Difference between revisions of "Talk:Real-Time Strategy"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Ace) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
We need to talk about this. Is there really any strategy involved in an RTS game, or does rote memorization of patterns really pay off more in the long run? And is Shep just being bitter here again, because he never wins? | We need to talk about this. Is there really any strategy involved in an RTS game, or does rote memorization of patterns really pay off more in the long run? And is Shep just being bitter here again, because he never wins? | ||
*Depends on the RTS, I could easily claim theres some level of strategy, but in the end, APM ratio + optmised early game is what wins most games. And shep is quite bitter. | *Depends on the RTS, I could easily claim theres some level of strategy, but in the end, APM ratio + optmised early game is what wins most games. And shep is quite bitter. | ||
--- | |||
If I was bitter, I'd say even nastier things about Stark and Lonestar. | |||
Then it'd just be even more obvious than it already is. :) --[[User:Stark|Stark]] 06:36, 7 November 2007 (EST) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:36, 7 November 2007
We need to talk about this. Is there really any strategy involved in an RTS game, or does rote memorization of patterns really pay off more in the long run? And is Shep just being bitter here again, because he never wins?
- Depends on the RTS, I could easily claim theres some level of strategy, but in the end, APM ratio + optmised early game is what wins most games. And shep is quite bitter.
---
If I was bitter, I'd say even nastier things about Stark and Lonestar.
Then it'd just be even more obvious than it already is. :) --Stark 06:36, 7 November 2007 (EST)