|
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.
Yes, you're correct that it should be obvious. But it's not obvious to Dota 2 fanboys.
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)
The outcome of a fight in SC2 can partly be determined by composition, but having the right composition is itself a skill. Something may be wrong with SC2 that it's mostly decided by 1 big deathball fight, but that doesn't make it require less skill, just not the type of skill you think it should be based off. But you seem to have realized this.
|
On August 18 2014 19:53 Plansix wrote:
He stopped making this argument in the Heroes thread because people had to much evidence to cite of all of his flawed arguments.
Name one piece of evidence.
|
On August 18 2014 20:38 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 19:53 Plansix wrote:
He stopped making this argument in the Heroes thread because people had to much evidence to cite of all of his flawed arguments. Name one piece of evidence.
Umm... Looking at the thread in question is enough? You've disappeared for the last 3 pages or so, after people, including myself, answered your posts with arguments. I believe that constitutes written evidence, if not proof.
Also, what exactly is your point? Last hitting sucks? Because if so, then damn, that's a whole lot of wasted e-ink for nothing.
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
On August 18 2014 20:31 Sbrubbles wrote:
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.
This. His logic, if you strip it down to its most simplistic form, works.
Let's say you have 5 skill points that you can invest into four different mechanics, called A, B, C and D. And let's say all those mechanics have individual ceilings of 10.
In one scenario you invest your points as follows:
A: 1
B: 2
C: 1
D: 2
Now let's remove mechanic D, we can now spend those 2 points on something else. Fine. You still have spent all your skill points and have not gotten anywhere close to the skill ceiling of the game.
So why aren't games stripped down so that there are only two skills for players to have to master? If you do it right, people will still never reach the skill ceiling. Why not just have pure worker micro in Starcraft? Let the AI build and command your units? Your game can be all about maximising worker efficiency.
|
On August 18 2014 20:38 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 19:53 Plansix wrote:
He stopped making this argument in the Heroes thread because people had to much evidence to cite of all of his flawed arguments. Name one piece of evidence.
Most people don't attack your argument. Your methodology for making the argument is so shitty that people mostly focus on that. That and the bullshit graphs you put in there that literally mean nothing really hammer home how your argument is nothing more than personal opinion.
Can someone go find his terrible ass, terrible blog about Dota? I need to go to work and couldn't pull it up.
|
On August 18 2014 20:21 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 20:13 paralleluniverse wrote: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.
If we add an overpowered hero in Dota 2 or make a race overpowered, then people who play this hero or race will win more and get higher MMR. Thus, unadjusted win rates tend to be around 50%, and win rates at the top usually tend to be more skewed (more than 50%). This is what Blizzard even states as the reason for releasing skill-adjusted win rates: because everything else is around 50% (if it's not, there's a problem). But this is not on-topic.
I've already stated how to reduce skill required in a game. Go read the OP:
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.
So skill is reduced, when the game has an optimal strategy, i.e. the skill ceiling is below what is achievable by humans, i.e. people cant do anything more to improve their play, because the game requires low skill.
|
On August 18 2014 20:31 Sbrubbles wrote:
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.
Yes.
This person gets it.
On randomness, I've written something on it here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/games/465001-near-impossible-reduce-skill-in-competitive-games#15
|
We get it. Your argument is: removing or adding mechanics does not alter the skill level, because one is almost always able to improve oneself with the remaining mechanics. OK, that is overly simple, but obviously true.
The problem is you can't apply that to anything that provides different options of play to all the players.
|
On August 18 2014 20:46 Spaylz wrote:
We get it. Your argument is: removing or adding mechanics does not alter the skill level, because one is almost always able to improve oneself with the remaining mechanics. OK, that is overly simple, but obviously true.
The problem is you can't apply that to anything that provides different options of play to all the players.
And lets be clear, thats not an argument to remove the system or that it is bad. Of course players will find other things to do with their APM. That didn't require the OP to make up some dumb ass dumb rule about Dumbing Down Games.
|
On August 18 2014 20:09 Spaylz wrote:
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.
If you can't pick heroes and play a strategy to get a 100% win or draw rate (or reduce the game to be 100% based on luck), then you don't have an optimal strategy and there is more you can do to improve your play. Like picking the correct heroes or engaging better in teamfights. So no, you haven't reached the theoretical skill ceiling.
|
You keep ignoring personal skill level. How is that not a factor? Is it unfathomable that one player might be better than another?
|
The argument that the only way to prove a skill ceiling can be reached is to have 100% win rate is just play stupid, and beyond flawed. 100% win rates are nearly impossible to reach in the most simple of competitive games.
|
Exactly. It's not possible to achieve 100% winrate, because there is always someone better than you. Add to that any slump or extremely good shape a player might be in, luck, flukes, and so on...
