to a new metagame for each civ is a bit much to ask. Not to mention that this would split the community, even if only temporarily, with many players playing on FP and many on RE. Besides, we're going to be using balanced maps (which was the best part about FP) anyway, so that should help.

As for hosting a tournament solely with Euro civs, I don't know that it's such a great idea either. For one, that would make the matchups and games a lot less diverse, as many Euro matchups involve similar units and compositions. More importantly, not everyone will agree that the excluded civs are any better (or worse) than many of the Euro civs. It's debatable China and Aztec, and even India and Sioux, are really any better than Euro civs.

I suppose banning the Iroquois and Ottomans is doable... maybe even a decent option; I would be interested in hearing people's opinions on that. At the very least it would make the first couple of games more interesting, and on balanced maps I think the majority of the matchups would actually be fairly well balanced. This would also allow for some more acceptable civilization rules. Thoughts?

Posted by: Neur0n Dec 25 2014, 07:00 AM

One more thing I forgot. I think some maps have been overplayed and overrepresented in tourneys and in 1v1 challenges (like the smackdown ones).

We've already seen tens of games on Great Plains, Siberia, Saguenay, New England and Yucatan. We've probably seen every possible matchup and strat on GP and Siberia, it's getting really hackneyed. I like that you included Pampas, which is a nice map, Himalayas too (although it has its problems).

But if we're going to see another tourney with Great Plains-Saguenay-Siberia-Painted Desert-New England it's going to get boring. I'm sure everyone can't wait to see who ships first caravels in the pond on NE... and who walls up first on Saguenay and does a FI with a fishboom. We can't wait to see those strats... Or who will do a semi/FF on Siberia with raids. We've never seen that... Or who will wall up on New England and put a fort behind the wall and do a water boom... etc etc.

I think it's time to give more maps a chance to be played competitively. One possibility would be to include Bayou and Sonora, possibly with a small modification, so that they would always have a starting hunt close to the TC.

And maybe we would start seeing new gameplay in a tourney, instead of the same old laming ships and fishboom on Sag/NE and FF on Siberia. I'm sure nobody could predict most players would (semi)FF on Siberia...

Other maps which are also playable:

Andes (FP 1.2, no river)
Deccan
Great Lakes
Silk Road
Yellow River
Rockies (why not, FP 1.3 version maybe)

I think it would be a great idea to start including these maps in tourneys, because using the same maps will pretty much show the same old gameplay that we see in smackdowns and that we've seen in previous tourneys. If these maps have some problems which are fixable, I can help fix them, so you can have a special tourney version which is playable competitively.

Posted by: Alaron Dec 25 2014, 11:45 AM

Well, H2O and I were discussing this the other day, and we actually just decided to axe GP; the middle TP is simply too imbalanced and the map is overplayed anyway. This was the list we have so far:

1. Kamchatka (Group Stages)
2. High Plains
3. Hudson Bay
4. Siberia
5. Arizona
6. Mongolia
7. Deccan
8. Saguenay (Possibly FP, to fix natives)
9. Andes (FP 1.2)
10. New England
11. Arkansas

Overall a very balanced selection of maps, despite the lack of GP; and the first 3 maps are all new maps. Amhaye must've died or something, because he hasn't been around to update the site =P

Posted by: Umeu Dec 25 2014, 06:40 PM

QUOTE(Neur0n @ Dec 25 2014, 03:24 AM)
Why not just simply play FP 1.2, if you go to such great lengths to fix the imbalance in the game by making up such complicated rules, that more than 100 players will have trouble understanding or following.

Or do the whole tourney exclusively with euro civs (no Otto) and then nobody will complain about lame stuff. It might actually be more impressive if a player can win the tourney without  ever using Iro, India, Otto, etc. So why not do a tourney without them?
*



i dont think its more impressive actually. what actually would be impressive is winning a tournament with lets say russia when iro otto india arent banned. if they are, then i dont see why it would be impressive. india for example is actually a much harder civ to master and properly play than france for example. sure 10/10 is strong but its also easily scouted and neutered if you respond adequately. iro isnt that hard, but not easier either than france or your average euro civ. otto ofc is pretty ez tongue.gif

anyway, i'd rather not see any restrictions beyond banning a used civ, after a win only, or win or loss, i dunno yet.

aoe is always going to have civ imbalances, the only way to fix this is by playing only mirrors and having a map set which is balanced, garjas maps may allow for this, so its something to consider for a different tournament. but at the same time i think the variaty and your ability to adapt to this is also a skill that should be rewarded. some people are good at mirrors, others are good at understanding the weaknesses of your opponents civ, and again others are good at exploiting the weaknesses of your opponents playstyle.

if we are discussing lame civs, then i would also say ban lame play, and thus play only landmaps. probably ones that cant be walled. there will be no end to the rule set... so i favor as few rules as possible.


ps deccan not balanced bro tongue.gif

Posted by: Garja Dec 25 2014, 07:44 PM

I dont know where it came from but favoring euro civs over others is a nonsense bias. Unless you talk about spain or ports MUs are no way more interesting than let's say iro mirror or india mirror.

