bangerz wrote:

radioactivity wrote:

mathwhiz9 wrote:You added oops. You are slowly becoming Canadian. We welcome you

The plan is working, eh?

oops is Canadian?

What he says in it is

carter j burke wrote:I wouldn't worry about your voice, you sound fine.

Your voice is fine. Though, the volume is pretty low; if you can increase volume, that would be better. Remember, people can always turn it down if it is too loud, but if it is too quiet there is little to be done.

carter j burke wrote:You asked for feedback: In future videos, I request you zoom in on outposts you're talking about so we can see the detail.

Agreed 100%. During the video, I often had to pause to look carefully for the outpost to which you were referring.
In addition, I would refer to the players by color for clarity. There were multiple times when I had to go back to remember who was each player.

crisismana wrote:too long and lead me to had no insterest hear the rest of stories.

I thought the length was fine. I appreciate the extra description; in fact, I wouldn't mind a whole lot more. It could include specific descriptions of the attacks you sent, the way they were planned, the reasons for targeting particular players or outposts, etc.

crisismana wrote:what is really learn :
*special rule not mean for pub.

So much this. As much as I can empathize with your anger for them breaking "the rules," those aren't really the rules - just a custom set that may or may not have been clear based solely on the title of the match. I'd guess that some may not have joined if they knew them ahead of time. Perhaps they were clear from opening conversations in game, but that wasn't covered in the video, so I can't say with certainty.

If I think of anything else, I'll let you know. All in all, they are well done videos. Thanks for making them!

This is really helpful feedback for me.
1-2. I'll work on talking louder and zooming in to make the videos easier to watch.
3. I did try to go a little in depth with specific attacks, but tactically not much happened, so for this video in particular it would probably get boring. I'll definitely consider it if I get in a tactics heavy game.
4. I can assuredly say it was made EXTREMELY clear there were to be no specialists. No one had an excuse to misunderstand that. Plus he saved his hires until he was losing, so he was fully aware.

Effusive apologies for all misconstrued insults are more Canadian than drunk hockey players wrestling with grizzly bears.

aclonicy wrote:I can assuredly say it was made EXTREMELY clear there were to be no specialists. No one had an excuse to misunderstand that. Plus he saved his hires until he was losing, so he was fully aware.

It is obvious that they knew they were cheating when they made the hires; I'm saying that people may not have known before they joined, and might not have if they knew.

Either way, I just agree with Crisis that it will be much more difficult to regulate players in a public game. Regardless, that is a separate topic from video feedback.