This is in response to the cowardly honor system some want to instill into my online gaming experience. I guess I will have to set up the "real man code", for those of us who don't make excuses everytime we lose, and are willing to accept different strategies then our own and learn from them. There will be no complaining in these games, only competition at a high level. Obviously any bugs in the game will be discussed and we will work around them, but we will not take peoples strategies away from them. Basically, "the real man code" is for real men, who don't complain everytime they lose and make excuses. I realize those who join these games will be few and far between, but my experience will be much more enjoyable due to the lack of crying after every game.
Real men don't have codes, now kindly put away your Captain Crunch decoder ring.
maybe you dont understand but you dont need to use the honor system, its for members of the board who want to use it. No one is making anyone use it. but perhaps theres a compromise here, Im a pretty good Ambassador so heres my idea, 2 codes, the honor code for those who want a moderate and relaxed game, basically for newbies and those who dont find such advanced tactics fun early in the game and then a Hardcore System where anything goes like rushing, or droid slaughtering and such and when creating rooms on the zone or gamespy for the forum members here to join just name it Honor Code or Hardcore, then everyone is happy, what do everyone think about this solution?
I think some clarification is in order.
The Senate will host tournaments in the future.
Tournaments have rules.
These rules are not set, and we don't envision any specific rules right now.
The forum is the place to discuss this.
We asked for people's input on that.
It's happening.
:cool:
That's all basically.
Originally posted by Dvlos
Real men don't have codes, now kindly put away your Captain Crunch decoder ring.
My post was being sarcastic man
Originally posted by LordQuiGonJinn
maybe you dont understand but you dont need to use the honor system, its for members of the board who want to use it. No one is making anyone use it. but perhaps theres a compromise here, Im a pretty good Ambassador so heres my idea, 2 codes, the honor code for those who want a moderate and relaxed game, basically for newbies and those who dont find such advanced tactics fun early in the game and then a Hardcore System where anything goes like rushing, or droid slaughtering and such and when creating rooms on the zone or gamespy for the forum members here to join just name it Honor Code or Hardcore, then everyone is happy, what do everyone think about this solution?
I agree with that, I like it. My initial complain was with people who say resources should be used for armies, not towers. Who are these peopole to decide that? But I do agre with your post here
Originally posted by porkins14
My initial complain was with people who say resources should be used for armies, not towers.
Well, the only tactic i dislike is Tower Rushing. Rushing is fine, and although i don't think it is very fun for either side, it should be allowed.
Anyways, the thing about towers is that they are defensive weapons, and are not meant to be used for attack. They are given high armour and attack so that they can defend your base. If they were meant for attack, they would be far weaker. So, tower rushing, and using towers offensively, goes against the very strategy intended for the game, and thats why i hate it when people do it. Thats one more thing i like about RA2 over AOK, you can't build things anyhere you want, you can only build things, including turrets, around your base. This promotes better base building and planning.
Besides, no one wants to see a battle of towers, the fun part of the game is sending your armies into each other to fight, or sneaking forces behind enemy lines to do damage in a blind spot, things like that.
Originally posted by Tie Guy
Besides, no one wants to see a battle of towers, the fun part of the game is sending your armies into each other to fight, or sneaking forces behind enemy lines to do damage in a blind spot, things like that.
Once again, I dont think it is your decision to make on whhat part of the game is fun for people. That may be fun for you. For me, the fun is finding strategic points on a map and taking them (Like in a real war). For other people, its different stuff tahts fun. Everybody stop judging what everyone else likes|!!!!!! Obviously using towers is fun for a lot of people because there is a lot of use of towers out there! i will finish with this:
In a real war, its not just all about gathering huge ass armies and sending them in. Its about capturing strategic points, and expionage, etc. It is very strategic and realistic to use towers for offense just as well as defense. You guys seem to think sitting in the corner building an army of 200 ATAT and se3nding them out vs 200 jedi is strategic. Clearly it isnt, and thats not the point of the game. As I mentioned earlier, tower rushing is very easy to stop i fyou are good at the game.
AND EVERYONE PLEASE COMMENTING ON WHAT EVERYONE ELSE THNKS IS FUN, SPEAK FOR YOURSELVES ONLY
Originally posted by Tie Guy
Anyways, the thing about towers is that they are defensive weapons, and are not meant to be used for attack. They are given high armour and attack so that they can defend your base. If they were meant for attack, they would be far weaker.
By the way, I dont understand this logic at all, please explain further.
ATAT's have strong armour and attack, are they for defense only?? Like you said, if they were meant for attack, they would be weaker
Anyways, the thing about towers is that they are defensive weapons, and are not meant to be used for attack. They are given high armour and attack so that they can defend your base.
And you may extend your base and make outposts to defend yourself from th enemy who just happens to be within range...
If they were meant for attack, they would be far weaker.
maybe...maybe not...
