|
On August 18 2014 22:44 Reaps wrote:
Forgive me as I haven't read all 8 pages, but how the hell does giving an fps like CS:GO autoaim not reduce skill??
???
Because it shifts the skill from aiming to positioning, and because there's no optimal strategy, meaning that there's always more things you can do to improve your skill and increase the amount of wins by being more skillful at positioning.
Read the OP: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/games/465001-near-impossible-reduce-skill-in-competitive-games#1
|
On August 18 2014 23:20 Spaylz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 23:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 22:56 hootsushi wrote:On August 18 2014 22:46 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 22:11 Spaylz wrote:On August 18 2014 21:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 21:00 Spaylz wrote:On August 18 2014 20:56 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 20:22 Spaylz wrote:
I don't see you addressing anything. I see you repeating the same stuff over and over while other people come up with many different answers to your, again, very biased views.
The only real point you've made is that the skill ceiling cannot be reached by any human, and that there is always room for improvement. That pretty much applies to everything, hence the constant, never-ending progress of the human race both in terms of technology and quality of life. But all games have the same skill? That is in no way true. Does that mean a CS:GO pro player should be able to go pro on SC2 as well? Does that mean Bobby Fischer would rock everyone in Dota 2, or to speak your language: in HotS?
Again, tic-tac-toe and checkers give both players access to the same possibilities, the same units, and so on. There are no differences in terms of options available, only decision-making matters. This does not, cannot, and will never apply to games like Dota 2 or HotS, because there are too many variables. Some heroes lose against others, and vice versa. And, again, even in those bad situation of a poor hero match-up, some people do manage to win. Because they are better. I don't know how many times I can repeat myself.
You're not proving anything. Everybody tells you so. Do you pay attention to what is happenig at all?
Lastly, you've stopped answering in the HotS thread, after the many posts addressing your... point of view. You haven't read the OP properly. If all games require the same amount of skill, it does not mean that SC2 players can go pro at SC2, because they require different skills, SC2 requires skills in macro, CS:GO requires skill in preisions. If changes were made to SC2 to that it becomes CS:GO or changes to remove multiple unit selection, then the skills required will shift, but all overall skill required will stay the same. This is stated in the OP: 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.
[...]
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. You say there's too many variables in Dota 2 and HotS for there to be an optimal strategy. Then how can removing, for example, items from HotS reduce skill when there's still "too many variables" that people cannot master? It doesn't, and so you've debunked yourself. Also, picking the right heroes would be part of the optimal strategy, if there is one. You irritate me. When did I say removing mechanics lowered skill level? Seriously.. So you admit, as my argument in the OP shows, that removing mechanics like last hitting and items from MOBAs doesn't lower skill level? OK. I'm going to be very, very clear here to make sure you understand my opinion. First of all, I never said removing mechanics lowered the skill ceiling (note that I don't even think that's an actual thing, but whatever). You keep answering me, saying "so you admit I'm right, the skill isn't reduced?" when I never spoke of reducing skills. I spoke of complexity, strategy, and so on. Secondly, no, you haven't convinced me of anything. Basically, all you've said is that one can always improve themself, thus meaning the "skill ceiling" of any game is unreachable and that as long as there is room for improvement, then the point holds. This is stating the obvious, and I never disagreed with that. What I always argued against was your stupid, stupid vendetta against Dota 2, and your irrational praise of HotS. Please read this.Furthermore, I have not "debunked" myself one bit. I've been stating many different points, among them explaining how and why Dota 2 and HotS are different but not necessarily superior to one another. I have yet to go back on that, and nothing I said disproves it. Also, personal skill level does enter into play. You can add or remove as many mechanics as you like, people are going to approach and handle them differently, and some will be better than others. Such is life: someone will always be better than you, no matter what we speak of. We could be talking about cooking eggs for all I care, and someone, somewhere will be able to make tastier eggs than you.
