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:
The Bob
Skirmisher
posted 03-11-06 05:14 AM EDT (US)     76 / 103       
@natus

nothing to prove wrong or anything i just wanted to know if you suck or not and judging by your stats and rank you do

hard

Mark_Aurel
Skirmisher
posted 03-11-06 06:16 AM EDT (US)     77 / 103       

Quote:

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.

No, I get perfectly what you mean. I just don't think you can really defend your idea of 'realism' here, push come to shove. It's not really about 'realism,' but more about a romatic ideal of reality as it was.

See, I've got nothing against people playing 'no rush' if that's what they like. I'm just enough of a pedant that using inaccurate reasons like 'realism' for doing so grinds me a bit, though. There's nothing inherently more 'realistic' or historically accurate about 'no rush' over standard gameplay.


<Witty signature goes here.>
a_game_a_win
Skirmisher
posted 03-11-06 09:04 AM EDT (US)     78 / 103       
Im sorry but no rush games are for noobs. A rush is an early attack 4-8 minutes. If you cant defend by 30 minutes then you really need to start playing v1's (as those are the best way to get better)
Cy Marlayne
Skirmisher
posted 03-11-06 12:43 PM EDT (US)     79 / 103       

Quote:

No, I get perfectly what you mean. I just don't think you can really defend your idea of 'realism' here, push come to shove. It's not really about 'realism,' but more about a romatic ideal of reality as it was.

See, I've got nothing against people playing 'no rush' if that's what they like. I'm just enough of a pedant that using inaccurate reasons like 'realism' for doing so grinds me a bit, though. There's nothing inherently more 'realistic' or historically accurate about 'no rush' over standard gameplay.

If I feel like it's more fun and realistic than a normal game, then how in the hell can you prove me wrong? You can't attack someone's opinion and expect to change it...


Quote:

Im sorry but no rush games are for noobs. A rush is an early attack 4-8 minutes. If you cant defend by 30 minutes then you really need to start playing v1's (as those are the best way to get better)

What make's a noob? Does one become a noob when he chooses to play both types of styles? If I like treaty games and regular games, and I play both very well, then what in the hell makes me a "noob"? Actually, don't answer that, I'll take the noob title. It seems fitting... lolllll.


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

[This message has been edited by Cy Marlayne (edited 03-11-2006 @ 01:05 PM).]

Natus
Skirmisher
posted 03-11-06 06:23 PM EDT (US)     80 / 103       

Quote:

@natus
nothing to prove wrong or anything i just wanted to know if you suck or not and judging by your stats and rank you do. hard

sweetheart, I play RM as Russians, so none of your no-rush crap and arguably the hardest civ, unlike some, to play. I also don't spend every waking moment perfecting my game
and blogging about it like some teenage thugs I know. And NONE of this changes the fact that No Rush is fundamentally stupid.

However, thanks for alerting me to the fact that if I'm trading barbs with a snot-nosed punk who doesn't know any better, I have too much time on my hands.

DynamiteNapolean
Skirmisher
posted 03-11-06 06:32 PM EDT (US)     81 / 103       
Its a calculated risk playing a no rush game. I was playing one the other day where a French play attacked me and my ally wiht massed FU Cuirassiers at 20 minutes. Very frustrating. But thats the risk you take.

Heard of my new Dutch strat? I'm banking on it.
The Bob
Skirmisher
posted 03-12-06 03:22 AM EDT (US)     82 / 103       

Quote:

sweetheart, I play RM as Russians, so none of your no-rush crap and arguably the hardest civ, unlike some, to play. I also don't spend every waking moment perfecting my game
and blogging about it like some teenage thugs I know. And NONE of this changes the fact that No Rush is fundamentally stupid.

However, thanks for alerting me to the fact that if I'm trading barbs with a snot-nosed punk who doesn't know any better, I have too much time on my hands.

i dont play no rush in fact im a 2000+ player which basically means i "have skills" and generally thats not what youll find in no rush

yeah man im such a thug fo lyfe good work pointing out the obvious with your sarcasm

no such thing as fundamentally stupid only "fun for whoever is doing it" or "not fun for whoever is doing it"

how you can call me snot-nosed-punk while denouncing the opinions of others is beyond me - cretin

Mark_Aurel
Skirmisher
posted 03-12-06 03:58 AM EDT (US)     83 / 103       

Quote:

If I feel like it's more fun and realistic than a normal game, then how in the hell can you prove me wrong? You can't attack someone's opinion and expect to change it...

