Sign-In and Discussion Thread

Killar wrote:
That would limit the variety of gameplay alot. Bad idea imo

seriously. terrible idea. + you could ask your teammates what doctrine he has before game and change your whole play style from there to account for it.

@Panzer4life, i would love to do some 2v2s, because i definitely also do more 1v1 games and so dont know many 2v2 maps well. however, due to my monitor breaking, i cant play until i get a new one, maybe this weekend.

stealthattack1 wrote:
seriously. terrible idea. + you could ask your teammates what doctrine he has before game and change your whole play style from there to account for it.

and whats so bad about teammates actually communicating?

Cireva wrote:

stealthattack1 wrote:
seriously. terrible idea. + you could ask your teammates what doctrine he has before game and change your whole play style from there to account for it.

and whats so bad about teammates actually communicating?

Thats not the problem. The problem is the fact that it locks players into playing their faction in spečfic ways, sometimes which don't work universally against all factions. Other problems occur like team games. What if there are two PE Players in a team up and they both have SE? Very weak combo

especially if they go up against tank heavy soviets. dont think a couple booby traps are gonna stop a t-34. so yea, nothings wrong with teams communicating, i actually think its a good thing if teams want to brief their mates on tactics used often by certain players, but locking a player down to a certain doctrine would be bad.

It would be imbalanced but fun ^^.

Panzer4life wrote:
I can't wait for the tourney to start, but I need some practice with 2v2s, i play alot of 1v1s. Anyone on the axis wanting to prepare for the tourney?

I could play but I am not the best player :P

i think that's the point. practice up for the tourney.

It's good for players to start meeting and practicing before the tournament. After all, you have quite a bit of time :P

Cranialwizard wrote:
After all, you have quite a bit of time :P

Are we talking weeks or months here ???

Cat wrote:

Cranialwizard wrote:
After all, you have quite a bit of time :P

Are we talking weeks or months here ???

Weeks most likely.

Hey, private message me anyone this weekend. I check in the morning US east coast time at around 10-11 am, and I checked periodically throughout the day. Also, that is why i planned on using Luftwaffe doctrine, it has AT and AI capabilities.

Saw this on my facebook wall, sounds interested. Sign me up for this :D

Your Name In-Game: Drokslit
Your Faction Choice:  Wehrmacht
Desired Division Name: 1st Infanterie-Division

Can I expect an e-mail or something along those lines when things start up or will I be expected to check the forums regularly? Oh and if not enough allies sign up then I have no problems fighting as the Soviets!

Of course you will be informed via e-mail, but we'd be pleased if you check in here periodically :)

@Cranial: Make me join Wehrmacht ;)

Your Name In-Game:
Your Faction Choice: Allies, Soviets
Desired Division Name: 5th Guard Tank Division

I'm very interested in this tournament, but I'm not a specially good player and I've never played soviet versus a real opponent.
Is the level of the players high ?

Expect soviet players to rush you with infantry hordes, or if you play as Soviets for PE and wehr players to bunker in for the long fight.

I'm more interested in playing the soviet.
Is this army "easy" to play with in multi ?

KakitaKirby wrote:
I'm more interested in playing the soviet.
Is this army "easy" to play with in multi ?

Its like a hybird of US and Wehr. Early game you run around out capping and flanking and later on you either swarm with elite infantry or push with heavy armor. Not necessarily easier :P. You should try some 1v1 games before you play in this tourney. PlayervPlayer games are very different from PlayervCPU

I fear if I join Soviet, there will be a successful blitzkrieg :X
Ingame name: Dann88 or DannEF
Side: Allies/Soviet
Can't participate in 4v4 maps (or 3v3 EF maps) :P

Last edited March 30, 2012 at 5:19 PM by Dann88

lol Dann you're actually an alright player.  Don't sweat it.  :)

Argh, just tried a 2v2, and I got kicked for lagging the game, so I can only really play 1v1 if the tourney don't mind. So yeah, I can't be a team player for the larger maps.

KakitaKirby wrote:
I'm very interested in this tournament, but I'm not a specially good player and I've never played soviet versus a real opponent.
Is the level of the players high ?

Nope, the level of players varies greatly. This tournament offers playing field to a wide range of players, from pro to newb :)

Dann88 wrote:
I fear if I join Soviet, there will be a successful blitzkrieg :X
Ingame name: Dann88 or DannEF
Side: Allies/Soviet
Can't participate in 4v4 maps (or 3v3 EF maps) :P

Cannot participate in big maps is OK. More information will come on that when available. Don't worry about skill mate :)

Panzer4life wrote:
Argh, just tried a 2v2, and I got kicked for lagging the game, so I can only really play 1v1 if the tourney don't mind. So yeah, I can't be a team player for the larger maps.

Try adjusting your settings :) There is still plenty of time till' we start.