Now, about your last post... 1. I said some games are decided by the drafting. It is possible to be outpicked in Dota 2, and frankly it happens quite often. How can there be any snowballing if your opponent's team is designed to counter yours? (Again, even with a setup that counters that of your opponent, it is possible to lose by being outplayed) I also said Dota 2 had flaws, and that the rare games that are decided 20 minutes in are part of that, but are nowhere near as frequent as you picture them to be. Just as I am sure that HotS has its own flaws, and that bad situations will also arise from them. Unless you believe HotS is flawless?2. That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you even reading yourself? He is the game director, and he is arguing for the game's design. Again, this is marketing, why on earth would he argue for the design of the other games? I mean, come on, you don't even address what I said here. You're just saying complete random sentences that don't answer what I said in the slightest. His point is that he saw Dota 2, saw its flaws and the unpleasant moments that arose from them, and aimed to create a game that solved that. In doing so, he simplified many aspects of the game, thus creating flaws which in the opinion of others might be a deal breaker. One of those flaws being: HotS will never achieve the level of strategy Dota 2 has in CM/CD modes, and that is completely fine. It is the other side of the coin that comes with simplifying aspects. It makes things simpler. Note that I said simpler, not easier, so don't go saying I'm arguing there is a skill reduction. Simple does not equal easy. There is no argument to be made about what game is the better one, it is all a matter of personal preference (yet another concept which seems to elude you). 3. I think you need to understand what "skill" means. At this point, I really feel like I'm debating the wind. That paragraph of yours basically says what I said: some people are better than others. By defaut, we humans have done nothing than to improve ourselves over the past couple of thousand years, and I'm sure it will keep going that way. What is the point of debating that? We might as well talk about the weather. It's not even a matter of "reaching the skill ceiling", it's just a matter of getting better. I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. I for one did not say less skill was required, I said the reasons for losing were different. Word for word. Really, you're beating a dead horse, seeing as I never said HotS required less skill than Dota 2. I simply said it focused on different aspects and offers a different experience. Anyway... To sum it up: debating whether or not there is a maximum skill which can be achieved is, ultimately, pointless. Even if there were, not everybody would be able to reach it, because everybody's talent is different. That is the essence of skill: someone will always be able to pull off moves that another one cannot. Sometimes, people are unable to improve. Sometimes, they cannot get better because they have reached their limits, and not some sort of ultimate theoretical limit every human being can reach. Your assumption is based on the fact that all men are equal. Well, they are not.
Welcome to the real world.And for the record, I absolutely love HotS. I simply see no need to act like a fanatic over it, and proceed to turn myself into a self-proclaimed scholar looking to bring down the other games with made-up, pointless "laws". Stop with the lie that you never said HotS requires less skill. You did. Here's proof: You claim that I've ignored personal skill, but I have not ignored personal skill, because the very fact people can have different levels of personal skill at the game and that no one has hit the theoretical skill ceiling proves that removing mechanics does not reduce the skill required to play the game, as there is always more skillful things to do to improve your play in order to win more. You write: "Also, personal skill level does enter into play. You can add or remove as many mechanics as you like, people are going to approach and handle them differently, and some will be better than others." But if removing mechanics, like HotS has, lowers the skill required to play the game, then this situation would not be possible, because that means some people cannot possibly do anything more to improve their play as they've found an optimal strategy to play the game, because as long as everyone can do something more to improve their play, to increase their wins, then the skill required to play the game hasn't been reduced since everyone can do more to play better. Therefore, the fact that you admit that this situation is possible, implies that skill has not been reduced. I'm not "debating whether or not there is a maximum skill which can be achieved". I showed that as long as the theoretical skill cap is above what is achievable by humans, the skill required to play the game has not reduced, because there's more skill that people can learn in order to win more. Again, you've got the causation of Browder's statement backwards. You say it's marketing. Well, why doesn't he make a game with denying and items and market that instead? He doesn't make such a game because he agrees with me and he agrees that you're wrong. Your post is based off the lie that "I never said HotS required less skill than Dota 2". As I proved, you did. Stop lying. Why doesn't Dustin Browder make a game which essentially copies Dota2/LoL? Are you really asking that question? Because they don't want to fucking compete with the already biggest games out there. Hots caters to a slightly different fanbase, which is more about fast paced gameplay, more about teamfight and coordination and less about mechanical skill. "Well, if Half-Life 2 is the best game in the world, why doesn't everyone release his own Half-Life 2." You have no fucking clue. Edit: On August 18 2014 22:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 22:24 hootsushi wrote:On August 18 2014 22:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 22:04 ahswtini wrote:
