I am not a MMORPG player

Post by **Jonathan** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 6:16 am

I think we beat it. I think we ran out of new levels to beat, primarily, and got stuck wandering around in a loop across levels we already beat.

I also think we downloaded some expansion that somebody created with the scenario editor, and beat that.

Oh, we played a mess of Gladiator, and I'm sure we stayed up all night at least once. I just think it's interesting that playing Gladiator was the first time you stayed up all night at school. If it was, then it was more than likely also my first time staying up all night at school, you see.

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 8:28 am

The only time I stayed up all night was that first carnival weekend and Joe and I thought we were going to see the buggy races. Going an entire day without sleeping just wasn't my bag.

quantus · Post by **quantus** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 11:17 pm

Damn pittsburgh and it's crappy weather. This is why I want the nice balmy 50-60 degree weather in SF.

VLSmooth · Post by **VLSmooth** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:54 am

Dwindlehop wrote:I think we beat it. I think we ran out of new levels to beat, primarily, and got stuck wandering around in a loop across levels we already beat.

Yep, since there wasn't an ending.

Dwindlehop wrote:I also think we downloaded some expansion that somebody created with the scenario editor, and beat that.

If I remember correctly, you grabbed the expansion the same day we "beat" the game, and we finished that too. I could also be entirely wrong.

Dwindlehop wrote:Oh, we played a mess of Gladiator, and I'm sure we stayed up all night at least once. I just think it's interesting that playing Gladiator was the first time you stayed up all night at school. If it was, then it was more than likely also my first time staying up all night at school, you see.

I'm pretty sure we played Gladiator the very first day we were at CMU. Therefore, since it occured on the first night, an earlier all-nighter shouldn't exist. On another note, I remember being amused that someone else even knew about the game

(same with Tyrian!)

VLSmooth · Post by **VLSmooth** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:56 am

Jason wrote:The only time I stayed up all night was that first carnival weekend and Joe and I thought we were going to see the buggy races. Going an entire day without sleeping just wasn't my bag.

Did you actually go? After all my years at CMU, I still haven't seen a buggy race, live or recorded. The only proof it existed at all came from the Tartan, word of mouth, and the lines on the streets

VLSmooth · Post by **VLSmooth** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 3:37 am

Alan wrote:Basically I don't like how combat in RTS's is so unstructured... Everything has structure, and you can look at the pattern of what your army looks like compared to what your enemy's army looks like to know who's winning. In RTS I feel like I can prepare my army before the fight, but once the fight starts I have no idea which units are in trouble, where a weakpoint in the enemy's army is, etc. Most of all I feel like none of that really matters.

The way I see it, Starcraft/Warcraft III maintains structure via carefully crafted game mechanics. Otherwise it'd be totally random (thus suck). The unstructured feeling probably arises from the extreme flexibility inherent to the system. I believe this is actually a strength, since there are many, many, MANY possibilities making it all the more interesting. For example, it's not simply a matter of A is always better than B (that'd be boring imho). There are a lot more factors involved; micromanagement being a big one

As for "no idea which units are in trouble", this was at least fixed in Warcraft III, where holding alt shows hp bars for all the units on the screen.

Alan wrote:Oh, and I hate zerg tactics.

Hehe, that's because you watched Dave play too much, and 99% of the time it was against the computer. If I remember correctly, Dave admitted he didn't like playing humans because there was too much thinking involved

After playing the Warcraft III ladder, I gained a great appreciation of the tactics involved. Real tactics have to adapt to your enemy; constantly keeping one on their toes. Over time AI opponents have gotten slightly better with random battle techniques and their insane pace. However, a good player that scouts can quickly assess the situation and counter appropriately. On the other hand, the computer tends to have problems countering a counter... Of course, human players are much more versatile, and depending on skill levels, make for some VERY fun games

Being able to react quickly/efficiently and correctly is key. Heck, instilling fear is also a great strategy. For instance, just build one of a unit, to psych out your opponent(s) which then have to consider if you massed then or not. The obvious counter is better reconnaissance.

Alan wrote:And related to that, I hate being pressured to build shit as fast as possible. That's the biggest thing I hate about RTS's. It's like, there's formulas for building that maximize your chances of success, and you have to build build build to win.

Er, building "shit as fast as possible" matters less so long as you intelligently counter the opponent. Granted, building fast usually doesn't hurt, although tying up unnecessary resources DEFINITELY does. As for formulas, Blizzard has made many changes, so it's much less formulaic now. There are lots of different opening strategies now, as there are in chess

Alan wrote:I don't want to think about building when I'm fighting. And vice versa. I don't like the idea of sending your army against a bunch of enemies, switching over to your home base and click click to build more shit and then switch back over to make sure your army won.

One really shouldn't be switching to their base and clicking often (one of the big mistake most novice players make). That's what hot keys are for. Generally, one only goes back to their base to defend it or build buildings. Most of the focus should be unit-based, as expected.

Remember your opponent (if human) has to make the exact same decisions as you do regarding prioritization, which I believe is an incredibly important skill to develop. I'm just a sucker for tradeoff analysis I guess. Also, did I mention battle.net also pairs up opponents based on the ranking/ladder system, which ensures a good match-up most of the time

Regarding multitasking, most RTS' (coming from a Blizzard perspective), reward resourcefulness and the ability to handle multiple tasks simultaneously. Remember, you're not the only one doing this, so is your opponent. Perhaps you're concerned about AI opponents? That's just how these games are.

Finally, sorry about my late mini-rant. I didn't see Alan's post last time, and I just wanted to comment on a few aspects, hopefully providing insight as to why I like these games. This is not merely a means to coerce people into playing; not that'd I'd complain if they did. All in all, to each their own.

