No announcement yet.

my mistake: winning vs "gameplay"

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • my mistake: winning vs "gameplay"

    I allowed and facilitated drama tonight, on the server, and I'm sorry. This thread just adds to the drama, so you know I think what follows is important.

    To mince words, I said that base rushes were to be avoided in favor of longer games. I was on a soapbox. It wasn't pretty. You all know which Wyz I'm talking about. :( I arguably abused my position as admin. Not because I told people flat out what to do, per se, but because I wouldn't STFU, and I alienated friends.

    I should have listened more. I'm at my best when I listen more.

    To clear up any confusion, base rushes are fine, with whatever frequency.

    Several folks, including myself, were frustrated tonight. No winners were malicious (quite the opposite, pretty much), but it hurts the losers to lose, and it hurts the losers (and some winners) to miss out on the broader gameplay that short games don't provide.

    But, sometimes, learning hurts.

    And I pride myself on our tolerance for learning, even when it hurts.

    Please try to allow for moderation when "teaching" people something game after game after game.

    But, frankly, as far as I'm concerned, that moderation should remain the discretion of the better player, so that we all become the better player.
    Steam Community? Add me. | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

    Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

  • #2
    Re: my mistake: winning vs "gameplay"

    Thanks for coming out and saying this Wyz, it's genuinely appreciated. From the point of view of one of the comp players/players that participated in 4 rushes, I do have to agree that the 3rd, and 4th rush in particular (the route of which we fully admitted had thrown off even division 2 comp teams) were a bit overkill. At that point, any lesson that may have been learned by the opposing team was likely to have been lost under the understandable frustration from the short games.

    As you've mentioned, no one is arguing that the base rushes were unpreventable by the losing team (there's a reason that very many teams drop either a second IP first or an armory + mine research before going for the arms lab), but in the spirit of creating a more enjoyable experience for everyone involved, the last few games on summit in particular could have played out quite differently.


    • #3
      Re: my mistake: winning vs "gameplay"

      I'll agree that the 3rd and 4th consecutive base rush games were borderline painful to watch, and overall not fun for either team.
      As said, any chance of learning from, or teaching the other team about such a tactic, goes out the window when the losers are so thoroughly frustrated.

      However, I feel it must be said that the base rushes themselves are not the problem - they definitely are a valid tactic available to both teams. A base rush revolves around one team leaving an opening, allowing the other team to take advantage of it. I have observed over the last few weeks the commanders, players, teams, and community in general begin to adapt, learn from, and incorporate specific tactics from competitive play, such as lane blocking. Base rushes are the next natural tactic to learn about, and defend against.

      Regardless, the most important idea that I want to echo is that of moderation. Yes, if one team leaves themselves vulnerable (6 guys to Nanogrid -- who's doing base defense?) they are bound to be exploited. However, repeated rushes aren't fun for anyone. Try changing it up?

      On the other hand, the common "counter point" is that people want "good games." What constitutes a 'good game?' Some argue for rounds that last upwards of 40-60+ minutes. There were instances last night of attempts to artificially push for such a long game. This does not work, and NS2 was not designed for such regularly long games. Typically, we will have a great 60+ minute game. What usually happens the next round? The very first words I typically hear are "Catpack rush?"

      In summary, <4 minute base rush games aren't all that fun the third or forth time in a row. At the same time, "epic" hour-long games are not desired back-to-back either -- half the server is usually exhausted by that point and leaves. Great games, in my opinion, are the ones that are short and sweet -- games between 15-30 minutes that are pretty tense, not necessarily back and forth, but with neither side having a clear edge until someone makes a mistake. Throw in the occasional early base rush, and the occasional hour-long game, and we're golden.

      In the end, the game is all about pushing the enemy base. Don't be afraid to do it if the opportunity presents itself. At the same time, do everything possible to prevent such a push from happening against you.


      • #4
        Re: my mistake: winning vs &quot;gameplay&quot;

        Thank you for the open and honest apology in a mature fashion, one of the great things about TG is the maturity, even if I wasn't part of either team in this instance.

        Though I agree that variety in gameplay is enjoyable. I like the long games, but as Darkscythe said not necessarily back-to-back rounds, though on occasion even that can be good.




        TeamSpeak 3 Server




        Twitter Feed