dan if i had high confidence i wouldn't be avoiding all responsibility in my life and spending this much time helping you understand semantics. I did go to school for this though.

i have already acknowledged the different game types. our only disagreement really, at the core, is that i think games you consider "just for fun" are strategic

the dictionary definition is so broad, it literally includes everything in life. But sure if that is your ace argument lmfao

How do you guys rate my template: https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer/Tournament?ID=42383

Just for fun/casual/normal or whatever it should be called (not that it matters) is everything else. You don't seem to draw any specific distinction between them and 'strategic'. It's similar to 'normal' with much higher strategic potential in which the better player will win because of their understanding of the game and out-playing and out-predicting the opponent. It's different enough to be a distinct game type. If you disagree with that then you're fundamentally incorrect.

if you don't like the definition of strategic you should consider using a different adjective to describe your preferred templates i guess?

I don't draw a distinction because all templates require strategy. the individual template just changes what strategy is best suited for that match

Do you just dislike 'strategic templates' being referred to as that? What should they be called instead?

I'm fine with them still being called strategic templates because they are strategic. they're just not the only ones that are strategic.

your framing and distinction of these subsets just needs a rebranding if you're not going to acknowledge that fact. I can't help you with coming up with a new name unfortunately, that's kinda on you brother

all templates require strategy

Lotto doesnt, unless you count buying votes with coins as "strategy" to get it into QM...



All this arguing about the various definitions of "strategic" are just derailing this thread, the point of this thread was to figure out a definition for what is by the WZ community considered strategic.

A few vocal outliers arguing about the their interpretation going against the community shouldnt matter, let them have it and stop arguing about that bs.

You're not fine with them being called strategic though because all games have some form of strategy and you were having ago go at me for saying my meaning of strategic games is too exclusive.

You need to accept both 'strategic' and 'normal' as two very different game types.

what you're calling normal is also strategic. your definition of strategic doesn't account for that which is why it's too narrow. different strategy doesn't mean no strategy.

FYI jk3 we did both agree that lotto games are not strategic so no arguments from me there :)

the disagreement between me and Dan is about the finer points and minutiae of templates. I'm just a little bit more inclusive in my view of what strategic means

“The more I know, the more I realize I don’t know”

— some German scientist idk

I even said that all games have strategy. It’s only lottery ones that don’t.

I defined a meaning of ‘strategic templates’ and a meaning for ‘normal’. One having a more exclusive meaning is needed. Or calling every other game which doesn’t match any other meaning of another game type ‘strategic’.

That raises the question, why do you recognise ‘diplomacy/roleplay’ as a different game type even though it has strategy?

Sorry if you find this offensive, but you’re an idiot. I’ll also block list you so I don’t waste any more time on this thread.

Also I feel like queefballs and anyone is suited to answering an open ended question just don’t let him in the seasonal board please 🙏

Edit: rak is bad enough *cries*

Edited 12/1/2023 21:12:58

roleplay and diplo are different because you create special rules for attacking, starting position, etc. that people agree to when they join. they are strategic, you're right.

but there's a clear delineation there because of the special rules everyone agrees to follow. like technically the game doesn't enforce you not being able to attack, but the players just don't. the element of roleplay is what sets it apart.

but otherwise on a warlight classic template there's no reason why, for example, strat 1v1+airlift is less strategic than strat 1v1. you just use different strategies to win on those templates

I don’t get why you’re arguing having a game type called ‘strategic’ and another called ‘normal’. You see that ‘normal’ must fit into meaning of ‘strategic’ without even bothering to read or understand what sort of things are to be expected from a template being ‘strategic’.

You don’t have an issue with the word strategic being used as a game type but your insisting on that to cover anything by dictionary meaning of strategic. Renaming it to not use the word “strategic” is incorrect and using an adjective to describe how strategic a template is would be inaccurate and subjective (relates to strategic depth and value) instead of giving a collective name where all other games can be called ‘normal’ is much simpler to define.

‘Normal’ and ‘strategic’ are different. They are two sets. One can’t include the other.

I never said game types should be called normal and strategic. you arbitrarily came up with that nomenclature.

I'm saying that games you're categorizing as "normal" should be considered to be in the same category as the ones you're defining as "strategic". they're just strategic games with different settings than what you've narrowly defined as a strategic template. there's no need for a distinction, they're all strategic templates

There is a need for distinction.

Your entire argument of what constitutes as “strategy” can be nullified. This is a strategy game and not just strategy.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_game:

A strategy game or strategic game is a game (e.g. a board game) in which the players' uncoerced, and often autonomous, decision-making skills have a high significance in determining the outcome. Almost all strategy games require internal decision tree-style thinking, and typically very high situational awareness.

When you introduce luck or randomness, it’s not strategic. My very broad definition of the “strategic” game type covers this.

luck and randomness don't make a game unstrategic, you just have to adjust your strategy to accommodate the factors you can't control.

by your logic, no game that uses dice or a shuffled deck of cards is strategic. but that's obviously false.

Something tells me that QueefBalls and DanWL don't agree with each other.