VLSmooth · Post by **VLSmooth** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 3:48 am

Rereading my post, I realized there might be a bigger problem afoot. Perhaps people don't like doing things they don't "think" they're good at

It seems akin to the losing sucks principle and that it's easier to avoid than spend the effort to not lose. To me this is faulty logic. True, losing may suck, but unless it's extreme, it shouldn't overcome why someone liked something in the first place. Well, unless it was only because of winning, then that just seems horribly shallow imho. I really wonder if this applies.

Maybe I'm strange, but even if I suck at something, so long as I enjoy it, I'll continue playing. Cases in point, soccer, volleyball, etc.

Just some more random thoughts I decided to share

Alan · Post by **Alan** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 4:11 am

I just can't get over the chaotic appearance of combat in RTS's. It might not actually be chaotic, but it certainly looks like it to me. That's what I mean when I say "unstructured". When I look at combat in any RTS, I fail to see any kind of pattern, except in bunker-style defenses. When two armies meet each other in the open field it doesn't look like two armies meeting each other, rather one group of units swarming toward another group.

As far as resource management, that's probably my least favorite activite, whether in games or in real life. Multitasking resource management is even worse.

There's just too many things I dislike about RTS's for me to play them anymore.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:55 pm

I think we're all just older and for a game to meet our "requirement" and hold our interest than back when we were in Highschool or College. Back in HS I would be just about every rpg I could get my hands on, good or bad, but now I dont even bother to play FFX2 much since it didnt really "grab" my attention from the start and is seomthing I figure I'll play once i get bored.

On the WAR3 issue, I never really played multiplayer much after the beta, and even then I was already at the point where RTS games weren't that much fun. The reason why I think I/we played Satrcraft so much was that it wasnt really multiplayer against other human opponents, but against a crappy computer most of the time. Which we usually won.

Ill agree that to play a game for a long time you have to enjoy it in some fasion, and some people (like me, dont enjoy a game much that I am not at least good/decent at) Especially online First Person Shooters.

Alan · Post by **Alan** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 3:25 pm

Yeah, as far as not being good at something initially I'll admit I suck at RTS's, and that's at least part of why I don't like them. Now in real life if I suck at something but I know that getting better at it will help me in the long run, I'll stick it out. But I just don't see the point in subjecting myself to losing repeatedly in a game I don't even like. Maybe if I got really good at War3 I'd like it, but getting there would require...playing War3 a lot, and losing a lot. Not worth it, in my opinion.

VLSmooth · Post by **VLSmooth** » Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:59 am

Dave wrote:...now I dont even bother to play FFX2 much since it didnt really "grab" my attention from the start...

What? You're saying a demure CG Final Fantasy heroine dancing in short-shorts at a music concerting wielding two large firearms didn't "grab" your attention?

On another note, I appreciate and understand all the responses so far. I just wonder if we'll ever find a game we all would play and enjoy for a significant amount of time.

Well, unless we count the bboard as a game!

quantus · Post by **quantus** » Mon Jan 26, 2004 1:35 am

The bboard is a game, so stop posting now Vinny and let me win.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Mon Jan 26, 2004 2:55 pm

closest thing i can come up with that I can even possibly think everyone would enjoy is Gunbound

Im sure i mentioned it before. free online multiplayer worms. I still play it once in a while since my office mates still addicted.

http://www.gunbound.net

Post by **Jonathan** » Mon Jan 26, 2004 4:37 pm

Dave wrote:Im sure i mentioned it before. free online multiplayer worms. I still play it once in a while since my office mates still addicted.

http://www.gunbound.net

alright, i'll give it a whirl. here's my question. why is it free? still in beta?

Gunbound, Shooting Game of New Generation

man, I had forgotten about that.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Mon Jan 26, 2004 4:44 pm

yep, still fre.e you *can* pay real money for items in the game tho lol

Post by **Jonathan** » Mon Jan 26, 2004 4:50 pm

sweet.

you got a guild or something i should join?

man, i really ought to go to work.

VLSmooth · Post by **VLSmooth** » Mon Jan 26, 2004 4:57 pm

quantus wrote:The bboard is a game, so stop posting now Vinny and let me win.

If you think having more posts == winning, you may have other problems...

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:03 pm

hehe there are guilds, but im not in one. I dont play enough. I did play a lot for a whlie, in fact my whole CS clan did. Starting off, i advise joining either the newb zones (rank less than double silver axe) or the avatar off zones (where equipment is just for looks and dont help)

Post by **Jonathan** » Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:22 pm

VLSmooth wrote:
quantus wrote:The bboard is a game, so stop posting now Vinny and let me win.
If you think having more posts == winning, you may have other problems...

He who dies with the most posts wins.

Post by **Jonathan** » Mon Jan 26, 2004 6:37 pm

Have you played Myth, Alan? It sounds like you would enjoy Myth a lot. Myth has no resources and no buildings. Myth has formations that actually matter. In Myth, units are actually moving around while they fight. Your front line of Warriors can crumble as the hordes of undead break through and surround them. If your dwarves are in the wrong position, they will explode your archers while trying to defend themselves. Myth also has very good cooperative multiplayer.

Since Bungie was eaten by Microsoft, there won't be any more Myth games, but the community has taken over the maintenance of these games. The old bungie.net has been replaced by a community server, as well. In fact, the only thing that might be a problem is that the controls are kinda complicated. If, however, you enjoy TW, you can handle Myth.

Get a hold of a copy of Myth 2: Soulblighter and try it out, if you haven't already. Myth 3 was developed by someone other than Bungie and was almost a total wash. The community has released some patches to fix it up since then, but why bother with a second rate version when you can have the best?