Of course I can -- unless your opinion is completely irrational, like some kind of religious conviction. Otherwise, there has to be a *reason* why you feel the way you do. And if that reason is flawed, then so is your opinion. If you are a reasonable person, you will change your opinion if you find it to be based on something that is flawed.

You would only be right that your opinion won't change if your opinion is irrational and if you are irrational about not wanting to properly debate your stance. Not wanting to change an opinion would basically make any exchange of them into a verbal war.

I find it telling that you used the word 'feel,' though. It seems to indicate that you aren't taking a rational, informed stance.


<Witty signature goes here.>
Natus
Skirmisher
posted 03-12-06 01:53 PM EDT (US)     84 / 103       

Quote:

Its a calculated risk playing a no rush game. I was playing one the other day where a French play attacked me and my ally wiht massed FU Cuirassiers at 20 minutes. Very frustrating. But thats the risk you take.

And playing regular RM isn't a calculated risk??? It's more of one, obviously.

If you play any game, you're taking some kind of risk (losing rather than winning.) Croquet, anyone?

N_58
Skirmisher
posted 03-12-06 02:03 PM EDT (US)     85 / 103       
No rush games r starting to get to peoples heads. people arn't attacking for like 20 min. now, its happened to me several times

*dances insanely so that i don't miss another closed thread*
This is bunny with a gun, FEAR HIM. . . . to the EXTREME!!!
(\__/)
(O.o )#____ * * * * *
(> < )#
Cy Marlayne
Skirmisher
posted 03-12-06 02:38 PM EDT (US)     86 / 103       

Quote:

Of course I can -- unless your opinion is completely irrational, like some kind of religious conviction. Otherwise, there has to be a *reason* why you feel the way you do. And if that reason is flawed, then so is your opinion. If you are a reasonable person, you will change your opinion if you find it to be based on something that is flawed.

You would only be right that your opinion won't change if your opinion is irrational and if you are irrational about not wanting to properly debate your stance. Not wanting to change an opinion would basically make any exchange of them into a verbal war.

I find it telling that you used the word 'feel,' though. It seems to indicate that you aren't taking a rational, informed stance.

An opinion can neither be right nor wrong if based on faith or belief. I personally believe that no rush games simulate a more realistic scenario, and I have many reasons to support this. If I believe that, then I will always be right. If you believe that my opinion is stupid, then you will always be right. There's no end to it. It's like me telling you that Christianity is stupid, assuming that you are, but I cannot convince you that Christianity is stupid because you believe that it isn't.

So, why, my friend... why in the hell are we arguing?


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

[This message has been edited by Cy Marlayne (edited 03-12-2006 @ 02:40 PM).]

ultimitsu
Skirmisher
posted 03-12-06 03:09 PM EDT (US)     87 / 103       

Quote:

No rush games r starting to get to peoples heads. people arn't attacking for like 20 min. now, its happened to me several times


LOL

I know!

I played a guys in quck match and when he saw my army he was like "this is a no rush game!"

I was like WTF?

another guy told me the game was "not enjoyable" after i attacked on 15 minute mark in quick match game...

Kiiera
Skirmisher
posted 03-12-06 04:35 PM EDT (US)     88 / 103       
what about making a map where the palyes are seperated in a way. It wil have a trigger that "opens" the map and palyers can access the other halv of the map and start to fight.
the trigger time have to be decided by host or by vote
CaiusBrit
Skirmisher
posted 03-12-06 07:28 PM EDT (US)     89 / 103       
I hadn't had a problem with the NR games myself..........until the next game I played after reading this thread.
In a 3v3 NR game I was scoutin around with my scout and a couple Muskets getting some treasures, when all of a sudden they start attacking an opponents vils. I backed off and apologized......here's the problems....

1. his vils were well over 2/3 of the way down the map towards me, making a wall across the entire side of the map.

