RANT - Too many dumb players

General discussion about Defcon

Moderator: Defcon moderators

User avatar
True Blue
level2
level2
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:14 am
Location: Vault 13

Postby True Blue » Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:30 am

Bamelin wrote:It's crap, but I can tell you wouldn't stand a chance against me unless you were europe.


lol I'm assuming you think Europe is "ERUPOPS NOT FAIR!"

It's easy to take out Europe.


Yeah, you backstab them. :twisted:
Last edited by True Blue on Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
"War. War never changes." - Fallout Narrator
Bamelin
level2
level2
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:10 am

Postby Bamelin » Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:35 am

MarkyX wrote:
Bamelin wrote:
MarkyX wrote:
Bamelin wrote:And MarkyX ...

Nobody cares about your stupid mathamatical equations about why it's smarter to nuke so and so. People nuke who they want to nuke for reasons of revenge, sometimes just to ruin somebody else's day. I can say with 100% certainty that if we ever find ourselves in a game together my sole purpose in the game will be to throw my entire arsenal at you ensuring we both lose horribly. And you know what? As long as YOU lose I'll count it a victory for me/

How's that for strategy? :D


It's crap, but I can tell you wouldn't stand a chance against me unless you were europe.


lol I'm assuming you think Europe is "ERUPOPS NOT FAIR!"

It's easy to take out Europe.




Again, that depends on how dumb the players are :lol:

Europe is easy to take down, with multiple people attacking it or the owner of Europe is stupid enough to let subs chill on the British Coastline.

I've only played with Europe once and it seems a heck of a lot easier than any other region, despite increased "hostility"


It's not easier to play. Personally I hate Europe. If you are playing with "good" players, Europe generally gets nuked HARD, generally in a first strike by either Russia or Africa.

The key to playing Europe is to get into an alliance with Russia and Africa, or at least one of the two. Then you have a chance.

Blue Fix your quote tree, you got who said what mixed up !
User avatar
Soldant
level2
level2
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 11:28 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Soldant » Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:03 am

So far in the games I've played, a Euro-Russian alliance has resulted in the downfall of Asia and Africa, since people in Asia love placing radar sites right on the border away from silos, allowing Russian players to launch bombers and crush Asia's early warning system. Plus the combined radar of Europe and Russia results in a massive defence network that gives good protection and good visibility. That said, a backstab is always possible...

Remember this though: DEFCON is about protecting your own personal intersts. If those interests happen to coincide with some other nation's interests, then so much the better, go for an alliance and remove them later. But the second the status quo changes, players can dump you in a heartbeat. This is paranoia at its finest, DEFCON brings out that special quality in everyone. People will do what they think is in THEIR best interests; if it results in their destruction, who cares? Their total loss, try to capitalise on it.

Also DEFCON is still extremely new. A lot of curious players who have decided to stop playing de_dust until the end of days have decided to come over and see what the fuss is about. It will quieten down a bit soon.

It just seems DEFCON relies too much on other players instead of individual tactics. Usually it's because of stupid players that people win, not because one of them was "a better player"

Mate, that's kind of the entire point. Everybody dies. Alliances are essential for survival at the start of the game, and they need to be formed by players with common interests. They don't do that by saying "You idiot, ally with me or you're going to get smoked!" before any attack has become apparent to that person. You have to make yourself USEFUL to the other player. Obviously you hadn't proven your worth to the other player, so why should he bother with you? It's no good calling other players idiots because they won't do what you want them to do. People will do what they want, everybody has their own motives, and they do what they think is good at the current time. If they don't want to do what you want them to do, that doesn't make them an idiot.

Calm down. You came out second in a 2v2v1 game. Who cares if somebody didn't do what you wanted them to do? Coming 2nd in a game like that is an achievement in itself.
Bamelin
level2
level2
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:10 am

Postby Bamelin » Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:24 am

Soldant wrote:So far in the games I've played, a Euro-Russian alliance has resulted in the downfall of Asia and Africa, since people in Asia love placing radar sites right on the border away from silos, allowing Russian players to launch bombers and crush Asia's early warning system. Plus the combined radar of Europe and Russia results in a massive defence network that gives good protection and good visibility. That said, a backstab is always possible...

Remember this though: DEFCON is about protecting your own personal intersts. If those interests happen to coincide with some other nation's interests, then so much the better, go for an alliance and remove them later. But the second the status quo changes, players can dump you in a heartbeat. This is paranoia at its finest, DEFCON brings out that special quality in everyone. People will do what they think is in THEIR best interests; if it results in their destruction, who cares? Their total loss, try to capitalise on it.

Also DEFCON is still extremely new. A lot of curious players who have decided to stop playing de_dust until the end of days have decided to come over and see what the fuss is about. It will quieten down a bit soon.

