I agree that the coordination (or the lack of coordination) between individual players can be annoying for the players in game, but I would argue that it can't be solved without the introduction of some capable player who will have a role similar to general commander in the real armies, who will coordinate all the other players on his team and whose authority all the other players will respect. That's why all the armies since the dawn of time had clear system of authority in the army command, so the lack of coordination doesn't happen when it's a matter of life and death. Take for example the
battle of Philippi, which I think it's one of the best historical examples of a lobsterpot moment in a real battle, when individual generals on each side have the same authority, but completely lack coordination and the outcome of the battle depends almost on luck. The problems in the battle of Philippi could be easily solved if either of sides had some capable general with supreme authority, like Caesar or Pompey, but they were already dead so the less capable generals took over the command and fought like players in Zero-K do today, without any sort of coordination. The same problems in Zero-K could be solved with in the introduction of Caesar-like general player in game, but that sort of thing would suck out all the fun in playing the game for the vast majority of people. And given that Zero-K TAW is just a game, and not a matter of life and death like the real battles are, I think it would be better if we just focused on the fun the game gives. Now I know that someone will say that losing ranks because of incapable lobsters is not fun. Fun has different meanings for different people, and winning is just another, arguably smaller element of fun for some of us. I think
SmokeDragon had addresed it very well in his earlier posts:
quote:
friendship is woth allot to allot of people. they are less interessted in getting to the top of a mountain.. and more interested in walking casual with friends. with having fun being a flexible and les competative notion. |
quote:
i know im not the only one who hates my own pride.. if i win too many games i can feel my demons grining.. i dont like to feed that part of myself. i feel that if i can loose and be happy then im winning in ways that are much more important. i dont want to forget we are all friends and equals.. and it will never be my idea of fun to stand tall over others. |
I feel the same way exactly. Some years ago I played chess a lot, sunk a lot of time into studying moves and even attained some actual ranking. I achieved a level where I could easily beat pretty much anyone who didn't actually train chess, and a lot of players around me who trained it. But I quickly found out that nobody of my friends wants to play with me anymore. So I stopped playing chess almost completely, because making my friends feel slighted isn't what I enjoy. No meaningless rank number will change that. I also trained muay thai until recently, and it also felt very bad when I realized that nobody of my friends wants to spar with me anymore, because I guess I advanced faster than them. Had many other similar experiences too. But I am not here to pointlessly brag about myself, I am genuinely trying to say that for many players just interactions with other people are what makes the game so fun for them, not just Zero-K but many other things in life too, and without those the enjoyment of the said thing collapses. As
SmokeDragon said,
quote:
its all about the bond they have with each other and winning a game is just icing on a cake. |
I am aware that not everyone is like this, but I think it all just boils down to what kinds of experiences we had through the life and we are now projecting those on Zero-K. I would appreciate if anyone else could share their viewpoints on this topic too.
