Generals 2

Blog: Command and Conquer Needs Good Execution, Not Innovation

Reply to this topic Start new topic
# 21Ishaia Feb 12 2012, 20:28 PM
Only one man can get the top spot every time. Grouping into sharing that top spot in order to keep real rivals from getting that top spot is a strategy to ensure you can get it.
In addition profit from the winnings.

In almost all sports you can't exclude agreements being made between players. In Elo it is just easier if the host doesn't do something about it.



To make an understandable example with a fictional country we will call Malkavia: Take that a lot of Malkavian players are participating in the ladder, all are in the same time zone and all speak the Malkavian language. They are all good but not quite good enough to reach top level, one of them suggests: "Hey if we let one of us get free wins at the end of the tournament from all 60 of us he'll get a huge amount of elo points and not enough time for the better players to compete against our candidate, next season we'll get another player, heck if we do it right we could get at least 5 players of us in the top 10."

Edit: I used a fictional country so I won't appear racist but some countries have it easier as others.
And that is how this system came into existence and this is why EA needs to use ingenious coding to prevent this kind of agreements.

Posts: 23

Game: Generals 2

+
# 22AgmLauncher Feb 12 2012, 20:34 PM
QUOTE
Only one man can get the top spot every time. Grouping into sharing that top spot in order to keep real rivals from getting that top spot is a strategy to ensure you can get it.


Ok except that's not consistent with reality - in that that kind of behavior never happened in C&C 3 or RA3, because there was literally no point to doing so. Players didn't help each other "share" the top spot. And there was no prize money involved anyway. The prize money came from an end-of-season tournament.

Posts: 39,117

Clan: CrAzY

Game: Generals 2

+
# 23Ishaia Feb 12 2012, 20:47 PM
I'm not saying it did happen, I'm saying it could happen and that is why EA could have implemented checks that could avoid behavior like this resulting in the broken code.
For EA it is better to avoid whining on their own automated tournament system being corrupted making this very plausible.
Chances of EA getting in legal problems for a system they can prove works: inexistent.
Chances on getting in problems over the effects of human nature: real.

Posts: 23

Game: Generals 2

+
# 24DetriusXii Mar 23 2012, 18:55 PM
I just want to point out that many members on TeamLiquid.net consider Armies of Exigo the spiritual successor to StarCraft 1. It had a single player storyline, it had decent amounts of micromanagement, and an economy. It may be in an even better balance state than StarCraft 2 could hope to achieve. But it didn't take off and game reviewers ended up harping on the game for not being unique enough and that it was a WarCraft clone (which was odd as it played more like StarCraft than WarCraft 3)

Game reviewers can end up working against the game if they don't get their mythical innovation. The game designer needs to have a media role pushing their game and it's why hacks like Chris Taylor can become successful advertising his games (like when he said there has never been a true real time strategy game and that he has magically designed one). In the Armies of Exigo case, game reviewers that didn't have much experience with RTS were able to claim that Armies of Exigo wasn't innovative enough and they were pushing their views as if they represented the multiplayer community.

RTS game reviewers can't detect good execution. They don't spend too much time on any game, they usually don't have a history with the RTS genre, and they don't have the time play multiplayer and understand game mechanics before their review comes out. But they can determine if a game is commercial success.

Posts: 48

+
# 25AgmLauncher Mar 24 2012, 07:25 AM
Yes, it's incredibly sad unfortunately. In reality, a game (any game) is not something you can review until you've put in at least 1000 hours of play, and really explored the gameplay mechanics. And of course, multiplayer is the only context in which the nature of gameplay mechanics truly reveal themselves.

Posts: 39,117

Clan: CrAzY

Game: Generals 2

+
# 26Adisuki Mar 24 2012, 16:14 PM
QUOTE(DetriusXii @ Mar 23 2012, 20:55 PM) *

Armies of Exigo

I loved that game. Really really loved it, but it just didn't take off.

The difference between G2 and AoE is that this one has a history already - a crowd of fans that will emulate even other fans to buy it. I even think AoE would be more successful today than it was back then.

I miss that game.

Posts: 292

Game: Generals 2

+
# 27player69 Mar 29 2012, 15:27 PM
RA2 matching filter on Xwis works fine. Was playing a few games earlier and despite the game being dead (~70 people online) found match pretty quickly.

Think it's just +/- 300pts.

Posts: 1,075

Game: Red Alert 3

+
# 28OceanicDrought Mar 31 2012, 14:39 PM
Armies of Exigo did not take off because EA was realising BfME at that time. AoX was barely marketed in any way. EA even shut down the server after only several months despite the fact that many people still played it (500-1000 people online on average IIRC). Black Hole Games (the developers) even admitted how "reluctant" EA was in some interview, I believe.

AoX was indeed good, felt much more StarCraft-esque than SC2. There still is (or at least used to be a year ago, haven't played it since then) an active Polish server with quite a few foreigners, with around 100 people in peak times. On TL there's a guide on how to connect to it (you need a Polish AoX client, you can choose English language though).

Posts: 3,931

Game: Blizzard

+

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)