You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General Discussions
Moderated by Maffia, LordKivlov, JimXIX

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.103 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » Issues with “No Rush” Games
Bottom
Topic Subject:Issues with “No Rush” Games
« Previous Page  1 2 3 4  Next Page »
MosheLevi
Scenario Contest Winner
posted 03-09-06 01:22 PM EDT (US)         

I have played several “No Rush” games online (1V1 and 2V2) and become a witness to different type of issues where players are getting into disagreements about what is allowed and what is not during the “No Rush” period.

I was witness to cases where one player was sending his explorer to his opponent’s base, and his opponent’s units automatically attacked the explorer.
The player then demanded that his opponent would stop his units from attacking his explorer, claiming that “No Rush” means no attack at all.

There have been other cases where a player built barracks and stables near his opponent’s base, and demanded from his opponent to remove his units from the area so they don’t attack his buildings.

There have been cases where two explorers got into a fight and both players blamed each other for rushing.

The list of issues goes on and on, and I was a witness to those issues in most “No Rush” games.
Needles to say that in every occurrence players were swearing and excusing each other for cheating, and the atmosphere was not too friendly to say the least.

The problem is that there are no defined rules for “No Rush” games and everybody are using their own interpretation.
Many players (mostly the ones with high win percentage) are taking advantage of the “No Rush” rule and are building fort, barracks and stables very near to their opponent’s base, knowing that they would not be attacked.

I therefore feel that the unofficial “No Rush” games is not working very well, and I would like to ask Ensemble (once again) to implement a “Cease Fire” option.

The most simple solution to a “Cease Fire” option (for a specific amount of time), is to disable the training units icons and unit shipments, until the cease fire is over (Germans would get all their Hulans when the cease fire expires)

Players can build Barracks and stables but cannot train any units from them until the cease fire is over.

Minuteman, explorer, and Villagers can still attack, but they are not going to be effective.

In addition to that, no build up would be allowed on the other half side of the map until the cease fire is over.

IMO, this would resolve the issues we currently have with “No Rush” games.

AuthorReplies:
schildpad
Skirmisher
posted 03-10-06 01:59 AM EDT (US)     51 / 103       
if you only play no attack you wont be able to play a normal game good

"such a kind fellow!" ~ ķįŋğ_Ćħŗĩš_ĬĬ

Furby killer should be crowned leader of AOE forum ~ [SW_GD]Teutonic

BilboBeutlin
Skirmisher
posted 03-10-06 02:09 AM EDT (US)     52 / 103       
*g*
If that was translated to reality: there's no hope for mankind *lol*
Cy Marlayne
Skirmisher
posted 03-10-06 02:43 AM EDT (US)     53 / 103       

Quote:

if you only play no attack you wont be able to play a normal game good

It's true. That's why I mediate between the two styles of play. I won't let myself play one style more than the other.


₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Welcome to Life, your vacation from nothing.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Master Kamst
Skirmisher
posted 03-10-06 03:04 AM EDT (US)     54 / 103       
@CwlHeddwyn:
if u just keep avoiding otto rushes u are never gonna learn how counter it and will always cry when u verse an otto. My main civs are brits and dutch and i am starting to use ports and they are all booming civs but i still don't do no rush games because they are stupid normal games are what u should NORMALLY play not those stupid "no rush cause i carn't make an army before 30 mins game"
Cy Marlayne
Skirmisher
posted 03-10-06 03:10 AM EDT (US)     55 / 103       

Quote:

i still don't do no rush games because they are stupid normal games are what u should NORMALLY play not those stupid "no rush cause i carn't make an army before 30 mins game"

Point of "no rush" games:

- To have fun.
- To play more realistically.
- To earn more XP than you would in a normal game.


₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Welcome to Life, your vacation from nothing.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Master Kamst
Skirmisher
posted 03-10-06 07:03 AM EDT (US)     56 / 103       
^^^^^ yes maybe there is a bit more exp but it doesn't make that much of a defference and that is not everything getting good at the game is much more important. Every time i go online all i c is "no rush" and it really bugs me so now i carn't wait till i can play bfme2 i just hope they don't have "no rush" games as well . I think normal games are much funner then no rush games. We can argue as much as we want but we will never c i to eye everyone has different taste in what they like so play however u want to play

ohh yeah and "-more realistic" ............. i don't think that nepolean or any other conquerer said "do u want to battle in a 30 day no rush war "

[This message has been edited by Master Kamst (edited 03-10-2006 @ 07:05 AM).]

Natus
Skirmisher
posted 03-10-06 08:53 AM EDT (US)     57 / 103       

Quote:

The clan that I'm in is an exclusive "No Attack" clan.

Yeah, that sounds like a good use of time. Play a strategy game based on combat but don't attack. As I said before: kids these days!

Quote:

We have nearly 50 people in the clan and nearly 20 of those are decent players. Ten of those 20 could play regular style gameplay if they wanted to. I'm included in those 10.

Sure you are. Learn skills while you play RM, and unlearn them when you play NR. Good for you!

Quote:

- To have fun.

Can we just leave this off the list, kiddies? We GET it!

Quote:

- To play more realistically.

Than what, pray tell? It's a GAME, and a game not based on realism. :boggles:

Quote:

That's why I mediate between the two styles of play.

You mediate? "OK, RM, I want you to be nice to NR. NR, you apologize for just being a loser."

Quote:

I won't let myself play one style more than the other.

You're funny. Whatever you do, don't let yourself get good at the game as it was meant to be played!

Can we all just agree that people who play NR are, essentially, cowards who can't protect themselves from rushes (not easy to do, admittedly) and have to invoke an artificial zone of peace until everyone has had their naps, put on their jammies, and are FINALLY ready to draw blood?

Stop justifying the game. Just shut up about it. That's all we want.

Cy Marlayne
Skirmisher
posted 03-10-06 12:43 PM EDT (US)     58 / 103       

Quote:

ohh yeah and "-more realistic" ............. i don't think that nepolean or any other conquerer said "do u want to battle in a 30 day no rush war

Days? Days have nothing to do with it.

More realistic meaning... it's the discovery age, we just started colonizing and bringing over more people. Now it's the colonial age. Oh, crap! Napolean is rushing me with his native friends. Ottoman grenadiers are smashing our houses! How is this possible when we all just started building our colonies?

How could a nation realistically have that type of influence or power in the middle of trying to support their colony so that it actually survives? I'm not saying it's not fun, but it's less realistic to have 10-20 minute games.

And if you want to use days for an appropriate amount of time, then most game would last around 10 days. Wow... 10 days? I'm sorry, but it takes months just to get across the Atlantic in a Caravel or Schooner.


Quote:

Yeah, that sounds like a good use of time. Play a strategy game based on combat but don't attack. As I said before: kids these days!

You're basically bashing my style of play simply because it's not the same as your style of play. That's almost like bashing homosexuals because you refuse to indulge in their type of relations. I understand this, so why bother attacking it? Just stick to what you do and forget about what you don't do...


Quote:

Sure you are. Learn skills while you play RM, and unlearn them when you play NR. Good for you!

It is impossible for the mind to "unlearn" things.


Quote:

Can we just leave this off the list, kiddies? We GET it!

No, we cannot, but see, you fail to understand that people have fun in different ways. If your little brother likes to play chess, but uses the pieces the wrong way simply to act out a battle scene instead of a real game, then you can't really ridicule him for doing that because obviously he thinks it's fun.

Similarly, if I find it fun to build up and wait until a set amount of time to break treaty, then that's my way of having fun. If you don't like it, then whooptie-doo! There's plenty of standard games you can play. Stop acting like we're taking over or something, "kiddie".


Quote:

Than what, pray tell? It's a GAME, and a game not based on realism. :boggles:

That's right. It is a game, isn't it? A treaty game is a type of game that sets up a more realistic atmosphere by having your settlers work to build up their colony before deciding to expand. In the colonial period, it was hard to simply land your ships, build a few cabins and just go off and wage war. Colonies took time to grow. Treaty games simulate this better than normal games.


