Don't Fight in Darkness - SunTzu Art of War

IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, WITHOUT ANY DISRESPECTS TO ANYONE READING THIS , STUMBLE UPON THIS, I AM SUGGESTING THAT YOU READ THIS AND DONT FIGHT IN DARKNESS

This will take you to a link outside this forumhttp://vampiresbane.blogspot.com/2011/06/comparing-pvp-mmos-using-sun-tzus-art.htmlIt will most probably help my "enemy" more than it would my own server, (off course you aren't in reality, but in the game you are",) but I hope It might shed some lights for my people. Since I think we are fighting in Darkness., anytime someone pointed out the the reason, that person gets burn.

Fight Smart

I cant find any night fighting or similar quotes by Sun Tzu. This thread is a sham.

People love to reference this book because its famous, like the Iliad, for being old.

Believe it or not our species has made some advancements in warfighting since then.

»I don‘t get it.«- Every stealth class in any game

This is very old (2011), very handwavy, and a lot of the commentary is premised on the idea that making it easier to achieve a set of strategic goals (the "rules") makes for a better game, which is a very faulty premise for evaluating or understanding games.

To pick one of the points as an example,

4. Know your enemy and know yourself and in 100 battles, you will never be in peril.In most situations in all three games, it's really more important to know yourself, your players, and the tendencies of the PUG's within your group (if you have any). However, WoW and DAOC actually trump GW 2 in this regard because there is NO rotation of enemies which means you can actually get to know your enemy. There is rotation for arenas in WoW, but I'm fairly certain you'll face a rotation of teams in GW 2 arena fights as well. Pre-Lich King WoW and DAOC had you pitted against rivals that you got to know and hate over time. Real rivalries could spring up (and you could get to know your enemies' tendencies). The one downside to rotating who you fight against in WvW for GW 2 is that your enemy never stays the same. Though WvW rotation is superior in many ways to RvR in DAOC, in this one way, it is inferior.

It's true: introducing a variety of opponents is an impediment to your "know your enemy" strategy (whatever that really means). That's what makes it more challenging. Your strategic goal is to "never be in peril." But the game's goal is to put you in peril, because peril is fun. That tension between your goal and your circumstances creates the challenge and gameplay in the first place.

And, like, with ten years of hindsight it's obvious that the rotating setup of WvW (both the modern one and the original system) doesn't somehow erase your past knowledge of the people you've played. The idea that "real rivalries" don't develop within a larger league structure has no basis in reality.

So I'd suggest this analytic framework is mostly useless "as a measuring stick" to either a designer or a player.

@LetoII.3782 said:People love to reference this book because its famous, like the Iliad, for being old.

Believe it or not our species has made some advancements in warfighting since then.

I was told if I read and quote it I become a better edge lord. Was it a lie?

@"ASP.8093" said:This is very old (2011), very handwavy, and a lot of the commentary is premised on the idea that making it easier to achieve a set of strategic goals (the "rules") makes for a better game, which is a very faulty premise for evaluating or understanding games.

To pick one of the points as an example,

4. Know your enemy and know yourself and in 100 battles, you will never be in peril.In most situations in all three games, it's really more important to know yourself, your players, and the tendencies of the PUG's within your group (if you have any). However, WoW and DAOC actually trump GW 2 in this regard because there is NO rotation of enemies which means you can actually get to know your enemy. There is rotation for arenas in WoW, but I'm fairly certain you'll face a rotation of teams in GW 2 arena fights as well. Pre-Lich King WoW and DAOC had you pitted against rivals that you got to know and hate over time. Real rivalries could spring up (and you could get to know your enemies' tendencies). The one downside to rotating who you fight against in WvW for GW 2 is that your enemy never stays the same. Though WvW rotation is superior in many ways to RvR in DAOC, in this one way, it is inferior.

I rather find that it is much less a problem with the qoute and more with a faulty interpretation of it because the author does not understand the context.

I think avid players of GW2 WvW has a general understanding of the entire (or majorly) ladder being the theatre of war. A matchup is only a battle or series of related battles. Rotating matchups does not contradict the quote as a result.

Any matchup we get we often get a general understanding of, oh, it's server X, home to guild(s) Y, commanded by player(s) Z. That is a concept of interaction that is as easily understood by solidiers of the chinese warring states era as it is to players of GW2 WvW.

@LetoII.3782 said:People love to reference this book because its famous, like the Iliad, for being old.

Believe it or not our species has made some advancements in warfighting since then.

It's still being used by militaries allover the world,so are the teachings of Saladin. Can those teachings be used in a game ? Yes they can.

@Caedmon.6798 said:

@"LetoII.3782" said:People love to reference this book because its famous, like the Iliad, for being old.

Believe it or not our species has made some advancements in warfighting since then.

And we read the Iliad in English class, not for its masterful composition or clever wordplay but to keep touch with our roots. Such gems as "don't do frontal assaults unnecessarily" or "forts good to prepare in, but can't win wars" are still relevant in an untra-basic way, sure....

@"Justine.6351" said:

I was told if I read and quote it I become a better edge lord. Was it a lie?

Great philosopher say: "To know SunTzu is wisdom, to quote Sun Tzu is to be a basic kitten"

i read his "Art of War", but there have been more concrete descriptions that would suit Wvw.

plus, Sun Tzu was likely not one person, but the wisdom of several generals. therefore it can even use different approaches that not all might have agreed with.

Wvw is 90% played FAR too casual to really use the rules of "Art of War". some stuff is probably basic military strategy and can work, or does so automatically.

also, the points taken here been summarized by the blogger. the original points were not that many, you should just read the book. it is really good, but you have to read the whole of it to understand the context.for me this citation has too much "mimimi commanders fault". like, in a Wvw fight, there's not as much on stake as in a real war's battle. u neither lose your character, nor u lose the war, nor u lose rewards directly if u wipe a battle, not even if 10 battles in a row (u waste ur time kinda then, unless it's kinda training)

I just use de in wvw and make people go bye, bye.

Sun Tzu once said, and I quote :

Big Water On Tag