|
On August 18 2014 19:27 Grumbels wrote:
His argument is not real support for anything, it's only broadly applicable to negate obviously stupid ideas on game design.
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?
Read the last 4-5 pages on the Heroes of the Storm thread. You'll understand.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
He does open his OP with that argument though.
When he says that removing mechanics merely shifts the skill to other areas, he is assuming that all other mechanics have an infinite skill ceiling.
My question to the OP is this: how DO you change the overall skill required in a game?
|
Man this guy is the best, all his arguments end up being "I'm right, you're just wrong and refuse to read what i've written"
The world is wrong and he is right.
I mean you could spend all the time in the world coming up with good arguments and show him how he's looking at it the wrong way or that he's failing to understand an aspect, but in the end you'll still be wrong.
Comedy gold.
|
reminds me of a guy elsewhere on the internet named Clawshrimpy.
|
He stopped making this argument in the Heroes thread because people had to much evidence to cite of all of his flawed arguments.
Seriously, logical deduction cannot be the bases of an argument. Science and law don't allow you to just say "its logical that this is true, therefore it is" and then tell everyone they are wrong or the case they cite is invalid because of some rule you made up.
But a funny read before work today.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
I just think that for a guy who sounds like he's writing a thesis and sleeps with a thesaurus, and who really likes graphs, he takes a really shallow approach when it comes to analysing winrate percentages.
|
I mean, with arguments like this:
http://www.liquiddota.com/forum/dota-2-general/454436-general-discussion?page=537#10724
On May 12 2012 22:02 paralleluniverse wrote:
There seems to be increased talk about ways to beat Ursa in the last several posts, but this is all irrelevant. As I've said, balance isn't about strategies or counters, it's about probability and statistics.
how can we possibly take him seriously? Because kiting a melee hero in dota is fucking rocket science and never happens every.
Also, those graphs are un-fucking-readable. He clearly thinks that if he adds a bullshit graph to any discussion, it makes his opinion fact.
|
Yeah.... I looked at the thread, and I was about to quote that.
Such a statement attached to a game where some heroes and strategies clearly counter one another is rather... insane.
|
On August 18 2014 19:02 Spaylz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 18:43 paralleluniverse wrote: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. 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?
Win rates for top players tend to be more skewed than for all players due to MMR.
No one has countered my arguments, and I have addressed all relevant arguments (if you don't think so, then point out what relevant argument you want me to address). In fact, I've got some of the Dota 2 fanboys above to accept that the skill required to play games is always equal as long as no human can reach the theoretical skill ceiling, because there is more that people can do to improve their play, which is basically the whole point of the OP. Now they're in the ridiculous position of proving that people can hit the skill ceiling. No one has done so.
I asked for an optimal strategy, so it can be 100% win or draw. You ask what game has such a strategy: Tic-tac-toe and checkers, for example.
In your example, you don't have a 100% win/draw rate, so you can do more to improve your play. 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, because everyone can do more to play better. Thus, what it means to reduce the skill 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. You have given no such strategy.
|
On August 18 2014 18:26 Grumbels wrote:
It's true that chess boxing is not a more skillful activity than either chess or boxing, but this is rather obvious and useless as an observation because all it allows you to do after the addition or removal of any mechanic is to state: this will not necessarily make the game worse or better. Which everyone already knows.
Yes, it should be obvious. But it's not obvious to Dota 2 fanboys when it comes to last hitting. They're too blinded by their fanboyism.
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.
This is correct, except for the part where you say "that skill as a dimension of the game is outside of the scope of human observation." I never said that. Yes, you can remove almost anything without affecting the skill required to play the game. But that's why as I said in the OP: "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."
|
Blah blah blah, everyone who disagrees with me is a fan boy. Also, I will make broad statements with little context or follow up like "Win rates for top players tend to be more skewed than for all players due to MMR." Why point out the direction they are skewed in? Or what this means in context to the discussion? Fuck that, Im going to just say "no one has countered my arguments" again, because its easy and makes me right.
I would make substantive arguments, but past interactions with you have proven to me that you will simply disregard all of them, or deem them irrelevant due to your personal rule set.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On August 18 2014 20:13 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 19:02 Spaylz wrote:On August 18 2014 18:43 paralleluniverse wrote: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. 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? Win rates for top players tend to be more skewed than for all players due to MMR.
This is bullshit. Do you know who top players tend to play? Other top players. Why are their winrates skewed? Matches at that level represent the most accurate outcome of interactions between heroes, and should be the basis of any balance analysis.
I'd still like you to tell me how you change the amount of skill required in a game.
|
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.
|
On August 18 2014 19:05 Veldril wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I agree with most of this.
However, on the solvability of a game by a computer, the relevance to real-time video games is whether the solution is implementable by a human (condition 1). For example, checkers is solvable by a computer, but it's a low skill game because that solution is implementable by a human (let the computer calculate your move, then copy that move), but a solution to SC2 (which almost certainly doesn't exist) can't be implemented by a human because humans physically can't micro like a computer, so it's not a low skill game.
|
On August 18 2014 19:22 Veldril wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 19:12 ahswtini wrote: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. 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.
Yes. Exactly.
|
The idea that removing mechanics doesn't change overall "skill" in competitive games so long as attention can be shifted to other areas of the game and so long as that extra attetion can still differentiate "more skilled" from "less skilled" players is not an unreasonable one, but the problem is that it is conceivable that "decreasing marginal returns" may set in on the leftover areas of the game, so the potential to differentiate players ends up lower even if the theoretical skill ceiling is impossible to reach. Assuming there is a random element to the game (and there always is in games with imperfect information).
Overall, though, the OP is getting way more flak than deserved, then again indirectly arguing against time-honored mechanics is bound to leave some people butthurt.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
The problem is, his entire argument is based on the flawed logic that all games require equal skill to play, as long as those games have an unattainable skill ceiling.
|
On August 18 2014 19:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 17:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 11:24 SwatRaven wrote:
Just for curiosity's sake did you get any information about this topic from something similar to an academic paper or was this all your own creation? 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.
I didn't make it up. Start with what it means to reduce the skill required to play a competitive game. 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, because everyone can do more to play better. Thus, what it means to reduce the skill 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, as given in the OP. Then everything follows from that.
What's your counter-argument? Right, there is none.
|
What is there to counter? You're stating the obvious. Please, actually read the posts. The points people are bashing on you for are different than that one.
|
On August 18 2014 20:32 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 19:25 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2014 17:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 11:24 SwatRaven wrote:
Just for curiosity's sake did you get any information about this topic from something similar to an academic paper or was this all your own creation? 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. I didn't make it up. Start with what it means to reduce the skill required to play a competitive game. 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, because everyone can do more to play better. Thus, what it means to reduce the skill 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, as given in the OP. Then everything follows from that. What's your counter-argument? Right, there is none.
Its impossible to argue against you, you just ignore people who provide evidence contrary to your opinion.
Also, YOU MADE UP THAT LAW. Thats not the basis for an argument. You can't cite your own laws you haven't proven. Just like you can't use a word to define itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
