|
| Thread: A Personal Code |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
feluniozbunio
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
posted April 17, 2007 03:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
To all you people who say a game should last 2 hours what's the fun if it ends in 2 minutes: Everyone has a different concept of fun. If you like playing your long games against weak players who won't ever try to get better, that's fine. It would bore the heck out of me. To me, a rush is a way to see if my opponent is WORTH 2 hours of my time. If s/he can't even handle a simple rush, why in the world would I want to waste 2 hours of my time playing this person? They say in chess that a game is won or lost long before the actual checkmate. The checkmate itself is merely a formality. This applies to Heroes as well.
Perfectly said.
____________
|
|
ZombieLord
Promising
Famous Hero
that wants your brainz...
|
|
posted April 17, 2007 04:03 PM |
|
|
Well, I know with who I play, I know he's not a noob and I know a rush would either work or not (depends on whether he is in his castle, etc).
Anyway, I don't say I dislike rushes, but that I enjoy long games. That means, I also enjoy rushes but ONLY WHEN it does not finish the game. Simple.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 17, 2007 04:05 PM |
|
|
|
I generally agree with TemjinGold; I'd like to add that rushes (and aggresive gameplay) adds tension to the game. I mean, if everyone wanted to creep 2 months, prepare a huge army and meet at a set meetingplace for a final battle, it would become dastardly boring to repeat that every-time-the-same 2 months of development every game; Come on, 2 months without even a sight of enemy's heroes? wtf. I would fall asleep on that one. I think that for people that enjoy that, duels are suggested instead of a "normal" game, since it gives the big final battle without the boring building&creeping. At least with duel customizer on horizon.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted April 17, 2007 04:29 PM |
|
|
Seems I missed the rush time while at university 
Quote:
Elvin: No offense but the majority of that list sounds like it was made by noobs who can't learn how to play a game properly, don't ever want to change the way they play so as to become better at the game, and can't handle losing too often because their ego is too fragile. I am a very competitive person who continually strives to better my own player (and plays in tourneys for lots of things) so take what I say with a grain of salt.
Haha you got almost everything right except for the fact that they were decent players! Ok this list is just things I've heard since I started playing heroes but you are right in that most of the rules I cite are from specific people. These guys:
Didn't want to change their way of playing because it was just perfect 
Indeed had a fragile ego to the point of telling to each other that they can beat him without trying. Actually that was a funny part I always liked watching them, not quite sure who was behind in score 
And of course hated to lose.
Don't worry I'm not the kind of guy to mind about that, after all they weren't very serious. And in any case right or wrong it is your opinion and I'm fine with it-even more because I agree here.
The reason I made this thread was because I was interested in seeing what other people think when playing and how they have modified their games to suit their personalities/style of play.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
TowerLord
Promising
Supreme Hero
Hero of Good, Slayer of Evil
|
|
posted April 17, 2007 04:51 PM |
|
|
I have discovered recently a "rule too" : no running around in circles on the map forever and ever ... that is really annoying , not fun and also a huge waste of time !!! Hope I'll never have to play a game like that again .
____________
|
|
ZombieLord
Promising
Famous Hero
that wants your brainz...
|
|
posted April 17, 2007 04:52 PM |
|
|
|
That fits only when the enemy is not honourably, and that rule is a must IMO! (being honourably I mean)
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted April 17, 2007 04:54 PM |
|
|
Gods, why did you dig that out of my memories? Gunnar with exp logistics, stables, equestrians gloves and boots of speeed!!! Imagine chasing him with exp dimension door and never getting him, argghh!! On the positive part I haven't experienced something like that in H5...yet.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
siinn
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 17, 2007 04:56 PM |
|
|
arf...
Indeed I'm not a semi-god at videogames like most of people here but I still can't agree with the possibility to rush in games that aren't designed in this way (I'm talking about background and fun feeling not gameplay).
Let me take an example to be clear:
I'm used to play BfME(1 the one and only) and I hate when someone rush me. That said I know well how to defend myself against a rush (sometimes I can think... yes believe me it's true even it seems unbelievable) but I hate begin a game by defending against the very first ennemy units!
Why? Simple: the game is designed to make me think I'm gandalf driving the rohirrims to a fight against 10000 orcs. It works very well 95% of the time... the others 5% are rush tactics!
Let me take another example as someone said something about chess:
You know the tactic to win in 4 turns against very noob players isn't it? You did this once for fun isn't it? Did you try this tactic twice?
No! Because the game would last 2 minutes only and it's boring...
