Rise of Nations at Gamespy

Anybody tried playing Rise of Nations on Gamespy?

99% of the games are being played at normal, which is too fast (for me, anyway).

I think its mostly because it’s called “normal” speed. If they’d have named “Slow” normal, more people would play that way. One thinks if one plays on “Slow”, one must be a slow person. As in, dumb, stupid, mentally handicapped.

I could see where people might want to play a little faster than Slow. If there was a speed halfway in between Slow and Normal that might make for a pretty decent pace. As it is there’s “a little too slow” and “way too fast.”

When the game is played at the so-called Normal speed, for me it loses a lot of its personality and most of its nuance. In fact it seems to me that most of the people at Gamespy are playing it without much regard for things like sending merchants out to exploit rare resources, etc. They aren’t very good but if they can click twice as fast as you they might win. It isn’t much fun.

Here’s to slow people…

Gamespy sucks.

I wouldn’t want to play with complete strangers,but as far as the speed thing goes,a good compromise is to start on ‘normal’,and ramp it down to slow once you start making contact with the opposition.

Most players who are used to multiplayer gaming with the likes of AoM will find that RoN’s “normal” is actually a touch slower than normal. This is fine, however, as the game is a touch more complex, but if the speed was any slower, the multiplayer gamers would be complaining. One of the problems of multiplayer gaming is that you have to compromise in order to get games with other players - you can’t just demand your own settings. Also, the way multiplayer communities develop, they tend to fall upon a standard of settings in order to save time when organising games. Those who want different settings, however, can usually find opposition, they just have to put a bit more effort in, and be a bit more patient, than those prepared to make compromises in their demands in return for the additional fun that comes with sharing a game with other human beings.

On a side note, you shouldn’t assume that multiplayer twitch-kiddies, a group that I guess I belong to, don’t have a clue about the nuances of the game and just click-click-click while praying for victory. All multiplayer gamers worth their salt must learn the minutae of any game, or face being beaten by another player who learns and exploits it better than they do.

I’m not assuming anything. I’m describing what I see going on on Gamespy. They either don’t have a clue about the nuances of the game, or they’ve decided that it isn’t necessary to exploit those nuances to win.

So exploit the nuances yourself and whup them all. One thing that happens with multiplayer RTS is that you quickly find out how much of a given RTS is really important and how much of it is “filler”. If you can win by doing certain things 99% of the time, and those things ignore like 50% of the game, people will do it, which means the balance needs work.

For those that plan to play RTS online, you have to either spend a lot of time improving your skills or you have to find a group that’s willing to play at your level. In the end, if you’re willing to make the commitment to any RTS online, you’ll eventually be able to keep up with those playing with default settings. You just have to spend the time needed to improve your game.

–Dave

I’m not assuming anything. I’m describing what I see going on on Gamespy. They either don’t have a clue about the nuances of the game, or they’ve decided that it isn’t necessary to exploit those nuances to win.

You said:

“In fact it seems to me that most of the people at Gamespy are playing it without much regard for things like sending merchants out to exploit rare resources, etc. They aren’t very good but if they can click twice as fast as you they might win.”

You can’t have played most of the people on Gamespy, so you must be assuming that “most of the people” are the way you describe, based upon the few that you have. I have played literally thousands of multiplayer RTS games, and in general I find that most of the players I meet are very careful to learn every nuance of the game.

There are plenty of people out there who play multiplayer just for fun, because multiplayer is fun, but you are going to have to kiss quite a few ugly twitch-kiddies before you find your handsome fun loving prince.

Yes, but most players on this gaming networks are only interested in the ones that make them win that much faster.

Im sure if they could whip out 2 minute victories they would.

Give me a goddam break. You’re taking a figure of speech and interpreting it literally.

It goes without saying that I’m talking about the people I’ve seen playing on Gamespy.

As a matter of fact I just might have played most (literal interpretation: 50% or greater) of the people on Gamespy (literal interpretation: in the Rise of Nations lounges only), because there’s hardly anybody on there and I usually recognize quite a few of the names. Regardless I’ve played a sampling large enough to draw valid conclusions about the style of play being employed.

I’m afraid it doesn’t “go without saying” that you meant only the people you’ve been playing at Gamespy, you appeared to be making a broad generalisation. I think by “figure of speech” you mean sloppy English, because there was no “figure of speech”, like to paint the town red, in your statement. That’s not a problem, really, as sloppy English is the norm in forum chats, and I’m often guilty of it myself. However, if you are guilty of it, you shouldn’t chastise the other person for interpreting your words as they are written.

