Your reading comprehension could use a lot of work. I never said it sucks in civ. I said it works well in Civ (which, btw, is not even an RTS). If you had put as much effort into thinking critically about the idea as you did into attacking me, you'd have quickly come to several conclusions:Bennis- wrote:Why the hostility?
I can provide an analysis:
A thread is being opened with a new, interesting and challenging idea about a new game mode and a tournament around said game mode.
The game mode is the idea of playing unexplored maps with fog of war, which puts emphasis on scouting before acting and would most likely result in either chaos or think before play or scout before play styles and would overall favor smart or adaptive individuals (like myself)
you then enter the thread and make the following statement:
I dont think that the game mode is a good idea, because I (a person without any merit to their name to make a value statement) play (insert a completely irrelevant RTS) and in this RTS your game mode (decribed in a way that makes clear you didnt understand what this thread is about) tends to suck (without any analysis as to why you believe it is a bad idea)
I dont know its just so completely hilarious and triggering beyond repair that I had to laugh very loud and had to make my ironic post.
You can kill me for it. but since you asked why the hostility, I provided you an honest and from my view complete answer.
- Unexplored map is pointless unless nobody knows the map
- The only way to ensure nobody knows the map is to make it random
- Random maps in RTSes are not good (if they were good, they wouldn't be a completely unused feature of FAF and a non-existent one in basically every other RTS ever)
- Thus, the idea has serious hurdles to cross before being viable
Nowhere did I say the idea was not interesting or even promising, only that I question whether the conditions exist for it to really shine. But hey, if you just want to keep drinking haterade and tooting your own out-of-tune horn, I can't stop you.