Quote:

You mediate? "OK, RM, I want you to be nice to NR. NR, you apologize for just being a loser."

Yes, mediate... v. definition #3: "To have a relation to two differing persons or things." Adj. definition #2: "being neither at the beginning nor at the end in a series."

Meditate =/= mediate. Get a dictionary.


Quote:

Can we all just agree that people who play NR are, essentially, cowards who can't protect themselves from rushes (not easy to do, admittedly) and have to invoke an artificial zone of peace until everyone has had their naps, put on their jammies, and are FINALLY ready to draw blood?

Cowards? Heh, that's hardly the point. If you were any good at comprehension, you would notice that I said that I play both styles of gameplay. That must mean something, shouldn't it, kiddie? But, you're right, having fun the way I want to have fun makes me a coward.......

Besides, protecting from rushes is fun, that's the main reason why I play normal gameplay.


Quote:

Stop justifying the game. Just shut up about it. That's all we want.

Justifying the game? Isn't that what you're doing? I just play to hve fun. You seem like your mission is to get everyone playing your way otherwise they're stupid "kiddie cowards". How mature of you.


₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Welcome to Life, your vacation from nothing.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪

[This message has been edited by Cy Marlayne (edited 03-10-2006 @ 12:48 PM).]

Hoshii
Skirmisher
posted 03-10-06 01:49 PM EDT (US)     59 / 103       
Lawl at you people. I agree with Natus on most of the stuff. The thing is, most of the people that actually do play no rush games are either...

A) Noob bashers that want a high win % to look pro.

B)Punks that act like immature 8 year olds and whine when they get counter-rushed after they broke the no rush rule before listed time.

C)People that just want to get mass xp and lvl, or people that play cheat games for xp. =P

D) Nubbehs! =) <--- I have nothing against them.

Mark_Aurel
Skirmisher
posted 03-10-06 02:12 PM EDT (US)     60 / 103       

Quote:

- To play more realistically.

People that like no rush games often bring up this point. Yet I've found that it doesn't usually involve an understanding of reality and history as was, as much as a romantic ideal about things. I.e. people visualize the Roman Empire at its height, not all the petty little wars against backwater tribes and towns in Italy it took to get there ("rushing"). It's also important to remember that the game is an abstraction, not a simulation.


<Witty signature goes here.>
Angel Walker
Skirmisher
(id: Just a player)
posted 03-10-06 02:34 PM EDT (US)     61 / 103       
First of all, I would like to say I have nothing against who plays No rush games... I do agree this won't improve your skills, but its just a game, if you want to play this way, play it.

What I really hate is when I go to QS and the guy says "20 min no rush"... That is pointless, since he is playing QS, not a "no-rush game" itself...

I also agree you can't complain if your enemy has acted against the rules, since those aren't official rules, and the game wasn't meant to be player like that. If you wanna play a no rush game, fine, but do it at your own risk.

But I STRONLGY disagree about a cease fire option. Not cuz I think eveyrbody who plays No rush games (NRG, for short) is a n00b, or they do not have any right in the game. But that would just make ppl complain even more!

I mean, right now, people already complain about stupid thngs like geting all TPs, creating military units early, attacking the explorer, attacking the settlers, spamming towers/forts too close of a base, etc.

Now, there isn't a way to make it better, if you don't agree with me, read this:

Cease Fire Option

Ok, seens to be fine. You can't attack his units, and you also can't be attacked...

First, the programming part. We would need a program that wouldn't let us attack a human player, but what about nature units (Guardians, Deers, Sheeps)?

Second, imagine if, 5 min before the Cease Fire ends, the guy surrounds you with military units, all around your base? Then, when it ends, all their units would be strategically positioned around your base... all he needs is 15 secs to kill all your units and take your buildings down. I can bet everyone would start complaing about...

