Do you miss tactics in cRPG?

[Tristan]

I'm smarter hence my argument is better? Gods, this fallacy needs a name.

It's quite known that what intelligence actually does in discussions of view point is not finding better arguments. It's finding more complex arguments to back you're right. (For reference read cognitive linguistics such as Lakoff or cognitive psychologists such as Westen).

On education and intelligence watch this and be enlightened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
How education is actually limiting intelligence in a lot of ways. Especially regarding entrepreneurs.

Still dear Joker you never cared to respond to my earlier post? Too smart to even give it a look?

[Joker86]

I can understand that you cba to reply to my entire post, but just answer my one question about the guy who couldn't tie his shoes nor conduct a normal conversation, but who was a math genius and I'll be satisfied. Idiot or genius?

In a math auditorium, any other situation where math is needed: a genius.

Everywhere else: a retard.

As, even if math is your profession, I think most of your life (family, partnership, friends, hobbies) is NOT determined by your capabilities in math, he will be most of the time a retard, and thus I would call him a retard. Doesn't mean I don't respect his skills in that particular discipline, but all in all it won't make up for the entire rest, if he isn't even able to tie his shoes. And in this case I mean retard not as insult.

And if I don't define a particular word you can assume I stick to the common definition found in any dictionary.

But if you keep on insulting me for having a different opinion, I fear I will have to stop discussing with you.

I'm smarter hence my argument is better? Gods, this fallacy needs a name.

I never said that my arguments would be better because I am smarter. I said if you want to maximize the rounds you win and your K/D-ratio, you should stick to your team and not seperate. (Of course NOT shoulder to shoulder to teamkill each other). My only explanation to why anyone, who has the same goals, does not stick to his team but simply run away, was not having thought about it properly. And as you definitely don't need to be Nobel Prize winner to come to the conclusion that you are more effective with teammates supporting you, without even starting to actually think "really" about a problem to find a solution, the conclusion I had was rather... sad...

Edit: and by the way it was not meant "in total", applying for everyone, and it was certainly exaggerated to a certain degree.

Still dear Joker you never cared to respond to my earlier post? Too smart to even give it a look?

I actually wrote it somewhere here in the topic, I don't know any more if before or after your post.

Your basic statement was: "You can't expect from random players to act like trained soldier", wasn't it?

Well, my answer to this is that you can. It's not like there is a complete training to undergo, with handling your weapons, learning ranks and organisation, physical education and so on, you just have to watch and imitate. There are plenty of other games, where nowhere in the tutorial is said how you do something in particular, and yet almost every time when you play it, the same class drops ammunition/sentry guns/whatever at the same (most beneficial) spot of a map, which often isn't that obvious, and similar things. How does this work? Because people watch others doing it, if they don't get immediately why they do this they ask, usually get an answer, they get the whole point of the action and suddenly become a bit better at the game, understanding it far better. But if noone is doing it, noone else can learn from it. Just go and play "Global Agenda", and watch how every tank assault who is tanking the Dismantler in Dome Defense Raids will move to the same corner of the map. It's written nowhere, the corner does not have any obvious advantage, and yet it's the best you can do GIVEN THAT THE OTHERS ARE USING THE SAME BATTLE PLAN. And they are.

If someone says he's doing the Dome Defense Raid for the first time people show him how it's done, and then he sticks to this and after some time, when he gained some experience and confidence, he will adjust it a little bit to fit better to his personal build/preferences. But all in all everyone know what he has to do, and it goes a little bit further than "kill the enemy". If the Global Agenda community is capable of this, with probably the most horrible troll-city-chat of all times, the cRPG community should be able, too.

Link to the entire choreography of the raid. Most people participating in those raids never have seen it. As you see, people are capable of learning.

[Osiris]

or maybe just maybe people dont want to play just the way you want them to or like them to?

Maybe people like flanking sometimes or trying builds that arnt the strongest. Or hell maybe some people find it fun to have 13 shield skill and annoy others. ITS A GAME

[Joker86]

or maybe just maybe people dont want to play just the way you want them to or like them to?

Maybe people like flanking sometimes or trying builds that arnt the strongest. Or hell maybe some people find it fun to have 13 shield skill and annoy others. ITS A GAME

Of course, you are right!

I was only referring to those who want to have most rounds won, for what reason ever.

Unfortunately in Warband flanking has the same problems like shield walls: what works quite well in reality doesn't really work ingame, as the maps are simply too small to really have a surprising effect when flanking the enemy team. And a single player or two who flank on their own, that doesn't work, they will be taken out by cav and archers most likely (ask the Ninjas  ), but a small team playing together and flanking can turn the battle. But I would already call this tactics.

[[ptx]]

@Dezilagel - So eloquent, yet so incredibly true and to the point. I didn't really know you before this, but you, sir, are my hero now! If i had a hat...