There are far too many variables, and finding an "optimal strategy" is merely theory that almost always never holds in practice. You can theorize all you want about the perfect Dota 2 or HotS setup, in the end, if the other players are better than you, they will still win.
|
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 in CS:GO, because they require different skills, SC2 requires skills in macro, CS:GO requires skill in aiming.
If changes were made to SC2 so that it becomes CS:GO or multiple unit selection were removed, then the skills required will shift, but the overall skill required will stay the same.
This is already 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.
|
On August 18 2014 20:31 ahswtini wrote:
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.
Where's the flaw? You haven't pointed it out.
|
On August 18 2014 20:56 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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..
|
On August 18 2014 20:39 Spaylz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 20:38 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 19:53 Plansix wrote:
He stopped making this argument in the Heroes thread because people had to much evidence to cite of all of his flawed arguments. Name one piece of evidence. Umm... Looking at the thread in question is enough? You've disappeared for the last 3 pages or so, after people, including myself, answered your posts with arguments. I believe that constitutes written evidence, if not proof. Also, what exactly is your point? Last hitting sucks? Because if so, then damn, that's a whole lot of wasted e-ink for nothing.
I was busy writing this thread. There was no argument debunking anything I wrote, because you can't cite a single one of these arguments.
|
On August 18 2014 21:02 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 20:39 Spaylz wrote:On August 18 2014 20:38 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 19:53 Plansix wrote:
He stopped making this argument in the Heroes thread because people had to much evidence to cite of all of his flawed arguments. Name one piece of evidence. Umm... Looking at the thread in question is enough? You've disappeared for the last 3 pages or so, after people, including myself, answered your posts with arguments. I believe that constitutes written evidence, if not proof. Also, what exactly is your point? Last hitting sucks? Because if so, then damn, that's a whole lot of wasted e-ink for nothing. I was busy writing this thread. There was no argument debunking anything I wrote, because you can't cite a single one of these arguments.
Check this out.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/games/432609-heroes-of-the-storm-blizzard-all-stars-announced?page=112#2232
|
On August 18 2014 20:42 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 20:31 Sbrubbles wrote:
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. This. His logic, if you strip it down to its most simplistic form, works. Let's say you have 5 skill points that you can invest into four different mechanics, called A, B, C and D. And let's say all those mechanics have individual ceilings of 10. In one scenario you invest your points as follows: A: 1 B: 2 C: 1 D: 2 Now let's remove mechanic D, we can now spend those 2 points on something else. Fine. You still have spent all your skill points and have not gotten anywhere close to the skill ceiling of the game. So why aren't games stripped down so that there are only two skills for players to have to master? If you do it right, people will still never reach the skill ceiling. Why not just have pure worker micro in Starcraft? Let the AI build and command your units? Your game can be all about maximising worker efficiency.
Yes, now even you admit that I'm right: as long as there's still some non-RNG mechanic to differentiate people, then the amount of skill required to play the game hasn't changed (although what skills are needed may have shifted).
Why aren't game stripped down to nothing but workers? Well, firstly, they can be without reducing skill, if the designer wanted, as you've now even admitted, and as I've stated in the OP:
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.
But why aren't games stripped down to this level? This question is also answered in the OP, if you would actually read:
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".
|
Just because a theoretical skill cap is immutable because only a computer could theoretically reach it does not mean that every complex game mechanic doesn't require some sort of skill a human is capable of achieving. DotA 2, LoL, and HotS all have theoretically infinite skill caps for both decision making and mechanical gameplay, but DotA 2 is still a harder game to play at a competent level than the other 2, simply because of its ridiculous amount of extra complexity, odd game speed, and fucking Invoker.
I agree that DotA 2 is poorly designed and over-complex, and that Valve missed a golden opportunity to fix design flaws and game speed (for all it's faults, see HoN for what DotA would be like with a good game speed/turn speed) when they ported it. Alas, it's in the past now.
One of the best examples I can elucidate is a WoW DPS rotation. It takes more "skill" to manage a rotation that has 2 DoTs, 3 CDs, and 4 cast time abilities that must be cast in a certain order than it does to manage a rotation of Colossus Smash and spam Slam, otherwise, Spam Mortal Strike and Overpower (simplified Warrior rotation), especially on a raid fight that requires movement ont he caster's part. Simply having more things to do requires more attention to execute. Same goes for MOBAs. The mere fact that you have to worry about pulling/stacking while keeping your lane safe, keeping vision up, worrying about wards, etc. on top of being more mechanically demanding to land skillshots and avoid the enemy's simply due to the poor turn speed makes it more complex than LoL, where a support has to think about vision for ganks, harassing the other lane, and possibly roaming for another gank.
Then again, I'd argue that LoL is more fun simply because it focuses less on map control and housekeeping the jungle and more on directly fighting your opponent, which IMO is the fun part. HotS refines that point even better. You seem to be arguing against the strawman that "complexity = fun" when I don't think anybody made that actual argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
