EPTur alright bardtown
Near Impossible: Reduce Skill in Competitive Games - Page 4
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Shaella
United States14827 Posts
ur alright bardtown | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
And there are also a lot of ways in which this argument can be abused to defend mangling of any competitive aspect of the game, because if taken to an extreme you're saying that essentially no mechanic has an effect on skill (outside of degenerate cases like tictactoe) and that skill as a dimension of the game is outside of the scope of human observation. Which is contrary to experience. Equally you can argue that your point is still important, as sometimes it's necessary to state the obvious, but one would hope you could exercise a bit more humility in doing so. | ||
|
Spaylz
Japan1743 Posts
| ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On August 18 2014 18:17 Shaella wrote: Which is why allow me to make a long ass longwinded post about why this thread is completely irrelevant and insane See, this thread is ultimately based on the assumption that skill is a finite resource, that there is a cap of human potential on how well a game can ever be played (a concept which i find unlikely, i do not believe there is any sort of finite potential in humanity, and believing so is rather a bleak outlook, don't you think?). But let me propose something to you. Your graph shows a 'highest skill achieveable by humans', but for some reason you compress all the mechanics into there That is foolish, you mistake that the highest skill achievable is the limit of human skill, and thus things have limited importance, there is a skill cap beyond human potential, those silly SC2 micro bots on youtube. So these skills can extend far beyond human potential, which creates an interesting quandry It creates a kind of interplay between players, This guys really good at Macro, but not as good at micro, while this other guy has amazing micro, but is lacking in macro a bit, yet they can both be top players because they're simply at the top of their game in important skills and still good at the rest. When you reduce the skill to 100% achievable by humans in all areas, as in someone can MASTER the game completely, well all the best players master the game, and then you start to loose distinction between them This is a problem because ultimately, it leads towards a solved game, games like Checkers, Connect Four, even games like Go have been partially solved The beauty of a game like Dota or SC2 is that there are so many variables in play, so many insane possibilities that it quite simply, will never be solved, an an unsolvable game is an INTERESTING game, thats why we talk about things like making plays, and innovations in strategy, and the way that games are now updated multiple times a year changes the 'solution' over and over The more you simplify a game, the more it comes to reach a point where it can be mastered, and ultimately solved. There is a drop in the skill ceiling of a game as you simplify. HotS is a simpler game than DotA or LoL, anyone can see that, there's less variables at play, its easier to stumble your way towards victory If a team perfected team play in DotA, there's no way HotS could possibly have more focus on team play than there is available in DotA, thats where the skill ceiling comes in Skill ceiling is a moving target in these kinds of games, there may be a skill ceiling for a certain skill, but that skill has a different ceiling between games Basically, your entire thesis is that if i take away the individual pieces from Chess, and make it checkers, that that game of checkers now has more emphasis on positioning on the board, but it is undoubtedly a less skilled game because you know, Checkers is a solved game. And I know you include an BUT IF ITS A SOLVED GAME AFTER THAT IT DOESN'T APPLY but thats simply bullshit, lol. Those SC2 micro bots proves that SC2 requires just as much skill as SC1, because no one is able to micro that well. If they can, they should almost always win. The theoretical skill ceiling is irrelevant to the discussion, only what humans can achieve matters. The theoretical skill ceiling does not determine how much skill is required to succeed at the game (that's bounded by what humans can achieve) as long as no one can reach the theoretical skill ceiling. If humans can always do something more to improve their play, to increase their wins, then by definition, people haven't hit the theoretical skill ceiling. Therefore, the skill required to play the game hasn't been reduced, because everyone can do more to play better. Thus, what it means to reduce the skill required to play a competitive game, must be a situation where some people cannot possibly do anything more to improve their play as they've found an optimal strategy to play the game. Thus we have the 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. You say that we don't want games to be solved. Well, that's exactly what the Law of Dumbing Down Games says. If a game was solved if would fall into condition 2 and 3. But HotS is not a solved game. If you think it is, then tell us the optimal strategy that gives your team a 100% win/draw rate. | ||
|
Shaella
United States14827 Posts
