High-oil maps in list of pre-installed maps?

[crab_]

What's a "dynamic"? What sort of techs and tank designs you see underused on low oil?

Most low-oil games last for first 10-20 minutes with end of twin mg + rocket pods.
e.g. artillery never used on low oil, execpt few cases when in FFA you got 3-4 enemy bases.
So in my taste dynamic of high-oil is better.
On low-oil if i see enemy captured 2 more oil i feel myself as i lost game already.
So on low-oil is pointless to continue game if you lost your army or lost oil derricks, except few cases when you doing tech rush.
That's all is just my IMHO.

Also, on low you can take quitter's oil; on high you actually loose a player.

I can say in low-oil games team of 3 players stronger than team of 4 players with same amount of oil.

Well, seriously? You believe that, for example, classic music and pop music is "all the same, someone likes this, someone likes that", and musical tastes of people who can hardly repeat their favorite melody should be "targeted" by any respected musician, without turning away his current audience? Of course there are little formal criteria in art, but 99% of the time you can easily see what sort of taste is "above". And whenever i hear that "tastes cannot be discussed", i instantly understand person who says things like that is not worth talking to at all, he just instantly ignores any reasoning by saying that.

This kind of argumentation is not good because you can use this argumentation to proof anything you like.
You said high-oil games are dull and tasteless, what reasoning here can be?

Well, high oil is quite different from medium oil, isn't it?

No much different.

We're currently in a situation when "beautiful" and "popular" are mutually excluding.

Agreed. For my taste FireFight map is enough beatiful.

Including ugly stuff in the base game installation is clearly a wrong way of solving this issue.

Agreed. But i think some medium oil or high-oil maps can be included.

[themac]

themac wrote:
What's a "dynamic"? What sort of techs and tank designs you see underused on low oil?

I did not write that. O.o

[Rommel]

I think when people speak about "high oil" they mainly mean "unlimited oil" and "instantly". In this case, "high oil" is the same like cheating. Today they like to get unlimited oil immediately, tomorrow they like to get units with unlimited ammo and power and so on. And this doesn´t make any sense in terms of "play"...

When people speak about High Oil as you are it seems to me that there is a distinct lack of understanding of what a high oil game actually is (btw the last time I checked ammo is unlimited in low oil as well).

Unlimited Oil = No
Instantly = No

A good multi-tasker will mostly be on the verge of running out of oil throughout most of the game, a bad multitasker will be dead.

You still need to research and research wisely, this is far from instant.

There is also the arty game that makes it awesome - I have yet to play a low oil game where artillery has played a significant part... most low oil players would probably never have seen an arch angel missile battery, or fortresses in a game...

Most low oil games I have played end up in an MG rush with a few rocket pods floating around - defenses? A few walls and maybe some vanilla mortars that is about it, boring and un-stimulating. But hey, like I said before, each to their own!

People talk about hi oil games being easy for noobs... not really, only against other noobs maybe - put a noob amongst pros and he will not fare well and probably cause his team to lose. Yes some games are fast, yet at times when the teams are evenly matched you can end up with an epic game that really pushes the game engine to it's limit, really showcases what the game features to the fullest...

I am not here to argue, and it doesn't really matter if a hi oil map is shipped or not, they will soon be downloaded in multiplayer as that is about all people are playing these days.

In the end if there is no way to come to an agreement it might be better off forking the project, although with such a tiny community and development base it would be better if the one project could cater to both types of game. I guess the real question without the bickering and thinly veiled insults would be to discuss whether it is indeed possible to cater to both game types in the one codebase or encourage the Hi Oil community to fork the project to be more inline with their needs.

[themac]

Well, when we are talking about "high oil maps" we don´t speak about 8 oil derricks in your base instead of four, or 20 oil derricks scattered around the map? We are talking about maps with 30 oil derricks in your base?

[Rommel]

Well, when we are talking about "high oil maps" we don´t speak about 8 oil derricks in your base instead of four, or 20 oil derricks scattered around the map? We are talking about maps with 30 oil derricks in your base?

Sometimes more than 30 derricks Even then, power is not infinite, and you will find that the majority of Hi Oil players would not want "infinite oil" anyway. There are some maps that are geared towards infinite oil, yet they are not so popular.

Most hi oil games involve starting with 4+ trucks with the requirement that you build your entire base as well as derricks - starting with the beginning allowance of oil. You still need to manage everything and hi oil is not the easy / cheat method that many here are implying. The game takes real skill, is very much team orientated and quite exciting.

