Im not sure where the hell you got BA out of my post matt, but judging from your post I would gather that all the "good" BA players are not also "Intelligent" as you clearly seem intent on starting a flamewar over nothing.. I dont recall mentioning any specific games, I meant the RTS genra in general, some one ought to have named it RTT so people stopped getting confused..
Also I dont think anyone is going to ever stop looking for the holy grail of strategy games, cause in case you missed the point, strategy war games are constantly trying to be more realisitic, because some people find that fun..
there is more to spring then BA and SPEEDMETAL
Moderator: Moderators
That's the only game I know enough about to make any comment on. I take issue with your assertion that RTS games don't require intelligence to play well. In the case that I know, BA, I know that isn't true. As I said, I don't know about EE, but its hardly an unreasonable assumption to think that you are basing your opinion on your own mod, since that's what you know best.Fanger wrote:Im not sure where the hell you got BA out of my post matt, but judging from your post I would gather that all the "good" BA players are not also "Intelligent" as you clearly seem intent on starting a flamewar over nothing.. I dont recall mentioning any specific games, I meant the RTS genra in general, some one ought to have named it RTT so people stopped getting confused..
Who knows, maybe if some dumb person spent enormous amounts of time practicing all of the maps they would beat the smart player who hasn't put in that kind of time, but once the smart player knows how to play (how to use the units to the best of their abilities), it won't take them long to think of a counter strategy to whatever the other guy is doing, and then they will win the games. The smart player also beats the other whenever you take him out of his comfort zone (on a new map for example). Therefore the smarter player is the better player, once they know enough about the game.
He never said RTS games don't take intelligence to play he was saying that most RTS don't deliver a truly strategic gameplay perspective.
IE in BA global plans are important but not so much as micro skill with the more specialized units. To use an example u can plan out some grand strategy with comdined amphib assualts, airdrops, mass bombing campaign, diversions and what have you, but chances are some guy will micro a peewee, zipper, mav, wezel, or whatever and cut your legs out from under you.
There are no true Strategy games because we lack an AI smart enought to think and react like a battlefield commander. That AI is integral if you want to have a true Strategy experience since you can't spend your time manuvering individual platoons when you've got whole division that need orders...
Gah this is another one of those cases of a thread WAAAYYYY off topic so...
Ontopic: NUBS WHO READ THIS PLAY OTHER MODS & MAPS!!! Case closed, end of story, roll credits, Fin.
IE in BA global plans are important but not so much as micro skill with the more specialized units. To use an example u can plan out some grand strategy with comdined amphib assualts, airdrops, mass bombing campaign, diversions and what have you, but chances are some guy will micro a peewee, zipper, mav, wezel, or whatever and cut your legs out from under you.
There are no true Strategy games because we lack an AI smart enought to think and react like a battlefield commander. That AI is integral if you want to have a true Strategy experience since you can't spend your time manuvering individual platoons when you've got whole division that need orders...
Gah this is another one of those cases of a thread WAAAYYYY off topic so...
Ontopic: NUBS WHO READ THIS PLAY OTHER MODS & MAPS!!! Case closed, end of story, roll credits, Fin.
-
Lindir The Green
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 04 May 2005, 15:09
I have decided to engage.
* * *
"Strategy" and "Tactics" are the same thing, just at different scales.
A competitive multiplayer computer game consists of 3 elements:
1) Multiplayer Strategy. This consists of the very large number of decisions made in anticipation of the decisions of others. It has more to do with social skills and subconscious thought than "intelligence." And currently computers are really bad at it.
2) Analysis. This consists of figuring out what all the decisions of the above are, and how they are weighted on the current map with the current mod. Intelligence almost by definition makes you better at this, and being better at this makes your above decisions more "informed." Sometimes this is time-constricted, and sometimes it isn't. Computers have the potential to be really good at this.
3) Follow Through. This is quick thinking and reflexes, and is by my definition completely devoid of any strategy. But it's still fun, in the same way typing the alphabet really fast is fun. Computers also have the potential to be really good at this.
A Real Time Strategy game has all three of these elements in balance, whereas a TBS drops the 3rd one, and an arcade one all but eliminates the first two.
When people say "Strategy," they mean usually the first two elements, at a large scale, and when people say "Tactics," they mean all three of them together, at a smaller scale.
But the scale doesn't change the gameplay.
* * *
"Strategy" and "Tactics" are the same thing, just at different scales.
