|
The increasing probability of making mistakes leads to an increasing need for players to incorporate strategies as an "instinct", because there is less time to react. This implies more practice, leading to an increasing level of competitive play.
The same holds for a reversal. If the game speed decreases, more time is given to make (correct) decisions. This leads to a lower threshold. Fore instance: dodging artillery and nades becomes easier. Thus, skill levels are getting in closer approximation to eachother. For instance: if you would play a top 10 player at 0,25x speed, your advantage would be greater than theirs, as they are more comfortable playing at higher speeds.
This is a general concept, which applies to almost every decision making situation. If you still think a higher level of competitive play cant be considered a (good) reason, that is your right, I suppose. |
|
Whether these decisions are of major or minor importance cannot be deducted from the action itself. For instance: moving an important unit slightly back can save that unit, whereas teching to wm's t2 will be needed regardless, diminishing the decision to "when" rather than "if" and "when".
As stated before, the quality of the average decision will probably decrease, but this leads to an increasing level of competitive play due to increased susceptibility to mistakes leading to a higher skill threshold.
Before, you asked a reason and now you assume an absence of a reason to change the game speed after I already presented a reason on both occasions (this might not be your reason, but A reason). This is why I request(ed) you read the full post before you quote. |
|
I will explain the mechanism again.
Game speed increases -> number of actions per unit of time per seperate unit increases (for instance: a unit has a higher probability of encountering an engagement) -> APM increases (as you correctedly stated).
Every mouseclick equals a decision, thus the number of decisions increases with the speed of the game. Now, as stated twice before, a NOTCH does not mean these finer details become obsolete. And ofcourse, as also stated before, more decisions do not necessarily increase the effectiveness of them. To take it even further, the average decision will probably even be of a lower quality, making players more sensitive to mistakes, which increases the level of competition due to a greater filtering amongst players.
This is not something that specifies to RTS games alone. The quality of the best decision maker (skill), as opposed to the average decision maker (threshold), increases with the appliance of greater time pressure. This translates to a high extend to professional traders, statesmen, corporate executives etc. etc. |
|
If you are quoting, make sure you read beyond the first line.
Whether the slow pace of CoH is the game's best feature or not is arbitrary, however, the number of decisions will increase, which seems an interesting and wanted development in competitive play. |
|
CoH is somewhat slow paced and it wouldn't hurt if the speed increases by a notch. After all, the level of strategic decision making becomes more interesting under greater time pressure. That doesn't necessarily mean the average decision will be better, but the number of decisions increases leading to a closer approximation of an optimal balance between the strategic component and the time component of the game. |
You have no idea what Lynx did behind the scenes to help this site and both coh1 and coh2. You are speaking from total ignorance and are creating some absurd "debate" about whether Lynx was a good CM with the people who have actually worked with all the CMs since Buggo (the staff/owners of this site) and the start of COH. He is an excellent CM, he was more approachable than any other CM we've ever had. He's available on weekends, he posts SNF updates on Sundays, he's taken and organized way more feedback on coh2 from the right people than you will ever know about, and he really cares about the game, his job, and the community. How you could even pretend to have a clue if he's good or not is beyond me, you don't interact with him, you don't know him, and you don't even know about 90% of what he's done. So yeah, I stand by my characterization of you.
The comparison with other community managers isnt necessarily correct, as they werent very good either. Approachable, available on weekends, (posting SNF updates on Sundays) and organizing feedback(!) are not considered exceptional acts, but a given for a community manager. Interestingly, people judge the outcome of your measurements, not the measurements themselfs.
I dont need to personally know him to judge his performance for the given audience (the community, us, me). If 90% of his activities is virtually hidden from the community, its fair to say hes in the wrong job. Im sure he is a very nice guy to talk to, loves the same hamburgers as you, has a cute dog and cares about the game, but the results of his "labor" were very poor.
Now, its very clear that you know him very well, due to his involvement in SNF and this very website, but it clouds your judgement. At the same time, he shines in absence, thereby clearly failing to live up to your own measurements.
As noble as the deed may be, how can you express the view of less vocal players? Isn't that statement in itself quite oxymoronic? In all honestly, it seems that your truest concern with Lynx was his inability to completely eradicate map-hacking.
Less vocal does not mean they are without voice. It is time you stop making assumptions about my concerns, my knowledge about CoH1 and my activity within the community, but read about them instead. For me it is time to end this, before this (unwanted) debate gets out of control, as I seem to be steppping on to many toes here.
I sincerely congratiolate you all with obtaining a friend as the new CoH2 community manager! |
|
What does that even mean. People having a civil argument is considered "trolling"? Either that, or you are trying to stick up for your friend Lynx in yet another embarrassing fashion, like the last time when you called me "a fucking idiot" and your post got removed.
Just because this is on the internet and you dont agree and/or lack the apetite for a debate does not make any of this "trolling". |
|
I just replied to the usage and meaning of the quote. Whether relic is on schedule or not is a different issue.
Its too hard to defend any predictions at this point, as every previous prediction has been proven wrong. |
|
Like I stated before, the observed volatility of the viewers is not that uncommon for SNF.
I have mentioned a few possible causes already, but I havent put much thought in it yet, nor will, as its not relevant for the point I have made.
The twitch main page stream is sometimes shown on the right side as well. Everytime a major stream (compared to SNF, which are numerous) ends, this can account for the spikes. If you scroll back, you will notice I already mentioned the ending of other streams as another possible cause. |
|
I have to agree with Onkelsam that Lynx did influence the number of viewers to a degree, but once again, without proper data analysis, one cannot claim the type of correlation RagingJenni and others uphold, solely based on rough estimates provided by viewers.
In many fields, including sociology, the 1%, 5% and 10% significance levels are all common. If one would regress child deaths caused by hunger in Africa to Lynx's social media announcements, the correlation would be higher than the one you claim now. Ofcourse, this wouldnt be a proper variable, but it shows a different relation between cause and effect.
Luckily though, the number of reasons RagingJenni can think off is not an accepted standard for anything. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