Now I agree with one point of the discussion: I choose to play against friends that share my point of view and we do play very good games even if we don't reach your god level for sure.
The most important thing is fun so I wish you fun games!
|
|
TemjinGold
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 17, 2007 05:09 PM |
|
|
Hehe well since I sparked this ahh... tension, it's only fair I contribute properly then.
Me personally (in any game I play), cheats and things like that would be out but anything else under the sun goes. I DO believe in FAIR play but if you beat me, there is no such thing as "That was cheap" because the real enjoyment for me is in figuring out what it was that I did wrong and adapting so that I won't lose that way again.
No one is perfect at anything and everyone makes mistakes. The better players just learn to make fewer and smaller mistakes. But for me, what really separates a good player from a poor one is not their current skill or lack thereof in the game. It is their attitude towards losing. The good players are those who seek fault within themselves, striving to learn from the loss. The poor players are the ones who seek fault within others ("I lost because he was being cheap.") Some of you folks say winning/losing doesn't matter as much to you guys. You may be surprised to find that that is actually MORE true of competitive players than noncompetitive players. Truly competitive players seek improvement, not wins (though those are nice to have too). As proof, take one of each type of player and see how many consecutive losses to the same strategy it would take to make that person stop playing. The noncompetitive person will quit very soon while the competitive one will get more and more interested with each loss and would keep playing until s/he figures it out.
We used to have an arcade here with all the popular fighting games and I saw this scene every single day. The vast majority of the people who frequented it were NOT competitive at all. They would all say "I don't play to win, I play to have fun. Winning/losing isn't important." The result? 2-3 losses (not even to the same strategy!) and all of a sudden, none of them were "having fun" anymore (awful coincidence there). It got so bad I had to start playing poorly on purpose (artifically making each game really close and sometimes losing to make things seem more "real") or be forced to play only the competitive people (which would've been fine if they weren't so few in number). My competitive friends probably felt I was selling out...
I think someone once said, "Anyone can be a good winner. It takes a good player to be a good loser."
|
|
TemjinGold
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 17, 2007 05:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
arf...
Indeed I'm not a semi-god at videogames like most of people here but I still can't agree with the possibility to rush in games that aren't designed in this way (I'm talking about background and fun feeling not gameplay).
Let me take an example to be clear:
I'm used to play BfME(1 the one and only) and I hate when someone rush me. That said I know well how to defend myself against a rush (sometimes I can think... yes believe me it's true even it seems unbelievable) but I hate begin a game by defending against the very first ennemy units!
Why? Simple: the game is designed to make me think I'm gandalf driving the rohirrims to a fight against 10000 orcs. It works very well 95% of the time... the others 5% are rush tactics!
Let me take another example as someone said something about chess:
You know the tactic to win in 4 turns against very noob players isn't it? You did this once for fun isn't it? Did you try this tactic twice?
No! Because the game would last 2 minutes only and it's boring...
Now I agree with one point of the discussion: I choose to play against friends that share my point of view and we do play very good games even if we don't reach your god level for sure.
The most important thing is fun so I wish you fun games!
To answer your questions:
1) Gandalf vs. 10,000 orcs is what the campaigns are for. 
2) Yes I know that tactic. I also know the 8-move mate where you sacrifice your queen (which is much harder for noobs to figure out). And yes, I have done each much more than once. Why? The players who want to get better will ask me how to avoid falling into that trap OR will simply figure it out themselves. Either way, they've just learned something and improved their play. The poor players will simply leave.
I never intended to imply that "good players" = "people with godly skill" or anything like that. When I say "good players" I mean people who have the drive and motivation to get better and to constantly try to improve upon their play. People who realize that their current play isn't the best it can be. "Good players" can definitely be people who "currently suck." "Poor players" don't refer to people who "lack skill" either. I've seen some poor players that can put up a very good fight. "Poor players" refers to people who think there is absolutely nothing wrong with their current ability and wouldn't even think of changing to improve (if I lose, the other guy was cheap). "Poor players" CAN beat "good players" but not for very long.
That Gunnar running thing is pathetic (something I wouldn't do) but if used against me, I would go dig for the grail if that was on the map.
|
|
siinn
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 17, 2007 05:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
To answer your questions:
1) Gandalf vs. 10,000 orcs is what the campaigns are for.
2) Yes I know that tactic. I also know the 8-move mate where you sacrifice your queen (which is much harder for noobs to figure out). And yes, I have done each much more than once. Why? The players who want to get better will ask me how to avoid falling into that trap OR will simply figure it out themselves. Either way, they've just learned something and improved their play. The poor players will simply leave.
