Casual Players vs. Hardcore Players (in General)


TheHatchetman January 26 2010 4:10 PM EST

Is it really any question which of the two deserves the top spot(s)? I'm constantly seeing discussion about casual players and making them more competitive, and I have the simplest of all solutions. The players themselves should get more competitive (omgnowai!). BA (right down to it's very concept) keeps CB from being a clickfest crowning he or she who puts the most wear on their mouse in the shortest timeframe. But I've long been a believer that those who spend more time on a game deserve the advantage.

But how are those who can't log on 2-3 times every day supposed to become number one? They're not... Find me a single quasi-decent game where you don't need to play to be competitive, or anyone that's made it to the top of a RS or WoW list in less than an hour a day. Find me any game with more than 20 or so players that you (the reader) have ever taken the top spot in. My runescape character isn't even in the top 140,000, but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone that wouldn't call it competitive...

Far as "the top" goes, there is a way to get there, it just takes forever. Those with top spots put a lot of time and effort (and in some cases USD) to get there. If they keep putting as much time/effort as possible, then why should they be passed? I've personally accomplished enough in this game to realise that anything is possible. Just takes time.

If it's taking too long to get your top spot, just talk to nov or Ranger. Both having spent tons of time, effort, and USD, only to find that the top spot was not an overnight thing. Talk to JS, SK, or Nem, running with the top ranks without USD. They're always here, always trying to do what they can to inch their way up and up. Ask them how easy it was to get where they are. Talk to PoisoN about reliability and time spent, and see what he thinks about how hard it is for players to climb the ranks nowaday?

Carnage Blender is special in that it gives everyone the chance to get to the top with enough time and effort. An unfortunate side effect of this is that people start to feel entitled to be right at the top. But in all honesty, if someone is able to spend more time with the game and outsmart you, why do you deserve to pass them up?

Having a very similar conversation in chat while I typed most of this, so if I repeated something or it comes off as a rant, my apologies. But in all seriousness, how many top 10 players can there really be at a time?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] January 26 2010 4:13 PM EST

+1

{WW]Nayab [Cult of the Valaraukar] January 26 2010 4:14 PM EST

I fully agree with this Hatch, its why i play CB semi competitively for fun. There is no way with my current commitment to the game that i would snipe top spot so I try to enjoy my time as best I can. Everyone can be a winner, its just a matter of whose definition you use.

Wraithlin January 26 2010 4:25 PM EST

Only difference is that competitive and top players in all other games can play for yes, 6-10 hours a day, but it's on thier own time and usually all during the same time period. Oh and they can take breaks and still be top players.

To be a top player in CB you don't need a whole lot of skill, you just have to be able to understand how the system works and be able to play every 5 1/2 to 9 hours every day forever and ever. That's the true key to winning at CB, not missing BA.

There are few to no other games that force you to play every 6 hours to stay competitive. Yes, all other games have time commitments but not on thier schedule, it's on yours.

TheHatchetman January 26 2010 4:27 PM EST

If "your schedule" is less than 12 hours a day, you'll never make it anywhere near the top of just about any other quasi-decent online game. ~_^

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] January 26 2010 4:27 PM EST

Burning all your ba will certainly get you somewhere but it won't get you to the top.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] January 26 2010 4:30 PM EST

I disagree. Just because I don't always fight, and sometimes I forget to spend my BA, and I occasionally leave an opponent in my fight-list that I am actually losing to doesn't mean I shouldn't be the top player in the entire game. I feel that I am the best player ever and should be rewarded as such.

jk, yeah I think you're spot on Hatch ;)

Wraithlin January 26 2010 4:38 PM EST

If "your schedule" is less than 12 hours a day, you'll never make it anywhere near the top of just about any other quasi-decent online game. ~_^


World of Warcraft. Arguably best online game. Go ahead and argue if you want here, but it still has the highest player base.

I played 6 hours a day season 1 when arenas came out, I was one of the top 3 2-man teams on the server all season. Due to RL issues we didn't have time to try to compete in the end-of-season tournament unfortunately, would of been fun.

All FPS games can be played for much less than 12 hours a day and still be competitive, as it is skill based not time based. Yes I realize that time played increases skill, but you still don't need 12 hours a day once you're already at the top.

Starcraft, arguably the best RTS ever made to date as it is still played competitivly, what 10 years after it was made. Again, is all akill based and not time based so goes with the same argument as FPS.

