Recent discussion about the negative impact of high risk strategies seems to be moving towards or could be misconstrued as a blanket intolerance of the strategies themselves. By this, i'm sure you'll correct me if i am wrong, but we can define this as an early game rush, where you use all of your units to crush 1 or more oponents early on. If it doesn't work then you've lost whole lot of metal early on and failed to gain the advantage. Com napping I believe would be considered in the same way, possibly more because of the time you are investing in that strategy rather than the cost in metal? Other people possibly have a more comprehensive list but I am more interested in how we risk analyse rather than the merits or definitions of what is or is not a high risk strategy. I think it's important that we consider the strengths of the player when determining whether something is high risk. For example, I personally have little experience as an air player, so choosing an air factory would be a high risk strategy for me compared to choosing light vehicles and rushing. Another player may be very good at com napping but terrible at late game anti-porc strategies. So for them com napping is a low risk strategy compared to the alternative. I think the problem really is people who knowingly pick these "high risk" strategy because it's what they want to do, when they could effectively perform a different strategy that has a greater probability of success in that situation or that map. But shouldn't those bad choices just get taken into account by the lowering of the ELO for that player and the game will end up balancing the players who do not do this and the players that do equally across the teams?
+0 / -0
|
Could you please succinctly state your point and/or your question?
+0 / -0
|
I have already said it. High risk strategy is like going all in on blind stage in poker. Pointless and annoying, succesfully taking fun away from others. Losing elo as a pu.ishment for abusing high risk strategies is not the way to go. Usually such people want to have as least elo as possible, so theyy get better teammates and may troll more. But when they finally decide to play normally it ruins balance as player who can play like 2.2k elo in reality has 1.6k.
+2 / -0
|
quote:
Recent discussion about the negative impact of high risk strategies |
Correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't the recent discussion rather about how not asking teammates before doing high-risk strategies takes agency away from them? Going with your air example: going air without telling anyone is bad: not only will everyone have to carry you if you really suck, but also other people might go air and you'll have that to drown you too. Going air and telling everyone you do it, being told (by majority of the team) that a better player is already going air, and still going air is bad: you are not cooperating, you are (again) making the team carry you without their consent, but at the very least they know what's going to happen so double-air disaster might be averted. Going with air after telling everyone that you're going air and being told that it's fine is perfectly fine. Even if everyone else is going air simultaneously in order to execute an ultra high risk first-minute aerial blitzkrieg. That's just something you agreed on and everyone is fine with that.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
I think the problem really is people who knowingly pick these "high risk" strategy because it's what they want to do, when they could effectively perform a different strategy that has a greater probability of success |
That's not "a problem". Anybody considering it as one should not play in public team games. Asking people to play the "lowest risk" strategy is a questionable/worrying request. Flat out demanding it should be considered a minor insult at least. It would mean new players must almost always stick to the factory they built in their first game, because it has the units they know best. It would mean nobody is allowed to try new things, because they are untested and as such come with a certain risk. At the same time this request would be asking players to only play for a win instead of playing to have fun. In theory this can be expanded into the absurd. While I do enjoy competitive, cooperative, high elo team games, I don't want ZK to turn into anything that enforces play styles. If players only want to play a certain way (eg. competitive), let them create clans. That's why they exist in the first place. Revive clanwars! To clarify, I am not trying to promote "knowingly building Singularities or placing Roaches in locations where they will very likely harm allies with the intent of ruining a game".
+1 / -0
|
quote:
everyone else is going air simultaneously in order to execute an ultra high risk first-minute aerial blitzkrieg. |
That actually sounds kind of epic. I mean, I wouldn't do it, don't like the air all too much, but it sounds like something I wouldn't want my opponent to do either. By the way, does spamming out an early Goliath count as a high-risk strategy? quote:
If players only want to play a certain way (eg. competitive), let them create clans. That's why they exist in the first place. Revive clanwars! |
Clanwars? How did that work?