But i'm sure you're an expert. I mean, you sure know that Ursa and Riki are gamebreaking Here's another hint on why this discussion is silly Game design is subjective. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On August 18 2014 18:41 Shaella wrote: wow way to not listen to what i said whatever you're a loony that can't be convinced otherwise, they're always out there. But i'm sure you're an expert. I mean, you sure know that Ursa and Riki are gamebreaking Here's another hint on why this discussion is silly Game design is subjective. I read exactly what you said. You didn't read. Your argument is that we don't want the game to be solved. Well, I said the exact same thing in the OP. But you failed to read. So now not only do you admit that, what was at the time, a 60% win rate (worse than virtually any imbalance in SC2 ever) is just fine, you also can't read, and have failed to provide us with the optimal strategy to the solved game of Heroes of the Storm. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22203 Posts
On August 18 2014 16:51 paralleluniverse wrote: What's this? Another Dota 2 fanboy that can't admit that he's wrong. Even back when they had a win rate of around 60% (worse than essentially the greatest imbalances in SC2), you still couldn't admit any fault with Dota 2. Let me address those awful counter-arguments you've given to debunk the OP. Oh wait, there's no counter-arguments at all. No substance. Because I'm right, you're not, and you've provided nothing at all. You're basing your entire deluded theory that Riki and Ursa are op on the contextless statistic that is a 60% winrate? Let's look at TI4 winrates: Riki: 3 picks, 0% winrate Ursa: 15 picks, 53.3% winrate ok you're right, totally op. Oh but you said "back when they had a winrate of around 60%", so I guess you were talking about how op they were before they were nerfed. Except pretty much every change they've had in the past 2 years have been buffs. http://www.dotabuff.com/players/83420932 --- Are you saying that game design should be around removing frivolous mechanics until the skill ceiling is just a bit above what the most skilled player can achieve? | ||
|
writer22816
United States5775 Posts
On August 18 2014 18:16 paralleluniverse wrote: Thanks, you've proved my argument: lmao. Proving that no one can reach the actual skill ceiling is a nontrivial argument. Which is why people get worried in the first place. Thank you, you've proven my argument. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On August 18 2014 18:44 ahswtini wrote: You're basing your entire deluded theory that Riki and Ursa are op on the contextless statistic that is a 60% winrate? Let's look at TI4 winrates: Riki: 3 picks, 0% winrate Ursa: 15 picks, 53.3% winrate ok you're right, totally op. Oh but you said "back when they had a winrate of around 60%", so I guess you were talking about how op they were before they were nerfed. Except pretty much every change they've had in the past 2 years have been buffs. http://www.dotabuff.com/players/83420932 I showed in that thread your talking about, that at the time, they had a win rate around 60%, which is worse than virtually any imbalance ever in the history of SC2. The metagame has changed since then. But here we have a fanboy who can't admit a win rate around 60%, which is worse than virtually any imbalance ever in the history of SC2, is overpowered, and is still obsessed over being completely wrong about everything. Are you saying that game design should be around removing frivolous mechanics until the skill ceiling is just a bit above what the most skilled player can achieve? No. I said: "mechanics should not be chosen to increase or reduce skill required, because virtually every mechanic will have no effect on skill required [as long as the theoretical skill ceiling is above what humans can achieve]. Instead mechanics should be chosen based on whether they are fun, interesting to watch, and fits with the design goals of the game." | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On August 18 2014 18:49 writer22816 wrote: lmao. Proving that no one can reach the actual skill ceiling is a nontrivial argument. Which is why people get worried in the first place. Thank you, you've proven my argument. It's trivial. Observe that no one consistently has a 100% win/draw rate and that no one has an optimal strategy. QED. When people play like this, then you can start to worry: | ||
|
Shaella
United States14827 Posts
On August 18 2014 18:53 paralleluniverse wrote: I showed in that thread your talking about, that at the time, they had a win rate around 60%, which is worse than virtually any imbalance ever in the history of SC2. The metagame has changed since then. But here we have a fanboy who can't admit a win rate around 60%, which is worse than virtually any imbalance ever in the history of SC2, is overpowered, and is still obsessed over being completely wrong about everything. No. I said: "mechanics should not be chosen to increase or reduce skill required, because virtually every mechanic will have no effect on skill required [as long as the theoretical skill ceiling is above what humans can achieve]. Instead mechanics should be chosen based on whether they are fun, interesting to watch, and fits with the design goals of the game." don't think Ursa and Riki ever had a 60% competetive winrate at that time. even if they have, their pick rate is so low as to be irrelevant. | ||
|
Spaylz
Japan1743 Posts
