StarGateWars Forums

Ronon Dex wrote:

Sol wrote: Although since we're talking about a resetting server, I would say there is little skill involved anyway, the key factor being activity (and money I guess). After awhile you know the lay of the land and a general strategy.

I have to disagree with you a bit, there is a skill element to playing quantum. Activity and money doesn't always get you everywhere.

I think a quantum requires more skill then any of the other $$ fests the other servers provide.

Skill or strategy? The latter seems to be the case with text based games .

Neimenljivi wrote:So Sol, how about Haz gives a random person huge amount of naq every random amount of time? It surely wouldn't be a bad thing, it would just be promoting luck. Everyone has equal chance of receiving the naq, so no harm done, right?

Pfft please, if it was such a critical skew to the game economics Haz would alter it. Even so it's a different era, if people miss a payday then hard luck, use some of that "skill" to catch up.

Neimenljivi wrote: Wait, there's no skill involved because the eras are time limited? My bad for thinking it's harder to do something in a short time-frame than in a longer one. But hey, that's why there are no time limits on any sort of tests in RL either, right? Ah wait, there are. But the one that succeeds the quickest surely can't be the most skilled as well, surely there is something else involved and skill is but a minor influence.

Oh you mean strategy? It boils down to that, activity and a quicker internet connection.
As you said, there are more limited resources, this is a turn based game, it invokes strategy. Perhaps a bit of skill if you're caught with an onliner, then again you can divvy that up into the above 3 concepts.

Neimenljivi wrote: If I am not mistaken, the game defines feeding as "giving your resources to other accounts". Meaning, if I were to leave out a huge amount of naq for a random person to take, I would still be feeding that person, even though anyone could attack me. Because "if you purposely give (via getting them to attack you while holding all the currency in the open, or otherwise) your resources to others, it is feeding, and bannable."

Feeding as your first definition is farming.
That's why you have to take it with a grain of logical salt. Obviously, it's within the context of purposefully beefing up another account to win.
If you think this era falls under the feeding clause than you have lost touched with Q

Neimenljivi wrote: Also are you trying to suggest coming up with a winning strategy in an almost ever-changing game time and time again takes no skill?

No I'm suggesting the ever-changing game is ever-changing and perhaps shouldn't always purely be based on "skill" for winning.

Sol wrote:

Ronon Dex wrote:

Sol wrote: Although since we're talking about a resetting server, I would say there is little skill involved anyway, the key factor being activity (and money I guess). After awhile you know the lay of the land and a general strategy.

I have to disagree with you a bit, there is a skill element to playing quantum. Activity and money doesn't always get you everywhere.

I think a quantum requires more skill then any of the other $$ fests the other servers provide.

Skill or strategy? The latter seems to be the case with text based games .

skilful
ˈskɪlfʊl,-f(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: skilful; adjective: skillful

having or showing skill.
"a skilful midfielder"
synonyms: expert, accomplished, skilled, masterly, virtuoso, master, consummate, proficient, talented, gifted, adept, adroit, deft, dexterous, able, good, competent, capable, efficient, experienced, trained, practised, professional, polished, well versed, versed, smart, clever, ingenious, brilliant, ready, apt, handy, artful;
informalgreat, mean, wicked, nifty, crack, ace, wizard, genius;
informala dab hand at;
informalcrackerjack;
vulgar **Filtered**-hot;
archaiccompleat;
rarehabile
"he was also a skilful diplomat"

So none of those are part of this game huh Anyways I think you know what I meant but want to turn words so it looks like you are correct.

Neimenljivi wrote:
Sol, you know very well what I was aiming at. But you choose to go with a different conjecture. Fine, I won't waste my time. It's always ironic how people like you, who've never even came close to winning an era or sometimes never even played an era, claim Q takes no skill to win.

~Jack

Of course, not that I've created and been in just about every tournament arena, short or long .

Sol wrote:

Neimenljivi wrote:
Sol, you know very well what I was aiming at. But you choose to go with a different conjecture. Fine, I won't waste my time. It's always ironic how people like you, who've never even came close to winning an era or sometimes never even played an era, claim Q takes no skill to win.

~Jack

Of course, not that I've created and been in just about every tournament arena, short or long .