Removing one mechanic so you can do more of the other mechanics does not automatically maintain the same skill ceiling, which is the basis of your entire argument. No, my argument has nothing to do with if the theoretical skill ceiling is maintained. Removing a mechanic can reduce the skill ceiling a hundredfold, but the skill required to play the game will still be the same as long as the theoretical skill ceiling is above what humans can achieve. Because then there is no optimal strategy, and everyone can always improve their play and improve their skill. in order to win more. So in essence, Dota2 is the more skillful game. Just because no human is able to achieve that skill level doesn't change the fact it exists. That's literally what you are saying. What the theoretical skill ceiling is doesn't matter if no human can achieve it. So no, Dota 2 is not the more skillful game than HotS, because people can't win more in Dota 2 than in HotS, as in both games no human can reach the theoretical skill ceiling, meaning that everyone can always use more skill to win more. You only quantify skill by what is humanly possible. I quantify skill by what is possible. If a robot beats a human in chess, he is more skilled. If a panda has a higher winrate in Dota 2 than any human, he would be more skilled (according to your winrate theory). The more mechanics you add the harder it becomes to master. That's just the way it works. It doesn't matter if anyone is ever able to master the game. In theory mastering five mechanics will always be harder than mastering only three. Therefor you'd be a more skilled player should you be able to master all five. You have to achknowledge that. That hasn't stopped the hundreds of other MOBAs from copying the same mechanics. So, no, Browder could have copied those mechanics that's in every other MOBA and still have uniqueness in other ways. No, skill is not about mastering mechanics: it's about winning. If a complex mechanic is removed and you win less, you've haven't become more skillful, you've become worse because you've failed to adapt to the shift in the types of skills required now. And how do you win if you can't use the mechanics? You can come up with the best strategy in the world, if you can't execute it then it's no good. Your logic really is flawed.
He is one of these people who doesn't think clicking accurately and quickly should yield better results and wants to justify it by saying he is employing the same amount of "effort" or "skill" in a game that does not require speed or accuracy.
No one discounts the talent required in chess, but people don't try to compare it to Settlers of Catan.
|
Northern Ireland22203 Posts
OP's logic: if there is less to think about, then we can think more about less, as long as there's enough less to think about.
|
Anyway... Enough bashing.
HotS requires less skill than Dota 2 in certain areas, notably drafting and strategy, since the game focuses less on it by voluntary design.
It could require more skill in teamplay and execution, since the game is pretty much permanent fighting, and generally punishes you for being alone. It's way too early to tell though, as the game is in alpha.
All of this is pointless.
|
On August 18 2014 23:18 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 22:56 hootsushi wrote:On August 18 2014 22:46 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 22:11 Spaylz wrote:On August 18 2014 21:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 21:00 Spaylz wrote:On August 18 2014 20:56 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 20:22 Spaylz wrote:
I don't see you addressing anything. I see you repeating the same stuff over and over while other people come up with many different answers to your, again, very biased views.
The only real point you've made is that the skill ceiling cannot be reached by any human, and that there is always room for improvement. That pretty much applies to everything, hence the constant, never-ending progress of the human race both in terms of technology and quality of life. But all games have the same skill? That is in no way true. Does that mean a CS:GO pro player should be able to go pro on SC2 as well? Does that mean Bobby Fischer would rock everyone in Dota 2, or to speak your language: in HotS?
Again, tic-tac-toe and checkers give both players access to the same possibilities, the same units, and so on. There are no differences in terms of options available, only decision-making matters. This does not, cannot, and will never apply to games like Dota 2 or HotS, because there are too many variables. Some heroes lose against others, and vice versa. And, again, even in those bad situation of a poor hero match-up, some people do manage to win. Because they are better. I don't know how many times I can repeat myself.
You're not proving anything. Everybody tells you so. Do you pay attention to what is happenig at all?
Lastly, you've stopped answering in the HotS thread, after the many posts addressing your... point of view. You haven't read the OP properly. If all games require the same amount of skill, it does not mean that SC2 players can go pro at SC2, because they require different skills, SC2 requires skills in macro, CS:GO requires skill in preisions. If changes were made to SC2 to that it becomes CS:GO or changes to remove multiple unit selection, then the skills required will shift, but all overall skill required will stay the same. This is stated in the OP: 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.
[...]