On August 18 2014 18:43 paralleluniverse wrote: I read exactly what you said. You didn't read. Your argument is that we don't want the game to be solved. Well, I said the exact same thing in the OP. But you failed to read. So now not only do you admit that, what was at the time, a 60% win rate (worse than virtually any imbalance in SC2 ever) is just fine, you also can't read, and have failed to provide us with the optimal strategy to the solved game of Heroes of the Storm. You do realise those winrates don't mean anything. They take in account every single game played by every single player, at all skill levels. In different brackets of Dota 2, some heroes are easier to win with due to their simple execution (e.g. Juggernaut or Viper), while they "lose power" in the higher brackets because people are better and know how to counter them. The same holds true for SC2. Some strategies are stronger in lower level play because people don't know how to deal with it. Hell, I'm sure some Protoss players are still mass gating their way into winning in Bronze and Silver. In order to have a consistent and meaningful winning rate, you'd have to carefully select like 1000 players of the same skill, put them in the exact same situation, give them the same heroes and items put up against one another, and see what happens. Virtually impossible. I truly don't understand how you can believe yourself to be right when everybody keeps slamming you on the head with arguments to counter you biased views. How about you address some of the other points made in the thread to give yourself more credibility? Such as: is Riki truly OP? If so, why? Same goes for Ursa. Let us see those graphics! Also, it's ludicrous to ask someone to come up with a 100% winning strategy in HotS when they most likely don't have access to the game. What game has 100% winning strategy anyway? I have very little knowledge of Chess, but I do know it has deep strategy to it, and I'm sure there are some that have more merits. The thing is: in Chess, both players have the exact same units and have access to the same possibilities. This does not transfer over to games like Dota 2, HotS and SC2, where players do not always play the exact same units. In SC2 it's possible, but in Dota 2 it is not. One thing your "law" leaves out is personal skill, the difference of skill that exists between every player, and the interactions between the heroes/races they choose. Let's say I'm playing Dota 2. I choose Tiny and, for some reason, want to go mid. My opponent chooses Viper. I get my balls torn apart. Does that mean Viper is OP? Even in that scenario, I'm sure some Tiny players will manage to win, simply because they are better. Meaning that even in this incredibly unbalanced match-up, a 100% winning strategy is not achievable. I ask you again, all opinions put aside and answering only with true facts: how can you believe you are right? | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22203 Posts
On August 18 2014 18:53 paralleluniverse wrote: I showed in that thread your talking about, that at the time, they had a win rate around 60%, which is worse than virtually any imbalance ever in the history of SC2. The metagame has changed since then. But here we have a fanboy who can't admit a win rate around 60%, which is worse than virtually any imbalance ever in the history of SC2, is overpowered, and is still obsessed over being completely wrong about everything. No. I said: "mechanics should not be chosen to increase or reduce skill required, because virtually every mechanic will have no effect on skill required [as long as the theoretical skill ceiling is above what humans can achieve]. Instead mechanics should be chosen based on whether they are fun, interesting to watch, and fits with the design goals of the game." lol. Again you point at a naked 60% winrate stat and claim imbalance. Competitive games are and should be balanced around the highest levels of play. Heroes like Ursa and Riki stomp low skilled players, and to a lesser extent, uncoordinated but higher skilled players. That does not make them overpowered. You say the meta has changed since then, and the heroes are no longer overpowered. What? Both heroes have received buffs in the past year. If what has caused their nerf is a change in meta, then surely there was nothing wrong with the heroes themselves in the first place? Everyone in this thread is saying you're wrong, yet you continue. Either you're some sort of enlightened illuminati who knows more than we do, or you're hopelessly arrogant and deluded. | ||
|
Veldril
Thailand1817 Posts
On August 18 2014 18:17 Shaella wrote: Which is why allow me to make a long ass longwinded post about why this thread is completely irrelevant and insane See, this thread is ultimately based on the assumption that skill is a finite resource, that there is a cap of human potential on how well a game can ever be played (a concept which i find unlikely, i do not believe there is any sort of finite potential in humanity, and believing so is rather a bleak outlook, don't you think?). But let me propose something to you. Your graph shows a 'highest skill achieveable by humans', but for some reason you compress all the mechanics into there That is foolish, you mistake that the highest skill achievable is the limit of human skill, and thus things have limited importance, there is a skill cap beyond human potential, those silly SC2 micro bots on youtube. So these skills can extend far beyond human potential, which creates an interesting quandry It creates a kind of interplay between players, This guys really good at Macro, but not as good at micro, while this other guy has amazing micro, but is lacking in macro a bit, yet they can both be top players because they're simply at the top of their game in important skills and still good at the rest. When you reduce the skill to 100% achievable by humans in all areas, as in someone can MASTER the game completely, well all the best players master the game, and then you start to loose distinction between them This is a problem because ultimately, it leads towards a solved game, games like Checkers, Connect Four, even games like Go have been partially solved The beauty of a game like Dota or SC2 is that there are so many variables in play, so many insane possibilities that it quite simply, will never be solved, an an unsolvable game is an INTERESTING game, thats why we talk about things like making plays, and innovations in strategy, and the way that games are