kwok wrote:When you say "in fact" it doesn't make it absolute and only. Yes, in the past high resource was mainly for those who wanted to skip phases of the game. But, "in fact" the game is barely accelerated from a pvp perspective as also mentioned in my long post above. Sure some players can try to accelerate into a really really early tiger... if they spent on NOTHING but working towards that tiger but "in fact" that strategy is normally crushed quickly and isn't meta at all.
This is why we can't have nice things such as discussing the status quo with respect to the past and its metas.
Nobody is going to agree that rushing for a Tiger is likely to work out well in modern versions of BK. But it made a great deal of meta sense in the context of old BK versions where airstrikes did little damage to tanks, 17 lbers were toothless. regular pershings and jacksons existed as target practice and super pershings did not exist.
I'm sure it was just a little mistake on your part to overlook the clearly obvious context.
Wow it's like you didnt read the previous paragraph to the one quoted and completely overlooked the clearly obvious context and satirism in my response. I'm not sure if it's a little mistake on your part or you're playing 4d chess with satirism for the ultimate irony. well played well played. But just in case it needs to be spelt out... discussing the status quo with respect to the past and its metas isn't a strong an argument as you said... "nobody is going to agree that rushing for a tiger is likely to work out well in modern versions of BK" AKA it's obsolete.
kwok wrote:Before you get so superior drivebyhobo,
No. no. no. This is not about me. You're the one calling people morons for not playing high resource games. I mean really, you took a seminar on Game Theory at the airport and seem to feel that you have become so "superior" from that experience, that you can browbeat any poster. I challenge you to stop hiding behind pseudo mathematical babble and actually present an academic paper describing a complete rigorous game theory mathematical model for Company of Heroes. Until you do that, why don't you stop insinuating that your arguments are derived from rigor?
Tell me who I directly insulted and I promise I'll apologize. But I won't apologize for criticizing the actions themselves. And if you read the part when I call people moronic... is not because they play standard res, it's because of the way they argue back and complain about how I set my game settings. Let me get that quote for you so you don't have to bring it up like some lawyer showing up with hidden evidence.
kwok wrote:The amount of times I get complained at for my game settings is.... uncountable, obnoxious, and dare I say moronic.
I'm sorry you had to build up a straw man and create a hyperbolic image as a means of trying to debase an argument instead of talking through the content itself?
I seriously don't think it takes that much "game theory" or "academic knowledge" to follow a simple analogy of rock paper scissors and coh... i mean it's not calculus, i don't really know what pseudomath you're talking about... If you think that's too advanced academically and brow beating... were you someone who was upset you weren't accepted in a university so you just actively go after people with degrees, call them out for their academic background, and find irrelevant nitpicking details in some attempt to invalidate SOMETHING they said so that you can feel equal with the "scholars" around you?
If you really want academic papers sure.... I can provide it.... but I assumed you learned addition, subtraction, multiplication and division in school already, or at least rock paper scissors at the playground.
kwok wrote:the old forum and old developers aren't some old testament bible to stick to. Things change, the game changes, and so it makes sense to take the latest information
The past is prologue and the option of "high" vs "standard" goes far beyond BK Mod. On a fundamental level, the option for high resources is a renaming of Dawn Of War 1's "Quickstart". It's purpose was to quickly bring the game to duels between end game units. Similarly, "high resources" for quite a while had the same destructive act of gutting the early game in BK mod.
Cool, I'm glaaad you came back to this. I was afraid you were going to just walk past this and go after the rest of the post without context. Sure, in the past that what it was. And now, it is not. You can see more info on how it's not and even countering opinions in the other thread.
kwok wrote:That's what BIG MAPS are a solution for
Except you have misidentified the solution. There are big maps that are "lock down maps". A map of dimensions 8096x512, would be "big" but also easily locked down. The true element you are looking for is that a map has to offer multiple pathways to victory. There are several Relic made maps that satisfy that requirement.
OOOoookaaaayyy..... you're not entirely wrong but I'm sad that it was assumed I didn't understand nuance and exceptions. But you're speaking as if there was no correlation between literal map dimensions and "multiple pathways to victory". And if you're looking to get nuanced to debase an argument then I can get nuanced too. "Pathways to victory" is SUCH a vague term that it is no doubt a derivation of multiple things like: resource incomes available on the map, map dimensions, playable movement areas, map dimension length to width ratios, etc etc etc. In later posts you talk about other "good maps" but I'd argue they are bad maps (all of them pretty much no higher level players play anymore??). I could go map by map and talk about those if you want, but that's not the point. It's hard to determine the quality of maps one by one for all maps that players could play. The best thing we CAN do is 1. label specifc maps that are recommended for BK, 2. go for generic characteristics that minimize the chance of a "bad map".
I won't go further here since it seems like Walder already made his point: you seem like you just are nitpicking nuance, redirecting and resorting to ad hominem, and trying not to talk about the content of things but all the things around it. What's your deal dude?
Tiger1996 wrote: drivebyhobo wrote:
Walderschmidt wrote:Kwok wasn't even talking to you, yet you took it upon yourself to call him "so self righteous kwok".
Kwok directly insulted players that prefer standard resources as being self absorbed with their own egos.
Well; despite that I rarely agree with you, drivebyhobo.. but here I actually have to agree.
drivebyhobo wrote:If I were making arguments dependent on reference to a mathematical model I devised, then yes I would have no problem providing all relevant formulations in a clear and concise format. I would not be writing rambling essays opining on various things sprinkled with a little game theory jargon then preceding to crown myself an academic.
He never crowned himself an academic, but you did, eager to dethrone him from that lofty position for some reason.
You see, I obviously have nothing to do with this argument here.. but since you mentioned my name out of nowhere, with very little respect too... While I actually never expected that coming from your side, but regardless... I'm not going to throw it back at you though, because I clearly have nothing against you, but I'm going to throw it back at the one who sent you here in the first place. Since I'm totally aware that Kwok is the one who sent you here. As I believe you wouldn't even bother to participate in this discussion without him calling you in the first place, and thus.. here is my advice to you; Don't be a doll, you are not involved in any of these discussions here.. and you don't have to be. I mean, u don't have to defend anyone!
OHHhhh hohohoho now THIS is fucking rich. Tiger, unlike you I DON'T go around steam spam pinging players to join on the forum to support whatever I have to say. Which, isn't wrong if players share your opinion then they should be heard. But, I definitely did not put walder up to this and do not put others into doing this. I don't have a problem sharing things that I talk about with walder, but in general those convos are between walder and i and you don't have visibility into that. While I don't have visibility into your convos with others in the forum, i got a glimpse of what it's like before i removed you from my friends list when you openly slander other players for political gain, coerce players to come to the forum to say something, and twist the words like a fake news outlet. I accept we have different cultures and approach situations differently, but I assumed between both our cultures that lying and spreading falsities is seen as a dick move. Don't fucking take this out on walder, you got a problem with me then come to me. If I got a problem with you, you know I fucking come to you with honesty. This is walder's volition.
The only conscious influence I made to move this particular thread was the original post itself. I hope they don't mind me sharing, but both mefisto and elpiojo felt this way about balance and kept talking to me about it. I got impatient at how much they were talking but not participating in the forum in general. I think the more posts and opinions on the forum the better, but to me i felt like they always had an opinion but never posted. Instead I was always used as a proxy to debate on the forum. So I pressured them into posting whatever their opinion was and only then i'd share my opinion here, which I did. I didn't even fully agree with them, I just wanted them to participate to let devs know there are more players than just you, me, warhawks, and whoever else you twisted their arm to coming here.
I'm ready for my ban now, thanks for giving me a chance to slide one more post in.