93 replies to this topic

[JJ]

Bob, on 4 Aug 2010, 2:44, said:

JJ_, on 3 Aug 2010, 12:16, said:

One thing I don't really understand is the stigma with rushing. What's wrong with it? It's just building units early and sending them to attack, you only lose to that directly if you, well, suck. If you still lose when you don't suck, it's probably a matter of bad game balancing/design.

Exactly that; everyone has a different skill level, if you aren't that good and someone repeatedly kicks your arse by rushing you, where's the fun in that? I'm not saying rushing (or any strategy, for that matter) is bad, but what's the point in wiping the floor with someone who isn't that good? It would be like playing a game of football with a child and beating them 50 - nil... sure, well done, you beat them, but seriously, you could have done that without sucking the fun out of the game (for your opponent).

Umm play someone your level?

Bob, on 4 Aug 2010, 2:44, said:

JJ_, on 3 Aug 2010, 12:16, said:

And yes, I do think compstomping all day with 100k cash is wrong, it's not what RTSs are designed to do. It's like playing chess with yourself, without the opponent so you just slowly kill piece by piece. I do play that once in a while, but you must remember playing online is many, many times more fun, even with lag, disconnection and what-not. Even compstomping is more fun with a human ally.

Maybe it's more fun for you, but doesn't mean it's more fun for everyone. Everyone has (and is entitled) to their own opinion. Sure, playing online with human players is often a hell of a lot more challenging, but challenging != fun. I (used to) enjoy playing online with people from FS, but it's also nice just having a nice relaxing game against some AI. Neither was more fun, they were/are simply different... but that's just my opinion.

Umm I play both, I think it's wrong when you do it all the time, but not occasionally. One analogy I use is compstomping is like a stroll in a park, while 1v1 is like a gym workout.

Bob, on 4 Aug 2010, 2:44, said:

JJ_, on 3 Aug 2010, 12:16, said:

In my opinion, the biggest problem is with people who just can't face losing, people who do not attempt to get better because they keep getting beaten. And then, they will proceed to not play online ever again, and stick to the AI. I really feel that people should at least try playing online once in a while, it's the only time when RTSs make any sense.

Maybe that is a reason why some people don't play online, but like I have already said; If you are repeatedly getting your arse kicked, where's the fun? Why wouldn't you stop playing online? Some people just don't want to play online, and what's wrong with that? Games have offline modes for a reason, and at the end of the day it's their choice whether they want to stick to that or not.

Again, play someone your own level?

Bob, on 4 Aug 2010, 2:44, said:

Aaron:Wii, on 3 Aug 2010, 17:44, said:

What i like about RTSes is that

If you Win , well you win.
If you lose you only get better.

Nothing is cooler then that.

Err, no.

Just because you lose doesn't mean you automatically get better. If you are playing against someone of similar or slightly higher skill level, sure you can often learn things from it... but it's not like you get EXP from every game you play until you eventually level up.

If you really don't want to get any better, why do you still have the motivation to still play? I mean, it's like being satisfied with knowing how to serve but not hit back. Or, just play someone your level?

I really didn't want to reply, but you just made me go, "Huh?".

[Golan]

How would a newbie be playing someone his own level? He's new to the game, he doesn't even know his own level, even less how he could find others with the same. Even one of those stupid matchmaking algorithms won't know because he hasn't played enough games for it to draw a statistical conclusion.
Or for that matter, why would a strategy game even allow classifying players by "skill level", which is a simple skalar value? Doesn't the mere cry for "playing against your own level" show how shallow the game is?

Edited by Golan, 04 August 2010 - 11:15.

[JJ]

Trial and error? Because there seems to be a pretty normal distribution of skill, and I think the first chunks of skill are easiest to get anyway. I personally know a fair amount of people from the utter noob to the deadly pro, so look harder? I don't think one can expect to find a good opponent / partner without putting effort oneself.

[GuardianTempest]

Then I wish I could play with you guys.

[Golan]

JJ_, on 4 Aug 2010, 11:17, said:

Trial and error? Because there seems to be a pretty normal distribution of skill, and I think the first chunks of skill are easiest to get anyway. I personally know a fair amount of people from the utter noob to the deadly pro, so look harder? I don't think one can expect to find a good opponent / partner without putting effort oneself.

"Play someone your own level" doesn't work as a means to avoid frustration if you first have to go through an even more frustrating trial and error process by not playing against someone your own level!
You're pretty much saying that the way to have fun as a Newb is to invest enough time to stop being a Newb - which doesn't solve the problem, just shifts the frame of reference.

