Am I The Only One Who...

Same argument every time.

What I am saying is that it is aganst the spirit of the game, the point is you will.

But there is little point discussing this with someone like you becuse the reason you play is to win at any cost and thus you and me will never agree.

Maybe, for me perfect game is one, that is really hard from both sides, there's good teamplay and winning it is something big. That's fun. Ofcors there are those things like big battles, big units, nuclear explosions etc. That's fun in fun game, so even more fun! Sandbox play can be fun... but only for a while.

What's fun for you then? Not winning? Being "good" for each other?

Fun for me is a good battle stretching on from 30 mins.

No one dies to a rushing tactic, but from being totally destroyed by an opponent, an victory that is earned on the battlefield with blood.

We might make it to late game tech, we might not dependong on the mood but one thing for sure is the battlefield ends up as a wasteland of the dead where our armys have clashed and our bases have fallen.

Thats fun to me, the meat of the game the mid section where a quick fast attack means thowing 50 units, not 5.

Well, battles like this are up to players in game, not to rush strategy. You can start with rush, and like I said, from scrap from enemy and our units, make better units. Not using rush in game is not using some part of game. People can delete early rush by "norush" in FA, but thats still rush for best eco.

Ps. You can't win with 5 units. Good rush have many units, 50+ units after 4-7 min of game is possible, with many land fac and good starting eco.

I don't have a problem with players rushing to say: Kill some eco, kill a engineer or to obtain map control.

But with players rushing to kill the enemys commander and win the game.

Yeah it migh remove some rushing stratigy from the game, but considering that otherwise it would essentually cut out the rest of the game I don't belive that it is a bad trade.

The idea of 'not using a part of the game' would mean that it was intended for you to win like this, and that is abhorrent to me and my idea of the game.

SO thats why I can't agree with it.

I am a rusher. I love rushing. It takes down their economy, forces them to waste resources to build defenses, and keeps them on one area. Unfortunately, almost everyone I play considers rushing to be for noobs, and I get an earful of Sware words almost every time. personally I think that people need to stop complaining about rushes. (No saying anyone here is)

I never rush to kill the commander, by if I see that he doesn't have a single defense, and no factory with a commander put in the open then I will kill it and its their fault for not protecting it.

People saying its a **** move to rush, and saying its not in the spirit of the game... I seriously do not get you.

Has that ever been possible? The Comm has always been a pretty tough guy. At least, it isn't the kind of unit to die to a few tanks.

The TA variant is more of a glass cannon, while the Supcom type is more of a pinata. Either way was pretty tough to deal with.

Ditto.

Ditto meaning you agree or...

That I also don't get you.

We are the same in our ability to understand eachothers viewpoint.

Any time you finish a game and think "Wow I was totally unprepared for that attack", it means you're doing something wrong. Unfortunately some people don't like admitting that, so they cry "You only won because you are bad/morally wrong/unsportsmanlike and you rushed me!"

THAT BEING SAID:

Wanting to turtle up and have huge defenses against overwhelming forces, and use the really big guns and such can very well be a perfectly valid game style - it's just not one that mixes with certain game settings (1v1, smaller maps).

So you don't like rushing because its against the spirit of the game? And that if my opponent has no defenses at 3 minutes I should be a gentlemen an let him build up his base before I attack him?

Firstly if you are able to win the game from 3 mins in then the commander is a poorly designed unit.

And secondly I don't like rushing because it cuts out 80% of the game.

These games are all about their big armys and huge scale but that doent happen when you rush.

But as I sad to xanoxis, this discussion if futile becuse I will never accept his/your position towards rushing.

Saying that rushing cuts out 80% of the game is like saying that bombers cut out 80% of the game.

If you were defeated by a rush, you cut out 80% of the game.

So it was my fault that I lost becuse of rushing?

Not his fault that he won because of rushing?

Or are we just looking at this from a perspective that suits us the most?

Its easy to say that player skill would compensate for this, but to compleatly ignore gameplay reasons and even design reasons as to why this could be a problem is just streight up bias.

If you were killed by bombers, it's your fault for not building AA.

I don't see how not building early defences is any different.

Yes.

There's no fault in winning. Congratulations are in order for the victor.

That's what I am homing in on.

If you don't build PD immedietly, its ok becuse a commanders main weapon and speical weapon (Overcharge/D-Gun) can deal with the threat immedietly and effectivly, so effectivly in fact that your commander can be used as a extreamly effective support unit.

But if your enemy builds even a single bomber, your commander is screwed.

How do you deal with it? Build aa....ow right the bomber simply kills the aa and another bomber arrives to support the first....welp your dead becuse there is bugger all you can do.


Dedicated defences are expecive and take a lot of time to build in the early game (As to prevent a turrest rush) so building them is very hard to do.

AA unit's are a good alternitive right? Not in SupCom as even the superior cybran AA with it's homing darts struggles to take down even a single bomber....actually a single bomber can kill an AA unit right? becuse thats retarded.


So what do we need?

Firstly for people not to get their pantys in a bunch when people talk about changing the early game of PA, they seem to think even a similar change will kill off a massive part of the game (And that's funny to me)

But properly the commander needs a proper and highly effective AA weapon to not only repel enemy aircraft but to also be as effective as their anti-ground counterpart at pushing back and killing units.
Preventing an air rush from promply ending the game becuse the player didn't immedietly build an AA defence.

Hey here's a radical idea, why don't you say at the beginning of the match; "can we make this a slower, more deliberate game? I'm not up for anything super cutthroat."

Because I have been on the internet long enough to know that you can never trust anybody from the internet.

Rts games consist of early game, middle game, and end game. You seem to prefer the end game, but you cannot get there unless you can survive the early game (rushes).

A game is much more exciting when someone rushes and then the other person continuously holds them off/attacks for thirty minutes, and than you get massive armies and units. If you agree not to rush then the 30 minute late game feels artificial since you didn't really deserve it.