Now I do agree getting your base skill up in a FPS or a RTS would require near 12 hour days for awhile if you care about getting the top spot in about 4 months of practice. But if you don't care about a fast learner process or you are already a competitor, you don't need near 12 hours a day to get or stay there.

If you actually need an example of this: One of the guys in my major at college was a top 10 in the world competitor for Quake for 3 years in a row prior to entering college. He said once he was at that level he played for maybe 4 hours a day weekdays and 6-8 on weekends. Yes I actually asked him, was curious about what commitment games like that take.

TheHatchetman January 26 2010 4:51 PM EST

Guess I shoulda specified a continuous game :P Your WoW reference still qualifies (even if it does prove my point to an extent, as 6-hours a day is hardly "casual play"). FPS / Scenario-based games don't really fit in a "climbing through the ranks" type deal, and even so, you are talking about someone who's putting in 32-36 hours /week in. That's almost a full-time job's worth of commitment to achieve their success. Perhaps we're agreeing and don't even realize it? :P

sebidach [The Forgehood] January 26 2010 4:51 PM EST

All browser-based (text) games I played so far had at least one thing you had to day at a certain time each day. Most games (especially true for economy simulations) had to be checked once per hour. Still you could have fun playing without being able to check every time, and the same applies to CB. There are players willing to commit enough to get the first spot, which wont be reached otherwise and I NEVER made it to the top. CB with its NUB has the cool feature of joining anytime and still getting an shot at the "old" playerbase, which makes it unique in my eyes.

One has to chose, and I prefer a drink at the bar over unused BA. ;)

Vicious Cat January 26 2010 4:51 PM EST

"But in all honesty, if someone is able to spend more time with the game and outsmart you, why do you deserve to pass them up?"

And if I can outsmart them, but they spend more time?
No contest - smarts << commitment by a country mile.

Wraithlin January 26 2010 4:59 PM EST

Oh I agree Hatchet that all continuous online games need to have a commitment to be good, to be competitive. But I just don't like being on someone elses's schedule.

I guess the only thing I have for good games with your category is Neveron, don't know if any of you played it. There was officially no time commitments like you have here, what they did instead was make it an interactive empire building game, and you could be attacked by other people at any time. Oh and the AI was terrible compared to a person in a fight. So yes, you could take as much time off as you wanted, but you'd probably be dead when you got back.

I was the top level 7 empire for about 3 months and I put close to 16 hours a day into it. Go go jobless types.

+1 vote for online games taking a commitment to be competitive.

+1 vote for that time being on your own schedule.

QBsutekh137 January 26 2010 4:59 PM EST

But in all seriousness, how many top 10 players can there really be at a time?


10.

TheHatchetman January 26 2010 5:03 PM EST

No contest - smarts << commitment by a country mile.


Depends. how much is person A outsmarting person B by? and How much more committed is person B than person A? If the differences on both sides are kept fairly minimal, smarts will win out almost every time. They both have their values.


In the case of a vast difference between the two, let's look at a real world situation. Picture you're to hire one person for a 7-day a week job. Person A is probably the most qualified candidate in the entire world for the position in terms of skill sets and abilities, but will take at least every other day off. Person B, while competent, isn't nearly as good at the job as person A, but will show up every day on time every time. Who do you hire?

iBananco [Blue Army] January 26 2010 5:08 PM EST

I take offense, Hatch.

Sickone January 26 2010 5:48 PM EST

Find me a single quasi-decent game where you don't need to play to be competitive


You mean, play SEVERAL TIMES EACH DAY for a very short timespan ?
Oh, how about "most other games" then ?
No, make that "almost every other game".

I would have absolutely nothing against either spending a certain amount of time total playing playing a certain amount of days, with gameplay quality being an adjuster...
...but I do resent the fact that on one hand, if you miss just ONE day in your N*B period, that's already noticeable on your end-result, and worse, that if you only log in once a day (which is reasonable assumption for several types of people) you pretty much forefit any chance of not good, but also mediocre performance -- and no, the ability of having an internet-capable phone is not something that should matter).


You need to either turn the game into a clickfest (say, a */5 rate) in which case people with a lot of spare time and no sleep cycles always rise to the top... or into a tactical thing (say, a */60 rate) where everybody that only gets one login per day can properly compete.
In the */5 rate scenario, at least you get the dedication of most hyperactives, in the */60 scenario you get the dedication of most long-haulers.