Edited by Golan, 04 August 2010 - 13:27.

[Dutchygamer]

This discussion is hopeless. Also, I wanted to reply to Aaron's post of calling me a n00b, but Karma prevented me from finishing the post (PC decided to activate a Virus, killing my whole PC).

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

JJ_, on 4 Aug 2010, 11:47, said:

Bob, on 4 Aug 2010, 2:44, said:

JJ_, on 3 Aug 2010, 12:16, said:

One thing I don't really understand is the stigma with rushing. What's wrong with it? It's just building units early and sending them to attack, you only lose to that directly if you, well, suck. If you still lose when you don't suck, it's probably a matter of bad game balancing/design.

Exactly that; everyone has a different skill level, if you aren't that good and someone repeatedly kicks your arse by rushing you, where's the fun in that? I'm not saying rushing (or any strategy, for that matter) is bad, but what's the point in wiping the floor with someone who isn't that good? It would be like playing a game of football with a child and beating them 50 - nil... sure, well done, you beat them, but seriously, you could have done that without sucking the fun out of the game (for your opponent).

Umm play someone your level?

Let me rephrase.

Most people don't have a problem with rushing, per se. They have a problem with rushing against them/people of lower skill; it is unnecessary.

JJ_, on 4 Aug 2010, 11:47, said:

Bob, on 4 Aug 2010, 2:44, said:

JJ_, on 3 Aug 2010, 12:16, said:

And yes, I do think compstomping all day with 100k cash is wrong, it's not what RTSs are designed to do. It's like playing chess with yourself, without the opponent so you just slowly kill piece by piece. I do play that once in a while, but you must remember playing online is many, many times more fun, even with lag, disconnection and what-not. Even compstomping is more fun with a human ally.

Maybe it's more fun for you, but doesn't mean it's more fun for everyone. Everyone has (and is entitled) to their own opinion. Sure, playing online with human players is often a hell of a lot more challenging, but challenging != fun. I (used to) enjoy playing online with people from FS, but it's also nice just having a nice relaxing game against some AI. Neither was more fun, they were/are simply different... but that's just my opinion.

Umm I play both, I think it's wrong when you do it all the time, but not occasionally. One analogy I use is compstomping is like a stroll in a park, while 1v1 is like a gym workout.

Lolwur...

If I've bought the game, I want to play it how I want... why should I be 'forced' to play on/offline?

Using your analogy; what is wrong with only taking a stroll in the park? Not everyone wants to become uber-fit you know...

JJ_, on 4 Aug 2010, 11:47, said:

Bob, on 4 Aug 2010, 2:44, said:

Aaron:Wii, on 3 Aug 2010, 17:44, said:

What i like about RTSes is that

If you Win , well you win.
If you lose you only get better.

Nothing is cooler then that.

Err, no.

Just because you lose doesn't mean you automatically get better. If you are playing against someone of similar or slightly higher skill level, sure you can often learn things from it... but it's not like you get EXP from every game you play until you eventually level up.

If you really don't want to get any better, why do you still have the motivation to still play? I mean, it's like being satisfied with knowing how to serve but not hit back. Or, just play someone your level?

Again... lolwur?

You don't have to constantly get better at something to enjoy it. I have a BMX, I can't do much with it, and it's been the same for several years now... doesn't mean I don't enjoy it.

EDIT: I also never said anything about not wanting to get better, but getting your arse handed to you on a plate isn't learning. You need to learn the basics before you learn any advanced strategies.

Edited by Bob, 04 August 2010 - 17:57.

[R3ven]

Bob, on 4 Aug 2010, 13:55, said:

JJ_, on 4 Aug 2010, 11:47, said:

Bob, on 4 Aug 2010, 2:44, said:

Aaron:Wii, on 3 Aug 2010, 17:44, said:

What i like about RTSes is that

If you Win , well you win.
If you lose you only get better.

Nothing is cooler then that.

Err, no.

Just because you lose doesn't mean you automatically get better. If you are playing against someone of similar or slightly higher skill level, sure you can often learn things from it... but it's not like you get EXP from every game you play until you eventually level up.

If you really don't want to get any better, why do you still have the motivation to still play? I mean, it's like being satisfied with knowing how to serve but not hit back. Or, just play someone your level?

Again... lolwur?

You don't have to constantly get better at something to enjoy it. I have a BMX, I can't do much with it, and it's been the same for several years now... doesn't mean I don't enjoy it.

