Supreme Commander Live Forums - View Single Post - A Response to Tractor's SupCom Complaints

Leaf · 04-30-2007, 02:12 PM

Tractor, you are very guilty here of the same crime that most of the journalistic world is, simplification and exxageration. You simplify the game (you're PHASES notion, not entirley incorrect), then exxagerate the problem (90% of games go this way?)

At this point you might find it interesting that 95% of statistics are made up and unfounded.

However, the above is not even the key problem with your post, it is just about excusable, the problem is this...

"Many will disagree, or provide counter points, but frankly, it doesn't change the core of the argument." WRONG, funadamentally and iressistably WRONG. That is not inviting debate, that is telling anyone who has read that far "You can quibble the details all you like, I am correct in my core argument." I suggest you stay out of politics...

Moving on to the argument presented in the original post by Tractor.

You are to a point, correct. You're idea on "phases," although probably not the most accurate description of basic gameplay timelines, I've seen worse, so fair enough.

The problem is that horrible 90% figure you threw around, very unwise not to mention undermining your own argument. I myself have in part at least, abandoned the phases idea in gameplay. Do not misunderstand, I still tech, I still go into the usual territorial fight in T1, much is the same, but with a sharp awareness that "Only One Casualty matters..."

T1 Gunships...
T1 Bomber rush....
T2 Gunship rush...
T2 TML strike...
T3 SAB Drop...

Those are just a short list of what has already been discovered in terms of "quick kill" strategies and tactics. Some, like T2 Gunship rush, have already lost some effectivness as players adapt. They're all becoming more common and more will doubtless will be discovered. We are merely 2.5months in to this games multiplayer lifespan, that's about 90 days...I can't help but feel that you haven't really given the game time to mature...

This is a community in development, as well as a game very much still in development, yet here you are insisting that it is a poor RTS, not because of bad design or crappy interface or anythingt concrete likle that, but because of the core strategy being employed online, ignoring all variations, exceptions, surprises and devices available OUTSIDE that core basic strategy.

I'm not endorsing the banning/erasing of unfavourable or poorly argued posts, I'm just stating that there is a reason it was erased, it is poorly argued, but argued with enough politeness and alleged knowledge of the game that some poor passer by might credit it with more then 30seconds of attention.

THAT, is why you were rubbed out from history...

04-30-2007, 02:12 PM	#5 (permalink)
Leaf Senior Member AKA: The Nomad Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aberystwyth UNI. Posts: 201	Tractor, you are very guilty here of the same crime that most of the journalistic world is, simplification and exxageration. You simplify the game (you're PHASES notion, not entirley incorrect), then exxagerate the problem (90% of games go this way?) At this point you might find it interesting that 95% of statistics are made up and unfounded. However, the above is not even the key problem with your post, it is just about excusable, the problem is this... "Many will disagree, or provide counter points, but frankly, it doesn't change the core of the argument." WRONG, funadamentally and iressistably WRONG. That is not inviting debate, that is telling anyone who has read that far "You can quibble the details all you like, I am correct in my core argument." I suggest you stay out of politics... Moving on to the argument presented in the original post by Tractor. You are to a point, correct. You're idea on "phases," although probably not the most accurate description of basic gameplay timelines, I've seen worse, so fair enough. The problem is that horrible 90% figure you threw around, very unwise not to mention undermining your own argument. I myself have in part at least, abandoned the phases idea in gameplay. Do not misunderstand, I still tech, I still go into the usual territorial fight in T1, much is the same, but with a sharp awareness that "Only One Casualty matters..." T1 Gunships... T1 Bomber rush.... T2 Gunship rush... T2 TML strike... T3 SAB Drop... Those are just a short list of what has already been discovered in terms of "quick kill" strategies and tactics. Some, like T2 Gunship rush, have already lost some effectivness as players adapt. They're all becoming more common and more will doubtless will be discovered. We are merely 2.5months in to this games multiplayer lifespan, that's about 90 days...I can't help but feel that you haven't really given the game time to mature... This is a community in development, as well as a game very much still in development, yet here you are insisting that it is a poor RTS, not because of bad design or crappy interface or anythingt concrete likle that, but because of the core strategy being employed online, ignoring all variations, exceptions, surprises and devices available OUTSIDE that core basic strategy. I'm not endorsing the banning/erasing of unfavourable or poorly argued posts, I'm just stating that there is a reason it was erased, it is poorly argued, but argued with enough politeness and alleged knowledge of the game that some poor passer by might credit it with more then 30seconds of attention. THAT, is why you were rubbed out from history...