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. You say there's too many variables in Dota 2 and HotS for there to be an optimal strategy. Then how can removing, for example, items from HotS reduce skill when there's still "too many variables" that people cannot master? It doesn't, and so you've debunked yourself. Also, picking the right heroes would be part of the optimal strategy, if there is one. You irritate me. When did I say removing mechanics lowered skill level? Seriously.. So you admit, as my argument in the OP shows, that removing mechanics like last hitting and items from MOBAs doesn't lower skill level? OK. I'm going to be very, very clear here to make sure you understand my opinion. First of all, I never said removing mechanics lowered the skill ceiling (note that I don't even think that's an actual thing, but whatever). You keep answering me, saying "so you admit I'm right, the skill isn't reduced?" when I never spoke of reducing skills. I spoke of complexity, strategy, and so on. Secondly, no, you haven't convinced me of anything. Basically, all you've said is that one can always improve themself, thus meaning the "skill ceiling" of any game is unreachable and that as long as there is room for improvement, then the point holds. This is stating the obvious, and I never disagreed with that. What I always argued against was your stupid, stupid vendetta against Dota 2, and your irrational praise of HotS. Please read this.Furthermore, I have not "debunked" myself one bit. I've been stating many different points, among them explaining how and why Dota 2 and HotS are different but not necessarily superior to one another. I have yet to go back on that, and nothing I said disproves it. Also, personal skill level does enter into play. You can add or remove as many mechanics as you like, people are going to approach and handle them differently, and some will be better than others. Such is life: someone will always be better than you, no matter what we speak of. We could be talking about cooking eggs for all I care, and someone, somewhere will be able to make tastier eggs than you.
Now, about your last post... 1. I said some games are decided by the drafting. It is possible to be outpicked in Dota 2, and frankly it happens quite often. How can there be any snowballing if your opponent's team is designed to counter yours? (Again, even with a setup that counters that of your opponent, it is possible to lose by being outplayed) I also said Dota 2 had flaws, and that the rare games that are decided 20 minutes in are part of that, but are nowhere near as frequent as you picture them to be. Just as I am sure that HotS has its own flaws, and that bad situations will also arise from them. Unless you believe HotS is flawless?2. That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you even reading yourself? He is the game director, and he is arguing for the game's design. Again, this is marketing, why on earth would he argue for the design of the other games? I mean, come on, you don't even address what I said here. You're just saying complete random sentences that don't answer what I said in the slightest. His point is that he saw Dota 2, saw its flaws and the unpleasant moments that arose from them, and aimed to create a game that solved that. In doing so, he simplified many aspects of the game, thus creating flaws which in the opinion of others might be a deal breaker. One of those flaws being: HotS will never achieve the level of strategy Dota 2 has in CM/CD modes, and that is completely fine. It is the other side of the coin that comes with simplifying aspects. It makes things simpler. Note that I said simpler, not easier, so don't go saying I'm arguing there is a skill reduction. Simple does not equal easy. There is no argument to be made about what game is the better one, it is all a matter of personal preference (yet another concept which seems to elude you). 3. I think you need to understand what "skill" means. At this point, I really feel like I'm debating the wind. That paragraph of yours basically says what I said: some people are better than others. By defaut, we humans have done nothing than to improve ourselves over the past couple of thousand years, and I'm sure it will keep going that way. What is the point of debating that? We might as well talk about the weather. It's not even a matter of "reaching the skill ceiling", it's just a matter of getting better. I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. I for one did not say less skill was required, I said the reasons for losing were different. Word for word. Really, you're beating a dead horse, seeing as I never said HotS required less skill than Dota 2. I simply said it focused on different aspects and offers a different experience. Anyway... To sum it up: debating whether or not there is a maximum skill which can be achieved is, ultimately, pointless. Even if there were, not everybody would be able to reach it, because everybody's talent is different. That is the essence of skill: someone will always be able to pull off moves that another one cannot. Sometimes, people are unable to improve. Sometimes, they cannot get better because they have reached their limits, and not some sort of ultimate theoretical limit every human being can reach. Your assumption is based on the fact that all men are equal. Well, they are not.
