xander wrote:With regard to the attitude that naval nuking is "cheap," I suggest that you read through
this.
xander
I'm sorry, but I just can't respect the legitimacy of this "scrub" concept. There's a few reasons:
1. The chess analogy is flawed, in part because computer games have far more variables that you need to control than other variables. In chess, for example, the rule is that bishops move diagonally. Pretty straightforward. On the other hand, in Defcon, there are many added playing options for all the "pieces" (units and buildings). This means there are literally millions of options, compared to Chess having far fewer. Not to mention the turn-based vs. real-time aspect. Computer games operate on entirely different rules SYSTEMS from, say, Chess. Chess doesn't need to have complex rules since there are fewer possible options with the limited technology involved.
2. The "fun" that the author seems to espouse is based on the assumption that players continually are WILLING to explore new strategies. In reality, very few are willing to do so, and most new players are turned away by getting repeatedly beaten by more experienced players and then being called "noobs". It's the equivalent of a kid going to a friend's house, playing chess for the first time, then being called an idiot for not doing better.
3. This assumes a model where all games are solely designed for competitive experimentation, and that fun is solely based on the intellectual goals of enhancing strategy. This is patently false; I enjoy poop jokes.
4. The author is dismissive of "scrubs" and goes so far as to call them "naive" and "ignorant". A computer game is not an exclusive club; a smug pretension that your view is right doesn't make friends, except among people you agree with.
5. An exploration of new strategies is best served by trying new ones. Most players DO use naval nuking as a crutch. The definitio of a "crutch" is something you rely on. I know a number of people who have continually lost in normal naval battles against me, but win whenever they hold their navy back until defcon 1 just to naval nuke.
6. In many cases, luck DOES play a role. In one game, I lost about 4 subs that never went on to active sonar, and were never spotted previously by subs or ships, and weren't in any of the predictable hiding spots for subs (they were in the middle of the atlantic, and I mean middle). Naval nuking doesn't serve the experimental model that you (and the author of the article you linked to) propose, since it misallocates success in many cases (i.e. a weak deliberate strategy does well for external variables to the strategy itself).
7. There are some case where people do cry foul at legit strategies (I don't know anyone who hasn't at least once, and I admit to doing so), but it's impossible to make a clear, distinguishable, and reasoned line separating illegitimate complaints from reasonable ones.
8. If the experimental approach is true, then naval nuking would've been either replaced or modified. I see no variation to it; implying most people simply use it as a matter of convenience, not because it is a dominant strategy.
9. "Playing to win" is an absurd concept and is based on an irrational desire to self-legitimate and self-. To say "I am not being a jerk, I'm simply playing to win" whenever someone asks you even politely to stop using a strategy that makes the game less worthwhile for them. A GAME while also involving aspects of strategic choice, also is supposed to be enjoyable not just for a narrow subset of its players. There's a reason why so few people play Defcon nowadays...
10. Naval nuking eliminates strategic choices by preventing alternate options (such as conventional naval battles) from surfacing, thus HARMING the strategic project.
11. The author does admit some strategic choices are competitively unfair. His example (Akuma from Super Turbo Street Fighter) is clear proof that you need not literally break the rules of the game or exploit glitches therein in order to be considered unfair.
12. The "scrub" and "non-scrub" are interchangeable, which is proven in this quote from the article "You're not going to see a classic scrub throw his opponent 5 times in a row. But why not? What if doing so is strategically the sequence of moves that optimize his chances of winning? Here we've encountered our first clash: the scrub is only willing to play to win within his own made-up mental set of rules. These rules can be staggeringly arbitrary." Your insistence on naval nuking being an acceptable strategy is just as arbitrary; after all, even if a bomber is on SRBM launch mode, if you try to target a ship, it automatically switches back to naval combat mode; clearly the game's designers didn't WANT people to naval nuke. Further, see point 10 - your distinctions are just as arbitrary as mine since there's no clear point at which you can say "oh, your claim is bunk because of x, y, and z, which are all fundamentally true and agreed upon."
13. The intellectual activity the author bandies on about is absurd and denied categorically by the unintellectual nature of discussions regarding both this game and many others (see chat during games), not to mention that if it were the case that the game is an intellectual pursuit, I would have a leg up on everyone else as an International Studies Major in college.
14. There are tons of arbitrary conventions that people have in defcon, such as not leaving early, not attacking allies unless we leave the alliance, etc.. I don't see any reason why naval nuking shouldn't be added to that list other than "well, we like using that strategy". That isn't a compelling argument. Defcon has a number of competitively unfair but technically permissible strategies that people regularly emply, thus violating the principles that the article you cite promotes.
15. Fine, so if we want to get all technical, the article does reject unfair strategies (Akuma). This means players shouldn't be placing subs in the indian ocean against EU, since EU can't counter (among other examples). There are a number of strategies players employ in Defcon that are competitively unfair, but normal. If we accept naval nuking as a "fair" strategy, we therefore have to examine other common tactics.
All of that said, I don't think there should be a rule against naval nuking. My complaint is that if I were to go into a server right now and say "I want to try other strategies, please don't naval nuke me", I would automatically be called a noob, even though 1. I'm not, 2. I am not asking for "special treatment", I'm asking for an opportunity to contribute to the game by trying new strategies, and 3. I know the strategy, have used it, and still disapprove.