"Well,... But Only If You're Talking About Public Games..."

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • "Well,... But Only If You're Talking About Public Games..."

      It seems strange to me that, when discussing game trends/strategies, we treat it as necessary to explicitly state that we're referring to public games. I know why this happens: it's because if we don't say it, someone always pipes up with "Well,... but only if you're talking about public games, though." Yeah, why wouldn't that be the default? Are there far, FAR more alliance challenges than I am aware of? I understand that they happen and that they usually include all/only skilled players, but aren't they still the extreme exception?

      To me, it's like trying to discuss NFL play/strategy and someone jumps in with "Well, but that kind of thing wouldn't work in the Pro Bowl!" Lol, okay, man. That may be true, but no one's having a discussion on Pro Bowl strategy here or almost ever.

      I just keep typing and reading "in public games" and I'm thinking to myself, "It's crazy that we keep typing this just to avoid someone jumping in and saying, 'But in an alliance challenge...'."

      I'm not saying that no one plays alliance games or that they don't warrant mention/discussion, but it seems like talking about them would be what warranted the special note rather than requiring a special note when we're not talking about them.

      Am I way off-base here? Is the Forums community playing a nearly equal percentage of alliance games to public games?

    • Would argue that its more akin to "dont try this at home kids" simply because public matches are so utterly chaotic that you can get away with about anything; its more akin to saying "it only works in an environment where pretty much nobody knows what they're doing". It's pretty much just clarifying that you dont expect the other guy to have that high of a skill level; the average in public games is just that poor, to steal one of Opulons comments on that topic: [for context: con was compared to swordfighting] "You will take a stance with your sword, he will run at you, trip, and impale himself on his spear. [...] A guy having a sword or any kind of point stick is the best 50%."

      PerigeeNil wrote:

      I'm not saying that no one plays alliance games or that they don't warrant mention/discussion, but it seems like talking about them would be what warranted the special note rather than requiring a special note when we're not talking about them.
      TBH I feel like most of the people that are actually active on the forums have some sort of experience with alliance challenges and tend to use that as the bar to measure things against.
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • Teburu wrote:

      TBH I feel like most of the people that are actually active on the forums have some sort of experience with alliance challenges and tend to use that as the bar to measure things against.
      I understand and agree with that, but... well, that's kind of what I'm saying. We're using "the exception" as "the bar"? Yeah, public games are sloppy and chaotic and crude, but they're also the vast majority of the games being played/discussed.

      It's like we're all working in a Korean War era MASH unit but comparing everything to cutting edge modern medical procedures. It's not that the exception isn't optimal and beneficial; it's just that it's on a different level than the environment in which most of us are normally operating.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by PerigeeNil ().

    • It seems like you're asking about what should be, vs what is.

      And about the differences between being right, and being successful.

      My reason for writing that "public games" phrase often is that I dislike writing it less than I dislike clogging up threads with 3-4 off-topic posts about how whatever I'm talking about would either fail or wouldn't be true in a game filled with above average players (or below average players who are at least very active and minimally able to follow instructions from someone competent).

      It gets so tiresome hearing big fish in very small ponds wave around their little bit of knowledge as if it makes them God's gift to gaming. You know the type - The best unit is MLRS. Tanks are useless. Strike Fighters are useless. Stealth Bombers are the best units. Don't fight anybody until after you have Level 5 AI in all your cities. Never build a UAV. If you don't put a TDS in all your cities, you will lose. If you don't build a strong Navy you will lose, Etc, etc. All the stuff that passes for conventional wisdom, and is drilled into some players' heads by their alliances.

      Those rules of thumb *are* all true, or at least contain a kernel of truth; but only if applied in the right contexts.

      So, I just like to short circuit the, "You don't know what you're talking about because you're not elite enough to be in an alliance like mine where the 'real' Con occurs" part of the conversation, and instead pepper my posts with "public games" so that I can enjoy discussing the public games that I play.

      ---> Doing that also lets folks who want to discuss playing head-to-head against active, skilled, ferocious alliances, know that they can ignore much of what what I'm writing. <---

      In other words, after a few decades of enjoying wargaming, I'm tired of 8th graders and high school kids telling me how games "really" work, and I try to just sidestep the whose is longest contests.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by KFGauss ().

    • It seems like there are a lot of strategies for AvA that wouldn't work well in active publics.... It seems most alliance players adjust their play styles/strategies when they play public formats... So it goes both ways.

      I read "You can win with anything in a public game" often ... but that's not true... You can beat new and inactive players with whatever you've got, sure.

      If we approach public games AS IF they were filled by competent and active players (even if it has never happened) we can discuss the format... not the competition.