|
There is a pervasive misconception that removing complex mechanics reduces skill from a competitive game and adding complex mechanics adds more skill to the game. This is not true.
If removing mechanics, for example removing denying, items, and individual levels from HotS compared to Dota 2, reduces the skill required to play a competitive game, then what separates the winning team from the losing team and why can't you always win? Because it doesn't remove skill, it merely shifts where skill is needed.
The origin of this false belief is simple: people argue that because a mechanic was removed, it is easier to play the game and win. But this is wrong, because in a competitive game, removing a mechanic also makes it easier for your opponent to play the game and win. These two forces exactly cancel out, so in fact, the game is not any easier. The skill required is the same.
In symbols:
Your skill: X. Your opponent's skill: Y.
If X > Y, then you win.
If a complex mechanic is removed, you (incorrectly) think you're better as a result of the game being made easier:
Your skill: X+c. Your opponent’s skill: Y,
where c>0. But in fact, what's really happened is that:
Your skill: X+c. Your opponent’s skill: Y+c,
and so the game isn't easier, the skill required to win is completely unchanged.
Humans can only do a finite number of things at one time. So, for example, removing pointless gimmicks and restrictions in MOBAs frees players to focus on other real skills, like strategizing around merc camps and map objectives, landing skillshots, and winning team fights. Therefore, instead of doing less and lowering the achievable skill ceiling, the achievable skill ceiling doesn't change, it's still bounded by the finite amount of things humans can do just as before, but it shifts where skill is needed. In a picture:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lPCiFU5.png)
To appreciate this point, let's consider a few examples that people would incorrectly believe to be dumbing down games.
Example 1: Adding auto-aim to CS:GO (removing complexity)
Aiming is a huge part of CS:GO, it's one of the most important skills in the game. Does adding auto-aim dumb down the game, reduce skill or kill depth? No. The game will still require just as much skill as it does now. Instead of being about aiming, auto-aim would shift the game to be about positioning, strategy, flashing and firing with maximum lethality (minimizing recoil). The team with more skill in avoiding situations where they will be killed by the opponent's auto-aim by being at the right place at the right time would win. The skill of correct positioning would be absolutely critical. So playing CS:GO with auto-aim would require the same amount of skill it requires now, it just emphasizes different types of skills, like positioning.
Example 2: Removing units and buildings from WC3 (removing complexity)
Suppose people thought that WC3 was too hard to play. Microing an army with up to 3 heroes and building units was just too hard. So some people wanted to play a very dumbed down version of the game by removing everything except heroes. But even microing up to 3 heroes was too hard, so to further dumb it down, each person only controls 1 hero. And thus, Dota and with it, the MOBA genre, was born. Did this remove skill and depth, dumb down the game too much, or make it too easy? No, instead of focusing on building and microing armies, the focus has shifted to things like pushing lanes, last hitting, and buying the right items. And if more mechanics like items, individual levels and denying were removed like in HotS, the game will require just as much skill, instead the skill will shift to strategizing around map objectives, executing and winning team fights. In fact, if we take it to the extreme of removing abilities, levels and buildings, so that all heroes can only auto-attack in a small arena, there will still be an incredible amount of skill involved in getting the right engagements, attacking the right target, and positioning. If such a game had esports tournaments and ladders, you will still be destroyed by the most skilled teams, proving that skill has not being reduced at all.
Example 3: Removing multiple unit selection, building queues and rally points from SC2 (adding complexity)
Early in the development of SC2, a bunch of complainers lamented the addition of multiple building selection for dumbing down the game and that it would destroy SC2. They've been completely discredited as SC2 is not destroyed and still requires an insane amount of skill. If it didn't, why haven't these complainers won all the GSLs? But why stop at multiple building selection? If making the UI harder to use adds skill to the game, then removing multiple unit selection, building queues and rally points would add even more skill. So why not do that? Because it doesn't add more skill. It just shifts the skill from building the right units, microing, harassing, executing the correct strategy to the lame skill of fighting the UI by moving 1 unit at a time, building 1 unit at a time and rallying each unit individually. Removing multiple unit selection makes it harder for you to play. But it equally makes it harder for your opponent to play, so nothing has changed, the skill required to win won't increase. Thus, the game would neither be harder nor require more skill.