2. he's getting resources from down by my town (good strat but in NR not within the spirit of the game since I can't take out his vils)

3. 5 to 7 minutes later he attacks me, with his partner, with a large army and I am wiped out.

Losing sucked, but what got me was that he says 'Hey NR' then, without warning hits me hard, after no particular time limit. Also, if I can't Rush him, then he shouldn't forward build at all.

I am all for putting in No Attack modes that are timed for NR, that way even if you did want to go in and get him early you couldn't. It would also be nice to have 'borders' set in a NR that ONLY your scout could cross until the time limit expired.

That's my 2 cents....

Emporer_Muggerma
Skirmisher
posted 03-12-06 11:47 PM EDT (US)     90 / 103       
Heres my idea:

Ensemble could put in a cease fire mode (different than the one moshe said). The difference is that instead of not being able to build soldiers, you just wouldnt be able to attack until the time limit is up. You could still attack with villagers though, but if you got raided with their villies, you would gain the ability to use your soldiers for battle for like 15 minutes or untill the enemy stops raiding for 20 seconds. Also, you would be alerted of enemy soldiers close to your town center.

Cy Marlayne
Skirmisher
posted 03-12-06 11:59 PM EDT (US)     91 / 103       
Then plays would just put all of theirs troops in the enemy's base and just leave them they until the ceasefire was over. Do fix this, ES would have to give players pre-built walls that divide the map in half, but this still doesn't stop the problem if there's water.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Welcome to Life, your vacation from nothing.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
MosheLevi
Scenario Contest Winner
posted 03-13-06 00:42 AM EDT (US)     92 / 103       

It amazes me how some people can complicate such a simple matter.

First, “Cease Fire” was already implemented in “Empire Earth 2” and it works fine.
I am therefore confident that “Cease Fire” would work also for AOE 3.

Players would then have another option to choose from (“Cease Fire” option).
Options are a good thing not a bad thing.
If you like it you use it, if you don’t like then don’t use it.

Telling other players how to play is arrogant and immature.
If a good size number of players want a “Cease Fire” option, then they should get it.

Since I made this original post I played 4 more “No Rush” games (1V1 and 2V2).
In 3 out of the 4 games one of the players rushed me before the “No Rush” time limit was over.
This leaves me with no choice but to stop playing “No Rush” games (which were a nice alternative).


DynamiteNapolean
Skirmisher
posted 03-13-06 01:13 AM EDT (US)     93 / 103       
Thats why its good to play with clan members etc, so you know you won't get cheated on.

I mean, there isnt much fun in rushing an opponent who only has villagers. If there was no such thing as a ranking system it wouldn't be an issue because people don't want to just have to destroy bulidings and villagers. Its sad what people will do for a win.


Heard of my new Dutch strat? I'm banking on it.
sharpe95
Skirmisher
posted 03-13-06 02:57 AM EDT (US)     94 / 103       
I have to ask why people play these games, requires no skill, just mass heavy cannons, maybe a few other things if you like and beat the crap out of everyone, the fun is where???

Only good for xp


Me Grimlock no kisser, me king!!
He is right Predacons unite!
Decepticons. Prepare to face, Fortress Maximus
Cy Marlayne
Skirmisher
posted 03-13-06 05:14 AM EDT (US)     95 / 103       

Quote:

I have to ask why people play these games, requires no skill, just mass heavy cannons, maybe a few other things if you like and beat the crap out of everyone, the fun is where???
Only good for xp

In these types of games, skill is based in the form of battle tactics and acquiring strategic points on the map. It's also determined by how you set up your economy before the time is up. The "no rush" period is the "set up your economy and military period".

For example, if you're British, you're obviously going to want your musketeers to be strong. What do you do? You try to get all of the improvements for them before the time limit is up. You strategy on whether or not you should upgrade your military versus upgrading your economy will result in how well you do when it's time to fight. If you went for a more military-based strategy, then your troops will be strong, but your economy might not be able to support many waves of troops, so you'll have to use them wisely.


Massed heavy cannons is not a viable strategy for "no rush" games. Smart players will be able to spy on their enemy before the time is up so they know what they should train first in order to counter-attack. Often spying is done by using a hot air balloon, or constantly using your explorer.

