quality or quantity

my brother buys stuff like a $120 watch, $170 skateboard, $70 hoody... everything he has costs alot. i prefer quantity. i like decent stuff and lots of them. what do you think?

Normally, I instinctively lean towards the quality side of things... when it comes to video games, or my armies in Starcraft, or any number of other things.

But with the example that you mentioned, it is definitely the other way around

It obviously Quality, 3 Tauran + 1 Spirit Walker will absolutely Maul 8 Grunts (Especially, if they're all fully upg'd)

*Japanese voice*

Balance is the key to all.

*cough*

But seriously, I don't buy anything thats cheapie, cause then it stuffs up on ya, and you have to pay more moneys anyway to replace or fix it. Sure, you could get lots of them, but thats also lots of them broken too.

I wouldn't buy something complete top-of-the-range, depending on what I'm buying of course, as I would be too cautious with it, and half the time its not worth it.

So I go for something, most of the time, thats somewhere in the middle, although more leaning on the quality side.

Originally posted by InfestedBarbarian
It obviously Quality, 3 Tauran + 1 Spirit Walker will absolutely Maul 8 Grunts (Especially, if they're all fully upg'd)

... What are you talking about?

Anyway, I would say I prefer quality...

Originally posted by William Zelda4ever
... What are you talking about?

Anyway, I would say I prefer quality...

Warcraft or Starcraft I belive...
Uhm.. It depends on what..
I'm not really sure..

Certainly quality.....in reality only one of something is necessary.

Zergling rushing can be quite effective, ya know.

I love swarming a single, more powerful unit with a bunch of weaker units in RTS games. If the unit doesn't deal splash damage, it has to pick off all the attacking units one at a time.

I agree with Peefy, it depends.

I prefer quality. I mean, would you rather have five of the worst video games in excistance, or would you want a pretty good one?

And besides, there is the expression, 'quality over quantity'

Yes, Saderox. Microsoft and Nintendo tried to sell the Xbox/GameCube when it was released with quantity. They just kept saying "we will be having 20-30 games at the release of the Xbox/GameCube, so that means we rock and that you should get our console". Of all those games, probably 2-3 were good... I won't get sort of off-topic now.

yeah... but would you want a decent skateboard and a $40 video game or a $170 skateboard. yeah it does depend. when i play halo, i dont like having a big team, more people to be killed and that means more points for the other team. i like my team to be just me and a friend who are both good. that way we can split up and make it harder for them to kill us since we are always watchin each others backs.

There are often many variables to take into account, leaving you with a less than clear answer.

Lets take the RTS or even the general RPG computer format of cost benefit analysis. (this has always given me a minor fascination) Say you get one unit at 50 credits. This unit deals 4 damage. Another unit deals 8 damage at 100 credits. Outwardly, they are worth the same amount. Given identical weapon speed you have no advantage over mass production of the former rather then using the latter. It could be further exasperated by "upgrade" costs, which may be redundant in a cut and dry case such as this.

But that isn't where it ends. Say that unit now has a defense of +1 when it is upgraded. Now it "saves" one damage per hit. It is now more cost effective over the long run.

To crunch the numbers further, how much resources do I pull in over a certain amount of time (time is your most precious resource- never stored, always spent). It may not be cost effective to cripple my economy to upgrade to this unit. When you index the prohibitive cost of military units versus villagers you realize that the benefit of say, 10 more villagers would far outweigh the benefit of a singular military unit. Furthermore, economic units "pay for themselves" in their work, whereas the cost effectiveness of a military unit is sketchy at best. Perhaps a 100 credit military unit would have to destroy the same "value" to "break even" and to be "worth it".

And it certaintly doesn't end here. Lets take a page out of RPGs such as the Diablo series. Looking at Mana cost, versus spell casting frequency, versus the cost of skill points you can get an often unclear look at what is the most effective, if I may, what gives you the most "bang for you buck". Furthermore you have to factor in the use of the spell. For instance, a clay golem versus a fire golem. If, in the end, the idea is to use it as a "tank", then the idea of spending several more skill points just to upgrade to fire golem is prohibitive unless its lifepoints are significantly higher than the clay golem. They, of course, are not. The clay golem not only has the lifepoint advantage but, if you look more closely- it has life regenerative characteristics and "hit slows target" characteristics. On paper, the clay golem can survive longer because its hitpoints are greater, it can regenerate lifepoints and because its hit slows targets, thereby lessening the frequency in which it gets hit.