+0 / -0
|
quote:
That actually sounds kind of epic |
It *looked* epic when people did it, too (mixing banshees and swifts in equal measure). quote:
By the way, does spamming out an early Goliath count as a high-risk strategy?
|
Yes. But if you're *spamming it out early* then that's ok because you can only do that if someone assists you. Greenlighting is implicit. quote:
Clanwars? How did that work? |
Obtain two clans, coordinate a datetime, do a best of three (or however many games you want). Whoever wins boasts of their superiority.
+0 / -0
|
Skasi I completely agree, when i say it's the problem i'm refering to other people who think it is a problem so that they can determine whether i have understood their objection or not. If you take the fun out of the game then you're not really playing a game anymore, it's more like, work.     Anarchid There has been more than one line of discussion in different threads that touches on this subject. 1 of the participants of those discussions summarised the discussion in the way you have stated. In your examples, who is not cooperating, is it the team not cooperating with the individual, or is it the individual not cooperating with the team? What if you were the better air player and not great at much else and the team overode you, then the team would be engaging in the higher risk sub-optimal strategy. I agree that some dialogue and cooperation beforehand is sensible, but do we make it mandatory and does that extend into cooperation during the game itself?
+0 / -0
|
quote:
It looked epic when people did it, too (mixing banshees and swifts in equal measure).
Yes. But if you're *spamming it out early* then that's ok because you can only do that if someone assists you. Greenlighting is implicit.
Obtain two clans, coordinate a datetime, do a best of three (or however many games you want). Whoever wins boasts of their superiority. |
Thanks for the information. While I'm here, can anyone give me the time-frame of the early game? Because Idunno what the early game actually consists of, it just seems really important. Does rushing Crabes and spamming them count as a high risk strategy?
+0 / -0
|
quote:
it the team not cooperating with the individual, or is it the individual not cooperating with the team |
The team is more people, so the team takes precedence. so it's the individual not cooperating (or not having enough charisma/leadership/respect to make the team cooperate). If you really want to try the thing, you can find a more cooperative team, or convince them into trying it once. If every team you find opposes the thing every time, then that must be a very bad thing. If half of the team is fine and the other half is annoyed, you should abort the crazy but you can proceed. Threatening to ruin the game for everyone unless you get to do your crazy thing is obviously wrong, and it becomes more wrong as team size increases. quote:
What if you were the better air player and not great at much else and the team overode you, then the team would be engaging in the higher risk sub-optimal strategy. |
This is not about optimality, this is about fun.
+0 / -0
|
This entire discussion - and all the other discussions like it - are not about someone going air. These discussions are completely and entirely about sfire behaving badly and ruining games. Let's not get sidetracked.
+1 / -0
|
The problem is that when GoogleFrog first articulated this idea about "high-risk strategies" (see here) he was thinking like a reasonable person, not like a selfish asshole. For people like sfire, the pertinent question isn't whether the strategy is high-risk. He's not trying to win the game. He's trying to take over the game. He's not merely denying others agency as a by-product of his chosen strategy; he's deliberately making the game entirely about him. He would choose these strategies even if they were low-risk. In fact, he would prefer them that way, since that would just mean they were OP. The salient feature is that they are all-or-nothing. If they work, he wins the game all by himself. If they don't, he loses the game all by himself. Either way the rest of his team is dragged along for the ride and becomes irrelevant. He's not experimenting with new and exciting strategies to push the boundaries of what's possible in Zero-K and discover new emergent gameplay. He's fucking around for the lulz. He chooses these strategies not because they sometimes pay off, but because a) they're funny and b) they're fun. Fun for exactly one person, that is. Himself. His immediate resignations when his strategies fail and his incessant and abusive attempts to get everyone else to quit playing as soon as possible are in fact simply two additional aspects of this single fundamental abusive behavior: doing everything in his power to make every minute of every game about his own amusement, with no concern for the desires or enjoyment of his fellow players. All three of those aspects are now called out in the CoC GoogleFrog's rewrite of the CoC as being against our community standards. Hopefully they'll start getting enforced. But we should be absolutely clear on this point: what is being sanctioned is not high-risk strategies, or even high-risk strategies without at least implicit consent of your teammates. What is being sanctioned is taking the game into your own hands by tearing it away from your fellow players.
