I guess that we may have differing opinions. When I joined BattleMaster I was thinking, "Cool. Lightwieght game. DO not have to be over run by obsessed people with no jobs. I could even be abaron or a General. 15 minutes a day for normal play? This is awesome"
I was NOT thinking, "Cool. 15 minutes a day for normal play. Foll0wing order blindly? I am so in on this!"
I can not imagine that my thoughts were so far off from most casual gamers trying BattleMaster out specifically because it is advertised as a casual game...
This.
During the school year, I log about 20-40 minutes a day. On weekends probably a bit more. Every few weeks I'll put in a longer session of a few hours, but that's kind of just dependent on how homework and my primary social life look for scheduling.
I really doubt there are so many people running for said positions that are considered newcomers whose retention depends on the steep learning curve. We can call them in another way, let's say "insecure newcomers", but I hope you see my point beyond the definition.
Peri, I do not want to be offensive, or to sound like I am trying to insult you in any way. That is not my intention at all. However, what I am about to say I cannot think of a way to say without being rather confrontational and potentially offensive about it. For that, I apologize.
You seem bent on the idea that you don't want other players to know advanced strategies. They should learn "by experience," which presumably means currying favor with older players: not older
characters, mind you, older
players. My experience with BM has taught me that we are a criminally nepotistic bunch without strong character/player distinctions when it comes to awarding positions.
As such, because even very good BM players struggle to distinguish between players and characters, we need to make the playing field more level
for players so that
their characters can distinguish themselves based on the merit
of the character rather than
of the player.
As I hear it, you are arguing that your superior skill
as a player actually
ought to affect the game. The fact that older players such as Tim, you, myself, or many others are
more skilled players, you seem to be saying as I hear it,
should realize itself in
their characters doing better.
And to that, I say, bull!@#$. I want to rob older players of their advantage and redistribute it to newer players. There's no reason a newer player should have to ask another player how these things work. They should be able to look it up. We're offering strategies we have used historically: there are other strategies out there. Since posting my article on trade, I've thought of several major strategies I could have included that I did not.
My position is that, though this is idealistic and ultimately unattainable,
the skill of the player should not matter. It is
the performance of the character that actually
ought to matter. This is obviously not attainable, but we can still do things reasonably within our power to lower learning curves. This is one way that "less skilled" players can be supplied some skills so that
their characters can more reasonably compete with the characters of more experienced players.
Again, I'm sorry if that came across as hostile. That is not my intention. I just wanted to clearly phrase what I see as a major distinction and my own personal reasoning behind the articles I'll be writing.