I never intended to imply that "good players" = "people with godly skill" or anything like that. When I say "good players" I mean people who have the drive and motivation to get better and to constantly try to improve upon their play. People who realize that their current play isn't the best it can be. "Good players" can definitely be people who "currently suck." "Poor players" don't refer to people who "lack skill" either. I've seen some poor players that can put up a very good fight. "Poor players" refers to people who think there is absolutely nothing wrong with their current ability and wouldn't even think of changing to improve (if I lose, the other guy was cheap). "Poor players" CAN beat "good players" but not for very long.
I can't say you're wrong man... but I can't say you understood what i wanted to say.
I know my english is below 0 but I'll try to be clear:
I'm not telling who is a good player and who isn't, I'm not tellin how good players improve their skills whereas poor players get sad and quit playing. I'm simply saying that in my humble point of view of average player (the one who sometimes improve its skill but sometimes loose like a poor player) the rush tactic is horrible and make me want stop playing against rushplayers.
It's just a question of fun/style/panache, ou si tu prèfères cela ne me fait pas bander mais bon je ne sais pas comment te le dire simplement en anglais!
rush != beautiful game
beautiful game != pleasure
IMO
|
|
PhoenixReborn
Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
|
|
posted April 17, 2007 06:28 PM |
|
|
I think that if you don't wish to be rushed you simply need to play on a larger map. How much rushing can one do on circle of winter?
Elvin's original post was pretty funny. I'll admit I use some rules, although, no troops from another faction just goes against the basic rules of the game.
I do like to play without hit and run.
____________
Bask in the light of my glorious shining unicorn.
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted April 17, 2007 09:04 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 22:27, 17 Apr 2007.
|
Firstly I agree with Zombie Lord that honourability is OBVIOUS, not just optional.
Existence of such rules is a decision of both players. Often when I play a game with someone new(and this is not often as I use mostly LAN and hotseat, online very rarely), I ask him whether he wants to introduce any such rules. If he/she wants, I ask him/her to give REASONS why he/she wants to see them introduce(be it map specification, some fun/beloved rule). If I see it's about shielding some lameness, I do not agree. I scarcely want to introduce mine in such cases.
Playing with good friends is another talk, however. Two of them I know for years, and during these 2000+ h spent on various HoMM we developed some code. But we(or I at least) DO NOT even try to use this code when playing with others, unless asked to do so. That would be stupidity.
To other rules(by our code):
Quote:
-None can use units from a town other that your starting one.
Never used this, except on two-town maps, when it's unavoidable .
Quote:
-If you are to attack, you are supposed to tell the opponent.
NEVER. That is stupidity. I prefer a 'battle in te middle' than this s**t.
Quote:
-Attack will take place on a specific date after x months in the open.
Great battle not attack - yes, our three plays such things often.
NOTE: if BOTH of us playing admit that game is resolved before final battle, we start again.(>50% of cases, really, but we still find it fun). We use this rule only on uber-cheesy XL maps I design. M and L duels we get from net, on them this rule does not apply.(In HoMM 5 increase mentioned map size by one).
Quote:
-No rushes.
My maps - rushes impossible, other - never. I mean never 'no rush'. No rush isn't a big thing but rushes are smart, hard to do, and sooooooooo cute . Skipping them , um, makes game poorer IMO. And if you finish in 5 min what was to take 3 h, you have still 2 h 55 min for another game ! And your opp should not be a noob who quits playing after being rushed.
Quote:
-The human opponents will engage between them only after the AI has been dealt with.
My maps - obvious(I even made a map for HoMM 3 where players are cooperative against a bit overgrown AI - we played it a lot), duels - no (no AI).
Quote:
-No sea navigating
WTF? No, only if there are no 'treasure islands'. And if map has non-decorative water without 'treasure islands', then I don't play it .
Quote:
-In game alliances
3+ players(not uncommon) - yes !!! Note that this cannot be regulated - they will emerge no matter what.
Quote:
-Trading between enemies.
LOL I never do so, and when all 3 of us play, my friends do it and I don't. Yes, they have an advantage, but I am reluctant to do so. I love to NOT LET enemy develop  .
Quote:
-No diplomacy!
HoMM 3 YES.
Quote:
-No grail-or tear of Asha for that matter
Duels - we don't care(whether map has oblelisks) - it won't last until we find enough of them. My uber-cheesy maps - well, with that size grail is only a shiny detail, an icing with cherry, I'd say. Slightly relevant but looks nice .
Other rules:
HoMM 3: Uber-restricted(or even no at all) acess to dimdoor/fly.