Example 4: Removing everything from SC2 except workers (removing complexity)
SC2 is a complicated game, and requires skill to play. Perhaps one way of dumbing it down is to remove everything except SCVs. The game would then be SCV Wars. But such a game also requires the same amount of skill as SC2 currently. Instead of being about macroing and microing armies, it would be about microing 6 SCVs, when to focus fire, and when to pull away the SCV that is being focused by your opponent. Blizzard could make a ladder for SCV Wars, and the people in Diamond league of the SCV Wars ladder will still be destroyed by those in Masters league, because the game requires the same amount of skill, just in different areas. If there were SCV Wars esports touraments, your chance of beating those winners at a game of SCV Wars would be as astronomically small as your chance of beating Zest in SC2, because the equivalent of Zest in SCV Wars will have godlike SCV micro as if psychically control by his mind.
In fact, the following fact holds:
Law of Dumbing Down Games
The only way to reduce skill in a competitive game is to change the rules so that there is an optimal strategy satisfying the following 3 conditions:
1. The optimal strategy is implementable by players/teams.
2. When implemented by one player/team, but not the opposing player/team, the player/team that implements the optimal strategy wins.
3. When implemented by both players/teams, the game either results in a draw or is completely determined by luck.
Examples include SCV Wars where both players have only 1 SCV (the optimal stratgy is attack) or Tic-tac-toe.
Thus, the question is not whether removing features reduces skill (it doesn't), instead it's about what skill the game mechanics emphasize. Is the game about skill in capturing map objectives or skill in memorizing optimal rune builds? Skill in microing armies or skill in fighting against a UI that doesn't have multiple-unit selection? Skill in winning team fights or skill in last hitting creeps?
A corollary of the Law of Dumbing Down Games is that, in a competitive game, any argument that removing a mechanic, such as last hitting or items, that does not change the game to satisfy the above 3 condition's, would dumb down the game or make the game require less skill is automatically invalid and wrong. A further corollary is that mechanics should not be chosen to increase or reduce skill required, because virtually every mechanic will have no effect on skill required. Instead mechanics should be chosen based on whether they are fun, interesting to watch, and fits with the design goals of the game. For this reason, a much greater emphasis on team fights as can be found in HotS is the objectively correct way to design a MOBA, and last hitting in MOBAs is as pointless and unnecessary as the following mechanic:
Your hero is granted +1 basic attack permanently under the following conditions: "If you hit a minion with 2 basic attacks where the time between the two attacks is between 1.4 to 1.6 seconds, then a pop-up appears with a simple arithmetic problem, like '4x13=?', and if you type in the correct answer within 2 seconds,you are awarded +1 basic attack permanently".
TLDR: In a competitive game, if you make it easier to do X, people won't simply do less, they will do less X and more Y.
|
Your entire post runs on the assumption that when you remove a complex mechanic, the skill ceiling still stays at the same height. You even claim that it doesn't lower it, but you never prove this. You simply say that it is so.
You can't just say that "removing X causes more skill to be deposited into doing Y". This discussion is done all the time comparing SC:BW to SC2.
Your argument essentially says, "By adding MBS, people just focus more on positioning and strategy, therefore the overall skill level hasn't diminished".
The skill ceiling for any one game is an aggregate of the skill ceilings for all the individual things that you do in the game. The statement (add MBS = more skill for positioning) assumes that the skill ceiling for positioning/strategy in SC2 is high enough to compensate for the skill that isn't used in macro when compared to BW. However, it's pretty easy to argue that this is false, and that BW actually uses more positioning skill than SC2 does, despite the fact that BW also requires more skill on the macro side of things.
In the end, you're operating under the assumption that each category of skill in a game has a static (and possibly infinite) skill ceiling. This simply is not true. There's only so much you can do in terms of positioning, strategy, micro, macro, etc. in any given game, and many of these categories are met in any given game. You can't just say, "Well people will focus on positioning more and get better at positioning!" if there isn't any better play to be had in that facet of the game.
|
Doesn't this assume that the skill ceilings of all games are the same?I think different games have different ceilings and various mechanics cause that.
|
United States47024 Posts
There's one thing you're also not accounting for, which is that every single one of these games, which is that on the list of factors needed to win the game, random chance is also a part of every one of the mentioned games. In shooters it's random bullet spread. In Warcraft 3, it's item drops from creep camps. In DotA/LoL, it's crit chance/miss chance, etc.
