Most low-oil games last for first 10-20 minutes with end of twin mg + rocket pods.NoQ wrote:What's a "dynamic"? What sort of techs and tank designs you see underused on low oil?
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.
I can say in low-oil games team of 3 players stronger than team of 4 players with same amount of oil.NoQ wrote:Also, on low you can take quitter's oil; on high you actually loose a player.
This kind of argumentation is not good because you can use this argumentation to proof anything you like.NoQ wrote: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.
You said high-oil games are dull and tasteless, what reasoning here can be?
No much different.NoQ wrote:Well, high oil is quite different from medium oil, isn't it?
Agreed. For my taste FireFight map is enough beatiful.NoQ wrote:We're currently in a situation when "beautiful" and "popular" are mutually excluding.
Agreed. But i think some medium oil or high-oil maps can be included.NoQ wrote:Including ugly stuff in the base game installation is clearly a wrong way of solving this issue.