EDIT: I also never said anything about not wanting to get better, but getting your arse handed to you on a plate isn't learning. You need to learn the basics before you learn any advanced strategies.

About the only way I've learned how to play a game is to constantly get my ass handed to me over and over, then ask "what could I have done better" to whoever I had played, usually being Zhao. Then I usually get my ass handed to me again but not as quick. Thus meaning I learned something/got better.

Edited by Huhnu, 05 August 2010 - 13:38.

[Wizard]

The [seemingly] constant argument that losing a game is the only way to learn, is just nonsense. 2 new players can play each other and alternate victories. One doesn't learn on the loosing side and the winner doesn't. Playing the game, constantly, in a variety of different ways, helps you to learn.

[Zhao]

Wizard, on 5 Aug 2010, 13:42, said:

The [seemingly] constant argument that losing a game is the only way to learn, is just nonsense. 2 new players can play each other and alternate victories. One doesn't learn on the loosing side and the winner doesn't. Playing the game, constantly, in a variety of different ways, helps you to learn.

I think the winner learns less tbh , Yes he knows his "Tactics" Now but thats about it, and trust me 2years experience of playing with at least hundreds of people all the time , i learned more getting my ass whipped down by the best then alternating wins from someone of equal skill , if your getting beat down and think your not learning anything its because your taking that loss a bit to seriously (Remembers back then when I did that)

Turtling isn't a bad thing it just it pushes people away from coming online because they think its impossible to do when its not , dam right its hard to pull off but if you took the patience to master it your good , the blinding fact is that turtling is about massing defenses and artillery will wash the board with it everywhere.
If your defensive you should consist of well placed defenses , Artillery Aircraft and super weapons but even then thats drastically hard to control the entire map and make sure theres no holes in your base especially once you play online.

The fact is playing online will keep you playing way longer then offline every will and it keeps you at the minimum social. ,I've never heard of a guy who beat a RPG 100 times in a row because of how awesome it was and how good the People were?

But i do know of people who have played utterly thousands of games online in under 2 years and they always give me this answer as to why they stay "The community" is good and i've come to know the people on this server (Most likely the official servers)

The offline guy (at least when i was one) would say , eh I don't know, got nothing better to do. (asked these questions at a local YMCA that hosted ZH)
playing online is the best way to get to know someone you might not be able to see in real life (IE next best thing). Once you know the guy a bit more
playing with him isn't so bad or irritating(depending on how you take a loss) its just fun, Because its not just playing with a player now your playing with a freind.

Edited by Aaron:Wii, 05 August 2010 - 15:09.

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

Aaron:Wii, on 5 Aug 2010, 16:08, said:

The fact is playing online will keep you playing way longer then offline every will and it keeps you at the minimum social. ,I've never heard of a guy who beat a RPG 100 times in a row because of how awesome it was and how good the People were?

But i do know of people who have played utterly thousands of games online in under 2 years and they always give me this answer as to why they stay "The community" is good and i've come to know the people on this server (Most likely the official servers)

The offline guy (at least when i was one) would say , eh I don't know, got nothing better to do. (asked these questions at a local YMCA that hosted ZH)
playing online is the best way to get to know someone you might not be able to see in real life (IE next best thing). Once you know the guy a bit more
playing with him isn't so bad or irritating(depending on how you take a loss) its just fun, Because its not just playing with a player now your playing with a freind.

Again, you seem to be missing the point, mate. That is your opinion. It doesn't apply to everyone. Some people will much to prefer to play online and some will prefer to play offline. And that whole social argument is just flawed. Games do not have to be social... similarly, to be social, you don't have to play games. Maybe you play games to meet people and have fun playing with them. Others don't. Others play games for the fun of playing the game.

[Alias]

Aaron:Wii, on 6 Aug 2010, 1:08, said:

The fact is playing online will keep you playing way longer then offline every will and it keeps you at the minimum social. ,I've never heard of a guy who beat a RPG 100 times in a row because of how awesome it was and how good the People were?

If you count the times I have beaten Bioware RPGs I think I'll come close.

Aaron:Wii, on 6 Aug 2010, 1:08, said:

But i do know of people who have played utterly thousands of games online in under 2 years and they always give me this answer as to why they stay "The community" is good and i've come to know the people on this server (Most likely the official servers)

That's pretty much the backbone behind both arguments though. Turtling players play with turtlers, the more balanced styled players play against each other.
Sub-communities are formed, trying to merge them is what happens in this thread.