now updated multiple times a year changes the 'solution' over and over The more you simplify a game, the more it comes to reach a point where it can be mastered, and ultimately solved. There is a drop in the skill ceiling of a game as you simplify. HotS is a simpler game than DotA or LoL, anyone can see that, there's less variables at play, its easier to stumble your way towards victory If a team perfected team play in DotA, there's no way HotS could possibly have more focus on team play than there is available in DotA, thats where the skill ceiling comes in Skill ceiling is a moving target in these kinds of games, there may be a skill ceiling for a certain skill, but that skill has a different ceiling between games Basically, your entire thesis is that if i take away the individual pieces from Chess, and make it checkers, that that game of checkers now has more emphasis on positioning on the board, but it is undoubtedly a less skilled game because you know, Checkers is a solved game. And I know you include an BUT IF ITS A SOLVED GAME AFTER THAT IT DOESN'T APPLY but thats simply bullshit, lol. While I do think that the OP's argument has some flaws, I have something to point out in your arguments: 1. Checker is "weakly solved" by a computer. The result if the all the moves are optimal, then the result will be a draw. This would follow the OP's proposed law. Also, we need to be clear on OP's assumption too. I do think that OP's assumption is that the game's absolute skill ceiling is unreachable by any human therefore is irrelevant to the discussion. However, I do think that OP needs to clearly state this assumption as his most important argument. Moreover, most of the solved games are done by computer algorithm that has far superior computational power than human. In this case, the absolute skill ceiling becomes relevant because it becomes reachable. So I think OP has to make another assumption that the game will only be attempted to solve by human, or that the skill ceiling of competitive games is unreachable even with computer programming. 2. Go is partially and weakly solved on 5x5 board. Go is a very bad example in this case because it is weakly solved on a smallest possible board that is not play competitively. Overall, I kinda agree with the OP's argument but I think he should present it in a better way (like bardtown). Also, an attack on OP's claim on what he said about OP heroes in the past is kinda irrelevant to the argument here. I feel it is more like ad honiem argument that does not contribute to the debate. | ||
|
Shaella
United States14827 Posts
| ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22203 Posts
On August 18 2014 19:05 Veldril wrote: Overall, I kinda agree with the OP's argument but I think he should present it in a better way (like bardtown). Also, an attack on OP's claim on what he said about OP heroes in the past is kinda irrelevant to the argument here. I feel it is more like ad honiem argument that does not contribute to the debate. Because he seems to be the authority on what are pointless gimmicks and restrictions in moba games, deriving his idea of what are "real" moba skills from his own shitty experiences in mobas. | ||
|
Veldril
Thailand1817 Posts
On August 18 2014 19:12 ahswtini wrote: Because he seems to be the authority on what are pointless gimmicks and restrictions in moba games, deriving his idea of what are "real" moba skills from his own shitty experiences in mobas. That is another argument but I don't think it is his argument in the OP. And I do think he is wrong in that part and that the argument about gimmicks and restrictions is also invalidated by his argument in this thread. If the subtraction of mechanics does not change the overall skill in competitive play, therefore adding mechanics to a game would also not change the level of skill. It would merely shift other skills required in the game to mechanical skill. Of course this would base on the assumption that the absolute skill ceiling of the game is unreachable by any human. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 18 2014 17:53 paralleluniverse wrote: No, it's simply the conclusion of logical deduction from some basic axioms. However, the whole argument is essentially summarized by the Law of Dumbing Down Games, which in the language of Game Theory applied to real-time video games, basically says that the game is not solved, has no Nash equilibrium, and no optimal strategy. Translation: I made all this bullshit up. But I will use the words logical deduction to all unearned authority to my personal opinion. And to those complaining that people are being to agressive with the OP, he is well knowing for making this argument. A lot of people are tired of have the same argument with the same person, who never listens and just calls people fanboys when he loses the argument. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
What's his endgame? There has to be more to it than this purely abstract argument. Is it entirely about his dislike of last hitting or something? Also, p.u. fails to recognize that automaton bots aren't that great as an argument because it doesn't take into account the stereotype of sc2 as having only one fight per game that lasts only five seconds. Frequently the outcome is predetermined according to composition, and not every race has marines that allow them to micro like this to begin with. In this scenario there is still an infinite skill ceiling, but it's a rather pointless observation as anyone can tell there is something really wrong with the ability of players to express their skill in this game. (Not saying sc2 is like this) | ||
|
Shaella
United States14827 Posts
because he's butthurt about it. Maybe he's a blizzard fanboy? | ||
| ||