At this stage in my life I do not really have the patience to bother memorizing obscure maps as well micromanaging trucks at many different locations on a map. I prefer to get to the action fast, to use the tech that comes with advanced research like ripple rockets, groundshakers as well as units like scourge and seraphim and even lasers (something I have NEVER encountered in a low oil game).

There is also the massed units, seeing two large armies in battle with artillery raining down is very exiting for me - also the combat strategy, when to move forward, how far - using cyborg screens for rocket units or trying to smash thru everything with 50+ Twin AC units, building massed arty with trucks (then enjoying the cunning sensor tactics that ensue), I really love the hi oil game - it is what makes WZ my favorite game of all time.

Even in light of the above I would never say that Low Oil games have no place just because I don't like them, each to their own is my opinion both styles have their followers and in the end even if someone likes low oil better (or hi oil), they are still playing WZ and this is what is important. The main thing for me is that both styles of game be respected and catered to in regards to balance - something that is no where near as impossible as many would make it out to be (or would maybe like it to be).

[montetank]

With pleasure I follow this discussion and i can say-both sides are somehow right. The world won`t going to end, if we include this high-oil maps, Rommel.
And the firefight-map is very good, crab. To manage the high-oil-maps - i am speaking about this 30+ derricks in the base-is not so difficult, Rommel. After 3 sessions-no problems. It is always the same pattern...
Ok-most players like this high-oil maps-to see archangels work and to build railguntanks.

But is that really all of it?

The esthetic and the balance is the decisive criterion for a good stratetic game.
I am GM in Chess (Elo 2570) and i know what i am speaking about. So i must agree with NoQ-let us create high-oil maps that look better. Islands 8 from NoQ is a good example. A map, which includes all.
But as a democrat i have to accept what will happend.

I am glad about the fact, that there is no standstil in this discussion.

Greetings from Montenegro

PS. My friend Duda from Austria has promised me a Montenegro-Map. Including all: Rockys-a big lake-forrest...
I am still waiting

[Rommel]

Montetank, while I agree with most of what you saying, I must politely beg to differ in regards to the following statement you made:

Ok-most players like this high-oil maps-to see archangels work and to build railguntanks.

This is like saying most players who play and like low-oil maps do so because they don't enjoy the game at higher levels of researched technology. I feel strongly that there are much more compelling reasons as to why people play their own preferred style of game and not so much the other.

[NoQ]

Most low oil games I have played end up in an MG rush with a few rocket pods floating around - defenses? A few walls and maybe some vanilla mortars that is about it, boring and un-stimulating. But hey, like I said before, each to their own!

At this stage in my life I do not really have the patience to bother memorizing obscure maps as well micromanaging trucks at many different locations on a map. I prefer to get to the action fast, to use the tech that comes with advanced research like ripple rockets, groundshakers as well as units like scourge and seraphim and even lasers (something I have NEVER encountered in a low oil game).

Sounds like "i've played 3.5 low oil games, have been defeated by at most twin machineguns with a few rocket pods, and that's why i hate low oil" ...
Also, this guy seems to be unaware that lasers are an easier tech than seraphs.

I can say in low-oil games team of 3 players stronger than team of 4 players with same amount of oil.

You have to admit it's not as much stronger as on max oil. For the reason mentioned above: you have less oil on high oil, same oil on low oil, and hardly any other differences.

This kind of argumentation is not good because you can use this argumentation to proof anything you like.

You said high-oil games are dull and tasteless, what reasoning here can be?

And that i hear from a person that says any reasoning at all is impossible. No thanks, go fix your reasoning first.

Most low-oil games last for first 10-20 minutes with end of twin mg + rocket pods.
e.g. artillery never used on low oil, execpt few cases when in FFA you got 3-4 enemy bases.
So in my taste dynamic of high-oil is better.
On low-oil if i see enemy captured 2 more oil i feel myself as i lost game already.
So on low-oil is pointless to continue game if you lost your army or lost oil derricks, except few cases when you doing tech rush.

All right, rommel can say crap, he's still to play his first game after all, but have you forgotten all the games we played?
Sorry guys, but, looking at the way you behave here, i will in no longer support high oil. Neither by playing, nor by word.

[crab_]

Sounds like "i've played 3.5 low oil games, have been defeated by at most twin machineguns with a few rocket pods, and that's why i hate low oil" ...
Also, this guy seems to be unaware that lasers are an easier tech than seraphs.