People who look down upon "no rush" games, probably think they're too good for them. Just try it out just once. Play people who are around your win %. If your massed heavy cannons strategy works on the first game you try, then you'll be right about "no rush" games being "noob games".


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

[This message has been edited by Cy Marlayne (edited 03-13-2006 @ 05:17 AM).]

Tigger_Bounce
Skirmisher
posted 03-13-06 06:01 AM EDT (US)     96 / 103       
"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)" original poster MosheLevi ...... With this option they would make it non-rated when its easier to just govern their own games and from someone 10-15 minutes would be a good time to no attack build offence buildings or what ever the rules i make the rules then copy and paste when i host so i dont have to retype....


Eso Name For AoeIII: GL_Chewy 2nd Lt. for now...PR 21
I play TWC
CwlHeddwyn
Skirmisher
posted 03-13-06 06:13 AM EDT (US)     97 / 103       
the Brits are notoriously poor in standard games because they are buggered if they get rushed by Otto's etc.

in No Rush games the Brits are actually pretty good.

whenever i do play standard games i certainly dont play as the Brits.

i do know that the Proffesionals on here are certainly capable of defeating most Otto rushes with the Brits- but they have hours and hours of experience working out specific strategies to defeat the Otto's. i dont have the time nor the skill to do that- so i switch Civs depending on the situation (which i think is sensible).

No Rush games work fine provided u are not playing with jerks who rush b4 the time limit or starting building walls around u etc.

Mubic_P
Skirmisher
posted 03-13-06 07:36 AM EDT (US)     98 / 103       
I didn't read through the whole thread becaue it was getting tedious, but it seemed like most people were missing the point.

To the people who responded by saying "No rush is for noobs!": You will probably grow up to be prohibitionists who ban things like drugs, liquor, and porn. You will say "porn sucks, why dont you learn to have regular sex!" Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be outlawed or unaccomidated.

To the people who said "But people will never agree on what No Rush should be!":
I don't see why there couldnt just be 3 or 4 different types of No Rush. And it doesn't really matter if someone didn't get their ideal variant, whats important is that the rules can't be broken by cheaters.

To the people who said "Thats just the risk you take when you play No Rush":
What a worthless comment. Thats like saying regular games shouldn't have a No Cheats setting because thats just the risk you take when you play a game.

I don't see why ESO couldn't just throw some of these game types together for the next patch. As that one guy said, "options are good".

Cy Marlayne
Skirmisher
posted 03-13-06 02:06 PM EDT (US)     99 / 103       
Well said, Mubic_P!

Especially:

Quote:

To the people who responded by saying "No rush is for noobs!": You will probably grow up to be prohibitionists who ban things like drugs, liquor, and porn. You will say "porn sucks, why dont you learn to have regular sex!" Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be outlawed or unaccomidated.

I hate people who try to ban things just because theydon't like them. They're nothing but a bunch of silly, selfish Hitlers.


₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Welcome to Life, your vacation from nothing.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
rodgers24888
Skirmisher
posted 03-20-06 05:45 AM EDT (US)     100 / 103       
I just played a game on patagonia where the host stated no rush before we started, however he did not state any length of time.

I was the russians so used look control of most of the map and all the water and quite happily built a nice economy. I sent in my 4 cossacks and 5 opri's from cards to kill a few villies who had strayed way away from there base (this was around 17 mins). The two enemies both in a clan started shouting calling me a cheat for rushing. In my eyes killing a few stray villies is not a rush. They could have easily protected them.

I built my final TC close to their base with 2 blockhouses and a artillery foundary just infront totally blocking off the sea. it was now around 25 mins and i started to attack with falcs, halbs and muskets and managed to kill both their armies by replensihes my army from the blockhouses.

This again started more shouting that i was a cheat and that i shouldn't be rushing. i was dumbfounded tbh because for me 25 mins is not a rush, these guys new what they were doing in a way as there scores weren't too far behind.

i got more annoyed when one of them said;

"I've never heard of a 25mins no rush lol"
"Didn't you no it's no rush 40mins?"
"cheater"

To which I replied - "lol gg" - and left.

