Quote:
Originally Posted by DCoder";p="
Um, Pisc, my solution did not mess up the sidebar. If your solution did, you most likely did something wrong.
|
Or more likely because other structures were changed losslessly prior to messing with the Sentry Gun, I wasn't modding the rules.ini from blank (as, I assume, you were). I found that adding any new clone of the Sentry Gun caused this error.
Hence I used a horrible solution using owner=, commented out the NCO and left it for when I could pluck up the courage for a few hours of bug-fixing or rewriting inis from scratch (which is always the best way in the end, as we all know). It hasn't happened yet, but the basis of AlliedG's objection was (I assume) my rather quick abandonment of the NCO sound. Perhaps he thinks I think it's a good solution to the problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlliedG";p="
Playing is different the modding.
|
Very true. Playing, in fact, is why the game was made and winning is the ultimate point of playing.
Quote:
|
Playing is for unit whoring and people with reliable, high speed connections, often delay in terms of ping ruin the online experience e.g. counterstrike, halo2.
|
Counterstrike and Halo 2 require more bandwidth than RA2 and are twitch-games, so reactions are more important. RA2, meanwhile, will run fine on a 56k.
More importantly, however, they run asymmetrical simulations of the game. In RA2 both players experience exactly the same delay - the delay of the player with the slowest connection. So a slow connection is
not a disadvantage at all in RA2. In fact, if the latency is limiting the game speed then it's
easier to play because you have more time to anticipate attacks and distractions and more time to micromanage. Players with fast connections and computers are normally disadvantaged in this situation because their distractons, splits, harassment etc don't work as well as they're used to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renegade";p="
And your second sentence makes no sense at all as a reply. It implies there is an undiscovered depth in the way he plays, and that is really is some kind of strategic genius. And I pretty much doubt a person stating "There is no such thing as a tank rush." in a conversation about C&C games could be a strategic genius.
|
Actually, as already stated, I was being glib and criticising the definition of tank rush rather than actually deny it exists. Tank-rushing
does exist, but what
you mean when you say "tank rush" is a fallacy. There are only two possible scenarios:
1) Your opponent making many more units than you. In which case their economy is much better, so they are more skilled than you.
2) Your opponent breaking some unofficial rule that he can't attack before some abitrary time-limit. If EA didn't want people to attack before 10 minutes (or whatever the ridiculous rule is) they would have stopped you making offensive units before that time-period.
Also the skill of a player is decided by how often he wins, not how often he wins
if his opponent is forced to obey his rules. I play the game a lot (or rather, I did at one time and I still would if the community was more active) and you obviously don't. You are not ashamed of this at all (and why should you be?) but you are wrong to make excuses and criticise tactics.
- If we both had 12 Rhinos and squared off my 12 Rhinos would win.
- If we were both given 20 minutes to build the
largest army possible I would build much more
- If were both given $50000 to build the
best army possible then my mix of units would be better.
These statements aren't meant to insult you, I know you don't care how good you are at the game or how good I am. But unless you can disagree with them (and, therefore, back it up) then you can see why you have no right to talk about skill.
Quote:
Of course not every cumulation of tanks is automatically a rush. But if your opponent's only actions during a game are
1. Hitting the Apocalypse cameo
2. Type-selecting map-wide all Apocalypses
3. Clicking on your ConYard
then it's a #$@! tank-rush, no matter if Mr. Piscinex accepts their existence or not.
|
It's not a "rush" but for the moment I'll accept the phrase "tank rush" as a euphemism for unit spamming (which is what is actually occurring). A rush is when you sacrifice long-term advantages for short-term ones.
The point you fail to grasp is that if your opponent makes 20 Apocalypses, so should you. If you genuinely can't do this then at least admit one thing to yourself: your opponent has better build-orders and Miner control than you. Yes, he can click the Apocalypse button 20 times: but why can't you click the Mirage button 35 times? If you have 5 tanks and your opponent has 50 why do you think you should win? Why do you think you have the right to call your opponent unskilled.
If it's so unskilled, then what does it say about you that you can't do it? And don't say you could do it but
choose not to out of pretensions of strategy, fun, skill etc: you cannot do it.
Quote:
|
In addition, if that is Piscinex' actual opinion about tank rushes, it suggests he's just another rusher in denial. No matter whom he defeated with this "tactic".
|
I only lose to people who are better than me (better economy, better control, better awareness, better tactics, more knowledge or all of these). If this means I'm in denial then your definition is faulty, I'm not the one who cries a tactic is unfair, unstoppable or unskilled because I can't beat it. If I lose to a really strong strategy or build order or whatever then either I learn to beat it or admit the player has something I don't have and try to learn from them.
Not a strategic genius, but not a scrub either. Does a sprinter who gets beaten by someone faster complain that running fast is unskilled? Does he then make his own rule than you can only go 10 mph and stick to that forevermore?
And if you think the game is too much about economy and who has the most units then fine, and in a way I kind of agree with you. But that's a much more sophisticated criticism of the game than you could ever make, because it's derived from actual knowledge and painful experience. And building the most units is still a huge skill; build orders take years to perfect and refine. If you can't compete then the statement you need to make is: "I'm not good at macromanagement, so Red Alert 2 isn't the game for me"
not "people with better economic skill than me aren't playing properly".
Quote:
|
Just a question...are you also one of this "No Yuri please!" people? Fearing the power of the brain defeating your no-brainer tactics?
|
I personally don't play YR. But I'd be interested to know how Mag-juggling and building a single Boomer in 90 seconds (forcing your opponent to spend $4000 on AA) requires a brain or some great strategic knowledge. These are the reasons Yuri is considered overpowered: again, a statement made by some of the top YR players (those who dominate and have dominated the ladder), people who don't need to make excuses for anything. Just because some newbs happen to echo those sentiments (frequently for the wrong reasons, such as: "Mind Control is overpowered", which it isn't) doesn't make it less valid.