I can play a game 2day if anyone's interested :P.

I actually never played much EF competitively. I wouldn't mind doing some games as or against Russians for practice, I am rank 10-11 on vanilla CoH though so I do have experience just not As or Against Russian Players.

Drokslit wrote:
I actually never played much EF competitively. I wouldn't mind doing some games as or against Russians for practice, I am rank 10-11 on vanilla CoH though so I do have experience just not As or Against Russian Players.

Sounds like you'd be apt to learn. There's plenty of time folks :) Use the time to familiarize yourself with the soviets and adapt new strats  :D

The reason there is such a sign up delay is for several reasons, but allowing players to familiarize themselves is one of them.

I'll try to play vs human, but it's not easy to find an other thing that compstomp.
Thanks for you replies, at least I can see the community seems nice.

I'm not a good player either, but if you want we can have some matches against each other so you get used to PVP games :)
Just PM me in case you are willing to accept my offer.

I think if there was a way to determined HOW badly you lost compared to a slight lost this would be more interesting. IF you lose completely, then you lose more territory or whatever. If you are slaughtered or leave the game, you lose more. Or you could look at the match's Kills. Either war, it will make the people least inclined to leave the match early as they have a chance to come back as just a slight lost.

Seeme wrote:
I think if there was a way to determined HOW badly you lost compared to a slight lost this would be more interesting. IF you lose completely, then you lose more territory or whatever. If you are slaughtered or leave the game, you lose more. Or you could look at the match's Kills. Either war, it will make the people least inclined to leave the match early as they have a chance to come back as just a slight lost.

That doesn't really seem fair. If you have a line of inexperienced players than more professional teams can take advantage of that for quick victory, IE Push them back.

Will there be matches when like 2 soviet divisions attack one singel german? So there will be a 1vs2 game? I mean. Its upp to the commander of each side how many divisions he want to attack with right? XD
Might be heavy unbalancded but hey, if the german commander doesnt help another division as backup. There is really only one guy to blaim? ;)

Sommarkatze wrote:
Will there be matches when like 2 soviet divisions attack one singel german? So there will be a 1vs2 game? I mean. Its upp to the commander of each side how many divisions he want to attack with right? XD
Might be heavy unbalancded but hey, if the german commander doesnt help another division as backup. There is really only one guy to blaim? ;)

I don't think that's the way it'll work. That's extremely unfair to the 1 player and it's obvious whom wins the battle there. It's going to be fun, but being ganged up on isn't fun.

How to decide which players fight against the other ones? Randomly?

Once the map is set up players will speak with high command on how they want to place themselves and what strategies to pursue. It won't be randomly selected, althoight if you join late that could be a consequence.

reporting to the Oberkommando de Whermact, (hope i said that right) will there be pre-games to find out different players seating in the tourney and basically how well they play so that high command (as it were) could decide when to play them?

stealthattack1 wrote:
reporting to the Oberkommando de Whermact, (hope i said that right) will there be pre-games to find out different players seating in the tourney and basically how well they play so that high command (as it were) could decide when to play them?

Well, not officially at least. There will be an organizational phase of most likely a week given so that players can report in and commanders can try to figure out how good some players are as opposed to others.

thanks. i appreciate knowing. looking forward to the tourney!

Would be cool if we can order attacks on some maps/places but the enemy would not know who is attacking where, they would only be told to arrange defenses on the maps that is attacked. This would make it possible to send fake attacks / decoys on some maps to spread out the enemys defenses/players so they wont know where the elite attack will be.

Snugz wrote:
Would be cool if we can order attacks on some maps/places but the enemy would not know who is attacking where, they would only be told to arrange defenses on the maps that is attacked. This would make it possible to send fake attacks / decoys on some maps to spread out the enemys defenses/players so they wont know where the elite attack will be.

It sorta over complicates things. Makes it unfair for the weaker players too, because bad guessing would result in steamrolls.

Besides, attack orders will likely be posted early in the week to give many people a chance to attack throughout the week.

I think this tourney is more about team vs team rather than interesting and funky tactics so things like:

Snugz wrote:
Would be cool if we can order attacks on some maps/places but the enemy would not know who is attacking where, they would only be told to arrange defenses on the maps that is attacked. This would make it possible to send fake attacks / decoys on some maps to spread out the enemys defenses/players so they wont know where the elite attack will be.

Would quite honestly be fun but would end up in a "steamroll" as Cranial put simply because inexperienced players will have to fight an opposing team spearheaded by pro players (lets be honest, you know that will happen :P)

Stupid question, but its Annihalation and not cap points right? XD

Hell no man  >:(
PS: Let's play EF, Fish ;D

Fo real? Nawh, count me out guys! I dont role that way!

