Massive Assault Official Forum
   
It is currently Thu Dec 13, 2018 1:12 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:13 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
Was there any reason this option was changed from man to man2? In over 160 games i can only recall 1 time where a player that was loseing actually used this tatic to win and even though my opponent used this to win against me, i thought it a brillant move. It was a really good way to end games where the outcome was already determined and where your opponent refused to surrender.

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:36 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:06 am
Posts: 1338
Karma: 1

Location: USA
The transport trick really was an exploit. It was difficult to pull off, yes, but it still was an exploit. It worked based on the faulty balance rules of MAN1 that gave you full control of a country if you captured the capital, even if guerrilla forces weren't yet deployed.

As an exploit, it doesn't belong in a game founded on strategy.

_________________
Founder of The New World Order, and moderator for the Andromeda Clan War.

NWO website:
http://www.freewebs.com/massiveassault-nwo/index.htm

Clan War website:
http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:00 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
I have to disagree. As i said in my last post, i have had only one game where the player that was looseing, my opponent, did this to win. I considered the fault to be mine for not seeing what was happening. While i can not speak for others, all of the times i have used this, the game was already decided and this just brought it to a quick conclusion. I think we have all been in games where the other player has no chance and yet keeps playing because "they want to see how long it takes you to defeat them". The game gets really boreing and the longer it goes on, the more chance it had of breaking. If you end up in a situation where someone can defeat you in this manner you deserve to lose and, in most cases, you should have surrendered already. I do not think there is any honor or strategy in "fighting to the last man" and draging a game out after there is no hope of victory.

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:04 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:17 am
Posts: 620
Karma: 4
storm440 wrote:
While i can not speak for others, all of the times i have used this, the game was already decided and this just brought it to a quick conclusion. I think we have all been in games where the other player has no chance and yet keeps playing because "they want to see how long it takes you to defeat them". The game gets really boreing and the longer it goes on, the more chance it had of breaking.

Yessir....It was a nice way to finish an overdue end. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:49 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:06 am
Posts: 1338
Karma: 1

Location: USA
storm440 wrote:
While i can not speak for others, all of the times i have used this, the game was already decided and this just brought it to a quick conclusion.


What you say may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the transport trick is an exploit.

Why should you lose the game because someone spread themselves incredibly thin? Why should transports be able to improve your balance when guerrilla forces will be deployed that will drop your balance the next turn?

storm440 wrote:
As i said in my last post, i have had only one game where the player that was looseing, my opponent, did this to win. I considered the fault to be mine for not seeing what was happening.


Why should you have to prepare for an exploit? Everything else about this game is reacting to your opponent, calculating where best to spend your forces, distracting, ambushing, delaying, etc, but this one feature of those things I can think of has nothing to do with strategy, other than when you can manage to pull off this exploit.

If you don't think its an exploit, say so, and defend your position. You may be able to beat it into my brutish head :)

Personally I love beating someone who refuses to concede into the ground and crushing all resistance. Theres something satisfying to win, something also satisfying in grinding them into the ground until you claim the hard-fought win.

_________________
Founder of The New World Order, and moderator for the Andromeda Clan War.

NWO website:
http://www.freewebs.com/massiveassault-nwo/index.htm

Clan War website:
http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:24 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:17 am
Posts: 620
Karma: 4
Apparently with MAN2 the blitz win is not possible(?)....The percentage is not calculated until after guerillas are placed(?).
As for MAN1, I was shocked when first beaten this way and my opponent explained it was kind of tricky, but valid. Thereafter, I found it a nice option; merely a sort of checkmate move.
Though hooked on MAN, too much is still too much and I take time off(not much!) so that I enjoy playing and it remains a fun pasttime. With that as my viewpoint, "endless" games aren't my cup of tea. The quick-fix was a preferable option to a forever war.
I have one particular regular opponent who, far as I can remember, has never surrendered. That's fine and. as he uses a MAC, it will still be the expeditious option in MAN1 until MAN2 is MAC-ready(How long for that?).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:06 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
What you consider an exploit, I consider just another option that the rules of the game allow and therefore have to be defended against. I would point out that transports are valid weapons in this fanticy war world we have created. One placed in a country keeps your opponent from claiming the country as his own. One moved into a capital with planes destroys the planes just as surely as a tank or bot or small foot would. The point is that the rules allowed it, many of us used it and enjoyed doing so, and some, such as myself, would have liked it to remain an option in the new system. Since none of the game really mirrors any type of real world war, i fail to see why you consider some options to be of stratigic value and others to be, as you put it, an exploit. Is the timming out of a player also an exploit or is it just using the rules of the game, as they are written for all, to your advantage? I really don't think any of this is a big deal, as in many of the game options, some are for, some are against, we all voice our opinion and yours is just as valid as mine or anyone else :wink:

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:09 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:13 pm
Posts: 201
Karma: 0
This is an issue that comes up in all sorts of games, and I've thought about it in several different contexts before. So here's my thesis/ramble:

Often useful tactics will be discovered in a game that were apparently not part of the designers' original intent as to how the game ought to be played. Some players will complain about such tactics, and if they complain loud enough/make a good enough case, the designers of the game may change the rules to remedy the "exploit(s)" in question and thus bring the rules of the game in line with the gameplay originally intended. It seems to me that in the transition of MAN to MAN 2, this is exactly what happened. The old rules just didn't make sense in light of the type of gameplay MAN was attempting to create, and so the problem was corrected in MAN 2 by adjusting balance calculations to take into account forthcoming guerillas.