And other problem shows up... if he sends a settler to wall your base? Then you are locked nside without resources..

So we would need a...

No Military Training
+ Cease Fire Option
+ Build limit area

about the Building area, that does not allows you to build near his base... So imagine if 90% of the TPs and Natives are in his side of the map? He would get a huge advantage...

And about the No military training? Ok, good. But we have to think about military shipments... and what about Caravels, will they be a military unit? And ES would need to adjust it to all native units in this game...

But imagine if you are fighitng against a Russian player... The guy sends his 2 Infantry cards and surrounds their half of the map with Blockhouses?

At the moment the time is over, 70 Strelets are spammed at your base even before you can build a Musketeer...

So, what about a...

Barrier
+ No Military Training
+ Cease Fire Option
+ Build limit area

Oh, so you can't get near his base? WOW! That would need a hell of a programing...

Imagine if every time your units get across the barries they would die? Imagine how cool would be watch your settler getting across the barrier to follow that deer... then BAM! They are all dead!

Ok, so they don't die, they just can't cross it... But we would have the same problem: TPs. Ok, your opponent just get more TPs, you can get over it... But look! Your 2 gold mines are in HIS side of the map!!! Cool hã? A whole RMS config would be need here...

Everything JUST to make NRG a little better? ES would need to create a new game: AGE of NO RUSHERS!!!

Sorry, but adding options to NRG is not the way

*I've mastered the BB code!!!


ESO - Walker

>> Napoleonic Era --> Visit their Homepage!
"Holy *****" > Thunder (Ensemble Studios)

Retired from AoE3. But I do play AoK HD in Steam now and then.

[This message has been edited by Just a player (edited 03-10-2006 @ 02:38 PM).]

steveoiscool
Skirmisher
posted 03-10-06 02:36 PM EDT (US)     62 / 103       
I have to say that PERSONALLY I think that rush games are boring. Don't ask why, that's how I've felt with every RTS...ever. I like having huge epic battles of the strongest units you can get, not little scraps with guys with sticks and stones.

And yes, I admit...waiting half an hour or even 15 minutes can get kinda boring...but you gotta love that tenseness in the last minute of the NR period...well, maybe not, I know most of you won't agree with me, but I love it. It makes me feel all fuzzy inside...and stuff.

Cy Marlayne
Skirmisher
posted 03-10-06 02:54 PM EDT (US)     63 / 103       

Quote:

Lawl at you people. I agree with Natus on most of the stuff. The thing is, most of the people that actually do play no rush games are either...
A) Noob bashers that want a high win % to look pro.

B)Punks that act like immature 8 year olds and whine when they get counter-rushed after they broke the no rush rule before listed time.

C)People that just want to get mass xp and lvl, or people that play cheat games for xp. =P

D) Nubbehs! =) <--- I have nothing against them.

Well, I gave you my reason. I'm happy to see that you totally ignored it for the purpose of considering the majority.


Quote:

People that like no rush games often bring up this point. Yet I've found that it doesn't usually involve an understanding of reality and history as was, as much as a romantic ideal about things. I.e. people visualize the Roman Empire at its height, not all the petty little wars against backwater tribes and towns in Italy it took to get there ("rushing"). It's also important to remember that the game is an abstraction, not a simulation.

Thank you, Mr. Obvious, but open your eyes a little wider.

"More realistic meaning... it's the discovery age, we just started colonizing and bringing over more people. Now it's the colonial age. Oh, crap! Napolean is rushing me with his native friends. Ottoman grenadiers are smashing our houses! How is this possible when we all just started building our colonies?

How could a nation realistically have that type of influence or power in the middle of trying to support their colony so that it actually survives? I'm not saying it's not fun, but it's less realistic to have 10-20 minute games.

And if you want to use days for an appropriate amount of time, then most game would last around 10 days. Wow... 10 days? I'm sorry, but it takes months just to get across the Atlantic in a Caravel or Schooner."

