Explore GameReplays...

Supreme Commander

Poita_'s vs Eshez

#31PaRaSiTe_X92  Feb 22 2007, 20:39 PM -
Replays: 0 Game:
Well I've posted on the GPG forum and no response yet. sad.gif

But it's not players quitting, I know that much. Maybe it'll be fixed in the patch? biggrin.gif
#32Strages  Feb 22 2007, 20:59 PM -
Replays: 10 Game:
QUOTE(Rienzilla @ Feb 22 2007, 02:50 AM) *

You are assuming here that some strategy exists which is actually better than the offcom strategy. In the case where such a strategy does not exist, your reasoning is incorrect.

Compare it to a game of tic-tac-toe. If both players in tic-tac-toe play the perfect strategy, all games will end in a draw. Following your reasoning, both players do not want a draw, but they want a win, so a player should deviate from the perfect strategy in order to win. However, there is no way to win a tic-tac-toe game against a perfect opponent, hence deviating from the perfect strategy only opens up a chance to lose.


I see and understand your point, but this isn't a game of tic-tac-toe. What you're likening this to is a Prisoner's Dilemma and you're pointing out the nash equilibrium, where both players have no incentive to change their behavior (they both use OffComm's because it is the "best" strategy), unfortunately this makes everyone worse off and is a short-run outcome. There is actually a strategy that will guarantee the highest win total in this type of scenario. Robert Axelrod from the University of Michigan actually proved that avoiding cheating in a prisoners dilemma (in this case, using an OffComm would be "cheating"... or also trusting others not to cheat) is actually a better strategy than cheating (which will cause a nash equilibrium to occur... there is a specific strategy that works best, but many will work better than cheating). In the long-run, not cheating will become the dominant choice amongst players.
#33Spinewire  Feb 22 2007, 21:40 PM -
Replays: 4 Game:
QUOTE(Strages @ Feb 22 2007, 08:59 PM) *

In the long-run, not cheating will become the dominant choice amongst players.


Those players wont be at the top of the ladder...


Anyway you can't OC and death nuke each other now, so offcom has the risk of com death without the "plan B" of forcing draws if things go pair shaped.
#34AngryZealot  Feb 22 2007, 22:54 PM -
Replays: 10 Game:
Awards:
QUOTE(Spinewire @ Feb 22 2007, 03:40 PM) *

Those players wont be at the top of the ladder...
Anyway you can't OC and death nuke each other now, so offcom has the risk of com death without the "plan B" of forcing draws if things go pair shaped.

Yeah... I'm kind of torn about it. On one hand, offensive commander is even stronger than before at destroying outlying mexes. However, if you bring him too far into enemy territory, the enemy will be able to bring reinforcements faster. If he gets you low enough he can run up with his comm to finish you off and survive the blast. It's a step in the right direction (some slight risk to absurd behavior), but I don't think it's quite enough yet. You'll still get annoying stalemates sad.gif.

On the other hand, I'm thrilled that flagrant combombing is gone smile.gif. You can still force a draw if you've got the backup to do it, but you can't send a single transport at a lone commander anymore.
#35Poita_  Feb 23 2007, 03:14 AM -
Replays: 7 Game:
Awards:
QUOTE
I see and understand your point, but this isn't a game of tic-tac-toe. What you're likening this to is a Prisoner's Dilemma and you're pointing out the nash equilibrium, where both players have no incentive to change their behavior (they both use OffComm's because it is the "best" strategy), unfortunately this makes everyone worse off and is a short-run outcome. There is actually a strategy that will guarantee the highest win total in this type of scenario. Robert Axelrod from the University of Michigan actually proved that avoiding cheating in a prisoners dilemma (in this case, using an OffComm would be "cheating"... or also trusting others not to cheat) is actually a better strategy than cheating (which will cause a nash equilibrium to occur... there is a specific strategy that works best, but many will work better than cheating). In the long-run, not cheating will become the dominant choice amongst players.


I'm sorry but you are just wrong; I don't know an easier way to put it. You are assuming that if both sides use offensive commanders then the game will always end with a draw. This is not the case so your argument is baseless. Also, use of an offensive commander is not a binary variable, there are different degrees of the use of an offensive commander; it's not as simple as "he does or he doesn't".

I understand what you are saying but unfortunately it doesn't apply to this situation. People will keep using offensive commander to different degrees as long as it gives an advantage.
#36Thygrrr  Feb 23 2007, 11:26 AM -
Replays: 0 Game:
I'm pretty sure people overrate the offensive commander a lot. Yes, it's quite powerful. But I feel it's an integral part of gameplay on small maps. I do think the targeting priority issue is the main problem, if at all, the commander is just a supreme meatshield that will skew the balance of battles whereever it's present.

Not using your ACU in battle would be like not using your WC3 hero in battle. HE HAS A FRICKEN GUN, DAMMIT!

I think offensive ACUs will go out of fashion once people devise tactics against it. Yes, it could use a little tweaking (and it got that in 3127), and maybe a little more, too, but ultimately, the ACU is fine in its function.

This post has been edited by Thygrrr: Feb 23 2007, 11:27 AM
#37FFAxPostal  Feb 23 2007, 18:44 PM -
Replays: 0
Has anyone considered maybe asking if they would increase the build power of the commander?

In TA if a commander leaves his base, to go running around for extractors the main loss is the fact that he's not building. The opposing player can counter a walking commander by leaving his commander at home and building more units than the walking commander can.


To apply to supcom, if a player sees a walking commander they will be able to respond effectively by either building more units faster, or upgrading extractors and whatnot to outproduce them. The idea being that there will be more of an incentive to keep the commander at home rather than sending him on a stroll.

That way: "Thy commander is a peacemaker and a builder, not a warrior."

And front line commanderin' becomes a strategy of desparation rather than one of necessity.


#38Flynn  Feb 24 2007, 21:22 PM -
Replays: 45 Game:
I knew there was another reason why it wasn't so common in T.A., other than him having 1/10th of the hitpoints.
Reply to Comment