Favorite playing style

[Kingo]

What is your favorite playing style?

1. Slow and steady
2. Rushing through
3. Weapon stockpiler
4. Energy stockpiler

Which brings me to another question,
What is your favorite type of map (describe features)?

[J]

Playing style: I mostly play puzzle maps or maps that force you to use a 'new' playing style. So I never have to choose between one of those playing styles. I mostly use a combination of all four strategies when I have to choose.

Fav map type: Short maps in which you have to think before you start. They have to be challenging and not too long or I'll quit. I like maps that force you to use a strategy that I've never used before. Mostly ea3401's maps.

[MizInIA]

I like to play slow and steady. I don't mind a quick threat that I have to address but once I have the appropriate offenses built I like being able to build up my energy before advancing on  the rest of the map.

on CW1 I like the island maps. I like hopping from island to Island spanning the gaps with relays and using mortars to keep the creeper down.

CW2 I like maps with Phantoms(mostly because I forget they are coming)  :) and also maps with large caverns that make it hard to get beacons where you need them to see everything.

[Kingo]

As for me, I enjoy maps that have a story behind them, and I am a slow, steady player.
I enjoy maps that aren't too difficult and don't require you to use a specific strategy (mostly easy-medium, maybe some hard maps).  Mainly, I prefer a straightforward approach.

I like having maps with terrain that doesn't require luck or skill to beat. Maps that require bridging or other techniques the semi-novice can't master are not for me.

[Kithros]

I typically like maps that don't really feel gimmicky and force you to beat it a specific way, but are still challenging enough that you can't simply brute force the map. I also don't like maps that are obviously going to be won after the first 5 minutes but still drag out for hours - that said, I still don't like maps that have an obvious timer to win/lose in (ie. saving capsules, massive phantom wave or somesuch), I prefer when there is an actual threat to the player, not just a race. Typically accomplishing something like this requires lots of decayable terrain.

[Kingo]

I typically like maps that don't really feel gimmicky and force you to beat it a specific way, but are still challenging enough that you can't simply brute force the map. I also don't like maps that are obviously going to be won after the first 5 minutes but still drag out for hours - that said, I still don't like maps that have an obvious timer to win/lose in (ie. saving capsules, massive phantom wave or somesuch), I prefer when there is an actual threat to the player, not just a race. Typically accomplishing something like this requires lots of decayable terrain.

I agree, except i'm more of a CW1 guy.
As a mapmaker, I have tried to make maps that are free of timers and wins where you build up and face a Nexus on steroids, but require you to think and use your units as best as you can.

[Cavemaniac]

What is your favorite playing style?

1. Slow and steady
2. Rushing through
3. Weapon stockpiler
4. Energy stockpiler

Which brings me to another question,
What is your favorite type of map (describe features)?

2.

Definitely 2.

Part of the reason for this is the CW1 heritage - the only way to score was to finish the game.

The only way to get a high score was to finish quickly.

In CW2, a fast time was still the bulk of your points, but now you had to choose between finishing quickly or hanging around/expending energy collecting artifacts which also gave points.

The other big part of my mindset is the military equivalent of Occam's Razor - where you should achieve the most with the least, in the shortest amount of time (anyone know what that's called?!).

Yum's awesome, massive collection of small but succinct CW2 maps are a brilliant example of this - there's plenty of ways you can play them, but you'd better plan very carefully if you want to score well. I play them over and over, restart after restart to find the most efficient starting position.

On CW1, my favourite maps were MadMags - the art and proposition were always good.

I always liked a siege situation, where you had limited space and time to orchestrate a break-out. Like MadMags Alcatraz.

But I don't much care for stories. Seriously, just tell me what the victory conditions are and let me at it. Rescue the capsules? OK. Destroy everything? Sweet!

I love a big battle as much as the most outrageous overbuilding turtler, and even though I like to rush to the finish, I still get my battle - mostly because I ignore the Creeper as long as possible, I don't expend energy trying to hold it back, I just build up my infrastructure, store my energy and build the minimum quantity of weapons I need to do the job. Then I go bananas on the massive volume of Creeper that's built up!

Having said that, different maps do require different strategies. An abundance of resources allow the pace to be rapidly accelerated. Sometimes an unseen/unexpected opportunity will present itself. Other times an avenue will be cut off and an alternate strategy implemented. Flexibility is the key - after all, if you played every map the same, you'd soon get bored out of your gourd!

Roll on CW3 - the CW1 custom map count just hit 6,000 (in what, about four years?) and the two year old CW2 has over 2,300 custom maps available.

CW3 is gonna blow these away - can you imagine what those custom map makers will come up with, given a whole new box of toys to play with?! The tastes we've had so far are rocking my world!

[Kingo]

Also, for me I do not like maps which are made more for geometric perfection and involve lots of crazonium specific patterns.
I prefer more natural-looking maps.

[Neko187]

The other big part of my mindset is the military equivalent of Occam's Razor - where you should achieve the most with the least, in the shortest amount of time (anyone know what that's called?!).

efficiency? :3

[Kingo]

Sushiman, I posted that in another thread, not this one.

[Grauniad]

Sushiman, I posted that in another thread, not this one.

At least someone is paying attention to what you write! :)

[Neko187]

Wha.... How did I quote it?
I'M SO CONFUSED.
anyway. Whoops.

Edit now I get it.

[Kingo]

To answer your question, it's decimating the enemy with the simplest means of decimation. That can be the fastest way, or the method that does not require as much strategy. Of, heck, it could be the most fun way to decimate the enemy (for lack of a better word...)

[Cavemaniac]

To answer your question, it's decimating the enemy with the simplest means of decimation. That can be the fastest way, or the method that does not require as much strategy. Of, heck, it could be the most fun way to decimate the enemy (for lack of a better word...)

Hmmm.

Actually, decimation refers to losing a tenth of a force.

Though the current trend is to use decimate instead of annihilate. 

Which leads to odd statements like forces being 'absolutely decimated'.

Absolutely losing one tenth part of your army is way more preferable than absolutely losing the whole thing...

[asmussen]

Though the current trend is to use decimate instead of annihilate. 

Actually, I think the word most people confuse it with is devastate, because they sound very similar.