I wouldn't have being bothered if i had clearly broken the rules but it wasn't clear that they didn't want attacks until 40mins.

Just some more noobs i suppose. imo, no rush takes a lot away from the game in terms of small little fights for control of key resources and trade posts. waiting till 40 mins to attack is crap. what a waste of time...

i think a lot of the people who play them don't like losing.

[LINK=http://www.agecommunity.com/stats/GameStats.aspx?loc=en-US&GameID=4b46170a-fe32-fa44-91b2-916e951187d0&md=ZS_Supremacy]statslol[/link]

[This message has been edited by rodgers24888 (edited 03-20-2006 @ 05:48 AM).]

Mark_Aurel
Skirmisher
posted 03-20-06 09:59 AM EDT (US)     101 / 103       

Quote:

An opinion can neither be right nor wrong if based on faith or belief.

That's just wrong. Just because you "believe" something doesn't mean it can't be wrong. The only question is the ability to test the correctness of said belief. A belief in something vague, like 'God' is impossible to prove wrong. A belief that the sky is pink is quite easy to prove wrong. Barring hopelessly ridiculous arguments about what 'pink' is.

Quote:

I personally believe that no rush games simulate a more realistic scenario, and I have many reasons to support this. If I believe that, then I will always be right.

As shown above, that is false. You might want to bring up your *reasons* for thinking that 'no rush' is so 'realistic' rather than the entirely intellectually limited stance that 'you can't debate an opinion.'

Quote:

If you believe that my opinion is stupid, then you will always be right. There's no end to it.

Wrong again.

Quote:

It's like me telling you that Christianity is stupid, assuming that you are, but I cannot convince you that Christianity is stupid because you believe that it isn't.

I don't believe that. I'm an atheist.

Quote:

So, why, my friend... why in the hell are we arguing?

Because you made a positive statement about 'no rush' being 'more realistic' but you seem to be running from actually backing that stance up or conceding that it's based on poor premises.

We could take the 'realism' thing and apply it to chess instead. Is 'no taking down enemy pieces for 20 moves' a more 'realistic' way of playing chess?


<Witty signature goes here.>
MosheLevi
Scenario Contest Winner
posted 03-20-06 05:04 PM EDT (US)     102 / 103       

Quote:

I have to ask why people play these games, requires no skill, just mass heavy cannons

Death match, Rush games, and No Rush games are all different type of games.

Death match game allows us to build a large army from the start, really fast and go straight for the action with large number of units, and without having to worry about economy (for the first 10 min).
Many times the game is over before the resources are depleted, so it is all about action.

No Rush games is for players who enjoy building their base and economy (Sim type game at the beginning), and it also allows us to create large armies, and the capability to rebuild our armies very fast.
In addition to that it allows us to build good defensives via walls, outposts, and a fort.
Such games also appeal to “Siege” type players who like defending their base, and like the challenge of attacking a well defended enemy base.
No rush games allows the player to take care of the economy first without having to worry about the enemy attacking, and later on when the economy is running on automatic pilot, the player can give his full attention to the battle field.

Rush games are the most challenging type game where the player has to take care of both economy and attacks/defense at the same time and balance the two.
It requires the player to be very fast and being able to manage several tasks at the same time.
No wonder that experts like this game type the most, as it requires a great skill, and that is when the experts can really show how good they are.
In most Rush games the number of units in the battle field is normally small (as battles start early), and that requires a good micro management.
A good micro management can determine the fate of the game very early.

Personally I enjoy all 3 types of game, and each game type has its own type of fun.

To the expert players out there,
Many players don’t like rush games because it is very hard to manage both economy and army at the same time, and they are not quick enough to handle both.
Just try to play with your left hand once or twice against “Expert” AI (or even “Hard” AI), and you will understand.

King_DingaLing
Skirmisher
posted 03-20-06 11:53 PM EDT (US)     103 / 103       
I don't play No Rush games because there will always be a Frenchman who will mass Imperial Gendarmes. Since the only counter to stop this noob strategy is to "stop them before they get there" it can't be done. A lame tactic like this needs an easy counter.
« 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