It just seems DEFCON relies too much on other players instead of individual tactics. Usually it's because of stupid players that people win, not because one of them was "a better player"

Mate, that's kind of the entire point. Everybody dies. Alliances are essential for survival at the start of the game, and they need to be formed by players with common interests. They don't do that by saying "You idiot, ally with me or you're going to get smoked!" before any attack has become apparent to that person. You have to make yourself USEFUL to the other player. Obviously you hadn't proven your worth to the other player, so why should he bother with you? It's no good calling other players idiots because they won't do what you want them to do. People will do what they want, everybody has their own motives, and they do what they think is good at the current time. If they don't want to do what you want them to do, that doesn't make them an idiot.

Calm down. You came out second in a 2v2v1 game. Who cares if somebody didn't do what you wanted them to do? Coming 2nd in a game like that is an achievement in itself.


Soldant explained it far better than I could. A big thumbs up to the above post.
GFree
level1
level1
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 7:30 am

Postby GFree » Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:31 am

MarkyX seems a little too cocky and confident about his abilities compared to everyone else.

It will be fun to totally obliterate him if I ever seem him online. Heh heh. :twisted:
kaikai
level1
level1
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:41 am

Postby kaikai » Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:12 am

the point of the game is to have fun, you may have your own play style, but you don't have the right to say yours is better than anyone elses.

don't forget, its just a game, and because of that, some people, like yourself only care about the points, others, only care about having abit of fun.

you complain that other players are noobs and they complain that some players take the game far too seriously.
Xine
level0
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:05 pm

Postby Xine » Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:45 am

MarkyX, it's worth bearing in mind that people will play with different objectives. Not everyone will be trying to finish in 1st place. I wouldn't call the other players you described 'dumb players'. As a previous poster mentioned, people could be motivated by revenge, etc. rather than scores - alternatively, they could choose to hit the person in 2nd place in the hopes of simply improving their ranking, rather than trying to advance all the way to 1st place.

Personally, I take 1v1s seriously and will do my best to attain 1st, but six-player games are far too chaotic to be taken overly seriously, regardless of how good you are. You can't predict what every other player will do, and even if you're in an alliance with someone, you can't control their actions, nor expect to be able to influence them at critical points.

Thus, in a six-player game, I simply try and finish with the highest ranking that I can. 1st place in a six-player game is a bonus, and things must fall your way for it to happen. If everyone, despite your attempts at diplomacy, decides to team up on you for some reason, no l33t sk1llz are going to bail you out. :)
Al3xand3r
level1
level1
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:06 pm

Postby Al3xand3r » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:45 pm

...And the game has been out for a few days thus new players keep appearing... Sigh, this is like Counter-Strike where everybody is calling everybody else a "noob"... Atleast this is the first person I see do that here so perhaps that's a good sign for the community...
bjrn
level1
level1
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:01 am

Re: Diplomacy failure

Postby bjrn » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:23 pm

MarkyX wrote:
Aim Here wrote:Well the player you're complaining about might be a bit slow on the uptake, but you seem to have failed bigstyle at in-game diplomacy yourself. Not only did you fail to ally with anyone and get toasted from all sides, you couldn't even convince a moron (your words, not mine) to nuke someone other than you when it was clearly in his best interests to do so.
I didn't want an alliance, mainly so I don't share my radar. Tell me this: How does a lone wolf who faced off against everyone else who was allied came second? If I "suck", how would you describe the 4 below me?
Just because you're talking to someone doesn't mean you have to form an alliance. Being able to convince someone that targetting someone other than yourself is a good idea is a big help when playing any game that allows talking. You might be good as far as unit placement and control goes, but perhaps you should try to get better at diplomacy, and you'll be almost unstoppable!
Talesin
level4
level4
Posts: 875
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2001 4:15 am
Location: Burbank, CA, USA

Postby Talesin » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:02 pm

Al3xand3r wrote:...And the game has been out for a few days thus new players keep appearing... Sigh, this is like Counter-Strike where everybody is calling everybody else a "noob"... Atleast this is the first person I see do that here so perhaps that's a good sign for the community...

Exactly why so many people are against any kind of global ranking or ladder system. At that point being #1 on the scoreboard is all that matters.

Personally, I enjoy creating 'silent alliances'. Even if I end up nuked, I stick to my word. Doesn't mean I won't retaliate once a backstab happens, but it's awesome to get three people into an alliance in a four player game, and smush the last guy all at once with everything we've all got. Obviously everyone holds back a sub fleet or whatever their weapon of choice happens to be, but the one country on the short end of the stick (usually someone acting like MarkyX) ends up as a glowing glass parking lot. Only so much you can do with 18 silos, 18 subs and 18 bombers launching at everything you've got, all at once.

After all, the game's about having fun. Not about coming in first.
Sydney CDN
level1
level1
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Sydney, Nova Scotia, Can.