Even if we take what you said to be true, that removing an aspect of the game simply redistributes the contribution toward winning the game that every other component makes--the random element is also one of these components. If removing a mechanic increases the relative importance of every other aspect of the game to fill the divide, it also increases the relative importance of luck and random chance.
This is where the somewhat justified belief of removing mechanics' impact on skill comes from. While the "skill-cap" is still the same, the relative importance of luck becomes higher as you remove player input/decision making. If the relative importance of luck is higher, it likewise means the probability that a weaker player will beat a stronger player based purely on getting lucky is also higher--which consequently makes the game *feel* less skill-dependent.
|
This argument is mostly semantics. However, reducing complexity should bring skill ranges closer together.
In brood war the difference between a top 10% player vs a top 9% player vs top 8% vs a top 5% player vs a top 1% player vs a top .01% player were more noticeable than in sc2 for example. In brood war i once played against 4 of my friends at the same time, and they were "good casual players", and I beat them all at the same time. This is just completely impossible in sc2.
And it's because no matter how good someone is at starcraft 2, they will never be able to have a big enough gap in skill vs players with even a remote clue to pull off something like that.
I agree with your overall idea though. People are not reaching or coming close to skill ceilings in any competitive game.
|
On August 17 2014 13:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Your entire post runs on the assumption that when you remove a complex mechanic, the skill ceiling still stays at the same height. You even claim that it doesn't lower it, but you never prove this. You simply say that it is so.
You can't just say that "removing X causes more skill to be deposited into doing Y". This discussion is done all the time comparing SC:BW to SC2.
Your argument essentially says, "By adding MBS, people just focus more on positioning and strategy, therefore the overall skill level hasn't diminished".
The skill ceiling for any one game is an aggregate of the skill ceilings for all the individual things that you do in the game. The statement (add MBS = more skill for positioning) assumes that the skill ceiling for positioning/strategy in SC2 is high enough to compensate for the skill that isn't used in macro when compared to BW. However, it's pretty easy to argue that this is false, and that BW actually uses more positioning skill than SC2 does, despite the fact that BW also requires more skill on the macro side of things.
In the end, you're operating under the assumption that each category of skill in a game has a static (and possibly infinite) skill ceiling. This simply is not true. There's only so much you can do in terms of positioning, strategy, micro, macro, etc. in any given game, and many of these categories are met in any given game. You can't just say, "Well people will focus on positioning more and get better at positioning!" if there isn't any better play to be had in that facet of the game.
You have not understood the argument. Games with many complex mechanics can have a very high theoretical skill ceiling, and removing those mechanics can lower the skill ceiling. But lowering the theoretical skill ceiling generally does not dumb down nor make the game require less skill to play, because, as I explained, players are constrained by the finite number of things humans can do, so they can't hit that skill ceiling. It is obvious that lowering a skill ceiling that cannot be hit changes nothing about the skill required to play a game by a human, because they can't hit it anyway.
In a competitive game, if the game is made easier (e.g. multiple unit selection is added), you can still change your play to 1-up your opponent, by focusing more on strategy and less on selecting units, one at a time. If not, then why can't you win 100% of the time? If another mechanic is changed to make it easier (e.g. multiple building selection is added), again you can still change your play to 1-up your opponent, by focusing less on macro and more on micro. This can be repeated indefinitely as long as the skill ceiling doesn't fall below what humans can do. If it does, that's when the Law of Dumbing Down Games applies, and both players can't do anything more to improve their game and increase their chance of winning because they are using the optimal strategy. Only in that case is the game truly dumbed down.
You claim that BW requires both more macro skill and positioning skill than SC2, so that the loss of macro skill in SC2 is not compensated and my argument is wrong. No. Even if BW requires more skill in both, my argument is still correct, because it's not about how each mechanic adds to the "aggregate skill cap", that's irrelevant, it's about whether the aggregate skill cap remains above what is humanly possible. And it is. Thus, the game is no easier because you can't always win as more skilled humans will still beat you.