[Wizard]

Aaron:Wii, on 5 Aug 2010, 16:08, said:

Wizard, on 5 Aug 2010, 13:42, said:

The [seemingly] constant argument that losing a game is the only way to learn, is just nonsense. 2 new players can play each other and alternate victories. One doesn't learn on the loosing side and the winner doesn't. Playing the game, constantly, in a variety of different ways, helps you to learn.

I think the winner learns less tbh , Yes he knows his "Tactics" Now but thats about it, and trust me 2years experience of playing with at least hundreds of people all the time , i learned more getting my ass whipped down by the best then alternating wins from someone of equal skill , if your getting beat down and think your not learning anything its because your taking that loss a bit to seriously (Remembers back then when I did that

I don't know why, but you seem to continually reason that defeat = improvement. What you're missing out on is that it's the experience that matters more. A win is just a likely to generate improvement as a defeat. Playing a newb, granted, is unlikely to net as big an improvement in your game as playing a top tier opponent. But not every game has to be lost in order to learn. Playing, win/lose/draw, means you'll get experience, which is all your talking about.

Edited by Wizard, 05 August 2010 - 15:45.

[Zhao]

Wizard, on 5 Aug 2010, 16:45, said:

Aaron:Wii, on 5 Aug 2010, 16:08, said:

Wizard, on 5 Aug 2010, 13:42, said:

The [seemingly] constant argument that losing a game is the only way to learn, is just nonsense. 2 new players can play each other and alternate victories. One doesn't learn on the loosing side and the winner doesn't. Playing the game, constantly, in a variety of different ways, helps you to learn.

I think the winner learns less tbh , Yes he knows his "Tactics" Now but thats about it, and trust me 2years experience of playing with at least hundreds of people all the time , i learned more getting my ass whipped down by the best then alternating wins from someone of equal skill , if your getting beat down and think your not learning anything its because your taking that loss a bit to seriously (Remembers back then when I did that

I don't know why, but you seem to continually reason that defeat = improvement. What you're missing out on is that it's the experience that matters more. A win is just a likely to generate improvement as a defeat. Playing a newb, granted, is unlikely to net as big an improvement in your game as playing a top tier opponent. But not every game has to be lost in order to learn. Playing, win/lose/draw, means you'll get experience, which is all your talking about.

I think you do the community a favor by playing online with people instead off by your self.

I know plenty of decent decent mods that began because there little online gang (maybe 8 peeps) wanted to start a mod.

Look at all the good half life mods for example . Amazing pieces of work i sometimes see.

and the mods development was fueled because people were playing it online and people were pitching suggestions
and criticism as well as prashing the mod to grow more and it did.

(technically the same could work off a mass of people playing offline but how would you know people are playing)
I mean would we have a TF2 Saturday if it simply said "hey dudes lets all play offline oh and remind us when you do"
how long do you think that empty server would last .

I mean this forums only around because people are actively browsing it 24/7 which fuels motivation to play for it right?
if nobody was on it whats the point of supporting it at all?

I think the same concept works for gaming online.

[Wizard]

Aaron:Wii, on 5 Aug 2010, 20:19, said:

Wizard, on 5 Aug 2010, 16:45, said:

Aaron:Wii, on 5 Aug 2010, 16:08, said:

Wizard, on 5 Aug 2010, 13:42, said:

The [seemingly] constant argument that losing a game is the only way to learn, is just nonsense. 2 new players can play each other and alternate victories. One doesn't learn on the loosing side and the winner doesn't. Playing the game, constantly, in a variety of different ways, helps you to learn.

I think the winner learns less tbh , Yes he knows his "Tactics" Now but thats about it, and trust me 2years experience of playing with at least hundreds of people all the time , i learned more getting my ass whipped down by the best then alternating wins from someone of equal skill , if your getting beat down and think your not learning anything its because your taking that loss a bit to seriously (Remembers back then when I did that

I don't know why, but you seem to continually reason that defeat = improvement. What you're missing out on is that it's the experience that matters more. A win is just a likely to generate improvement as a defeat. Playing a newb, granted, is unlikely to net as big an improvement in your game as playing a top tier opponent. But not every game has to be lost in order to learn. Playing, win/lose/draw, means you'll get experience, which is all your talking about.