Welcome to the real world.And for the record, I absolutely love HotS. I simply see no need to act like a fanatic over it, and proceed to turn myself into a self-proclaimed scholar looking to bring down the other games with made-up, pointless "laws". Stop with the lie that you never said HotS requires less skill. You did. Here's proof: You claim that I've ignored personal skill, but I have not ignored personal skill, because the very fact people can have different levels of personal skill at the game and that no one has hit the theoretical skill ceiling proves that removing mechanics does not reduce the skill required to play the game, as there is always more skillful things to do to improve your play in order to win more. You write: "Also, personal skill level does enter into play. You can add or remove as many mechanics as you like, people are going to approach and handle them differently, and some will be better than others." But if removing mechanics, like HotS has, lowers the skill required to play the game, then this situation would not be possible, because that means some people cannot possibly do anything more to improve their play as they've found an optimal strategy to play the game, because as long as everyone can do something more to improve their play, to increase their wins, then the skill required to play the game hasn't been reduced since everyone can do more to play better. Therefore, the fact that you admit that this situation is possible, implies that skill has not been reduced. I'm not "debating whether or not there is a maximum skill which can be achieved". I showed that as long as the theoretical skill cap is above what is achievable by humans, the skill required to play the game has not reduced, because there's more skill that people can learn in order to win more. Again, you've got the causation of Browder's statement backwards. You say it's marketing. Well, why doesn't he make a game with denying and items and market that instead? He doesn't make such a game because he agrees with me and he agrees that you're wrong. Your post is based off the lie that "I never said HotS required less skill than Dota 2". As I proved, you did. Stop lying. Why doesn't Dustin Browder make a game which essentially copies Dota2/LoL? Are you really asking that question? Because they don't want to fucking compete with the already biggest games out there. Hots caters to a slightly different fanbase, which is more about fast paced gameplay, more about teamfight and coordination and less about mechanical skill. "Well, if Half-Life 2 is the best game in the world, why doesn't everyone release his own Half-Life 2." You have no fucking clue. Edit: On August 18 2014 22:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 22:24 hootsushi wrote:On August 18 2014 22:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 22:04 ahswtini wrote:
Removing one mechanic so you can do more of the other mechanics does not automatically maintain the same skill ceiling, which is the basis of your entire argument. No, my argument has nothing to do with if the theoretical skill ceiling is maintained. Removing a mechanic can reduce the skill ceiling a hundredfold, but the skill required to play the game will still be the same as long as the theoretical skill ceiling is above what humans can achieve. Because then there is no optimal strategy, and everyone can always improve their play and improve their skill. in order to win more. So in essence, Dota2 is the more skillful game. Just because no human is able to achieve that skill level doesn't change the fact it exists. That's literally what you are saying. What the theoretical skill ceiling is doesn't matter if no human can achieve it. So no, Dota 2 is not the more skillful game than HotS, because people can't win more in Dota 2 than in HotS, as in both games no human can reach the theoretical skill ceiling, meaning that everyone can always use more skill to win more. You only quantify skill by what is humanly possible. I quantify skill by what is possible. If a robot beats a human in chess, he is more skilled. If a panda has a higher winrate in Dota 2 than any human, he would be more skilled (according to your winrate theory). The more mechanics you add the harder it becomes to master. That's just the way it works. It doesn't matter if anyone is ever able to master the game. In theory mastering five mechanics will always be harder than mastering only three. Therefor you'd be a more skilled player should you be able to master all five. You have to achknowledge that. That hasn't stopped the hundreds of other MOBAs from copying the same mechanics. So, no, Browder could have copied those mechanics that's in every other MOBA and still have uniqueness in other ways. No, skill is not about mastering mechanics: it's about winning. If a complex mechanic is removed and you win less, you haven't become more skillful, you've become worse because you've failed to adapt to the shift in the types of skills required now. That's why the amount of skill required to play the game doesn't change regardless of what mechanics is added or removed as long as people can't reach the theoretical skill ceiling.
And look how successful those other MOBAs are in comparison to the big ones. It's not about copying, it's about being successful. The chances of success are obviously higher if you are trying to distinguish yourself from the mass, since the market is already oversaturated by generic MOBAs.
So, skill can only be applied to abilities where competition is involved? What about people skills then? Do you compare your amount of facebook friends or what?
A skill is the learned ability to carry out a task with pre-determined results often within a given amount of time, energy, or both. In other words the abilities that one possesses.
Not: The abilities that one possesses when competing.
Also, if the Bucks won a game against the Heat, they are more skilled at basketball even though 100 out of 100 experts would say the Heat are the overall more skilled team?
|
Northern Ireland22203 Posts
|
Highlight of this post:
On May 12 2012 16:01 paralleluniverse wrote:I made a post on the DotA feedback forums about flaws in the game design: http://dev.dota2.com/showthread.php?t=35413It hasn't been received well, too many closed minded and inarticulate people, saying this is the way DotA is, don't ever change it regardless of the problems, giving no logical reason for their argument. Just no.