The */10 rate was closer to the place hyperactives would like, and if I remember my read history correctly, the dominion over CB1 was actually held by a "shared account".
Changing that rate to */20 was a step in the right direction, BUT NOT ENOUGH - it was enough to lose the interest of a big chunk of hyperactives, but not enough to pique the interest of enough tactical players... especially not in the early stages of the game where they'd have to face 9/20 rates... heck, even at 6/20, I still feel pressured to login, and I still lose BA.

Miandrital January 26 2010 6:11 PM EST

...but I do resent the fact that on one hand, if you miss just ONE day in your N*B period, that's already noticeable on your end-result, and worse, that if you only log in once a day (which is reasonable assumption for several types of people) you pretty much forefit any chance of not good, but also mediocre performance -- and no, the ability of having an internet-capable phone is not something that should matter).


Most games don't have anything resembling a N*B. Players who have been around longer and played more consistently always have an advantage, no matter what game it is.

Sickone January 26 2010 6:22 PM EST

Most games don't have anything resembling a N*B. Players who have been around longer and played more consistently always have an advantage, no matter what game it is.


Actually, all PERSISTENT game worlds do have something which fulfils the same purpose : it's called a "level cap".
Other games have time-limited rounds with character wipes at the end.

In CB, you have no level cap, so you need a catch-up system, or else you would need a periodic restart - that's why CB2 exists : CB1 sorely needed a "reset".
Jon didn't want a level cap, and he realized that if he didn't implement a catch-up system (the N*B), eventually he'd need to make CB3, and so on.
I was merely discussing the BAD side-effects of the TYPE of catch-up system that's being employed in CB2.

Lord Bob January 26 2010 6:35 PM EST

But how are those who can't log on 2-3 times every day supposed to become number one? They're not...

Win.

Soxjr January 26 2010 6:54 PM EST

I agree hatch, except with one thing. As we were saying in chat. The top 10 is made up of 70% of USD spenders. So in all honesty as a non-usd spender. I have a very very small chance of making the top 10 regardless of what I do. I could spend the next few years saving cb to try a run at a NCB but I can never do one properly to catch the top without the USD that others have used. I can continue the plodding along without the hope of catching up and enjoy the game as I have over the time here on CB. I just am smart enough to know there is a glass ceiling for myself as a non-USD spender. I don't have the gear to rent out and even that with our small base of regular players isn't going to get me the cb to make that great NCB run.

So finishing up. I now have the time to really push a NCB but I know it won't get where my dedication should put it, because I won't have the CB to buy ba and never will because I don't have the USD to back it. :) That was all I was saying. The time dedication to not miss ba I now have, but the USD I don't so there really is no point. :)

kevlar January 26 2010 7:00 PM EST

Was this thread created due to chat with new players or current active / vet players?

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] January 26 2010 7:08 PM EST

vets.

Canibus January 26 2010 8:49 PM EST

I probably don't understand what the issue is about even after reading all the answers, but my personal opinion ia that there should be a way to temporarily boost your BA gain by being active.

The least attractive thing about CB that it is essentially round based, I wish that people who would be able to play 6 hours straight should have an advantage over those who just login now and then just to make sure they don't lose any BA.
There should be a way to make dedication more valuable, something like, if you have spent BA within a 20min period, you would get additional BA.

Ie: you burn your 10/20 BA when you got it, requirement met, and you get ie: 2 extra BA the next cycle, if you do not use em till the next cycle you'll return to 10/20. Or at least something like that, make it more fun to be addicted/"dedicated" :)

Sickone January 26 2010 8:59 PM EST

Canibus, the end-result would be more or less the same as if you would switch from */20 to */16 rate or so for those actually online... the game used to have a */10 rate and enough people complained they can't keep up, so it got shifted to where it is now.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] January 26 2010 9:18 PM EST

commitment means much less though when it can be bought. ; (

Canibus January 26 2010 9:43 PM EST

Hehe I remember the good old days of x/10 :) Was always in the "oh why the heck not, only 8 more minutes .." *to the break of dawn* :)

Rawr January 27 2010 12:39 AM EST

if he didn't implement a catch-up system (the N*B), eventually he'd need to make CB3


Rolling Bonus ;)

Wraithlin January 27 2010 12:46 AM EST

Hehe I remember the good old days of x/10 :) Was always in the "oh why the heck not, only 8 more minutes .." *to the break of dawn* :)


On that note, turn based games are the devil.

ScY January 27 2010 12:47 AM EST

Buff forging plz
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002z2A">Casual Players vs. Hardcore Players</a>