[NC2012] - Questions and Answers

Users who are viewing this thread

That's true what Gultar said. Some teams which have very good archers will take Vaegirs always and that would be pretty annoying!  :grin:
 
Sure, maps would get played often, but those would be the maps that people WANT to play. Otherwise they wouldn't play them. If you leave the game in the hands of the players, they aren't going to make it less fun for themselves.
 
Having 3 categories is truly a **** idea. When it's 2 categories it means one map can be open one closed, with 3 you could potentially have 2 almost closed maps (1 closed 1 mixed) or 2 almost open maps (1 open 1 mixed) unless you then want to balance it out to 3 maps a match which is just getting ridiculous. which could tilt the game in favour of one team. Having a clear Open/ Closed category is the ideal solution as it evens out one variable in the match (ie. having 2 closed maps which may favour teams with better rangers and inf or 2 open maps which may favour teams with better cav and ranged etc etc)

Also what would you put in this mixed category? so far I've only seen complaints from USA only about Reveran Village which suggests to me you don't really think that a mixed category is good or that you haven't thought it out very well at all, and coming up with a new category bases on that 1 map is the crappiest solution I've heard of in a long time. Crazyboy's post a while back stating why Reveran is an open map has some very detailed points which you seem to have just brushed aside/ ignored and then you tell us off for ignoring you comments which we actually responded to.

I have also noticed this started around the 22nd/23rd of March and you lost to France on the 17th, prior to this loss you had no complains about that, and im sure that you tested it as extensively as you could before the match. I have neither heard nor seen any complain of Reveran before that match from you, so I naturally assume the loss has affected your opinion of the match, to which I say give the map a chance.
 
Shemaforash said:
BkS.

It's an awful idea, as stated.

I don't understand what you're implying -- we lost one scrim in ~2 years, playing all maps. Not just one. Plains was a recent trend, but for most of our career we didn't play it.

Sure, we have our preferences, but we can play any map.

OT, Rev is a closed map.

Having two categories is fine.
 
Well, from what I picked up on the naste thread you were unbeatable on random plains and always played it? Don't take offense if I'm wrong, I'm sure you're a very good team. The idea itself is quite ****ty, read Gultars post.
 
Lord_David said:
I have also noticed this started around the 22nd/23rd of March and you lost to France on the 17th, prior to this loss you had no complains about that, and im sure that you tested it as extensively as you could before the match. I have neither heard nor seen any complain of Reveran before that match from you, so I naturally assume the loss has affected your opinion of the match, to which I say give the map a chance.
Well that a possible conjecture but really what happened is playing the map just confirmed our thoughts from the beginning.  So Reveran being a "closed" map to us wasn't really developed from the match, it was just confirmed.

I really think one of the keys here is the way that you must engage this before the flag.  Leading up to the flag your position on the map is not "open" to provide opportunities to cause a few casualties.  It provides a large amount of structure in which to hide in and utilize as physical barriers between you and your enemy.  If you move into the "open" areas of the map you open yourself up considerably to attack from the predominant "non-open" portion of the map.  It just seems that if FBtR is a standard for an open map, when compared to Reveran Village there is a vast difference between them.

Now am I (personally) looking or expecting something to change?  No.  Do I feel that I should be expressing my feelings of the system good or bad in the appropriate area?  Yes.  While some of the previous conversation may not have been the most constructive, valid points have been raised about the legitimacy and I encourage future decisions on the map to take these into consideration.
 
Q:

Since my ID changed (for god knows whatever reason) am I still allowed to play in the Nations or do I have to file a ID change to the rooster and wait for it to be accepted.
 
ryozu said:
I haven't installed the new patch, and am not certain of all the changes. Will it affect NC in some way?

The most major change is probably the Port Assault one, at the moment I'm leaning towards finishing this Nations Cup with the original (ENL glitch-free) Port Assault rather than moving to the new one, since all the teams involved are used to the old one, and it seems like a bad idea to change it almost at the end of the tournament.

My mind isn't fully made up on this however, and I'd appreciate any input others have.
 
Well, we're at the Quarter Finals and Port Assault doesn't seem to be on the fixture for any future matches, so it shouldn't be a problem. But yeah, using the old maps would be smarter. Not updating the servers could cause problems though. Could try adding the maps as custom ones and let people play those.

That only goes for Nord Town and Ruins though. Which are to be played once throughout all the Knock-out stage.
 
Goker said:
I think NC needs to have a few days off, for the bugfixes and whatnot.

This as well, I'm probably going to extend the deadline on the current matches by a week (which incidentally would also be more convenient for the UKR v CAN match.)

Goker said:
Well, we're at the Quarter Finals and Port Assault doesn't seem to be on the fixture for any future matches, so it shouldn't be a problem. But yeah, using the old maps would be smarter. Not updating the servers could cause problems though. Could try adding the maps as custom ones and let people play those.

That only goes for Nord Town and Ruins though. Which are to be played once throughout all the Knock-out stage.

Oops yeah, didn't actually look at the fixtures. Servers could be updated but have the ENL glitch-free maps installed however.

The differences to Nord Town and Ruins are pretty minor though (isn't the only change to Ruins rotating that unreachable plank a little bit diagonally?  :lol:) so I don't think it would affect it either way.
 
Shemaforash said:
That's pretty odd if you ask me Alex, sorry for taking up your thread.

But don't you think substitutions should be for replacing a member, not just removing one?

Moved from substitutions thread.
 
Shemaforash said:
That's pretty odd if you ask me Alex, sorry for taking up your thread.

But don't you think substitutions should be for replacing a member, not just removing one?

Ideally all teams would be at 16 members all the time, to allow for a maximum chance of playing a full team. This is why removing and adding a player at the same time count as only one substitution chance.

Simply removing a player without adding another doesn't really seem to serve any purpose, but would potentially weaken a team and make reschedules etc. more likely.
 
Hm, its not sub, just wanna remove guys who don't play anymore. Anyway, this removing wouldnt make us weak, cause nothing won't change.
 
I think that this rule is obsolet for the final. Teams have been playing all tournament long and removing some players for their inactivity will not aweak them. Additionaly, as Chaingun said, only people who deserve the honor of the final should stay on the roster.
 
Back
Top Bottom