You also mention some skills, like positioning, cannot be improved any more. If a game was dumbed down so much that it's 100% about positioning (e.g. CS:GO with auto-aim and auto-fire) and positioning really can't be improved by humans (i.e. there is an optimal strategy that satisfies the 3 conditions), then by applying the Law of Dumbing Down Games, it can be concluded that in this case the game is dumbed down and skill has been reduced. But SC2 is not 100% about positioning, and positioning can virtually always be improved, if only slightly. In a game like CS:GO with auto-aim and auto-fire, a slight improvement in skill in positioning can be the difference between winning and losing. But I don't see anyone using this argument that "the game has been reduced to a skill with an optimal strategy, implementable by humans, that cannot be improved", which would be a logical valid argument.
My argument is simple:
If a competitive game is dumbed down to require less skill, then why can't you always win? If you can play an optimal strategy that makes it so that you always win or always draw or reduce the game to 100% luck, by the Law of Dumbing Down Games, the game's skill has been reduced. But if you can't, then you don't have an optimal strategy and so there's more you can do to improve your skill further.
|
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Kupon3ss/lPCiFU5.png)
Adding and removing meaningless gimmick paragraphs do not change the overall bullshit ceiling and this is consistent with the Law of Conciseness of Bullshit. Then why do you spend so many seemingly complex paragraphs trying to explain the complexity and nuances of your Bullshit when removing the paragraphs obviously wouldn't dumb it down at all.
|
On August 17 2014 14:12 TheYango wrote:
There's one thing you're also not accounting for, which is that every single one of these games, which is that on the list of factors needed to win the game, random chance is also a part of every one of the mentioned games. In shooters it's random bullet spread. In Warcraft 3, it's item drops from creep camps. In DotA/LoL, it's crit chance/miss chance, etc.
Even if we take what you said to be true, that removing an aspect of the game simply redistributes the contribution toward winning the game that every other component makes--the random element is also one of these components. If removing a mechanic increases the relative importance of every other aspect of the game to fill the divide, it also increases the relative importance of luck and random chance.
This is where the somewhat justified belief of removing mechanics' impact on skill comes from. While the "skill-cap" is still the same, the relative importance of luck becomes higher as you remove player input/decision making. If the relative importance of luck is higher, it likewise means the probability that a weaker player will beat a stronger player based purely on getting lucky is also higher--which consequently makes the game *feel* less skill-dependent.
Yes, if a game has an element of RNG, then removing complex mechanics increases the contribution of RNG. However, many games don't have RNG (although they lack perfect information), e.g. CS:GO, SC2 and HotS
But I don't see anyone arguing that removing mechanic X from Dota 2 is bad because it increases the contribution of RNG since the contribution of RNG is quite negligible and the removal of one mechanic is usually replaced with another (e.g. remove items and denying from HotS, but add talents and map objectives). Who's going around saying, don't remove X, because it would make the game too much about RNG?
|
Minor point. In Dota there is psuedo random chance on many random factors. Meaning it is possible to effect the probability of the next attack being a bash or crit for example. If you make it fully random you decrease possible player input into the game mechanic. Very few people actually try to effect the random chances though, which makes a case for other factors being more important.
The discussion about full random or psuedo random rages pretty hard at times. A thing like 4 bashes in a row on a 10% probability can win or lose a lane. Perhaps effect a full games win chance 5%, which is a huge thing on random factors.
|
On August 17 2014 14:22 Kupon3ss wrote:Adding and removing meaningless gimmick paragraphs do not change the overall bullshit ceiling and this is consistent with the Law of Conciseness of Bullshit. Then why do you spend so many seemingly complex paragraphs trying to explain the complexity and nuances of your Bullshit when removing the paragraphs obviously wouldn't dumb it down at all.
Well I wanted to do this, but I don't have the added banhammer protection that comes with actually being a useful member of the Team Liquid community, so I'll just quote this instead.
Also, did anyone else have trouble telling whether or not he was being sarcastic? Alarm bells started going off like crazy after he came up with the SCV wars example, but it seems like he was actually serious?
|
"In a competitive game, if you make it easier to do X, people won't simply do less, they will do less X and more Y."
So? I can be argued when everything is automated for the player, is that even a point to playing such games.
If I want to just play tactics and strategy i might as well play chess,checkers or ff tactics or some similar thinking game that actually tests your ability to think and make decisions.
not something that just rely on secondguessing BO and fending off cheese/timings like SC2, which is more akin to poker than the mechanical behemoth that is SC1.
Plus your argument that dumbing down game mechanics does not really affect game play is wrong. the person that has better mechanics is unable to differentiate themselves from the rest due to the limitations of the game not allowing him to do so.
Lets say that there are two persons, person A and person B
person A has inherently better "mechanical" skill than B. He can input commands faster, has better APM etc.
on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 the lowest and 10 the highest
, lets say A has mechanical skill of rating "8" while B only has rating of "5".
Otherwise he is essentially similar to person B in terms of decision making, positioning etc.
now for the sake of simplifying a game the dev has decided to make X, a skill which requires a lot of mechanical skill to pull off better, much easier to do. this can encompass a wide range of functions within a game and may not be limited to just one aspect of the game itself. things like introducing autoaim or automating various things that usually require lots of mechanical input
Essentially what the dev has done to lower the ceiling of the spectrum of X. Lets say in the process of automating all this shit the game essentially goes down from a potentially limitless rating to say, "4"
If B has played A before the dumb-down of game mechanics, his lower rating of 5 compared to A rating of 8 would make him unable to compete with A within a single game in the longer term and would have to rely on cheese/timings to have the highest chance of winning, since other than mechanics he is on par with A as a player.
After the mechanics dumb-down, A whom a potential rating of 8 and is now hampered by the game mechanical ceiling of "4" every time he plays against B.
Now, B stands a much higher chance of winning than A throughout the game simply because the game mechanical ceiling has been dumbed down.
Now the only thing I wonder is that if you consider mechanics as part of the spectrum of "skills" or your Dunning Krueger mindset can't handle the fact that there will always be a player mechanically better than you, hence you starting this thread to dismiss the notion that the whole "dumbing down of games" trend is nothing more than to cater to the casual playerbase.
On August 17 2014 14:46 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
Well I wanted to do this, but I don't have the added banhammer protection that comes with actually being a useful member of the Team Liquid community, so I'll just quote this instead.
Also, did anyone else have trouble telling whether or not he was being sarcastic? Alarm bells started going off like crazy after he came up with the SCV wars example, but it seems like he was actually serious?
Well such posts are always either troll or just general dumbness from lack of experience in older games.
|
United States47024 Posts
Yes, if a game has an element of RNG, then removing complex mechanics increases the contribution of RNG. However, many games don't have RNG (although they lack perfect information), e.g. CS:GO, SC2 and HotS
Any game that involves decision making (i.e. all of them) is ultimately subject to randomness because a player who does not know the correct decision in a given situation is going to be guessing. The less decisions there are to make due to the removal of aspects of the game, the higher the likelihood that a weaker player can "guess" his way through the game because there are less things for him to guess wrong on, even though the relative importance of each decision becomes higher.
But I don't see anyone arguing that removing mechanic X from Dota 2 is bad because it increases the contribution of RNG since the contribution of RNG is quite negligible and the removal of one mechanic is usually replaced with another (e.g. remove items and denying from HotS, but add talents and map objectives). Who's going around saying, don't remove X, because it would make the game too much about RNG?
This is because fundamentally the way people think about games is results-oriented, not process-oriented. When they see a weaker player luck his way into beating a better player, they focus on the result as the problem (weaker player beat a better player--must mean that the better player's skill difference didn't impact the game enough) and not on the process that led to that outcome.