A competitive multiplayer computer game consists of 3 elements:
1) Multiplayer Strategy. This consists of the very large number of decisions made in anticipation of the decisions of others. It has more to do with social skills and subconscious thought than "intelligence." And currently computers are really bad at it.
2) Analysis. This consists of figuring out what all the decisions of the above are, and how they are weighted on the current map with the current mod. Intelligence almost by definition makes you better at this, and being better at this makes your above decisions more "informed." Sometimes this is time-constricted, and sometimes it isn't. Computers have the potential to be really good at this.
3) Follow Through. This is quick thinking and reflexes, and is by my definition completely devoid of any strategy. But it's still fun, in the same way typing the alphabet really fast is fun. Computers also have the potential to be really good at this.
A Real Time Strategy game has all three of these elements in balance, whereas a TBS drops the 3rd one, and an arcade one all but eliminates the first two.
When people say "Strategy," they mean usually the first two elements, at a large scale, and when people say "Tactics," they mean all three of them together, at a smaller scale.
But the scale doesn't change the gameplay.
That's right, RTS are not chess, they require you to think in real time "how can I best use what I have to my advantage," "what is my plan to win this game." If you're not very good (and are playing people that are), it can seem like all people are doing is clicking, and clicking faster than you and spamming more, but what makes a good player good is knowing how to use each of those units, and each of those clicks to the maximum advantage AND how to know what the opponent is thinking, what they will do, and take measures to counter it before they even get a chance to do it!j5mello wrote:He never said RTS games don't take intelligence to play he was saying that most RTS don't deliver a truly strategic gameplay perspective.
IE in BA global plans are important but not so much as micro skill with the more specialized units. To use an example u can plan out some grand strategy with comdined amphib assualts, airdrops, mass bombing campaign, diversions and what have you, but chances are some guy will micro a peewee, zipper, mav, wezel, or whatever and cut your legs out from under you.
There are no true Strategy games because we lack an AI smart enought to think and react like a battlefield commander. That AI is integral if you want to have a true Strategy experience since you can't spend your time manuvering individual platoons when you've got whole division that need orders...
Gah this is another one of those cases of a thread WAAAYYYY off topic so...
Ontopic: NUBS WHO READ THIS PLAY OTHER MODS & MAPS!!! Case closed, end of story, roll credits, Fin.
Yes! Everyone should play S44!neddiedrow wrote:1944: A budding mod, this is one of my favourites. It requires tactical management of groups in the greater scheme, coupled with an expansion economy and the feeling of universal vulnerability. Individual units are specialized, but you need to keep your mind focused on the greater campaign. Strategic, Expansionist.
-
LathanStanley
- Posts: 1429
- Joined: 20 Jun 2005, 05:16
play my fuckin maps and stfu!
they force some strategy.. I mean hell, the swamp, using terrain to your advantage.. severnaya, using the hills...
what? a map where the use of terrain can dictate the outcome of the battle? without being a "take one spot and win" map??
oh shit! the world's gonna explode!
wait 'til I finish my next map this weekend.. (I hope to anyways)
they force some strategy.. I mean hell, the swamp, using terrain to your advantage.. severnaya, using the hills...
what? a map where the use of terrain can dictate the outcome of the battle? without being a "take one spot and win" map??
oh shit! the world's gonna explode!
wait 'til I finish my next map this weekend.. (I hope to anyways)
neddiedrow wrote:I've fixed that for you, Issac.Ishach wrote:Discussion of alternate mods in forums increases 700%
Mods played on lobby change 0%
Study confirms the already assumed statistic that 85% of players don't actually check the forums.
difference is, one is discussion about the other..
go figure
actually I have been watching the stats page and BA is still in the top of the player brackets but there are other mods being played. Keep it up. We may soon see more then stale old TA.
Sleska, have you read my many posts that say I am NOT a good player? because I readily admit that. I just give a good fight I hate winning and if it looks like I am going to win I stop being interested. In fact, I think I have only won 2-3 games in my history of spring. I am not sure but I know I have a huge loss count and I like it that way. There is more to learn if you play against people who can beat you.
Sleska, have you read my many posts that say I am NOT a good player? because I readily admit that. I just give a good fight I hate winning and if it looks like I am going to win I stop being interested. In fact, I think I have only won 2-3 games in my history of spring. I am not sure but I know I have a huge loss count and I like it that way. There is more to learn if you play against people who can beat you.