When I Assume I make an Ass out of U and Me
Posted: Sun May 25, 2014 10:22 am
Dear SOM Fan,
In many of my posts I have made the assumption that strat online is a substitute. That it is a 2nd class replacement for the board game. It does have its own merits, but overall it is something strat players come to because they either a) have the time to play the board game, but cant find enough players to play against, or b) don't have the time needed because of jobs and families. There are probably a few other reasons as well, but the two points I have given most likely cover most online strat players (another assumption I hope doesn't make me an ass).
Anyway, to put it more succinctly, The assumption I made is: If online strat players had the time and a good amount of opponents to play against, they would choose the board game over online strat every time.
Because of this assumption, I then went on to argue that strat, if they could set up an online version of the game, that better reflects the game-play you get when you are playing the board game, it would be a large improvement over its current version. That if strat had a visual graphic environment that looked and behaved similar to when you are face-to-face with an opponent at a table (as they do with poker tables and other games), every online strat player would prefer it (even if it was just to watch rather than participate, if one chooses to do only that).
I explained the concept in more detail in other posts, but to put it simply, an online version of strat that has a structure which allows you to interact with others in and out of game rooms, that allows the creation of leagues, or individual game play, allows games to be played by computer or human being, tracks statistics and ranks managers, and when you do play the games, a graphical interface similar to the board game (which then can be watched afterward).
It seems like a huge project, but it is standard across all gaming on the internet and therefore can't be seen as insurmountable even for smaller organizations.
These ideas I assumed were universal, and here is where I made an ass of myself. There seems to be many people who enjoy online strat just the way it is. That there criticisms about improving the game had nothing to do with the structure and set up of the game itself, but that there were not enough options or cards available. In other words, keep the game as it is, where hal plays all the games, but give us better choices, like "no stealing third base" or "do not bunt with this player" and give us more cards and seasons to play with.
Whenever I come across resistance and argument to something I thought was more universal, I usually am at a loss. As a good and open-minded person, I then must find out why. I ask myself, "Am I that clueless about my fellow human beings?" So this is me asking the online strat community:
Are you of the opinion that strat is great the way it is, and improvements made should be on giving more options, seasons, and cards? And if so, what is it that satisfies your needs better than the graphical/games rooms proposal I mentioned?
I like playing online strat the way it is structured presently, and will continue to play it. It's fun. But it will probably be only one season at a time as that is what I think it is worth spending 20.00 a pop to do. Now if my proposal were to bear fruit, I could see myself buying yearly subscriptions and getting a lot more enjoyment out of it.
I won't assume others agree with me, unless they state they do, and hopefully I will make less of an ass of myself in the future.
Thank you for reading my post and I would sincerely appreciate any answer you give (damn now I'm sounding like a politician )
Scott.
In many of my posts I have made the assumption that strat online is a substitute. That it is a 2nd class replacement for the board game. It does have its own merits, but overall it is something strat players come to because they either a) have the time to play the board game, but cant find enough players to play against, or b) don't have the time needed because of jobs and families. There are probably a few other reasons as well, but the two points I have given most likely cover most online strat players (another assumption I hope doesn't make me an ass).
Anyway, to put it more succinctly, The assumption I made is: If online strat players had the time and a good amount of opponents to play against, they would choose the board game over online strat every time.
Because of this assumption, I then went on to argue that strat, if they could set up an online version of the game, that better reflects the game-play you get when you are playing the board game, it would be a large improvement over its current version. That if strat had a visual graphic environment that looked and behaved similar to when you are face-to-face with an opponent at a table (as they do with poker tables and other games), every online strat player would prefer it (even if it was just to watch rather than participate, if one chooses to do only that).
I explained the concept in more detail in other posts, but to put it simply, an online version of strat that has a structure which allows you to interact with others in and out of game rooms, that allows the creation of leagues, or individual game play, allows games to be played by computer or human being, tracks statistics and ranks managers, and when you do play the games, a graphical interface similar to the board game (which then can be watched afterward).
It seems like a huge project, but it is standard across all gaming on the internet and therefore can't be seen as insurmountable even for smaller organizations.
These ideas I assumed were universal, and here is where I made an ass of myself. There seems to be many people who enjoy online strat just the way it is. That there criticisms about improving the game had nothing to do with the structure and set up of the game itself, but that there were not enough options or cards available. In other words, keep the game as it is, where hal plays all the games, but give us better choices, like "no stealing third base" or "do not bunt with this player" and give us more cards and seasons to play with.
Whenever I come across resistance and argument to something I thought was more universal, I usually am at a loss. As a good and open-minded person, I then must find out why. I ask myself, "Am I that clueless about my fellow human beings?" So this is me asking the online strat community:
Are you of the opinion that strat is great the way it is, and improvements made should be on giving more options, seasons, and cards? And if so, what is it that satisfies your needs better than the graphical/games rooms proposal I mentioned?
I like playing online strat the way it is structured presently, and will continue to play it. It's fun. But it will probably be only one season at a time as that is what I think it is worth spending 20.00 a pop to do. Now if my proposal were to bear fruit, I could see myself buying yearly subscriptions and getting a lot more enjoyment out of it.
I won't assume others agree with me, unless they state they do, and hopefully I will make less of an ass of myself in the future.
Thank you for reading my post and I would sincerely appreciate any answer you give (damn now I'm sounding like a politician )
Scott.