|
On August 17 2014 14:50 Probemicro wrote:"In a competitive game, if you make it easier to do X, people won't simply do less, they will do less X and more Y." So? I can be argued when everything is automated for the player, is that even a point to playing such games. If I want to just play tactics and strategy i might as well play chess,checkers or ff tactics or some similar thinking game that actually tests your ability to think and make decisions. not something that just rely on secondguessing BO and fending off cheese/timings like SC2, which is more akin to poker than the mechanical behemoth that is SC1. Plus your argument that dumbing down game mechanics does not really affect game play is wrong. the person that has better mechanics is unable to differentiate themselves from the rest due to the limitations of the game not allowing him to do so. Lets say that there are two persons, person A and person B person A has inherently better "mechanical" skill than B. He can input commands faster, has better APM etc. on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 the lowest and 10 the highest , lets say A has mechanical skill of rating "8" while B only has rating of "5". Otherwise he is essentially similar to person B in terms of decision making, positioning etc.now for the sake of simplifying a game the dev has decided to make X, a skill which requires a lot of mechanical skill to pull off better, much easier to do. this can encompass a wide range of functions within a game and may not be limited to just one aspect of the game itself. things like introducing autoaim or automating various things that usually require lots of mechanical input Essentially what the dev has done to lower the ceiling of the spectrum of X. Lets say in the process of automating all this shit the game essentially goes down from a potentially limitless rating to say, "4" If B has played A before the dumb-down of game mechanics, his lower rating of 5 compared to A rating of 8 would make him unable to compete with A within a single game in the longer term and would have to rely on cheese/timings to have the highest chance of winning, since other than mechanics he is on par with A as a player. After the mechanics dumb-down, A whom a potential rating of 8 and is now hampered by the game mechanical ceiling of "4" every time he plays against B.
Now, B stands a much higher chance of winning than A throughout the game simply because the game mechanical ceiling has been dumbed down. Now the only thing I wonder is that if you consider mechanics as part of the spectrum of "skills" or your Dunning Krueger mindset can't handle the fact that there will always be a player mechanically better than you, hence you starting this thread to dismiss the notion that the whole "dumbing down of games" trend is nothing more than to cater to the casual playerbase. Show nested quote +On August 17 2014 14:46 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
Well I wanted to do this, but I don't have the added banhammer protection that comes with actually being a useful member of the Team Liquid community, so I'll just quote this instead.
Also, did anyone else have trouble telling whether or not he was being sarcastic? Alarm bells started going off like crazy after he came up with the SCV wars example, but it seems like he was actually serious? Well such posts are always either troll or just general dumbness from lack of experience in older games.
Yes, you seem to have understood the argument. Yes, if someone excels at mechanical skills, and a change is made to make those mechanical skills less relevant, then the skill required to play the game would shift from mechanical skills to other skills. And someone who can't adapt to that would be worse off. But the skill required to play the game hasn't been reduced, it's just shifted from mechanical skill to, for example, skills in positioning and microing.
So as I said, the question is not whether skill has reduced, it hasn't, the question is what skill should the game emphasize. Thus, "multiple unit selection is bad because SC2 should be more about mechanical skills" is a valid argument, "multiple unit selection is bad because adding it dumbs the game down and makes it require less skill" is not a valid argument.
|
On August 17 2014 14:46 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2014 14:22 Kupon3ss wrote:Adding and removing meaningless gimmick paragraphs do not change the overall bullshit ceiling and this is consistent with the Law of Conciseness of Bullshit. Then why do you spend so many seemingly complex paragraphs trying to explain the complexity and nuances of your Bullshit when removing the paragraphs obviously wouldn't dumb it down at all. Well I wanted to do this, but I don't have the added banhammer protection that comes with actually being a useful member of the Team Liquid community, so I'll just quote this instead. Also, did anyone else have trouble telling whether or not he was being sarcastic? Alarm bells started going off like crazy after he came up with the SCV wars example, but it seems like he was actually serious?
Don't have banhammer protection.
OP's graph is about as useful as this one.
![[image loading]](http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkeydxTjba1qa0uujo1_500.jpg)
|
On August 17 2014 14:53 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +
Yes, if a game has an element of RNG, then removing complex mechanics increases the contribution of RNG. However, many games don't have RNG (although they lack perfect information), e.g. CS:GO, SC2 and HotS
Any game that involves decision making (i.e. all of them) is ultimately subject to randomness because a player who does not know the correct decision in a given situation is going to be guessing. The less decisions there are to make due to the removal of aspects of the game, the higher the likelihood that a weaker player can "guess" his way through the game because there are less things for him to guess wrong on, even though the relative importance of each decision becomes higher. Show nested quote +
But I don't see anyone arguing that removing mechanic X from Dota 2 is bad because it increases the contribution of RNG since the contribution of RNG is quite negligible and the removal of one mechanic is usually replaced with another (e.g. remove items and denying from HotS, but add talents and map objectives). Who's going around saying, don't remove X, because it would make the game too much about RNG?