This is not ascended, this is Q. I also seem to recall you beefed up your account when you became an admin, for testing purposes of course. You never won the tournament, as far as I recall, and even if you did - it must be very difficult to do that when you can easily give yourself as much resources as you need at any given time

~Jack

Neimenljivi wrote: This is not ascended, this is Q. I also seem to recall you beefed up your account when you became an admin, for testing purposes of course.

They are the same game styles fundamentally. Ehh when was the last time you logged into ascended? My account is above average for non-being games and average for ascended being games.

Neimenljivi wrote: You never won the tournament, as far as I recall, and even if you did - it must be very difficult to do that when you can easily give yourself as much resources as you need at any given time

I see...sooo every person that doesn't get rank 1 in Q isn't "skillful"? Even if I don't play each round to my fullest capacity, I see others, I see what they do, and I can formulate my own plans. It comes down to strategy 90% of the time and 10% left to this so called "skill" - the ability to quickly defend an attack and/or retaliate - i.e activity, internet speed and strategy.
It's a fair game in the arena, if I taint my account with planets then it can directly affect the power of others. Outside of the arena, hardly. Sounds like you should be doing some reading on the tournaments

Sol wrote: Even if I don't play each round to my fullest capacity, I see others, I see what they do, and I can formulate my own plans. It comes down to strategy 90% of the time and 10% left to this so called "skill" - the ability to quickly defend an attack and/or retaliate - i.e activity, internet speed and strategy.

See my earlier definition on skill, To have good/clever/smart/ingenious/experienced/practiced strategy is to have skill... and therefore to be skilful at this game.

Skill is not always about speed and using "fast twitch" reactions like in a fps.

Ronon Dex wrote:

Sol wrote: Even if I don't play each round to my fullest capacity, I see others, I see what they do, and I can formulate my own plans. It comes down to strategy 90% of the time and 10% left to this so called "skill" - the ability to quickly defend an attack and/or retaliate - i.e activity, internet speed and strategy.

See my earlier definition on skill, To have good/clever/smart/ingenious/experienced/practiced strategy is to have skill... and therefore to be skilful at this game.

Skill is not always about speed and using "fast twitch" reactions like in a fps.

Sorry , sort of breezed over your post mate. I consider, within this context, skill and strategy as effectively different chiefly due to the fact that it's a turn/text based game. Even though Q is dynamic there is still a basic programme which requires knowledge and eventually strategy (quite literally), if you have something pre-set then there is no skill involved except perhaps the first time it was created.
Though you pointed out they are practically one of the same at any other level.
If you want to call a repetitive strategy a skill then by all means

Anyone can have a strategy.

But you need da skillz to come up with a winning strategy
(...and throw in a bit of luck)

Sol wrote:

Neimenljivi wrote: This is not ascended, this is Q. I also seem to recall you beefed up your account when you became an admin, for testing purposes of course.

They are the same game styles fundamentally. Ehh when was the last time you logged into ascended? My account is above average for non-being games and average for ascended being games.

Neimenljivi wrote: You never won the tournament, as far as I recall, and even if you did - it must be very difficult to do that when you can easily give yourself as much resources as you need at any given time

I see...sooo every person that doesn't get rank 1 in Q isn't "skillful"? Even if I don't play each round to my fullest capacity, I see others, I see what they do, and I can formulate my own plans. It comes down to strategy 90% of the time and 10% left to this so called "skill" - the ability to quickly defend an attack and/or retaliate - i.e activity, internet speed and strategy.
It's a fair game in the arena, if I taint my account with planets then it can directly affect the power of others. Outside of the arena, hardly. Sounds like you should be doing some reading on the tournaments

The last time I logged in? Today. The last time I really played? Before you decided you'll screw over every legit player to punish a couple bug abusers instead of hunting just the bug abusers down or making sure the bugs wouldn't be there.

It was only after Juliette and Haz took over that the eras became repetitions of previous eras or had no new important features in them. Otherwise, pretty much every era was different and thus do to well you needed skill to formulate the right strategy. I also never said you aren't skilled if you come in 2nd. It used to take a lot of skill just to come in top 5 back in the days. I also know a couple skilled people who have never ended at the top. But you aren't one of those.

~Jack