So, tower rushing, and using towers offensively, goes against the very strategy intended for the game, and thats why i hate it when people do it.
I didn't know games shipped with intended strategies...you are suposed to develop your own strategies Tie Guy...they have a few strategies in the strategy guide if you want to use those...but mostly you just make them up...there is no intended strategy...
Thats one more thing i like about RA2 over AOK, you can't build things anyhere you want, you can only build things, including turrets, around your base. This promotes better base building and planning
not always...it means that you can't create outposts for scouts that notify you when people are coming...but also in RA2 you could say that radar is a bad thing because you can see anything you have explored (if you are soviets)
people should stop complaining about towers. The only thing they do is somewhat protect your base and they can easily be destroyed without and backup.
I like towers, but I hate tower rushing :(
Originally posted by porkins14
My post was being sarcastic man
So was mine, man and your still getting to bent out of shape about everything. Obviously everyone will find different aspects of what is fun and what is not. One thing that IS included in the strat. guide for AoK is to build new barracks/siege encampents in different areas of the map to lessen travel. Allowing you to put the pressure on your opponent.
Me personally I agree with TIE guy. I played a match in that one user made 50 towers around the monu and like 10 guys in the middle. While I ravaged his town, he grabs the monu with his partner and they all stay in the middle surrounded by 100 turrets. I thought it was lame, but creative how it worked out. At that moment, I couldn't wait for hte real game where that stupid monument will be gone for good and hopefully on a MUCH larger map that discourages long rushing campaings.
In any case, I hope that out of these two threads people realize that there are defenses against rushers. Mainly good LOS, in sentry towers and mounted troopers for a close in attack. I've already played several scenarios a couple against my friend, and some against strangers on the zone, in which I was able to stop rushers, I'll admit a few times I've lost to this strategy. But maybe I am different, instead of crying and trying to ban it, find a strat against it.
You know the GB code has been finished for a while, and how long have we been playing the beta? Don't you think Lucasarts has been play testing, and re-playtesting, along with the Ensemble guys who've replay tested this thing until they are blue in the face with AoK and AoC before this? I am sure thay have weighed alot into this. And if they miss something, I'm sure it will be patched.
But one thing I am sure of, they've tried rushing schemes from each Civ to make sure that not one Civ has the advantage against each other, wether late in the game or early on. That no minimum range thing is the towers weakness in tech 2, if you know you are a defensive player. Make sentries, and have your troopers ready to move into a tower close range, if your on top of your Civ you should be able to spot an enemy rusher before he starts. Probably the ideal thing is to concentrate defense against areas that prevent you from getting to tech 3 like Nova, or your Ore supplies.
Maybe if you are real good and a fast builder you can move 2 droids near his base, and get them to rush HIM while he is rushing you, I find that most rushers are weak defensively, and if their initial rushes fail they are overwhelmed when you hit Tech 3 first and air transport 10 pummels onto their town center.
I've been playing this demo since it came out, and no game has ever been the same. I've won games late in tech 3 by flying an impressive air squadron against an opponent, or strictly mechs, or in one particular incident I was fond of I ran in with nothing put mechs with BH and jedi's inside, moved past his towers and he had his center defended only by air turrets, the great thing was as my mechs died a lunatic Jedi or a BH would pop out to take its place. I can only imagine the mayhem and possibilities that will be out there with the full version of the game.
If you TRULY hate, and I mean TRULY hate rushers, make your games to start at tech 2, and set your resources to high. That way you can tower yourself early on, and play a normal match. However I think that for tourny's and ladder games they play by normal settings.:atat: :atat: :atat:
Some games should be played with the "Real man code", some should be played with the "Honor Code", and others should be played with other codes or no code at all.
Originally posted by Dvlos
So was mine, man and your still getting to bent out of shape about everything.
bent out of shape?? i'm the one who just wants to go play!! Screw the rules, just play and have fun
Real man code=There is no code. It's like saying "the only rule is that there are no rules." :rolleyes:
This is in response to the cowardly honor system some want to instill into my online gaming experience. I guess I will have to set up the "real man code", for those of us who don't make excuses everytime we lose, and are willing to accept different strategies then our own and learn from them. There will be no complaining in these games, only competition at a high level. Obviously any bugs in the game will be discussed and we will work around them, but we will not take peoples strategies away from them. Basically, "the real man code" is for real men, who don't complain everytime they lose and make excuses. I realize those who join these games will be few and far between, but my experience will be much more enjoyable due to the lack of crying after every game.
Next time I play you, remind me to use tons of cheat codes and carry out an early tower rush. :p
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Real man code=There is no code. It's like saying "the only rule is that there are no rules." :rolleyes:
Next time I play you, remind me to use tons of cheat codes and carry out an early tower rush. :p
Actually I will have cheats off obviously. And PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE try to tower rush me. Just try it man