My favorite bit of theoretical damage reduction was in the case of the tank sorceress. By factoring in pure defense, magical and physical damage reduction, mana shield, items with phys. damage reduction... you could get to a grand total of 97+ damage reduction- far more than a melee character could ever hope for, and most likely unintentional.

I've ranted a bit, but please feel free to ask me questions.

EDIT: Darn! I can't find the guide I was looking for at diabloii.net, the sorceress guide. It seems they've kept up with the times and the 1.10 patch, while I haven't.
EDIT2: I still love the strategy articles for the original diablo for their keen insight into some of the nuances, minus some of the more confusing aspects of its sequel.
EDIT3: More examples. Say you are building a necromancer in D2. By putting more points into "amp damage" you increase its radius. If you want to use the awarness decreasing skill "dim vision", then you don't want to put more points into this because curses override other curses when they are cast- and you would hit monsters unintentionally. Bigger is not always better, especially when you are relying on finesse.

Really, I just buy the stuff I want.

If I want a good Gamecube game I won't go and buy two bad ones for the same prize.

Ô.õ

Bobslob, with the RTS example you gave, the smaller units are much more efficient. Why? Not only do they cost the same and do equal damage, but the armour on the larger unit is negated because of the number of smaller units you are able to buy. Not only can you surround units with the smaller units (restricting movement), most of the time, only one of them can be attacked at once by a single unit. That's why Zergling rushes in StarCraft work so well - they don't necessarily do a huge amount of damage, but considering their speed and cost, they're a very viable option.

In Diablo, you've basically got that right, although I find that Tank Sorcs (Sorceresses) are as hard to find as Bow Babas (Barbarians) these days. It's a somewhat inefficient setup, because Sorcs require skill points to do any damage at all, and if you use them all on defensive spells, you aren't going to have many skill points left for offensive spells, and even less when you factor in the prerequisites.

Now, getting somewhat back on topic...I almost always choose quality. I don't go to the store and buy seven crappy pairs of pants, no, I buy one or two generally better ones that will last me much longer.

Like I said- it was a passing look at it.

I know those builds are neigh impossible- but the theory fascinates me.

But from the strictest stand point, i only gave cost and damage. Realistically you get increased movement, increased weapon speed, increased damage, increased armor increased health.

You forget population caps also. Which adds another whole dynamic to it.

I do agree to strength in numbers, which I did not even touch on. (intentionally). Your scenario of 1vs. many is correct. Such as multiple bowman vs. a cavalry charge. Each singular one is weak, but if you factor in say, 5, times 3 damage each, and one shot every three seconds.... you get the point.

When I was talking, I was thinking strict comparison cost wise. In other words, my 100 credits vs. his 100 credits. I did support the fact that the non-upgraded units would be more effective than the singular upgraded unit. The other thing to think about is long-term upgradeablility. If that unit is going to be upgraded, then splurging is not necesarrily a bad thing. Kinda like in AOE where you would have a whole bunch of units... and mid battle they'd suddenly upgrade. If that unit is going to be lost in the dust of technological advancements then it is a short-term solution only. In the case of rushes though, the point is to kill the other guy early- which negates the need to have fully upgradeable units. Of course if you fail, it often dooms you.

If you think of it in terms of money, you can integrate the economy and military aspects into your game much more easily.

I never realized I liked looking at numbers so much...

Well, perhaps there's an accounting course open at your school, Bobslob.

And yes, it's true that there are many factors in RTS games that would cause such a dilemma to become even more complicated, although it's much too much work to mention all of those right now.

Well, most of the time its quality higher than quantity. Mostly depends on what it is but most of the time I buy a little that lasts long than a bunch of stuff that lasts not-so-long.

Clothes and games most definately quality, sales though sort of mess that up so I get a quantity of quality... :p

Originally posted by necroton
Zergling rushing can be quite effective, ya know.

I love swarming a single, more powerful unit with a bunch of weaker units in RTS games. If the unit doesn't deal splash damage, it has to pick off all the attacking units one at a time.

I agree with Peefy, it depends.

True, Zergling rush is a great tactic but only in the beginning. 1 Zealot can take down 3 Zerglings before he dies so if the opponent has Zealots when you rush, you might fail.
But then if you take in account that 1 Zealot cannot attack 3 Zerglings at the same time it still doesn't matter because the Zealot has so much hitpoints and does so much damage that 1 Zealot will be quick enough to take o