"That's right. It is a game, isn't it? A treaty game is a type of game that sets up a more realistic atmosphere by having your settlers work to build up their colony before deciding to expand. In the colonial period, it was hard to simply land your ships, build a few cabins and just go off and wage war. Colonies took time to grow. Treaty games simulate this better than normal games."


Quote:

Cease Fire Option

Ok, seens to be fine. You can't attack his units, and you also can't be attacked...

First, the programming part. We would need a program that owuldnot let us attack a human player, but what about nature units (Guardians, Deers, Sheeps)?

Seconds, imagine if, 5 min before the Cease Fire ends, the guy surrounds you with military units, all around your base? Then, when it ends, all their units would be strategically positioned around your base... al he needs is 15 secs to kill all your units and take your buildings down. I can bet everyon would start to complain about...

And other problem shows up... and if he sends a settler to wall your base? Then you are locked nside without resources..

This wouldn't be too hard to conjure. You're looking at everything at the extreme. It's not that big of a deal. A simple measure to create a ceasefire match would be simple:

- All units will not have to option to attack enemies until the time is up.
- Military buildings and town centers may only be constructed on your half of the map.
- Military units may not be trained until the time is up.

This would solve the problem of explorers, villager units, and dogs attacking. Trade posts and other economic buildings (except TCs) can be constructed nearly anywhere. Military upgrades may still be researched but military units will be postponed until the time is up.

The only problem I see with this is that players could use their explorers to see what you're doing the entire time. A simple fix to this would be to allow units to attack explorer units, but the only units who could do such attacking would be villager units and explorers of your own--making it quite redundant.


I don't really care about adding a ceasefire option anyway. One of the greatest risks of playing treaty games is that someone could break the rules at any time and try to rush you. I thoroughly enjoy this. In fact, I like dealing with unexpected rushes in these types of games than in normal games because I'll usually be less prepared for it. That doesn't mean I'm going to lose though. It means that after I stop the rush I can either choose to give him another chance or I can decide to press fowards and finish him off. I like having that option. It's fun. So if I had to choose between making a ceasefire option or not, I would choose for ES not to.


₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Welcome to Life, your vacation from nothing.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪

[This message has been edited by Cy Marlayne (edited 03-10-2006 @ 02:56 PM).]

Angel Walker
Skirmisher
(id: Just a player)
posted 03-10-06 05:31 PM EDT (US)     64 / 103       

Quote:

This wouldn't be too hard to conjure. You're looking at everything at the extreme.

Of course I am! I mean, if ppl are rushing in team games right now, those same ppl would try to find a way to "cheat" against those options...

I've nothing against No Rush Games... I'm just saying that adding Options for it isn't a viable way... Its just a way to discover new problems o.O

...

I CAn't resist! BB code rox


ESO - Walker

>> Napoleonic Era --> Visit their Homepage!
"Holy *****" > Thunder (Ensemble Studios)

Retired from AoE3. But I do play AoK HD in Steam now and then.
Mark_Aurel
Skirmisher
posted 03-10-06 06:27 PM EDT (US)     65 / 103       

Quote:

Thank you, Mr. Obvious, but open your eyes a little wider.

It's always reassuring when someone seems to feel the need to open a retort with a semi-flame like that.

Quote:

"More realistic meaning... it's the discovery age, we just started colonizing and bringing over more people. Now it's the colonial age. Oh, crap! Napolean is rushing me with his native friends. Ottoman grenadiers are smashing our houses! How is this possible when we all just started building our colonies?

... I'm fairly sure history will show you that the various European colonizers engaged in various forms of alliances with and against the various native Americans from a fairly early stage on. They did so even when they 'just' started colonizing (depending somewhat on how you define 'just,' of course -- but they certainly didn't wait around for decades).

And Ottoman grenadiers? That sort of reminds me that there was a crowd who found the inclusion of Ottomans in the game 'unrealistic' too. The entire Ottoman thing just tends to underscore the 'what if'ish and basically not-quite-realistic nature of the game.

