Nemo121
Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004 Status: offline
|
bklooste, 1. I'm quite sure you actually don't know my internal thought processes. As such I'd thank you not to state what I think or feel about others. In this instance you are incorrect. 2. I've read the Reluctant Admiral Mod thread in detail. My conclusion is that the various changes aren't sufficiently ( IMO ) linked up, interlinked and mutually supporting in a manner which will support the creation of the flow of operations envisioned. That's an utterly impersonal assessment and it, frankly, disappoints me that you would so quickly impugne my motivations. 3. As to the adjustments being subtle... We obviously have very different views of the meaning of the word subtle. 4. As to the "type of player" I referred to... It seems clear that the mod is big on flash but low on deep strategic consideration of ramifications beyond the superficial level of impacts of changes. As such it will appeal to the type of player who likes flashy opening and the appearance of depth without actually being led into traps, dead-ends and impossible choices between long-term plans ( IOW, forcing people to really analyse things strategically out to 18 months to 2 years in order to make the right decisions ) but I don't consider that it will lead to any significantly more interesting play as it doesn't truly create different strategic options. There's nothing "personal" there, it is my assessment of the mod and the types of players it would appeal to. I resent your implication that other issues would impinge on such an assessment. To be even clearer... as it seems this may be necessary for you bklooste, in EA I spent the majority of the mod on the logistics side of the mod. The combat stuff people noted ( new planes, ships etc ) was the stuff which was easiest to do, easiest to balance and of least strategic import. The logistics, on the other hand, was where the hard work which really impacted the strategic decision-making went on. I really didn't see enough logistics-sided work going on in that mod thread to make me think that they gave the logistics enough thought. Others may well differ, which is fine. ON the other hand differing opinions is one thing, impugning another's motivation another thing entirely. And to be clear: there's nothing at all wrong with being the type of player who would enjoy that kind of flashy, logistics-light mod. It isn't for me as the lack of requirement for strategic analysis as part of the design process simply doesn't appeal to me. That's why I made EA the way I wanted it to be. FAR more players who will prefer to play the Reluctant Admiral mod than will ever choose to play EA. Why? EA is designed to be a challenge not only in terms of playing your opponent but also in terms of punishing ANY laxity of play, planning and balancing of competing requirements. If you don't plan 24 months ahead in EA then you should expect the game to crucify you irrespective of the enemy's play. Most people don't like such a challenging mod and that's fine. I hope they enjoy the games they play. I make my mod to be enjoyed by me and that means making it convoluted, tricky, utterly unforgiving if you act cavalierly and hiding most of the depth far beneath the surface where no-one will ever notice it or appreciate it. If anyone else enjoys it that's a bonus but I most assuredly don't fall into the trap of thinking that if someone wants to play a different mod that somehow devalues them or whatever - which I think seems to be your, unwarranted, implication. I will say I was gratified that some people did seem to enjoy it and dug out their editors and calculators and managed to spot quite a few of the pitfalls I put in. It was nice to see them enjoying the fact that they were, in a sense, spotting my ambushes and working around them in-game as they played eachother. I think they enjoyed that. With that said I'm sure many times more people will play Reluctant Admiral and will enjoy it immensely and good luck to them in that. There is, after all, no competition or anything so childish. Strange as it might seem. I wasn't being touchy... I was simply saying that if you don't like scenario 2 then one shouldn't bother to enter a discussion based around it. I wouldn't as I would find it aggravating to enter a discussion limited by issues I thought were incorrect/wrong. Again though I think you are imputing an emotional basis which simply isn't there. What I will say though is that I find it intensely annoying to be have my own feelings told me by another, especially when I'm then told to chill out for feelings and thoughts I never had. I suggest we chalk it up to a misunderstanding and drop it at this stage.
< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 7/10/2010 2:51:52 PM >
_____________________________
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine." Well, that's that settled then.
|