Sommarkatze wrote:
Stupid question, but its Annihalation and not cap points right? XD

No, it will be VP based.

However, all map types will be offered. Maps like Vire River Valley WILL be in the tournament, however not extremely important to the whole campaign.

Cranialwizard wrote:

Snugz wrote:
Would be cool if we can order attacks on some maps/places but the enemy would not know who is attacking where, they would only be told to arrange defenses on the maps that is attacked. This would make it possible to send fake attacks / decoys on some maps to spread out the enemys defenses/players so they wont know where the elite attack will be.

It sorta over complicates things. Makes it unfair for the weaker players too, because bad guessing would result in steamrolls.

Besides, attack orders will likely be posted early in the week to give many people a chance to attack throughout the week.

There is a possibility that if you don't do something like this, then the team with less numbers of good players will get overwhelmed when their teammates fuck up.  If you think about it, less experienced players are going to get owned by more experienced players no matter what, when they inevitably have to fight them.

By being able to give fake attacks and decoys, the team with more noobs would be able to lessen the battle reliance of less experienced commanders while putting them to better use as decoys and what-not, and have the better players be able to take on the hardest blows of the enemy.

Sommarkatze wrote:
Stupid question, but its Annihalation and not cap points right? XD

oh god please no annihilation...

Yauz wrote:

Cranialwizard wrote:

Snugz wrote:
Would be cool if we can order attacks on some maps/places but the enemy would not know who is attacking where, they would only be told to arrange defenses on the maps that is attacked. This would make it possible to send fake attacks / decoys on some maps to spread out the enemys defenses/players so they wont know where the elite attack will be.

It sorta over complicates things. Makes it unfair for the weaker players too, because bad guessing would result in steamrolls.

Besides, attack orders will likely be posted early in the week to give many people a chance to attack throughout the week.

There is a possibility that if you don't do something like this, then the team with less numbers of good players will get overwhelmed when their teammates fuck up.  If you think about it, less experienced players are going to get owned by more experienced players no matter what, when they inevitably have to fight them.

By being able to give fake attacks and decoys, the team with more noobs would be able to lessen the battle reliance of less experienced commanders while putting them to better use as decoys and what-not, and have the better players be able to take on the hardest blows of the enemy.

Not neccesarily, if high command and players play their cards right, the "inexperienced" players align themselves in one section for fighting and the more experienced players have another section to fight in.

Also, decoys create headaches for both players and myself, as I have to keep track of who is attacking who on a more discreet level which isn't very feasible. The other thing is that players won't actually know whom they're attacking, so theoretically they won't know whom their opponents are and the players can't organize between each other what day would be a good day to meet up and play.

Tbh i just think its gonna be the same players fighting against the same players during the whole tourney then. Im certain its just gonna be the best team stomping the weakest team for a safe win over and ovvaa - Or the best teams attacking eachother over and over again. Actually i think your way with ppl knowing who attacks who will cause bigger match making problems because the person who is going to be attacked has to find time to play against the specific oponent and that guy may be in a totally different timezone. With my suggestion the commander  can just take anyone who is avaible and put them into the defence, rather than have to wait for 2 specefic guys to find the time to play against eachother.

or, to even make this more complicated, we could map this all out in the real world. players could have balanced starting positions, dictated by cranial in order to make games equal, and high command could re-arrange players by diverting troops to different positions based on what high/low level player concentrations there were. commanders would only have a certain number on move per turn, and some moves, if extremely long, would take more than one move to get there. this would add to strategic gameplay in the turn based area, as well as more competitive gameplay in the real time gameplay.

EDIT: i can edit a map picture to make this more understandable. (and will shortly)

Last edited April 4, 2012 at 4:54 PM by stealthattack1

stealthattack1 wrote:
or, to even make this more complicated, we could map this all out in the real world. players could have balanced starting positions, dictated by cranial in order to make games equal, and high command could re-arrange players by diverting troops to different positions based on what high/low level player concentrations there were. commanders would only have a certain number on move per turn, and some moves, if extremely long, would take more than one move to get there. this would add to strategic gameplay in the turn based area, as well as more competitive gameplay in the real time gameplay.

EDIT: i can edit a map picture to make this more understandable. (and will shortly)

It's in my drafted rule book already, but is good to hear someone on the same page :)

oh. well good to know.

As a side note, this seems a lot like that tourney SuperSoca tried last year for Brazilians.

Last edited April 4, 2012 at 5:13 PM by stealthattack1

stealthattack1 wrote:
oh. well good to know.

As a side note, this seems a lot like that tourney SuperSoca tried last year for Brazilians.

They are similar but with key and vital differences.

Sommarkatze wrote:
Fo real? Nawh, count me out guys! I dont role that way!

So, you're sure you want out? I will remove you if so..

Anyone else got a buddy to sign up for or convince?