But if you keep on insulting me for having a different opinion, I fear I will have to stop discussing with you.

Wow, really? Must i explain why this is so incredibly ironic, coming from you?

Pretty much everything you have posted is either your own subjective opinion or your misinterpretation of *possibly* true facts, all of this you have cease-lessly attempted to push as indisputable truths, pretty much dubbing anyone that doesn't agree with you an idiot.

And yes, you assumed wrong that everyone has the same goals in this game as you(NO WAI!?), it has been said countless times in this thread already, please get the clue.

[Joker86]

I thought you pointed out that there are other things that motivate you, getting a kill streak in your case, and from this point on I always made the restriction in my assumptions, that I am only speaking in cases when you want to have a high multiplier. And I always try to actually show you people when I am not totally sure or making assumptions, by using tools like "I think" "in my opinion" and so on, so if you disagree you are welcome to correct me, be it by some server stats you have access to or by directing me to a new point of view, I am perfectly fine with it.

You know, you told me your motivation to have a killing spree, and I accepted it, although it didn't come to my mind before, as I don't play the game this way. But it sounds like a reasonable argument for motivation to me, and so I accepted it. It's not like I said "this is the wrong way, you have to play it to win!".

Basically all I say is: "If you want to have a high multiplier you should try to win rounds, and using/following tactics is very important in that case. Charging alone a bunch of enemies to get a high multiplier is contraproductive. I think (!!!) most, or at least many people play this game to further develop their character, which means they need a lot of xp and sometimes a lot of money, to be able to (better) kill more enemies, which is what this game is about." (I hope that we at least agree that this game is about killing people. It's not about experiencing a story, building an economy or driving an F1 car)

If you think there is something wrong in this statement, then please, go ahead and tell me, but don't just limit yourself on attacking my person and rephrasing my statements falsely.

[[ptx]]

Re-read your own OP, for example. A rather blunt implication at how a lack of "tactics" in cRPG is to blame on "people growing more stupid" and being retarded. cRPG battle "tactics" have nothing to do with intelligence, at most just patience or still being genuinely excited by cRPG battles.
My motivation is not a killstreak, my motivation is fun/wasting time, in whatever form i see that happening at the time. I dare say that is what actually motivates most people.

[Malevolent_Warlord]

Getting a little off topic.
Ok so organizing tactics in puplic is hard. People are stupid, do lemmings, not trained/educated, don't care or just want to play the way the want. It is sad that we have such an absence of tactics.

To make my games more interesting I often try to find out if there are any great players (in this case a player who has skill and doesn't die easily) in my team. At the start of the round I start following one of them and try to keep them alive. They often notice me since I stick real close and help out. This makes my games fun. It benefits me to keep that player alive, I get some nice teamwork and money if we win the rounds.

So find out who plays well and is a teamplayer and then start following those guys around.

[Tears of Destiny]

If you want tactics, join a clan or start one with close friends.

If you want to rambo it up, go for it.

Neither way is best, just do what is "fun" for you.

I play this game to have fun, and fun I have.

[Kafein]

It's quite known that what intelligence actually does in discussions of view point is not finding better arguments. It's finding more complex arguments to back you're right. (For reference read cognitive linguistics such as Lakoff or cognitive psychologists such as Westen).

I'd like to point out that while intelligence doesn't make the arguments one mades more valid, it does increase the range of arguments that can be formulated. If we consider an argument good if it is logically true ( that is, not necessarily convicing for everybody about everything, but should work with open minded people ), then being more intelligent means being more subject to finding a complex and valid argument, in case of (yet not being restricted to) a lack of any simpler one.


For me, this whole conversation is rather pointless. It is true that teamplay is a lot better when the goal is winning. But I don't think many people play cRPG with winning as their unique and dominating goal. Most people care about winning, but not to the point they will do everything for it. Teamwork on public servers is a pain to create and organise. Many people are willing to play as a team, but they don't want to be killed while typing or be left behind. It's also difficult to find one (not zero, not two or more) leader. For plenty of reasons, it's hard. Even though teamwork is awesome when it works, most players also want to have mindless fun and get xp/gold.


The real problem isn't the motivation for winning, it's the need of winning. Stop with the multiplier system, go back to something less based on winning rounds. Then you'll have the fun back, and people will be more willing to try out different things like teamwork, because they won't need to hunt the fun for ages and find it between roof camps and losing streaks while playing the mod.

[Henry_Broodsonson]

It's situational, suicidal charges can win battles. Just think of them as sacrificial pawns.

[Ohayashi]

It was always my preconception that EU1 was substantially more team-oriented. Any time I see blue text cropping up on NA1 imploring the team to operate in a more organized manner next round, I always reply "Who do you think we are? Euros?". Apparently, my preconception is now a misconception, and I can't explain away lack-of-tactics with hemispherical stereotypes.

Drat.