The colonies engaged in hostilities as dictated by European affairs, geographic proximity, and economic, political, or religious reasons for doing so.

Quote:

How could a nation realistically have that type of influence or power in the middle of trying to support their colony so that it actually survives? I'm not saying it's not fun, but it's less realistic to have 10-20 minute games.

Influence or power? Those are abstract political concepts that can be interpreted in many ways. It wasn't just the Europeans that used the natives for their ends -- when the Europeans were allied to the natives, the natives usually got something back for it too. Of course, the game makes that transaction rather abstract with the natives basically being represented by fenced-in reservations where you basically acquire mercenaries.

In fact, bringing up that tangent just goes to help underscore the abstract and 'unrealistic' nature of the game.

As for the 'realism' of games that last 10-20 minutes -- it happened now and again that colonies never quite got off the ground and got conquered, acquired, or just wiped out.

Quote:

And if you want to use days for an appropriate amount of time, then most game would last around 10 days. Wow... 10 days? I'm sorry, but it takes months just to get across the Atlantic in a Caravel or Schooner."

Yeah... which, again, goes to show us that the game itself is abstract and not 'realistic.' Now, what it seems to me you seem to be getting at is that games should have some kind of proportional duration to what you seem to think was the duration of how things went in the real world, and that game events should flow accordingly. Of course, that expectation doesn't match the game's dynamics very well at all -- which is why people try to play 'no rush' to fit their expectations with the game. It doesn't fit together very well, though.

However, that entire time thing is by itself no argument that 'no rush' games are more 'realistic' in any way. The bottom line remains the same understanding of history that wars are some kind of epic events, and that people couldn't have little wars and skirmishes in between, or long before the big ones. There's also the identification issue -- your colony by itself is abstract and non-descript. It doesn't have to be a major one. And with its limit of 99 working men and women, it probably never will be a major colony.

Quote:

"That's right. It is a game, isn't it? A treaty game is a type of game that sets up a more realistic atmosphere by having your settlers work to build up their colony before deciding to expand. In the colonial period, it was hard to simply land your ships, build a few cabins and just go off and wage war. Colonies took time to grow. Treaty games simulate this better than normal games."

The key word there is of course 'simulate.' This game isn't about simulation in the proper sense, despite its historical theme. That's just fitting square pegs in round holes. The game is abstract in nature. You get your villagers popping out fully grown from a 'town center,' and your military units are born from your barracks or stables with weapons that they never let go off.

Colonies took time to grow -- but they didn't necessarily wait to wage war until they were 'finished growing' or 'ready.' The game has an entire age devoted to establishing your colony -- you can't launch any real attack in the Discovery Age. That is essentially a 'no-rush' age. It is designed that way so that when people do get to fighting, they should have decently established economies that can get them through the rest of the game, rather than just be mired in the first age where units are available.


<Witty signature goes here.>
The Bob
Skirmisher
posted 03-10-06 06:41 PM EDT (US)     66 / 103       
@Natus

whats your eso name?

also you say you "GET it" in regards to people playing NR for fun and yet you still bitch and cry which is kinda dull to do

Natus
Skirmisher
posted 03-10-06 06:51 PM EDT (US)     67 / 103       

Quote:

@Natus
whats your eso name?

Natus, mate! Come look me up! Are you going to show me the error of my No-No Rush ways by Rushing me? I hope so! I fall for that every time!

Quote:

also you say you "GET it" in regards to people playing NR for fun and yet you still bitch and cry which is kinda dull to do

No bitching and crying here, mate, but then it's all topsy-turvy, don't you think? I'm just excessively irritated by post after post after post after post after post of some vacant-headed soul complaining that a system not implemented in the game actually isn't working. It's stupid, tiresome, and the apparent thousands of No-Rush players should create their own forum here, there or anywhere, but if you chew tinfoil and complain that it hurts your teeth, prepare to be flamed. Got that, mate?