*some text*

How did what you've just posted relate to what I was talking about? At no point in my previous did I suggest that offline play would make you a better online player

[Zhao]

Wizard, on 5 Aug 2010, 21:02, said:

Aaron:Wii, on 5 Aug 2010, 20:19, said:

Wizard, on 5 Aug 2010, 16:45, said:

Aaron:Wii, on 5 Aug 2010, 16:08, said:

Wizard, on 5 Aug 2010, 13:42, said:

The [seemingly] constant argument that losing a game is the only way to learn, is just nonsense. 2 new players can play each other and alternate victories. One doesn't learn on the loosing side and the winner doesn't. Playing the game, constantly, in a variety of different ways, helps you to learn.

I think the winner learns less tbh , Yes he knows his "Tactics" Now but thats about it, and trust me 2years experience of playing with at least hundreds of people all the time , i learned more getting my ass whipped down by the best then alternating wins from someone of equal skill , if your getting beat down and think your not learning anything its because your taking that loss a bit to seriously (Remembers back then when I did that

I don't know why, but you seem to continually reason that defeat = improvement. What you're missing out on is that it's the experience that matters more. A win is just a likely to generate improvement as a defeat. Playing a newb, granted, is unlikely to net as big an improvement in your game as playing a top tier opponent. But not every game has to be lost in order to learn. Playing, win/lose/draw, means you'll get experience, which is all your talking about.

*some text*

How did what you've just posted relate to what I was talking about? At no point in my previous did I suggest that offline play would make you a better online player

Never said that you did nor did i think that i pointed that out.

[Wizard]

Aaron:Wii, on 5 Aug 2010, 21:57, said:

Wizard, on 5 Aug 2010, 21:02, said:

Aaron:Wii, on 5 Aug 2010, 20:19, said:

Wizard, on 5 Aug 2010, 16:45, said:

Aaron:Wii, on 5 Aug 2010, 16:08, said:

Wizard, on 5 Aug 2010, 13:42, said:

The [seemingly] constant argument that losing a game is the only way to learn, is just nonsense. 2 new players can play each other and alternate victories. One doesn't learn on the loosing side and the winner doesn't. Playing the game, constantly, in a variety of different ways, helps you to learn.

I think the winner learns less tbh , Yes he knows his "Tactics" Now but thats about it, and trust me 2years experience of playing with at least hundreds of people all the time , i learned more getting my ass whipped down by the best then alternating wins from someone of equal skill , if your getting beat down and think your not learning anything its because your taking that loss a bit to seriously (Remembers back then when I did that

I don't know why, but you seem to continually reason that defeat = improvement. What you're missing out on is that it's the experience that matters more. A win is just a likely to generate improvement as a defeat. Playing a newb, granted, is unlikely to net as big an improvement in your game as playing a top tier opponent. But not every game has to be lost in order to learn. Playing, win/lose/draw, means you'll get experience, which is all your talking about.

*some text*

How did what you've just posted relate to what I was talking about? At no point in my previous did I suggest that offline play would make you a better online player

Never said that you did nor did i think that i pointed that out.

But you did quote what I said, seemingly responding to it

[Zhao]

Wizard, on 5 Aug 2010, 21:59, said:

Aaron:Wii, on 5 Aug 2010, 21:57, said:

Wizard, on 5 Aug 2010, 21:02, said:

Aaron:Wii, on 5 Aug 2010, 20:19, said:

Wizard, on 5 Aug 2010, 16:45, said:

Aaron:Wii, on 5 Aug 2010, 16:08, said:

Wizard, on 5 Aug 2010, 13:42, said:

The [seemingly] constant argument that losing a game is the only way to learn, is just nonsense. 2 new players can play each other and alternate victories. One doesn't learn on the loosing side and the winner doesn't. Playing the game, constantly, in a variety of different ways, helps you to learn.

I think the winner learns less tbh , Yes he knows his "Tactics" Now but thats about it, and trust me 2years experience of playing with at least hundreds of people all the time , i learned more getting my ass whipped down by the best then alternating wins from someone of equal skill , if your getting beat down and think your not learning anything its because your taking that loss a bit to seriously (Remembers back then when I did that

I don't know why, but you seem to continually reason that defeat = improvement. What you're missing out on is that it's the experience that matters more. A win is just a likely to generate improvement as a defeat. Playing a newb, granted, is unlikely to net as big an improvement in your game as playing a top tier opponent. But not every game has to be lost in order to learn. Playing, win/lose/draw, means you'll get experience, which is all your talking about.

*some text*

How did what you've just posted relate to what I was talking about? At no point in my previous did I suggest that offline play would make you a better online player

Never said that you did nor did i think that i pointed that out.

But you did quote what I said, seemingly responding to it

Well then we have come to an agreement

[JJ]

Alright, enough pointless argument. What we need now is just for people to actually play the same game online.