The Tortoise and the Hare

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

    • ThePanda wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      the initial point that 4x relies way more on activity is still true tho?
      Personally I wouldn't phrase it that way because I don't really see why activity and skill should be mutually exclusive. imo skill should involve taking the heightened activity in 4x games into account.
      look Let's say u need skill and less activity in X1 may be ratio is 3 :1
      In X4 you still need skill and much more activity let's say 3 :2

      in the first scenario skill ensures u 75% of winning while in the second 60% of winning

      There is many factors added and numbers I wrote doesn't mean any thing but u get the general idea.
    • abdul_the_brave wrote:

      ThePanda wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      the initial point that 4x relies way more on activity is still true tho?
      Personally I wouldn't phrase it that way because I don't really see why activity and skill should be mutually exclusive. imo skill should involve taking the heightened activity in 4x games into account.
      look Let's say u need skill and less activity in X1 may be ratio is 3 :1In X4 you still need skill and much more activity let's say 3 :2

      in the first scenario skill ensures u 75% of winning while in the second 60% of winning

      There is many factors added and numbers I wrote doesn't mean any thing but u get the general idea.
      I get what you're trying to say but I guess it really just comes down to the definition of "skill".

      To me, skill includes knowing how much activity you have to bring to a certain map/mode to succeed because that's knowledge that comes with experience. The average activity on different map speeds is observable and should eventually become somewhat predictable for an experienced player. I'd even say it's a vital element to consider in your overall strategy. So, if someone who's switching from regular speed games to 4x for the first time loses with the statement "I had the better strategy but he was just more active", to me that simply implies that person is not yet as experienced/skilled as they thought because they didn't properly factor activity into their strategy - or at all. Finally, if one wanted to go a step further, one could even argue that 4x games require more skill because the higher average activity leads to more unpredictable scenarios that a one-size-fits-all strategy cannot cover without regular adjustments.

      But again, that's just my own take on it.

      Btw before anyone accuses me of bias: I personally don't enjoy 4x games because they're too exhausting ;P
    • Stratieon wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      Which is exactly a point. That is why they are easier to beat on 4x map, because one day passes there just during your sleep. ;)
      Again, yes and no here. If the skilled player and less skilled player have similar activity patterns, the skilled player is more likely than not going to win.
      What do you try to prove with this statement? It in no way counterdicts my statement.
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      Stratieon wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      Which is exactly a point. That is why they are easier to beat on 4x map, because one day passes there just during your sleep. ;)
      Again, yes and no here. If the skilled player and less skilled player have similar activity patterns, the skilled player is more likely than not going to win.
      What do you try to prove with this statement? It in no way counterdicts my statement.
      I’m clarifying the balance of skill and activity here; 4X doesn’t require less skill, just more activity. If a skilled player is easier to beat due to activity, how much more an unskilled player?
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      About 90% of players are easily beatable even with minimal effort and activity if you know what you are doing.
      Because 90% of players are hardly skilled or active. Yet again, considering the earlier-stages example of real-life military generals, imagine if Alexander the Great was only thinking of the battles he was in for one out of four seconds he was in them, or if, worse yet, he only checked on the progress of the battle hourly. Granted, the kings he fought weren’t all the greatest strategically, but imagine if Hannibal acted in such a way hypothetically. In that case, many, if not all, of his brilliant victories would be nonexistent.

      How easy it is to beat most players with little investment is no testament to the game mode being good strategically, but rather to the skill, or lack thereof, of most players. Just because your low amount of activity is enough to beat someone who only checks in on their game once a day but isn’t enough to beat someone active doesn’t relate to the relative game skill of you or the second person.
    • ThePanda wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      the initial point that 4x relies way more on activity is still true tho?
      Personally I wouldn't phrase it that way because I don't really see why activity and skill should be mutually exclusive. imo skill should involve taking the heightened activity in 4x games into account.
      true but the whole point is pretty much that exploiting lack of activity is way easier in 4x than 1x due to the fast speed
      you're gone for 3h? thats like 12h of free ticks in navy vs navy for example. imo its not much of a skill to butcher inactive troops :D
      it's also a considerable amount of time more to find/exploit the weakness of any defence someone might've setup
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • Teburu wrote:

      you're gone for 3h? thats like 12h of free ticks in navy vs navy for example
      Yes. And and my point is that's something a skilled player should be aware of when joining 4x games :D

      Teburu wrote:

      it's also a considerable amount of time more to find/exploit the weakness of any defence someone might've setup
      Yes. And again, that too is something a skilled player should be aware of when joining 4x games :D