Help for the Inexperienced People

[Golan2781]

I doubt that'd address the main problem. Before you teach people how to properly push the pedal to the metal, you should teach them where it actually is.

[GeneralsProTony]

I doubt that'd address the main problem. Before you teach people how to properly push the pedal to the metal, you should teach them where it actually is.

People aren't as ignorant as you believe. If they've made it to the online community then the pedal has already been found i.e. the mouse and keyboard. The fundementals can be self-taught within a week and then its time to procede to strategy and tactics. Saving replays and later reviewing them does solve the issue as I and I'm sure thousands of others have already demonstrated.

[Golan2781]

I'd like to believe that, but past player numbers sadly aren't in favor of your idealistic view. The reactions from long-time casual players also suggest that a considerable number cares for the joy of driving downhill where they don't need the pedal, which might actually be a nice analogy to some of the less robust but surprisingly popular turtling and massing tactics.

And as you said, the transition you described is already easily possible. So people must be lost before they reach the point of actually having the motivation to invest time in actively learning.

[GeneralsProTony]

Impatient, unyeilding and a lack of a competitive nature describes the players you just mentioned. Sure I can understand casual play but a person plays with the intent of winning. Bunkering, massing are all inferior stategies resorted to by inexperienced players in an attempt to balance the status quo. These players undermine the importance of proactive gaming and play off their limited knowledge base instead of doing as you said and invest the time in active learning. Seems to me they are either too lazy to learn or are content with their subpar performance.

[Golan2781]

So what? That's not a solution or an excuse, that's exactly the problem that needs addressing.

Besides, many of those players play to win - which is why they don't play competitively, because then they wouldn't win with their investment.

[GeneralsProTony]

So what? That's not a solution or an excuse, that's exactly the problem that needs addressing.

Besides, many of those players play to win - which is why they don't play competitively, because then they wouldn't win with their investment.

I wasn't offering a solution or an excuse just stating an opinion; a players laziness shouldn't be accomodated. If they want to improve then theres only one solution, they need too put forth the effort and invest the time.

Sure they play competatively but they just prefer less of a competition or as they say, "A fair fight."

[Golan2781]

I don't see this as a very constructive approach, nor as a particularly helpful stance. The entire point of pages such as Gamereplays is to help people learn the game, so frankly the 'learn it yourself or GTFO' stance is very flawed as hardly any player can really claim to have learned the game solely through his own effort. C&C needs good player numbers, it needs a strong MP, otherwise it will cease to exist as we know it. I actually was quite shocked when doing some calculations with numbers AGM helpfully provided, showing that less than about 0.5% of all potential players actually play Gen1 competitively (taking into account units sold and favorably extrapolating from Clanwars). That's the single best C&C MP ever! Getting more players into the actual competitive scene is a must.

I've rarely found house rules to be particularly fair. They are mostly the equivalent of banning dirty tricks so you can safely wait for your gun being delivered for the knife fight.

[Zarmageddon]

There is really no need for anything to help inexperienced players. A lot of casual gamers do not take the time to learn to game before they review it. They would play the campaign, learn the basics of how the game mechanics work, play maybe 2 or 3 multiplayer games before ragequitting. It's not even about game replays. You can very easily learn how to play the game simply by playing team games or constantly playing in 1v1s and losing. Failure is where you really learn in RTS. RTS will be and always has been about strategy. The joy of RTS is trying out new builds and doing fun stuff like building bases defences in an opponent's base to see if that wins you the game. An FPS mode on an RTS game? I don't even call that RTS. I never considered Battlestations Pacific / Midway as an RTS game and I never will.

If you want to be good at an RTS game you have to have creativity. Everyone has it. Just learn to master the game mechanics in order to create your own tactics.

On a kind of an off-topic note, writing this post reminds me of a tactic I used in zero hour. I dozer rushed against a GLA opponent. My opponent wasn't very bright as he couldn't micro his workers away from my dozer while it was running his workers over. After killing his workers before he could even finish building his supply depot I went ahead and spawn camped him in front of his command center by running over any workers that were being trained from the CC. He ragequit and I got myself the fastest win in my RTS career. This is the fun in RTS games. Do the g*yest s**t ever and it'll win you the game.

[GeneralsProTony]

so frankly the 'learn it yourself or GTFO' stance is very flawed as hardly any player can really claim to have learned the game solely through his own effort.

Flawed? That couldn't be further from the truth. In my personal experience with RTS, particularily Generals, I have taught myself and developed the vast majority of my strategies/tactics. I have learnt the fundamentals, game dynamics and mechanics solely on my own accord. Sure I have adopted some strategies I've learnt from others but they simply supplement my own. The point is, I went about learning these things and took a proactive approach. I dont recall sitting in "Generals Classes" and taking notes. The battlefield was the classroom and the notes were the experiences. RTS by nature requires constant adeptation and active learning because each and every game is unique and no set of circumstances are the same.

^^Zarmageddon understands this perfectly and I appreciate his input.

As for getting more people involved in competative play I totaly agree. The competative scene in Generals has dwindled over the years with there being fewer and fewer clans. Still many people play to maintain their stats and are considered competative in that respect.

Yes house rules are usually a joke but they are aslo a good indicator to what type of players will be involved. I tend to play pro rule games as these are the most enjoyable and challenging.

[Zarmageddon]

I don't see this as a very constructive approach, nor as a particularly helpful stance. The entire point of pages such as Gamereplays is to help people learn the game, so frankly the 'learn it yourself or GTFO' stance is very flawed as hardly any player can really claim to have learned the game solely through his own effort. C&C needs good player numbers, it needs a strong MP, otherwise it will cease to exist as we know it. I actually was quite shocked when doing some calculations with numbers AGM helpfully provided, showing that less than about 0.5% of all potential players actually play Gen1 competitively (taking into account units sold and favorably extrapolating from Clanwars). That's the single best C&C MP ever! Getting more players into the actual competitive scene is a must.

I've rarely found house rules to be particularly fair. They are mostly the equivalent of banning dirty tricks so you can safely wait for your gun being delivered for the knife fight.

I never saw Generals 1 as a competitive RTS game as I did with Starcraft. There's a reason why Generals was popular for the more casual fun type of games. The gameplay style of Generals is too realistic for competitive play. Over half the units in Generals have some sort of way to deal splash damage, and having the most units don't = a victory (unless you're in the air). The movement of units on the ground is too clunky, and they stop and do a 360 degree turn when they hit a small object or terrain that they cannot roam over. On top of that, there are units like the Alpha Aurora that could literally kill a ball of tanks in a matter of seconds, and the unit itself is close to invulnerable while on the bombing run. Also, EMP patriots.

Don't get me wrong, I love Generals. But Generals was never meant for competitive play. It feels micro intensive and competitive during the first few minutes of the game when you only have a couple units out on the field, but when you have more than 10 or 15 units it really doesn't matter who the better player is.

The entire point of pages such as Gamereplays is to help people learn the game, yes. Honestly I don't know what you're talking about when you're talking about the "learn it yourself or GTFO" stance. A replay of the game shows everything that you need to know. What else do you need help with? It's like having the test answers right in front of your face and not knowing what to do with it. An RTS game's multiplayer isn't some mission or something in which you can win by finding a guide or a cheat code. You use your own tactics to win the game and game replays simply show examples of the tactics that you can use. "Learning" to play the game means learning how to click and move units around. So what more is there to learn?