I also don’t think there is a chance in hell that you’ve played most of the people on Gamespy, and as your conclusions run counter to everything that I have experienced in all my time in multiplayer gaming, I suspect your sample is far too small to have drawn a reasonable conclusion.

Why don’t you come play me online and seem if this twitch-kiddie ignores the nuances ;).

Woohoo! A rumble!

No, my English was not sloppy. It was precise, but informal. No reasonable person would choose to interpret my stating that “it seems to me that most people on Gamespy” play in a certain manner would mean anything except that my experience, limited as all human experience is, suggests a certain state of affairs. Thus the conditional phrase with which I preceded the statement.

I believe if you had anything of actual interest to add (i.e., try “Unrated Room 7 for better players”), you would have volunteered it by now. Unless you are even more sociopathic than you’ve already indicated.

As for your dismissal of my suggestion that it isn’t impossible that I’ve played “most” of the people on Gamespy, once again I allowed my usage of sophisticated literary devices to slip into my correspondance with you, for which I apologize. I should be well aware that such hyperbole would go completely undetected by my intended audience. There’s little excuse for such – yes – sloppy English, even on the internet.

“cheers”

Your English wasn’t precise, otherwise it would have conveyed the exact meaning you intended. To be precise, and convey the meaning of “most people you have played” rather than “most people on Gamespy”, you would have had to include the additional context. If I said that “most Americans are assholes”, or “most French people stink of garlic”, one would reasonably assume that I was intending to tar the majority of Americans and French with the same brush (that’s a real “figure of speech”). You can euphemise your sloppy English as informal, if you like, but it most definitely is not precise, and thus you cannot blame the reader for failing to understand your meaning if it was different to that which it read.

No reasonable person would choose to interpret my stating that “it seems to me that most people on Gamespy” play in a certain manner would mean anything except that my experience, limited as all human experience is, suggests a certain state of affairs. Thus the conditional phrase with which I preceded the statement.

Of course I understood that you were basing your statement on limited experience, but it is not unreasonable of me to conclude that you are making a broad generalisation based upon that information, considering that your statement was a broad generalisation. Many people visit France, meet a few Parisians, and announce that the French are arrogant. It is common for many groups of people to be unfairly tarnished by generalisations based on limited experience, especially groups like the French, Americans and multiplayer gamers. Your statement would reasonably be read by anyone as being such. If you didn’t intend it to be read that way, then you need to be more careful with your words, and not correct the people who understand your statements exactly as they are written.

Considering that at every stage you have sought to escalate this argument, from unnecessarily correcting my polite rebuff of your generalisation, to your ad hominem attacks, you should consider who is really acting like the sociopath in this discussion.

No, actually that’s just poor writing.

If you wished to “tar the majority of Americans and French with the same brush” you’d have to accuse them both of stinking of garlic.

Since you claim to be such a stickler for language, we can’t let a little grammatical mishap like that pass unremarked, now can we?

Again you misunderstood me: I didn’t imply that you were acting like a sociopath, but rather that you are a sociopath, and while posting to an discussion board like this might be a sign of some sort of psychological abnormality, only lurking around, as you’ve done, waiting for an opportunity to express your free-floating hostility to the world, constitutes behavior that might be described as such.

As I said, I am often guilty of sloppy writing, but I am not one to accuse the other person of ignorance when they fail to understand my meaning because of it. You made a broad generalisation, which you then claimed you didn’t intend, and then blamed me when I understood your statement exactly as it was read. Rather than admit an error, albeit an extremely minor one, you became aggressively defensive, and accused me of being sociopathic. Again that is imprecise English, if you wanted me to understand you thought I was a sociopath, rather than simply sociopathic, you should have stated as such. I wouldn’t bother pointing that out normally, but if you insist on incorrectly correcting my comprehension, then I will defend myself.

Now you are accusing me of trolling, suggesting my only input to this site is to express my “free-floating hostility to the world”. Being as every one of my 80 or so posts have, up until this point, been nothing but friendly suggestions, queries, or responses to queries, your broad generalisation of my behaviour, based on a small number of posts, is as unfair as your original one. I guess that you will now argue that you didn’t say that, and that any reasonable person would be able to understand that you meant you were talking about only these few posts that you can see here. Even that argument, though, would be undermined by the clear fact that the first person to show open hostility here was you.

Would you both just shut the fuck up and stop this usenet-style feud? Christ, if you keep it up, I’ll just have to expect you both to have gay man-sex to relieve your pent-up homosexual urges from trolling each other so much.

Yeah you are right, met_k, my apologies. And my apologies also to Ignatius. I’m not sure what it is I did to upset you, but whatever it was, I am truly sorry. If you do actually want some gay man sex later, you can find me on Gamespy, twitching my mouse fingers, as gx_farmer.