HoMM 4: no additional
HoMM 5: undead transformer restricted to tier=<4, as we consider it uberpowered, as it works now.
Nothing more.
Disliking rushes is somewhat similar to disliking quick sex .
Long is much better but quick can be very refrashing sometimes .
Hope I did not spam too much.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
ChaosDragon
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 18, 2007 11:33 AM |
|
|
Yeah, we can't dislike rushes, it's one of many tactic, it's okay if someone dislike to rush his/her enemies amd like to battle at end game, but he/she must be prepared to be rushed in order to survive untill end game, and take their pleasure at the end game battle.
Rushing or not, it doesn't matter, just play with any tactic you feel the most entertaining for you. Ex: someone like end game fight, then he/she must be prepared for enemy's rush in order to survive until endgame and meet that enemy at end game battle.
|
|
Istari
Known Hero
Truth Teller, ToH
|
|
posted April 19, 2007 05:15 PM |
|
|
It's interesting to see that this thread went from discussing your personal rules to what the rules should be. When I play in ToH I am prepared for anything. However when I am having a leisurely game with a friend, we don't rush. Everybody has their own style and probably in most cases tend to play other friends who agree to a similar personal code, there is no sense in trying to universalize a standard set of rules that everyone should have. Good thread.
____________
Opinions are immunity to being told you're wrong.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted April 19, 2007 05:22 PM |
|
|
Of course, as far as it is fair for both. In some ways the game can prove a different experience if you can play according to your desires.
In reading between the lines you can guess that I do not play with any rules except avoiding some things according to who I play with yet I'm all for customization.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Arbaces
Tavern Dweller
Marcus Arbaces Alexandros I
|
|
posted April 19, 2007 08:17 PM |
|
|
Speaking of rushing... hehe... old gaming memories. I could recount a few games I had on H3 about 2 years ago, I can only say I had very powerful enemies in such games that summer, it was depending on each strategy, because when I was rushing I was risking the whole game while my enemies were comfortably gathering resources and building structures. However what great fun when we were both rushing with armies of few unicorns, dwarves whatever me and his nagas. The best counter-rushing method I can say is : magic , so I was always defeated by tower castle when rushing unless i had enough resistance.
But the fact is on xl maps i had a rule to vanquish all AI enemies first, before fighting. Stealing mines and so was allowed, but not fighting between heroes with army larger then a few base units (yes killing scouts and mine-thieves was allowed too).
That's all about my multiplayer house rules.
Arbaces.
____________
A youth who does not feed on war soon becomes fat and detestable.
|
|
Plexus22
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 20, 2007 07:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Hehe well since I sparked this ahh... tension, it's only fair I contribute properly then.
Me personally (in any game I play), cheats and things like that would be out but anything else under the sun goes. I DO believe in FAIR play but if you beat me, there is no such thing as "That was cheap" because the real enjoyment for me is in figuring out what it was that I did wrong and adapting so that I won't lose that way again.
No one is perfect at anything and everyone makes mistakes. The better players just learn to make fewer and smaller mistakes. But for me, what really separates a good player from a poor one is not their current skill or lack thereof in the game. It is their attitude towards losing. The good players are those who seek fault within themselves, striving to learn from the loss. The poor players are the ones who seek fault within others ("I lost because he was being cheap.") Some of you folks say winning/losing doesn't matter as much to you guys. You may be surprised to find that that is actually MORE true of competitive players than noncompetitive players. Truly competitive players seek improvement, not wins (though those are nice to have too). As proof, take one of each type of player and see how many consecutive losses to the same strategy it would take to make that person stop playing. The noncompetitive person will quit very soon while the competitive one will get more and more interested with each loss and would keep playing until s/he figures it out.
This is pretty much the way I feel about HoMM gameplay also. I enjoy competitive games a lot and having that competitive "tension" brings an element of fun that I can never get from a single player game or even a relaxed multiplayer game with friends. I usually allow any rules that my opponent wants to introduce but I never throw rules or restrictions out there myself. Everything is fair (in HoMMV) in my book and if I get beat by a suprising strategy I just try to learn from it and avoid falling prey to it again. Im constantly working on improving my strategies, speed, and overall avoiding mistakes when I should know better.
BTW one of the best ways to prepare for a rush from the opponent is to use a rush strategy yourself and if the map doesnt allow for a rush than there is nothing to worry about. If it does than its something you have to take into consideration when planning your strategy. I hate to bring it up in a friendly gaming discussion but in a real war is the enemy going to postpone their strategic attack because their opponent might not be ready for it?
|
| |
|
|
