The great Higher Game replay thread!

Post by **F8 Binds...** » January 28th, 2007, 9:56 pm

Konrad II wrote:
Gus wrote: This one's a(nother) gem =D
Indeed, those are the best lines, ever.

Someone should have a post containing all the quotes higher has given this community. If you make it into a podcast, I'd even download it.

Refering to northies vs knalgans, pm sapient. He is a very skilled northerner player. Higher, I have one question though. Why don't you have the name on the mp server "higher_game" ? You will most likely get a large audience, and if people make comments that you don't like or disturb you, you can kick them. Or you can put "no observers". This makes finding you less confusing. If you play skilled players often enough, you will get an idea of their tactics and apply them to your tactics, which of nowadays, aren't very advanced. This way you will get a good reputation and people wouldn't laugh at you anymore. It only took me 2 weeks to get the basics. Another 2 weeks to get good enough to beat people online. It's taken me a year to get the level of playing skill i am now though. It's a slow process. Just get it done with. (dang...) also, higher, THE F8 BINDSMAN would like to play you. I am not as skilled as the "pros", but i'm no easy contest either. Set up a time. I will chose any faction you would like, or random. STANDARD SETTINGS is the only requirement i have, and that it be 1v1. that is all. If you don't chose your fate, others will. You have matured though... you actually post replays now!

Post by **Yogibear** » January 28th, 2007, 10:23 pm

F8 Binds... wrote:...and if people make comments that you don't like or disturb you, you can kick them. Or you can put "no observers".

For 1.2 there is a fantastic new command (for the command line) called "mute". You can search the wiki for the exact syntax. It allows you to silent any unwelcome observer (or all of them). That way you don't have to listen to all the noise and can show instead that you know better

.

Post by **turin** » January 28th, 2007, 10:28 pm

F8 Binds... wrote:
Konrad II wrote: Indeed, those are the best lines, ever.
Someone should have a post containing all the quotes higher has given this community. If you make it into a podcast, I'd even download it.

OK, I've added it to my Wesnoth fortune file.

Sombra · Post by **Sombra** » January 29th, 2007, 11:49 am

I peeked at the replay of Lagoon out of curiosity at the weekend.

A few things that stuck in my mind were:

-The undead player mostly recruited ghosts , kind of a weak recruitment and got slaughtered going against the dwarves.

- The dwarf player did better but lost his nerves with your attack of the wose. You moved a wose on open terrain and dwarf player mostly missed your wose nearly made 100% damage this turn and the turn after. Killing 3-4 units. You were quite lucky in this respect.

The knalgan player lost his nerves using some strong language (players were quite nasty to each other during the game)

I didnt watch the game till the end because you opponents striked me mainly as beginners.

It would be nice to see you on the server under your real name and see how you stand up against the more advanced players.

Higher Game · Post by **Higher Game** » January 30th, 2007, 12:06 am

Dwarves tend to have a tough time against ghosts, though. Thundersticks require a bit of luck, and the other units get drained. Ulfzerkers at day can do the job, if they can get close enough, but it's still a tough fight overall. The ghosts were helpful in taking water villages. Finally, in a free for all environment, defense is important, which ghosts are good at, and the potential for getting wraiths is worth the risk. I think his initial recruit was fundamentally the strongest. My complete lack of shamans probably hurt me.

I moved the wose on open terrain to kill his injured gryphon, and I supected that his campaign against the undead would discourage an immediate counterattack. The leader attack was unexpected, and even though I had a very remote chance of killing him, I went for it, and unexpectedly succeeded. That was 2 things I didn't consider, and it made for an interesting game. What makes free for all so interesting is that this luck made everyone gang up on me, out of jealousy. I think free for all Wesnoth truly requires tactical skill beyond pure luck, due to this effect.

I wonder if a huge map, like 16 players, could be created for the purpose of tournaments. Instead of an elimination tournament (16,8,4,2,winner), you could have a massive free for all, involving makeshift alliances, betrayals, game theory, and best of all, the luck factor is largely diminished. Of course, there would be no time limit, and saving the game for breaks would be necessary, and organizing it would be hard, but man, it would be so great.