Clearly, anyone who disagrees with him is stupid/closed minded when he takes a giant dumb on their game of choice.
|
I don't even know anymore. How oblivious can someone be. If you are the only one who thinks this is true and hundred people tell you you are wrong, then guess what there's a pretty big probability you are fucking wrong. And if you truly want to believe it is the absurdly low probability (like a 0,0001% chance) you are actually right, then be my fucking guest.
Just go on and dismiss everyone else as fanboy if he doesn't agree with you. That's a pretty good way of thinking. Will definitely help you in life. I'm done.
|
On August 18 2014 22:44 Reaps wrote:
Forgive me as I haven't read all 8 pages, but how the hell does giving an fps like CS:GO autoaim not reduce skill??
???
there is a parallel universe going on there.
|
On August 18 2014 22:53 Spaylz wrote:
OK buddy, you need to stop taking drugs.
In that very quote, I said HotS removed certain aspects (like drafting, more complex strategy, etc.) to add other things. Meaning it removes the skill involved in those particular aspects, since the aspects themselves are gone. Or is that too complicated to grasp? Unless perhaps you think that if HotS removes drafting and picking, it somehow retains the same level of skill involved in those parts of Dota 2 or LoL?
Second, your "theoretical skill ceiling" doesn't exist. As someone else said, it's the same thing as arguing the existence of God, and nobody wants to debate faith. This is what we're dealing with.
Again, you're ignoring half of my argument. There is no such thing as a "skill ceiling", everyone has different capacities. There is no ultimate point that ALL human beings can reach. Give it a rest.
Lastly, I doubt Browder gives a flying fuck about your opinion. The world does not revolve around you, and no matter how much of a Blizzard fan you are, the company does not revolve around you either. Blizzard is doing their own take on the dota-like genre, and obviously, since there are so many clones about, they need to do something different to stick out and achieve successs. Because they're not dumbasses. The rest is simple marketing: he is promoting his product.
Stop being so dense.
Stop trying to rewrite history with your lies. You didn't say that skills associated with things like drafting or denying were reduced. You said that the skill required to play the game was lower.
Here's the quote:
You said that the skill required is lower than Dota 2. Then you try justify this by citing the removal of things like denying. Where did you say that the skill associated with denying was reduced? Nowhere. You made a statement about the skill required to play the game.
So stop the lies.
What, so now you admit that the skill required to play HotS is not lower than Dota 2?
And now you say that there's no such thing as a skill ceiling and that people have different skills. Well, nowhere in the OP do I refer to the actual skill ceiling, only what humans can achieve or "achievable skill ceiling". But if people have different skills and there's no skill ceiling, then how does that prove my argument wrong? It doesn't, because nowhere does my argument rely on a skill ceiling, it just relies on the fact that there's always more that people can do, to differentiate their skill, and to play better. You admit that people have different personal skills, then everyone can do something more to improve their play, to increase their wins, so that the skill required to play the game hasn't been reduced, because everyone can do more to play better and improve their personal skill. So the implication your people having different personal skill is that the game does not require less skill.
Also, this idea that there's no such thing as a skill ceiling is bogus. Checkers and tic-tac-toe are solved games, they have an optimal strategy and the skill ceiling is playing the optimal strategy. And the fact that no one can reach the skill ceiling of HotS and Dota 2, also proves my point that the games have an equal amount of skill.
Also, I've criticized Blizzard on thousands of times. It's got nothing to do with Blizzard or HotS, because my criticisms of Dota 2 are based on game mechanics, which pre-date the announcement of HotS and it's mechanics. You have again, failed dodged the question of why Browder didn't add items and denying, differentiate the game in other ways, like other MOBAs, and market that product? Because you have no answer.
What we have here is a liar trying to rewriting history despite the fact I the lies quoted and who can't admit that they're wrong.
|
Lalalaland34483 Posts
I skimmed through all 10 pages and had a good laugh, but unfortunately it's my job to be the party pooper and put a stop to this hilarity. Sorry guys.
|
Germany25649 Posts
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
What on earth is this thread
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36916 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