This Helped me

Postby Sydney CDN » Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:37 pm

I have identified a flaw in my gameplay thanks to this post. My past experience in Rise of Nations which had a small following with most players known to each other had ingrained the instinct NOT to backstab an ally. In that game unreliable allies quickly gained a reputation & found it hard to find anyone to ally with. I realize I have not adapted to the difference in gaming style & will have to change to win more often.
However I still don't see myself backstabbing a solid ally who has helped me throughout the game if we are first & second.
User avatar
Lionel Mandrake
level2
level2
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:59 pm
Contact:

Postby Lionel Mandrake » Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:47 pm

Backstabbing is an entire section of the game, in my opinion. I would actually enjoy being backstabbed if it was masterfully and entertainingly carried out, after all. Besides, none of this is real, so if you don't like how a game turned out at the end, you can start another and play again!
Sydney CDN
level1
level1
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Sydney, Nova Scotia, Can.

I agree

Postby Sydney CDN » Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:55 pm

Absolutely. I have had a blast everty time I've played so far win or lose. I will be eyeing my allies carefully but not at the expense of fun.
flatrick
level2
level2
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:50 pm

Postby flatrick » Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:19 pm

a reason more to have a ranking and be able to play players of your level.
Anax
level1
level1
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:04 pm

Postby Anax » Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:29 pm

The whole theme of the game makes backstabbing an integral part, I think.

Personally, I really want some sort of ladder or other ranking system, mainly to determine exactly what "winning" means. This has a big impact on competitive behavior. A *big* impact.

Let's think about three different scoring methods:

1) Only the top scorer in the game "wins". Everybody else loses. If you were using some sort of Elo type rating system, the top player scores a win on every other player in the game, while they score a loss against him.

2) Only the top n scorers "win". Say, the top two score wins against the bottom 4, or top 3 against bottom 3, or whatever.

3) You score wins against everyone below you, and losses against everyone above you.

4) Everyone in the alliance with the highest single score scores a win against everybody in any other alliance.

5) Everyone in the alliance with the highest *total* score scores a win against everybody in any other alliance.

My current interpretation is that winning is winning--there can be only one, and that one is the top scorer in the game. If you come in second best, and your alliance came in first, you still lost.

Other people seem to have different interpretations, which result in... well... less backstabbing. :D

In general, if #1 holds, then backstabbing is an essential part of performing well in the game. If you need to get first place, then taking a chance from second or third to take out the enemy or ally who is ahead of you is an important tactic. The first-place player has to be worried because he knows they'll start in on him sooner or later. Everybody else has to weigh taking advantage of allied status (easier to move missiles/bombers through to other targets) vs. the timing of a good backstab.

If #2 holds, there's no reason to backstab at all except to get into the top n. If you're losing, you might backstab a weak ally to attempt to move up.

If #3 holds, the goal is to get the best position possible. It's still valid to backstab, but it makes sense to be more conservative. If you attempt to backstab but then get pounded down harder, then you've lost position, which is a negative consequence. Contrast this with #1, where getting second place is no better than getting sixth place.

If #4 holds, team play is optimal. Even if you have to sacrifice your continent to get an ally the points they need, it's worth doing. Things might be messy with this setup if you let people form and re-form alliances during the game. ("Hey! Pound me back to the stone age, then invite me to join your alliance!")

If #5 holds, team play is optimal, but sacrificial victims don't work. You need to not only support your allies in offense, but also in defense.



You could also base rating on score differentials, but the above should serve to illustrate what I mean.

There's a big difference in the behavior suggested by interpretation #1 and that suggested by interpretation #5--enough of a difference that it's practically a completely different game. I've definitely been disconcerted when it turns out some other folks are playing a team game, while I'm playing a game in which backstabbing is expected. It's true that both types of games are fun--but you need to know *which* type you're playing. It wouldn't be fun, after all, to think you were in a genocide match and then find out halfway through that it's survivor.

I think the easiest solution, really, is to introduce "alliance XXX" scoring styles. With these scoring rules, individual players don't win or lose, alliances do. Instead of "SinglePlayer wins!", you get "Green alliance wins!" at the end of a match. I'd suggest using an average score instead of a sum score, to avoid 4-v-2 teaming situations. (This does encourage cutting out a sub-par teammate late in the game, but there are two things against that: 1) word of mouth about somebody who pulls that kind of crap. It's one thing to backstab teammates in a cutthroat game. It's another to backstab them in a team game. 2) there are other server settings to forbid or make more difficult that sort of action.)

With that, there are a bunch more ways to play the game, and more importantly, everybody knows what game they're actually playing. You won't have three people playing a team game and three people playing solo games going against each other on the same server.

I guess the only problem, then, is that being the one cutthroat player in an alliance of friendly teammates is kind of fun. :>

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest