Who here is a Vet?

[Hoplosternum]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

Some of the most ancient of players would definitely be "veterans" but far from any "expert opponents" list. Im not sure that would meet your needs anyway.

For the purpose of the original post I think you might have wanted to ask for people who are consistent winners in a specific type of game. Veteran lists in the past have often aimed toward kill-all games with CBM on medium maps. Since its a team game being created you might want veterans with proven histories in the areas of diplomacy and allied play which I think would be a very different group. In fact I can only think of maybe 1 or 2 people that I would ever consider for both lists.

Thats right for this post. AlgaeNymph is looking to recruit one

But it is also a fairly good definition for this site. You can quibble with the name but most mp games organised on this site are not blitzes or vast epics or team games or detailed scenarios. There are no sp game of the months (as at the Civ forums) or puzzle scenarios run. With a few exceptions, games are all against all with 8+ players here. These games dominate this site even if blitzes organised elsewhere and sp games in general are played more. Most of the guides and many of the strategy discussions on the site are focuses on this large free for all mp type game too.

So when people talk of mp veterans on this site, I think the sort of person AlgaeNymph is looking for is what they mean. That does not mean that they are any more than that - the very good players of the sort of mp games organised here.

And I don't really like any other criteria in any case for veterans.

I think the Thanks button is good for what it does and in general those people who get a lot of Thanks are those who give helpful advice in threads or have done mods, guides or maps. So people like Edi, gandalf, Baalz, Burnsaber and Sombre quite rightly get plenty of thanks. But I certainly thank people for funny lines or simply to show support in a row/reasoned discussion as well. And I have yet to thank someone for slaughtering me in mp (so bad luck Dimaz, Atul et al) and I am not about to start More likely to thank someone who was useless and I rolled them over early on So I am not sure how much of a guide it would be to how well they can play.

Those of us who have been here a long time are still waiting for our 5 year Gold Pen icon to appear next to our username And I sometimes wonder if Gandalf is only here now to get his Gold Watch icon when he reaches 10 years But I am not sure it is a guide quality of play wise.

Number of posts would be a poor guide too. Especially as no distinction is made post wise (or length of time on the board) between Dominions and other games on the board.

So go for it Calahan. I think your idea on recommending 3 people each is great Although I would ask for a sentence or so explaining why you have made your picks. Mentioning a game they played well in or tactic they used very effectively. Otherwise you may simply get a lot of people recommending 'famous' names even if they have never played them (or indeed those famous names never actually play mp....)

And finally can some Vet - self appointed or voted in - please sign up to the game AlgaeNymph refered to in his first post. Your team awaits and the rest of us can't start without you

[WraithLord]

Don't think I saw them mentioned, ano, kuritza, dimaz, meglobob & karnoza.

IMO, each name on this list can give even Micah a run for it

[Calahan]

Originally Posted by Hoplosternum

So go for it Calahan. I think your idea on recommending 3 people each is great

If I get a few more nudges on this, then I'll try to get something started next week if I have the time.

Originally Posted by Hoplosternum

Although I would ask for a sentence or so explaining why you have made your picks. Mentioning a game they played well in or tactic they used very effectively. Otherwise you may simply get a lot of people recommending 'famous' names even if they have never played them (or indeed those famous names never actually play mp....)

In my head I can see several ways of how 'vet voting' could work. So if I do go ahead and do this, what I'll probably do is get my head down and think about it properly (as it's just an 'idea' at the moment), come back with some thoughts on how it could work, and canvass opinions on them.

One thing I'll probably do though is to divide 'vets' into two groups. One with "good players" in, the other containing "highly experienced" ones. Although being on either list is of course not mutually exclusive. And if the term 'vet' is to be associated with the "good player" group (which seems best IMO), then I'd happily welcome suggestions for another term that can be used for the "highly experienced" group.

[Quitti]

Originally Posted by Calahan

If I get a few more nudges on this, then I'll try to get something started next week if I have the time.

Go for it. It's a good idea, as long as you keep it simple. That is, not too much variables. Simply something like 3 points for the first nominee per person, 2 for the second, one for the last, and perhaps a few words why the person deserves that position in their books.

[Sombre]

lawl at qm thanking me.

[Ironhawk]

Yeah the definition of a vet is elusive. To me - it really just means a player who's played a fair amount of MP. That they have a really strong grasp of the core strategy, commonly used tactics and key spells, and some underlying mechanics. Enough so that they can innovate and adapt to problems instead of caving to the first trick tactic they are hit by. But they by no means have to be the best player out there.

I would add some of the folks from the roster that Pasha uses to invite to his games, too. They are generally pretty good. So lets say:

Pashadawg, Atul, Calmon, WraithLord, Okin, DonCorazon, Zeldor, TheDemon, Zlefin, Namad

[chrispedersen]

JimMorrison, Executor, atul, Dr. P, Baalz

[Frozen Lama]

Psycho, Amhaizer, Jazzepi

[Executor]

I say it's a fine idea, go for it.

[AreaOfEffect]

The problem here is that your trying to apply a binary system to people, who are each unique in their own way. Each person has their own list of strengths and weaknesses, as well as their own interests. Its not really easy to digitize people as 'vets' no matter what standard you use.

I for example think I'm pretty good at running my own nations from early game to late. There have only been a handful of games where I did not see the very end of it, yet I've only won one of my games. I also don't seem to have a whole lot of luck with team games for one reason or another. Yet most of the games I've managed have run quite smoothly in my opinion.

I think it would be better to have a list of players where people nominate what their qualifications are. Qualifications could include things like accomplished modder, small game winner, effective rusher, dominions loremaster, and so on and so forth. A system of nomination would also allow for people's qualifications to increase over time as they improve their skills.