Player types -plz add or comment.

[Lord_Newbton]

Strategy gamer:
Reveres Chess as the great ancestor of strategy gaming.
Enjoys various card games. Believes Sid Meyer's Civilizations was a good game.
When playing RTS games:
Tend to focus alot on build order and resource control in order to achieve superiority.
Uses his resources to build assault mobs that are mostly empoyed to hurt the enemy economy.
Will rarely bother to retreat from a losing engagement. Generally rushes for endgame/game-ending units.
Quick to spot important resource areas, less quick to spot choke-points. Good at creating distractions.
Typical Motto: There is no substitute for victory.

Wargamer:
Considers Chess to be a flavourless mathematical puzzle, not a game. And the sims is also not a game: its a toy.
Doesn't look twice at a game unless it involves war.
No time for kiddie games. Sid Meyer, what?
Hates monopoly, but would play it if it was redone to look exactly like Axis&Allies.
When playing RTS games:
Eager to create various teams for various jobs. Never uses assault mobs. Never relies much on a single super unit or weapon. Looks after units like a mother. Good at anticipating enemy attacks and laying a few surprises.
Always supports allies to the hilt.
Typical Motto: Rage against the dying of the light!

[Day]

what

[Sleksa]

what

[rattle]

wat

[REVENGE]

wut

YAY POSTCOUNT +1

[Comp1337]

no not really

nice weather today eh

[Forboding Angel]

lolwut?

[Comp1337]

yeah thats what I thought too

[Forboding Angel]

Synopsis...

You can't try to really lump gamers into a black and white formula like that.

TBH in most cases it's more of a prism than anything.

[Dragon45]

delete this thread if the aliens see it they will laugh at us

[Argh]

LOL. Thank you Dragon, you said that well.

[manored]

Strategy gamer:
Reveres Chess as the great ancestor of strategy gaming.
Enjoys various card games. Believes Sid Meyer's Civilizations was a good game.
When playing RTS games:
Tend to focus alot on build order and resource control in order to achieve superiority.
Uses his resources to build assault mobs that are mostly empoyed to hurt the enemy economy.
Will rarely bother to retreat from a losing engagement. Generally rushes for endgame/game-ending units.
Quick to spot important resource areas, less quick to spot choke-points. Good at creating distractions.
Typical Motto: There is no substitute for victory.

This fits me fairly well tough.

[Lord_Newbton]

So this is the great spring community? Add or comment translate as SPAM and riddicule?

@Forboding Angel -I know I'm wasting my time explaining something basic like this. But there are a whole field of study devoted to the TYPES of people you get, their strengths and weaknesses. And there are well paid professions based off this science.
Now lets see, there ARE types of people = fact. Gamers are people too = fact. Is it so difficult to see there are types of gamers? I'm as interrested in the types of players as I am in the types of games. Is it a sin?

BTW I've read somewhere its against the forum rules to spam.

[SwiftSpear]

IMO the most interseting split in RTS gaming in terms of player is the thinker vs the masterer. Sure, there are lots of other catagories you could create, but fundimentally most players fall into one or the other on this one. The thinker is a player who perfers to beat their opponent based on strategical decision. Such a mindset is generally more closely suited to games like chess, but still plays a prominent role in most RTS games. The masterer is a player who basically plays the game largely the same way every time. They rely heavily on hand skill and build order. They do definitely check up on their opponent and attempt to counter their strategies, but there is very little risk to the counters, and they ultimately rely more on a solid and well executed skill platform in terms of optimizing thier economy and controlling their units effectively.

The split is apparent when we watch players in any RTS. The cheese players vs the BO players, in BA for example, fac switchers vs flash spammers. The play of both these player categories and why they like and dislike certain games IMO tells us ALOT about RTS games in general.

[Argh]

Lord_Newbton, we're not being very nice, to be sure, but you were just asking for it. This place is full of people who think a lot about RTS games, and what you've done is use gross generalities based on some very faulty logic.

Basically, you gave any of us who've played a RTS seriously so many contradictory ideas that it made those of us (with a sense of humor, at any rate) laugh:

Reveres Chess as the great ancestor of strategy gaming.