JW · Post by JW » January 30th, 2007, 3:04 am

Higher Game wrote:Dwarves tend to have a tough time against ghosts, though. Thundersticks require a bit of luck, and the other units get drained. Ulfzerkers at day can do the job, if they can get close enough, but it's still a tough fight overall.

Poachers are good for shooting Ghosts.

I wonder if a huge map, like 16 players, could be created for the purpose of tournaments.

You can only have 8 (maybe 9) human controlled sides.

No one would play a 16 player game: it would take innumberable hours.

Inigo Montoya · Post by **Inigo Montoya** » January 30th, 2007, 3:44 am

There's a really awkward way to do it in WML, but it really wouldn't be worth the effort.

Define 8 player sides, plus Side 9 as a 'dummy'.
The leaders for players 9-16 are initially defined as being on side 9.
When a player completes their turn, everything they own is 'marked' with a variable or stored into an array, and then switched to side 9 - and one of the leaders from side 9, plus any units marked as 'belonging to' that leader, are changed to side X (the number of the player who just finished their turn).

Technically, this would work, assuming that every player is a separate team. If you wanted (say) a 4v4v4v4, it would still be possible, but even more of a pain in the ass since you need a 'dummy' side for each team (to stop people accidentally attacking their allies).

IB · Post by IB » January 30th, 2007, 4:35 am

Higher Game wrote:I think free for all Wesnoth truly requires tactical skill beyond pure luck

So 1v1s and 2v2s require pure luck?

JW · Post by JW » January 30th, 2007, 6:22 am

IB wrote:
Higher Game wrote:I think free for all Wesnoth truly requires tactical skill beyond pure luck
So 1v1s and 2v2s require pure luck?

1v1 is technically a FFA.

Post by **Doc Paterson** » January 30th, 2007, 12:12 pm

IB wrote: So 1v1s and 2v2s require pure luck?

It must be true; I read it in the Higher Tome- Proclamations 6:14.

IB · Post by IB » January 30th, 2007, 12:12 pm

I wouldn't classify it as such. For me a free for all needs at least 3 sides. 1v1 is 2 teams, but I understand why you'd classify it as free for all.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » January 30th, 2007, 12:13 pm

IB wrote:I wouldn't classify it as such. For me a free for all needs at least 3 sides. 1v1 is 2 teams, but I understand why you'd classify it as free for all.

That's because you haven't seen the Higher Light.

Cuyo Quiz · Post by **Cuyo Quiz** » January 30th, 2007, 6:16 pm

Sadly, i have no knowledge of how to accelerate the demise of this gag in the same way that i did with the "the turin" gag.

*Le Seigneur de la Demence trails off*

Post by **Maeglin Dubh** » January 30th, 2007, 6:24 pm

"I am I, Higher Gamer, the Lord of the Wesnoth,
My tactical skills make me glow.
And the whims of the numbers make my plans look dumber,
Wherever my units go,
Wherever my units go,
Onward to replays I go!"

(To the tune "I am I, Don Quixote")

Post by **Blarumyrran** » January 30th, 2007, 6:32 pm

Higher Game wrote:I wonder if a huge map, like 16 players, could be created for the purpose of tournaments. Instead of an elimination tournament (16,8,4,2,winner), you could have a massive free for all, involving makeshift alliances, betrayals, game theory, and best of all, the luck factor is largely diminished. Of course, there would be no time limit, and saving the game for breaks would be necessary, and organizing it would be hard, but man, it would be so great.

that would result in massive kicking and leaving.

even 6p maps take too long for me, you have to wait 5 other players take their turns... with 16p you would have to wait for 15 other players. it would take about an hour to get to turn 4. it would take full nonsleep days to finish it.

also, if the players know each other, theyll probably have personal preferences to alliances and so it will be unfair towards the others.