About maps, I'm fixing all.of the previous released ones, improving resource balance or even adding some new variations

Posted by: Neur0n Dec 26 2014, 01:27 PM

QUOTE(Garja @ Dec 26 2014, 03:44 AM)
I dont know where it came from but favoring euro civs over others is  a nonsense bias
*


Yes, it's a nonsense bias, but remember that TWC and TAD civs were not made to be balanced, they were made so that people would buy the expansions. They were made OP, uberunique, etc, on purpose to attract more buyers.

One more thing, think about this: what do you do when Microsoft dissolved the company you were working for (Ensemble), then you get hired by another company and then you get a contract to make another patch for TAD? You do your job, no hard feelings, right? Or maybe you screw the balance a bit to throw a hot potato on Microsoft's hands, so that later they would have to employ you again to keep fixing it. But, damn, Microsoft stopped caring, in the meantime. That's how I see the picture. The former employees from ES were probably super-pissed when they made REpatch, so they had no reason to make it as balanced as possible.

So, you're looking for reason where there wasn't really much, there was more retaliation, most probably.

My 2 cents.

Posted by: Alaron Dec 27 2014, 04:09 AM

That doesn't change the fact that most of the TAD/TWC civs really aren't all that imbalanced. Regardless of intention, that's how it turned out; the bias is merely the result of people not knowing how to counter them.

Posted by: Umeu Dec 27 2014, 08:38 AM

QUOTE(Alaron @ Dec 27 2014, 09:09 AM)
That doesn't change the fact that most of the TAD/TWC civs really aren't all that imbalanced. Regardless of intention, that's how it turned out; the bias is merely the result of people not knowing how to counter them.
*



and they will never get to figure it out, because one of the best, if not the best way to figure out a civ is by playing it yourself. but all these white knights say its lame and then refuse to play the civ and play vs it. they create their crazy perfect world and then try to impose this on other people in a competitive setting. thats absurd.

imo the best way to counter the use of op civs is by making sure your mappool is well tailored and designed for this. for example, making a balanced map of bayou your 3rd map in the pool would go a long way towards making sure that iro, otto, and to a lesser extent india and japan arent chosen on that map, because the mapdesign has features that all work against these civs.

no tps for iro and otto, bad building spots and no herdables for india and japan, meaning the agra and shrines are hard to be placed. also small rush distance + bad building spots makes it hard for japan to hold rushes. a few tweaks to the map as suggested by neuron, and you have a good competitive map. sure japan and india are harder to hurt by choosing the right maps, but its fairly clear that japan does worse on small open maps than on huge maps with lots of chokes. and that india is also favored by tps herdables and open maps

Posted by: Mundzuk Dec 28 2014, 09:12 PM

The fact you are forced to play defensive vs some civs and automatically give up map control is absurd. Getting outmassed just because of civs is ridiculous as well. What kind of strange reality you live in Umeu? I've noticed for a long time all you did was lame just because you knew those were no go to civs. Some people actually have standards.

lame civs have done well to kill AOE3 and you should know that

Posted by: Umeu Dec 29 2014, 06:33 AM

QUOTE(Mundzuk @ Dec 29 2014, 02:12 AM)
The fact you are forced to play defensive vs some civs and automatically give up map control is absurd. Getting outmassed just because of civs is ridiculous as well. What kind of strange reality you live in Umeu? I've noticed for a long time all you did was lame just because you knew those were no go to civs. Some people actually have standards.

lame civs have done well to kill AOE3 and you should know that
*



pretty much everything you said is wrong... but ok.

lol standards? standards of what? its a game... and to win everything is permitted within the INTENTIONAL design of the game. russia forces you to give up mapcontrol, yet nobody would say russia is the top civ or op in aoe. A german towerrush forces you to give up mapcontrol, same story. fruit... even ports 10/10 FORCES YOU to give up mapcontrol. you are talking complete bs.
you dont even know what makes civs such as iro otto and india op... so please keep out of the discussion.

as i've said time and time again, laming is a style of play and every civ has a way of laming it. OP is a design or balancing issue, there are op units, such as urumi, bowrider, abus guns, sepoy, yumi etc but only a few civs are really OP. probably only iro and otto. however these civs are really only op on some maps. so the best way to make sure they aren't spammed in a tournament is by choosing the right mappool. if a player decides to go otto on painted desert and smashes a brits, that is very good accomplishment.

if you want no op, no imbalance, you should play 1 map without treasures and tp's and only mirror. GL HF with that and your standards. but you should know its just your twisted mind making up excuses for the fact you arent good enough to beat these civs. neither in a different mu or a mirror.

Posted by: Fard Dec 29 2014, 11:44 AM

NO flame pls

Posted by: SwissPro94 Dec 30 2014, 10:52 PM

QUOTE(Fard @ Dec 29 2014, 11:44 AM)
NO flame pls
*



Fatkid? Nolifekidz? Emokidz?

