| 1 |
"is it no the opposite?.. that the more fair the ballte the longer you have to ~ and the more you have need of ~ inovation"
|
1 |
"is it no the opposite?.. that the more fair the ballte the longer you have to ~ and the more you have need of ~ inovation"
|
| 2 |
Actually, any game that plays the same pushes against innovation. But the more steep the matchup is, the more it pushes the struggling player to make plays that truly make a difference in the game. Personally, I find games where I'm losing 100% of the time for 1 hours while still standing, is more fun than winning 99% of the time for 1 hour and... learning that I can quit, I guess.
|
2 |
Actually, any game that plays the same pushes against innovation. But the more steep the matchup is, the more it pushes the struggling player to make plays that truly make a difference in the game. Personally, I find games where I'm losing 100% of the time for 1 hours while still standing, is more fun than winning 99% of the time for 1 hour and... learning that I can quit, I guess.
|
| 3 |
That's my take. Sorry that I couldn't see your genuine question in the heat.
|
3 |
That's my take. Sorry that I couldn't see your genuine question in the heat.
|
|
|
4 |
\n
|
|
|
5 |
Oh, and I guess it's worth mentioning. It's the amount of time when the player is losing that matters. If he loses so hard that he loses in the 1st minute, it can make fun for different skirmishes but it doesn't necessarily push for different strategies. So, time AND variety, but variety that is interesting to observe. I personally find losing matchups to be an unexplored area of Zero-K that could be quite interesting, pushing to do the most with just the defender's advantage.
|
Opinion on "no spec cheat" rule?