However, I maintain that there was absolutely nothing wrong with using all means available within the rules in MAN in order to win, including the "transport trick." Remember, games are fun precisely because they have rules. Rules are what shape the games to be what they are. Seeing that a game has a particular set of rules, it is the player's responsibility (if he wishes to win) to play his best game according to those rules - even if he believes that some of the rules are odd, or ought to be modified in the future. The bottom line is that the player has no right to complain when others play according to the rules (in whatever way) and win. In gaming communities sometimes there is a wide consensus as to some tactics being deemed "cheap" or "exploitative," other times players disagree among themselves as to whether certain tactics are really fair. But what actually is fair is actually very easily defined: anything that is permissible according to the rules of the game at that particular time.

_________________
Cur Deus Homo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:39 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
Very well said. The rules are the same for all and when they change, some will be happy and some will not. I like the game either way :D

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:42 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:06 am
Posts: 1338
Karma: 1

Location: USA
Good points, Placid.

Thats what these forums are all about, is discussing the issues we run into and hammering em out amongst the players so that the developers can get a good idea what direction their customer base wants to go. The cool thing about this game is that the developers are listening, and making changes based on the well-thought out suggestions of players.

As far as the transport trick, I wasn't questioning the honor of those that used it when it was available, just defending the developers in their choice to remove it. Personally, I didn't like it done to me, as I wasn't able to go down in a blaze of glory, in kind of an anticlimatic end. I didn't like to do it to others for the same reason, because I wanted to end it all with a big bang.

As far as the discussion on rules, we actually made it illegal to use the transport trick in the clan wars.

_________________
Founder of The New World Order, and moderator for the Andromeda Clan War.

NWO website:
http://www.freewebs.com/massiveassault-nwo/index.htm

Clan War website:
http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:02 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:17 am
Posts: 620
Karma: 4
Hmm....Questionable that there is an actual body of developers who listen to the consensus rather than to a minority of made-up-minds...Case in point : the game timer defaulting to something insane..."You have five minutes to play"....Some people have not chosen to listen, and an open mind does not just come easy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:07 am 
Offline
Tough Nut
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:50 pm
Posts: 37
Karma: 0
FWIW, I do think that it makes sense to have a slightly higher balance when you have the capitol. It seems that right now, MAN2 splits a country even, regardless of the units and space that the opposing forces control in that country. Maybe make the difference slight, but it does seem like there should be one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:30 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:06 am
Posts: 1338
Karma: 1

Location: USA
Rextrent wrote:
Hmm....Questionable that there is an actual body of developers who listen to the consensus rather than to a minority of made-up-minds...Case in point : the game timer defaulting to something insane..."You have five minutes to play"....Some people have not chosen to listen, and an open mind does not just come easy.


Thats the responsibility of the developer to come up with new innovations for their games. Of course they don't do everything by consensus - they do have the right to make the game in their vision. Notice that in this case though, the developers have added an unlimited time option due to popular request.

_________________
Founder of The New World Order, and moderator for the Andromeda Clan War.

NWO website:
http://www.freewebs.com/massiveassault-nwo/index.htm

Clan War website:
http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:57 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:17 am
Posts: 620
Karma: 4
What would make for a really nice balance would be for both players to play the same layout(allotment) and side(FNU). This would be a very nice option, giving a fair shake and a twist to the "revenge" idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:33 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
While there are several meanings of the word "exploit", the one i think pertains to the issue we are all talking aobut is as follows: an act remarkable for brilliance or daring; bold deed. I think if you have ever played a large map game, had 25 or 30 hours in it, just crushing your opponent and then the grame breaks so that all of your time was spent for nothing, at that moment you would see the brilliance of finishing the game as quickly as possible.

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:26 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:17 am
Posts: 620
Karma: 4
storm440 wrote:
"... if you have ever played a large map game, had 25 or 30 hours in it, just crushing your opponent and then the grame breaks so that all of your time was spent for nothing, at that moment you would see the brilliance of finishing the game as quickly as possible.

Man, you got that right. 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:48 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:06 am
Posts: 1338
Karma: 1

Location: USA
Looks like we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point. My definition of exploit most closely resembles how Placid laid it out, that it is a flaw in the system that the designers didn't intend.

_________________
Founder of The New World Order, and moderator for the Andromeda Clan War.

NWO website:
http://www.freewebs.com/massiveassault-nwo/index.htm

Clan War website:
http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Instant Victory
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2006 8:54 am 
Offline
Conscript
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:03 am
Posts: 11
Karma: 0
Rextrent wrote:
Will the declaration of Victory be instant? It was in a game I just played. (I didn't have to wait 'til end of my turn) If that is new feature, then totally thumbs up to it. :wink:


It is a nice feature to end instantly the game after reaching 100%. But it would be better if both players are asked if they wish to end the game. If both players want to continue, the game should not end. A few days ago I got a serious lesson in how to play: At the end, although I have totally lost, the game was fun - for my opponent and me. It would have been nice to play it to the final.

_________________
"Sir, we are surrounded!" - "Great - we can attack in any direction."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2006 4:24 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
When you say: play it to the final, do you mean till one player has all units and countries gone? How could that possably be fun for anyone. Personally, i would like them to lower the % from 100 to around 75. That would make the games more fun!!

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 4:03 am 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:15 pm
Posts: 135
Karma: 8

Location: Bern
I agree to storm440. I don't like wasting my time with a game I have nearly lost - a game that I'm sure I can't win. In most cases like that I use the surrender button and play the next game on my list.

But I can't do anything with games I have obviously won if my opponent insists on playing the game to 100% to my favour. It's quite annoying on maps like sea switzerland.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y