Posted by: Mundzuk Dec 31 2014, 08:37 AM

Are you fruiting deluded Umeu? You use OP lame civs for most of your wins and you say it's not true? The fact you even bring up ports 10/10 invalidates your argument. I can do no vill age up n poopie and still have map control but it's not considered "OP". I'm sure you don't need me to explain why it isn't.

Laming is a style of playing? People practically reherse OP strats and get to brig+ with it. It's not a way of playing, it's just abuse.

Posted by: Garja Dec 31 2014, 09:29 AM

QUOTE(Mundzuk @ Dec 31 2014, 03:37 PM)
Are you fruiting deluded Umeu? You use OP lame civs for most of your wins and you say it's not true? The fact you even bring up ports 10/10 invalidates your argument. I can do no vill age up n poopie and still have map control but it's not considered "OP". I'm sure you don't need me to explain why it isn't.

Laming is a style of playing? People practically reherse OP strats and get to brig+ with it. It's not a way of playing, it's just abuse.
*


If someone is nub is gonna be noob with top civs too.

Posted by: TheMista Dec 31 2014, 10:43 AM

QUOTE(Garja @ Dec 31 2014, 02:29 PM)
QUOTE(Mundzuk @ Dec 31 2014, 03:37 PM)
Are you fruiting deluded Umeu? You use OP lame civs for most of your wins and you say it's not true? The fact you even bring up ports 10/10 invalidates your argument. I can do no vill age up n poopie and still have map control but it's not considered "OP". I'm sure you don't need me to explain why it isn't.

Laming is a style of playing? People practically reherse OP strats and get to brig+ with it. It's not a way of playing, it's just abuse.
*


If someone is nub is gonna be noob with top civs too.
*




IF you guys are going to complain about op civs , complaining here , or the players that play them wont do any good. Its the developers fault that left the balance to as it is . If someone wants to win in a tourmanet will use everything in his power/reach to win an abuse, a bug etc , as long its not a cheat it should be ecceptable.

Posted by: Umeu Dec 31 2014, 12:38 PM

QUOTE(Mundzuk @ Dec 31 2014, 01:37 PM)
Are you fruiting deluded Umeu? You use OP lame civs for most of your wins and you say it's not true? The fact you even bring up ports 10/10 invalidates your argument. I can do no vill age up n poopie and still have map control but it's not considered "OP". I'm sure you don't need me to explain why it isn't.

Laming is a style of playing? People practically reherse OP strats and get to brig+ with it. It's not a way of playing, it's just abuse.
*



are you stupid? I never said Iro otto india etc aren't OP, im saying you shouldnt fruiting confuse 2 different things and make clear what you mean with what you say.

OVERPOWERED and LAME are 2 different things. Any civ can be lamed, not every civ is overpowered. And when civs are overpowered, this is mostly because they have a combination of elements which arent properly balanced. Sioux is like a big exception because really the only broken thing about sioux is their bowrider. the rest of what they can make is pretty poopie.

You say these civs are OP because you get outmassed and they take mapcontrol from you. Well by that definition russia should be one of the most OP civs in the game... while in fact its the opposite. Hence your entire argument falls flat on the ground. The reason these civs are considered OP is because they can apply insane pressure while still maintaining an eco or tech advantage. AKA they don't really sacrifice anything in order to do this, whereas most other civs do have to.

this argument about just training op strats is complete bs because if that was the case any noob could have been brig with spain on nilla, yet it has the lowest winrate of all civs except brits. the reason you fail against all dumb poopie such as 12 sepoy rush is because you are making mistakes. not because that rush is so particularly good.

but keep up this little cry cry dance you people do every time there is a tournament.

ps i can beat you with any civ smile.gif even if u play iro/otto/india

Posted by: [TOAO] SoldieR Jan 2 2015, 12:57 AM

interesting...
aomers always flamed better than aoe3ers

Posted by: GiveUAnxiety Jan 2 2015, 06:47 PM

laugh.gif

Posted by: Pedro1989 Jan 26 2015, 05:12 PM

Hehe, great discussions as always about OPness!

But I just came here to tip my hat off to the OP guys who took it upon themselves to organize this tournament! flowers.gif

I'm not sure if I'll have the time to participate but I'll certainly try to watch some great matches!

Looking forward to it! thumbsup.gif


Posted by: GiveUAnxiety Jan 27 2015, 09:52 PM

civ rules on here and on esocommunity contradict each other. can you please post the correct civ rules so people know what they are and can train accordingly if they wish to.

Posted by: Alaron Jan 28 2015, 11:12 AM

QUOTE(GiveUAnxiety @ Jan 27 2015, 08:52 PM)
civ rules on here and on esocommunity contradict each other. can you please post the correct civ rules so people know what they are and can train accordingly if they wish to.
*



We are currently still working on the rules; they will be finalized by the end of the month. At the moment, we are leaning towards the ones currently posted on eso-community.net, and will update this thread once they are finalized.

Sorry for the confusion tongue.gif

Posted by: Gendarme Aug 18 2016, 03:57 PM

Wow, Garja. You're still active after all these years. (Hello from the dead, people.)

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)