+6 / -0
|
quote:
While I'm here, can anyone give me the time-frame of the early game? |
"Early game" is probably the first 1-8 minutes, depending on map size and other things. In big FFAs it's probably the first 20m. For rushes in particular I'd say early is within the first 0-3 minutes. Anything completed after that is very very likely to be scouted and has high chances of failing. An "early" HLT rush on trololo would probably happen within the first 1-10 seconds while a Scorcher rush on Red comet would probably happen in a minute. Of course the term can be stretched pretty far and probably has a slightly different meaning for every player. quote:
All three of those aspects are now called out in the CoC as being against our community standards. |
  CrazyEddie: any sources to support this claim? All I actually found was that the CoC says you should assist a person such as sfireman with their rush: quote:
Try to act and coordinate for the mutual success of the whole team. In a team game, cooperating, coordinating and planning strategies as a group will lead to greater success and a better team atmosphere. Realize that a player with higher Elo probably knows what they are talking about. |
+0 / -0
|
I should have said "in GoogleFrog's rewrite of the CoC". I've edited my post accordingly.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
"Early game" is probably the first 1-8 minutes, depending on map size and other things. In big FFAs it's probably the first 20m. For rushes in particular I'd say early is within the first 0-3 minutes. Anything completed after that is very very likely to be scouted and has high chances of failing. An "early" HLT rush on trololo would probably happen within the first 1-10 seconds while a Scorcher rush on Red comet would probably happen in a minute. Of course the term can be stretched pretty far and probably has a slightly different meaning for every player. |
Thanks for the info, but what does HLT stand for?
+0 / -0
|
|
|
Skasi - the parts of GF's rewrite that are relevant to this discussion are: quote:
Do not take out your anger on other players. Do not swear at them, blame them for defeat or smack talk them.
[..]
Highly risky strategies or experimentation can disrupt the enjoyment of the game for the rest of your team. No strategy is banned, experimentation is part of Zero-K, but it is best to discuss risky experiments with your team prior to implementation. Do not take agency away from your teammates by gambling the game on a risky move without their consent. Moderately risky strategies may not require agreement, however, if your teammates object then perhaps it is to be avoided.
[..]
Play as if you mean to stick with your team until the end of the game. Do not embark on a risky gambit and resign if it fails as this is likely to make the game less fun for your teammates. If you do not want to play a full game then do not join a team that intends to play a full game. Resigning due to an early setback will frustrate your team as there is often still time to turn the game around. If, however, you feel you have played and lost a full game feel free to resign or start a team resign vote, do not spam votes. |
+1 / -0
|
@crazyeddie I completely agree with everything you said about fireman, I don't think I could have put it better. From my point of view, i'm genuinely trying to win every game in the best way I know how, generally I try to play to my strengths. I really don't want to see a culture shift where people determine some nefarious intention based on their choice of tactics.
+1 / -0
|
quote:
Heavy Laser Tower, aka Stinger: |
Thanks for the clarification.
+0 / -0
|
All this rage against people like sfireman or Firepluk. Excessive. Does sfireman even play anymore? There's also excessive labeling of players as this or that. Actual player skill and behavior varies significantly between games, both in manners and effectiveness. Players can be above average when playing "normally" but be average-ish or worse when trying stuff they like. In my case, I like to use different types of morphed commanders as front-line fighters, not just as a crutch for early expansion or a sink for extra resources, but as a one-bot-army. When I do it I'm usually less effective (especially if I'm hard-countered). Many "normal" strategies are actually high risk on ZK. Expensive sets of units can epically fail due to terraform or mechanics like disarm, stun, slow or placeholders, etc.. Commanders are just particularly prone to epic-failure in this game, and in many team games commander income makes for a significant chunk of the player's income.
+0 / -0
|