This is because fundamentally the way people think about games is results-oriented, not process-oriented. When they see a weaker player luck his way into beating a better player, they focus on the result as the problem (weaker player beat a better player--must mean that the better player's skill difference didn't impact the game enough) and not on the process that led to that outcome.
There's 2 types of randomness that should be distinguished here. First is pure RNG (e.g. if an attack has 20% chance to crit, whether it crits or not is pure RNG, because it's determined by a RNG). Second is uncertainty, what I meant when I said some games lack perfect information (e.g. not knowing what strategy your opponent is doing in SC2 or where your opponent's heroes are in HotS).
If a game has both types of randomness, then removing a complex mechanic would generally increase the contribution of both types of randomness to winning. But increasing the contribution from the second type of randomness, uncertainty, is increasing the contribution of a legitimate skill, often called "game sense". So if a game has no randomness of the first type (e.g. CS:GO, HotS, SC2), then removing a complex mechanic still just shifts the skill required from one type of skill to another, without lowering the skill required to play the game and without dumbing the game down.
If a game becomes too random because too many complex mechanics are removed so that the first type of randomness has a huge contribution to winning or losing, then that's a legitimate argument that people should make, but they're not making that argument, not just because they're "result-oriented", but also because it's often not true of the particular game and can't be supported.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
Why do you get to decide what is and what isn't a pointless gimmick or restriction? Why not just design a game where only one single skill is required? If your infinite skill ceiling theory holds, it should be just as competitive as a game with all these so called gimmicks.
|
When you strip everything off a game it becomes purely decision-making based, and that is not something that is neither entertaining nor competitively interesting.
Feats of mechanical skill are usually those that make the game interesting to watch and to appreciate. See, quake/sf/bw/....
|
On August 17 2014 18:57 ahswtini wrote:
Why do you get to decide what is and what isn't a pointless gimmick or restriction? Why not just design a game where only one single skill is required? If your infinite skill ceiling theory holds, it should be just as competitive as a game with all these so called gimmicks.
It's a finite skill theory, not an infinite skill theory. The reason not to design a copetitive game with only a single skill, like SCV Wars, is because it's uninteresting and boring to watch. It's NOT because a game like SCV Wars requires low skill, it requires just as much skill as SC2 as explained above.
And that's the point, whether a mechanic should be in or out depends on whether it is interesting or fits the design goals of the game, not whether it adds or removes skill, because almost always, it niether adds nor removes skill.
So you can argue that last hitting should be in all MOBAs, because MOBAs are inherently about the skill of last hitting creeps, that people really love watching creeps get last hit and find it more fun than any of the alternatives. While such an argument sounds ridiculous, at least it's not logically flawed. On the other hand, as explained in the OP, the argument that last hitting should be in because it adds skill to the game, and taking it out would remove skill from the game, is simply bullshit.
|
On August 17 2014 14:22 Kupon3ss wrote:Adding and removing meaningless gimmick paragraphs do not change the overall bullshit ceiling and this is consistent with the Law of Conciseness of Bullshit. Then why do you spend so many seemingly complex paragraphs trying to explain the complexity and nuances of your Bullshit when removing the paragraphs obviously wouldn't dumb it down at all.
I was gonna write a wall but this pretty much sums up my thoughts.
|
You over complicate something that's really simple.
The game where there's more things to do that will give you and advantage over your opponent, will have more factors and thus a higher learning curve and more things to keep in mind and more things to do = more "straining" and therefore harder to learn if nothing else.
You also mention last hitting in MOBA's which is the "economy" of the game, so by saying that it is unnecessary, you're also saying that macro in RTS' are pointless and should be replaced by something automatic cus macro is boring and uninteresting or where are you getting at? Any dedicated RTS player I know loves finding new little things that speed up your build by just that tiny margin that gives you an advantage, by the same logic in MOBA's, pressuring your opponent just that tiny little more with a little "something" will make you have a better economy than your opponent.
And is the skillcap finite? Would theoretically be if we were bots, but there's also the psychological factor (mindgames) sooo yeah, your arguement is flawed
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](/staff/Kupon3ss/lPCiFU5.png)