Rommel did not said he hates low-oil.

but have you forgotten all the games we played?

Note: i meant team games.
games 1v1 and 2v2 are better on low oil.
But i think games 4x4 and 5x5 are played better on high oil, not sure

i will in no longer support high oil. Neither by playing, nor by word.

I dont understand. This sounds weird for me.

[Rommel]

All right, rommel can say crap, he's still to play his first game after all, but have you forgotten all the games we played?
Sorry guys, but, looking at the way you behave here, i will in no longer support high oil. Neither by playing, nor by word.

-1 Flamebait

[Rman Virgil]

.

So much I can get into going all the way back to MPlayer. But I will restrict myself to what I've thought a promising solution for a number years and even did an experimental implementation in XOOPS (not an optimal choice for game integration, but not being a software engineer, it served as a proof of concept effort).

Now, first an insight that is critically relevant but has not yet entered the discussion.

Different tastes also reflect different dispositions, temperments, mind-sets and even personalities. Some of this is in-turn grounded in neuro hard-wireing, more often goes down the path of emotion than pure reason, and the differences fundamentally irreconciliable.

That said, the solution I'm about to propose does not involve reconciling differences or arriveing at compromises or forking the game or proving superior powers of deduction / induction or rationally demonstrating an inherently superior game construct.

What is needed is an efficacious construct that matches and brings together the like minded in tastes (temperment & personality, etc.) and each within their own comfortable cyber setting, a fellowship among already acknowledged peers.

Basically, the MP Gaming equivalent of an online dating service. (The defined variable matrix for making compatible match-ups and matches would be far simpler for WZ MP than what is constructed to make romantic connections, I dare say, having constructed one in XOOPS for WZ MP years ago on the defunct wztoys site.)

Sounds funny, I know. Carnal jokes come to mind as well.... but I'm gonna refrain from going stand-up comic because even those jokes could be construed as insults and indicating a core bias. Don't wanna side-track a purely positive gambit here.

Anyway, that's the short of it having decided to leave out all the particular experiences and stories
starting from MPlayer almost 15 years ago...

.

[NoQ]

-1 Flamebait

Of course. You know very well how much i enjoy reading your posts. I couldn't resist the temptation of making you write a few more

Rommel did not said he hates low-oil.

He said enough insulting crap about it.

I dont understand. This sounds weird for me.

There's been a number of times when i supported some initiative, or even simply didn't care, and then regretted badly. Simply because other people supporting it turned out to be highly inadequate and harmed this community, and i felt responsible for that. It's obvious for me that some players may leave when they see a high oil map included. So, even though i am able to enjoy it, i'd rather refrain than see another forum-wide flame war. That was my last word on the subject.

[Rommel]

It's obvious for me that some players may leave when they see a high oil map included.

And I am the one talking crap? OMG they included a high oil map with the latest release of WZ! That's it for me, I will never play this game again!

[NoQ]

If they include a high oil map with the latest release of WZ, that's it for me, i will never play this game again.

[Rman Virgil]

.

Exactly how the choice is made of which high oil maps(s) to include in the distro, is where peeps will zone in on. Have I missed a proposed methodology ?

Folks that detest high-oil will simply not play them and perhaps some way of identifying them in the UI should be given consideration.

As for NoQ's point -

It has precident in the original retail community and Mplayer. Not ridiculous. Let me clarify.

WZ MP was played for quite some time without high oil maps because they didn't exist. They didn't because Pumpkin was absolutely adamant for a long time about not releasing the map editor. They thought doing so would unleash a Pandora's box..... and in a sense, it did, within weeks of its release which also coincided with Eidos decision to pull the plug on the game.

The "popularity" of High Oil was by default in that it drove all other players who prefered other map types away. What actually happened was not that the so called "popularity" soared through the roof and saved the game. Quite the opposite. WZ MP became a ghost town eventually from the days of hundreds of matches hosted daily. (I was there... and on staff.)

The High Oil players had it all to themselves, with the full MP support of a terrific client for its day, and yet they too drifted away, did not grow the community, keep the game alive or participate in the 6 year liberation efforts (with the notable exceptions of 4nE and Cowboy).

Now there is something in that dynamic that is still in play. Not in the sense that it would damage the community as it exists today but rather that it is thoroughly incapable of growing MP numbers, diversity and the total fan base.... ergo, the point of my first post.
.