What? The wargamer doesn't? You don't know any genuine wargamers, do you? Well, now you do- I've even published one.

Enjoys various card games. Believes Sid Meyer's Civilizations was a good game.

I'd say any genuine "wargamer" would admit that Civilization is not a "kiddy game" in any sense, although the grognards in the audience would complain that it's not complicated enough, lacks granularity, and is generally too easy to game statistically

Tend to focus alot on build order and resource control in order to achieve superiority.

As opposed to what? People who like to lose?

Uses his resources to build assault mobs that are mostly empoyed to hurt the enemy economy.

Again, as opposed to what? What's an "assault mob"? Sounds incredibly subjective, to me. One man's "assault mob" is another man's "tactical sacrifice". It's entirely dependent on context. All good generals know when to spend their troops.

Will rarely bother to retreat from a losing engagement.

So, basically, "strategy gamer" likes to waste resources? Yet is focused on them?

Generally rushes for endgame/game-ending units.

i tek 2 krog. 'Nuff said.

Quick to spot important resource areas, less quick to spot choke-points. Good at creating distractions.

Um, they can read the metal map, and see where wreckage is? The wargamer, one assumes, has poor eyesight, and rarely bothers looking around the map. And I'm sure they create great distractions as they hurl their units to oblivion.

Typical Motto: There is no substitute for victory.

...except for sending endless streams of flash for my buds while i tek 2 krog... apparently.



I'm not even going to bother taking the other one apart, but basically, it's not exactly insightful analysis, which is why we're jeering.

I'm sorry that we're being rude, since you're new to the Forum, but meh, these weren't good arguments.

[Sleksa]

You can't try to really lump gamers into a black and white formula like that.

TBH in most cases it's more of a prism than anything.

true.

There are people who are very good at certain areas and lacking in some areas. For example, noize has godlike macro but his micro is somewhat lacking. But still, putting a rough category of good macro and bad micro for noize wouldnt work, since he's owned me many times with leveler drops, bladewing+levs and other tricks, which require micro ~~

Now lets see, there ARE types of people = fact. Gamers are people too = fact. Is it so difficult to see there are types of gamers? I'm as interrested in the types of players as I am in the types of games. Is it a sin?

Its not a sin to be interested in what kind of players people are. In fact a lot of high level games focus on this very thing. Knowing what your enemy is doing means youre halfway to winning, the other half comes in countering his builds/strats. For example if youre playing a match of starcraft against someone who absolutely loves shuttles and reavers, its worthwhile to build some anti-air against the possible early reaver harass.

Or if you know that a player has good macro in spring, you might want to harass him early on as much as you can, to prevent him from building a powerhouse.

But the categories and examples of what they are like are not really good.

Enjoys various card games. Believes Sid Meyer's Civilizations was a good game.

I for example, dont play card games, but i've played all the civs ~~

Or there might be players who havent even heard of civs [lol]

[KDR_11k]

I propose a reexamination of the issue, indeed there are two types of gamers:

ME
Defining traits: me-ness

NOOBS.
Defining traits: Not me-ness

[Cabbage]

I think i deserve my own category

[Sleksa]

A very ~Special~ category

[Lord_Newbton]

I'm sorry that we're being rude, since you're new to the Forum, but meh, these weren't good arguments.

Apology accepted. The two examples I gave was meant to be somewhat controversial to get the topic started.
Perhaps I would have eliminated much confusion by saying Player type A, B and C.
Also, I didn't mean to highlight one attribute to the exclusion of others.
For example when I say a player type focus more on what he does with his units than how he builds his base it shouldn't be assumed I mean he utterly neglects his base.

I know genuine wargamers. What wargame did you publish? Me, I started wargaming a few years ago after reading a book by Mr. Donald Featherstone. Yeah, 1993. Had difficulty finding other gamers though. I was very much into Dune2 at the time. I guess when I said wargamer I was thinking of the WH40k types. For them flavour and fluff is important since they are playing a game and a story. The ones I know don't like chess.