Profile of SemInt

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 93

General Information


Thread: Intelligence Bulletins15 Dec 2012, 23:24 PM Double post, editing failure somehow I can use it anyway, for a little nuance: I do realize the "random" spectacle is very much part of CoH, the look and feel just aren't the same without e.g. mortar or tank shells landing in "random" patterns; like shells miss in real life. However, as you play the game more competitively, the interest for that spectacle slowly but surely moves to the background. At some point, you don't even see the game as a WWII game anymore. My preference therefore lies not with a CoH that is without RNGs - that's simply not doable regarding "authenticity" and the setting - but one that features them in a minimal role. As I mentioned in an earlier post: as a necessary evil. As such do I appreciate RNGs. In: Lobby
Thread: Intelligence Bulletins15 Dec 2012, 23:07 PM Jump back to quoted post15 Dec 2012, 22:40 PMEupolemos No, on the other hand, shots having to penetrate keeps me at the edge of my seat and it doesn't bother me in game - it's part of the game I love. Now, a single dice-roll seriously effects the game How can something keep you at the edge of your seat when it DOESN'T seriously affect the game? I'll be frank here: as I see it, the only people who seem to appreciate the chance mechanic are those who do not take their own competitive play seriously. You seem to have accepted your fate as a no-more-than mediocre player, and consequently your CoH experience is a passive one, as a spectator first. When you watch a replay, you have no personal stake in that game. You might prefer one player or the other, but it doesn't really matter who wins. You're there for the spectacle, and well, a grenade wiping a full squad delivers, a sniper surviving a mine with 3% health left delivers. Did the best player win? Who gives a toss, look at those explosions! "Luck" does seriously affect the game. I do care who wins, when I play I do have a stake in that game: I play to win. Furthermore, I think the purpose of a computer game is to be played first, spectated second. The amount of matches played greatly surpasses the amount of matches spectated. In: Lobby
Thread: Intelligence Bulletins15 Dec 2012, 22:08 PM Yeah, no one said otherwise. CoH is not like poker. The RNG functions as a coin toss. "Will you win this flamer vs flamer engagement? The coin says yes/no." There's truly no fun in that, other than the visual appeal. The sniper mechanic is a little different, I do think players are evaluating their chances, but there's only one relevant outcome: frustration. When the third countersniper misses your sniper, do you truly feel good about yourself because the coin happened to fall in your favour? In: Lobby
Thread: Mirror Match14 Dec 2012, 21:50 PM Representability? In: Lobby
Thread: Intelligence Bulletins14 Dec 2012, 21:42 PM Jump back to quoted post14 Dec 2012, 16:02 PMWaffleticket Poker is chance and skill. Just like COH. Why both are a great game. Yeah right, and not because of interesting mechanics. Interesting mechanics are for the plebs. Poker is a game that's about dealing with chance (among things). The RNGs in CoH are just a way of making the game aesthetically appealing, but from a competitive gameplay perspective I don't enjoy them at all. They're a necessary evil for a game like CoH. In: Lobby
Thread: Mirror Match14 Dec 2012, 21:21 PM You're still creating two brands of players, and they are essentially incomparable: a single meaningful rank system for all players is then not an option. It's a dreadfully bad idea. In: Lobby
Thread: OnkelSam14 Dec 2012, 21:16 PM Aye, don't forget the contributions on this here site! In: Fan Clubs
Thread: 12/12/1213 Dec 2012, 20:57 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2012, 14:42 PMArne looks like it will be the 4th year in a row without decent snow in the alps QQ It's dead now though. In: Scrap Yard
Thread: Mirror Match13 Dec 2012, 16:03 PM Jump back to quoted post13 Dec 2012, 16:00 PMRelaxx666677676 If game 3 is a mirror match it won't be fair unless the map is totally symmetrical. Totally symmetrical maps won't be balanced for Russia vs. Ostheer games and likely wouldn't be much fun either. Citation needed Jump back to quoted post13 Dec 2012, 16:03 PMcr4wler imho, no need to... because i totally agree with you both on that one... i also feel like asymmetric gameplay makes for far more entertaining matches both playing and watching. again: look at SC2, or imagine a vCoH wehr vs. wehr matchup where both go for piospam.... Well, we shouldn't forget that SCII is quite a different game, which is why I'd like some input regarding the mirror matches in DoW 2 which is certainly a lot closer to CoH. Don't get me wrong, I'm very sceptical that mirror matches would be fun*; I'm just not completely convinced yet. I'm even less convinced when it comes to symmetric/asymmetric maps. Are symmetric maps really a lot less enjoyable? In: Lobby
Thread: Mirror Match13 Dec 2012, 15:48 PM Jump back to quoted post13 Dec 2012, 15:29 PMcr4wler like i said, "could be boring" (or in my opinion: "very likely to be boring") is not even the important part... it's the balance that i'm worried about. It should be an important part, I tend to play games for entertainment. even if you say "oh, most of that is map imbalances". even if it is 100% map imbalances... the maps that are balanced for mirror matchups are most likely horrible for non mirrors and vice versa. That's why I'd greatly like a discussion on symmetry and asymmetry in RTS games. See Arne's post, and the time I repeated it. also: i don't see how mirrors add to competetiveness (and this has also been mentioned earlier). or asking the other way around: explain HOW they add to competetiveness? Letting the faction pick be decided by VPs from previous games is not elegant. In: Lobby