Toysoldier14
Skirmisher
posted 03-10-06 10:54 PM EDT (US)     68 / 103       
I too, do not like the typical "Non-rush" games. I don't like rushes either, but these gamnes drive me batty.

The game I played a week ago, it was me, I was British, and my friendly Ally, who was Portugeuse. You probably guessed it, both of our enemies were French.

By the 35 minute mark, they made a massive amount of walls spanning half the map. Then, after they said warships weren't allowed because of the lag, they made some warships and sent Cuirassers behind my wall. No fun.

Hahaha, but I guess that's just my opinion.


I reject your reality, and substatute my own!
Cy Marlayne
Skirmisher
posted 03-10-06 11:54 PM EDT (US)     69 / 103       
You're still not getting the point, Mark, but no worries. At least I know what I mean, and that's simply all that matters.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Welcome to Life, your vacation from nothing.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
LembasBread
Skirmisher
posted 03-11-06 00:06 AM EDT (US)     70 / 103       

Quoted from MoshiLevi:

But, how can we tell 50% of online players that they cannot play “No Rush” games?
They have a right to play anyway they want, they just need Ensemble’s help to set down the rules.

AoE3 was NOT meant to cater to no-rush games. It comepletely changes the dynamics of the game and I doubt ES wants to further the gap in the online community. Also, 50% of online players are NOT no-rush players and certainly not all players as ES has stated that the vast majority of players do not play online and probably haven't even heard of no-rush games.


"The lembas had a virtue without which they would long ago have lain down to die. . . . this waybread of the Elves had a potency that increased as travelers relied on it alone and did not mingle it with other foods. It fed the will, and it gave strength to endure, and to master sinew and limb beyond the measure of mortal kind."

• "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" by J.R.R. Tolkien

• Hit 2100+ cuetech rating on Sunday, April 17th, 2006

DynamiteNapolean
Skirmisher
posted 03-11-06 00:16 AM EDT (US)     71 / 103       
They are great for xp and leveling a low level home city. They also help alot with military micro.

Heard of my new Dutch strat? I'm banking on it.
SRahim
Skirmisher
posted 03-11-06 02:08 AM EDT (US)     72 / 103       
I think you need a life when you devote hundreds of words towards attacking others on the basis of your personal pref. on how you play an online computer game.
DynamiteNapolean
Skirmisher
posted 03-11-06 02:27 AM EDT (US)     73 / 103       
AOE3 Rox, if you can't accept that fact, your own the wrong forum.

Heard of my new Dutch strat? I'm banking on it.
OpenAmp
Banned
posted 03-11-06 02:53 AM EDT (US)     74 / 103       
i have nothing against no rush games, and i like them a lot (none of that NR 50 crap, i never do anything over 30), but people have to DEAL with the uncertainties of 'no rush' games. if you are so bad you can't handle an attack 15 minutes into the game, then do something about your lack of skill. yes people should be able to play what they want, but it is SO annoying when people threaten to report you when you do the most trivial of things.

people need to face the fact that they have to suck before they get better. i lost all the time when i first started. my % was abyssmal. i was a n00b to the nth degree. but i practiced and got better. i tried different things. i stayed out of no rush games hoping i would learn the way of the rush myself. and i did. i'm better now. my % (i know it's not a huge indicator of skill) has been a gradual climb from 9 to 40 ever since, having played about 115 games.

i think its pretty funny when people get into fights when an explorer auto attacks an outpost.

@dynamitenapoleon: good sig, man, good sig.

Cy Marlayne
Skirmisher
posted 03-11-06 05:08 AM EDT (US)     75 / 103       

Quote:

I think you need a life when you devote hundreds of words towards attacking others on the basis of your personal pref. on how you play an online computer game.


Quote:

AOE3 Rox, if you can't accept that fact, your own the wrong forum

Agreed.


₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Welcome to Life, your vacation from nothing.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪

[This message has been edited by Cy Marlayne (edited 03-11-2006 @ 05:08 AM).]

« Previous Page  1 2 3 4  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires III Heaven | HeavenGames