|
On August 17 2014 13:04 paralleluniversewrote:
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".
If HOTS is truly the superior MOBA then viewer numbers should explode and exceed Dota2 and LoL by far once it reaches beta/nears it's release, since it will be more interesting to watch. Don't you think?
But I really admire your fanaticism. One random internet kid states Dota2 requires more skill than Hots and you go on a crusade spanning endless days just to prove him wrong. A for effort. Because let's face it, this thread is nothing more than bashing on the lasthitting mechanic in Dota2/LoL.
|
On August 18 2014 22:06 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 21:17 Grumbels wrote:On August 18 2014 20:36 paralleluniverse wrote: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. This is a video game discussion forum, not philosophy debate class. The people in this thread have vested interests in the outcome as they are in some ways part of the decision making process that eventually leads to the adoption or removal of various mechanics into the game. And honestly, the people disagreeing with you very quickly managed to focus on your real agenda (various HotS design questions) and not the ostensible topic of this thread, and if you had wanted to avoid this you chose the wrong tone because every you write gives the appearance of it being part of a larger polemic argument. Implicit in many discussions is that while all skills are equal, some are more equal than others; and at any rate are more desirable to have in the game. I don't think it's the case that any game with an infinite skill ceiling will support competitive gaming, much less the even stricter demands of "e-sports", so there is a lot more to be said on the topic than blithely stating the discussion has been resolved thanks to your initial argument. I mean, what do you want? Do you want everyone to admit that removing mechanics does not by definition remove competitive potential? Even if the context of the discussion is the removal of certain specific mechanics? You write "any rate are more desirable to have in the game". Yes. Exactly. I made the same point: "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." If only the Dota 2 fanboys can get over the false claim that removing mechanics reduces skill (which this thread is specifically written to debunk), we could move on to this more interesting argument like what mechanics are desirable to have, and the world would be a better place. But they can't accept this fact.
You realizing that most people are arguing with you because you were an ass-hat in the dota thread a while ago and wrote some bullshit blog about how Dota 2 was a busted game. It has very little to do with the shitbox argument you are making. Your are like some moving car crash for us to watch and amuse ourselves with, not much else.
The fanboy is strong with this one. Luckily, most Dota players don't really mind HotS and find it amusing for 15-20 minutes of fun.
|
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.
yeah like his cs with aimbot example. same skill as without aimbot, for sure, rofl.
|
On August 18 2014 21:32 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +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".
|
On August 18 2014 22:09 hootsushi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2014 13:04 paralleluniversewrote:
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". If HOTS is truly the superior MOBA then viewer numbers should explode and exceed Dota2 and LoL by far once it reaches beta/nears it's release, since it will be more interesting to watch. Don't you think? But I really admire your fanaticism. One random internet kid states Dota2 requires more skill than Hots and you go on a crusade spanning endless days just to prove him wrong. A for effort. Because let's face it, this thread is nothing more than bashing on the lasthitting mechanic in Dota2/LoL.
HotS is actually the SuperiorSuperiorMOBA, there already exists a SuperiorMOBA that takes out some of the anti-fun mechanics of InferiorMOBA
|
On August 18 2014 21:18 duckmaster wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 20:45 paralleluniverse wrote: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 so basically you do agree that removing mechanics makes it so that the game rewards less skill? because after all, being humans, we constantly make mistakes in our play. If basketball was only about throwing penalty shots, then yes there would be someone that we could call the best in the world. He might be able to throw in 98,88% of the shots whereas the second best would score 98,86% of the time. And the 10000th best player would score 98% of the time. It's a game where no one would ever reach the skill ceiling i.e. 100% success. So what? There would be simply nothing impressive about the best player in the world, he's just another guy who can throw in about 98% of his shots. There would never be someone to look up to, there would never be a consistent champion, skill would not be rewarded. A guy that has only 96% success rate could easily beat the best player in the world if the best player failed even one throw. Say his concentration slips for a fraction of a second and he misses, and that's that, he just lost to some no name garbage player. A game as volatile as that is what I would call a low skill game, but obviously you argue it takes just as skill based as regular basketball. It's more or less about semantics, what do people actually mean when they say "high skill game".
No. The opposite is true. You can remove all the mechanics in the world, but as long as the theoretical skill ceiling remains above what humans can achieve, the skill required hasn't changed, because there's more things humans can do, play better, get more skills, etc., to win more.
In your basketball vs penalty shot example, as I explained in the OP, both games require the same amount of skill, if the theoretical skill ceiling is above what humans can achieve. The change in your example just shifts the skills required rather than the amount of skill required which is unchanged. Basketball requires skill in getting the ball into the hoop, penalty shot requires the skill of throwing the ball in the hoop and the skill of not failing.
As I said "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."
|
On August 18 2014 22:11 Kupon3ss wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 22:09 hootsushi wrote:On August 17 2014 13:04 paralleluniversewrote:
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". If HOTS is truly the superior MOBA then viewer numbers should explode and exceed Dota2 and LoL by far once it reaches beta/nears it's release, since it will be more interesting to watch. Don't you think? But I really admire your fanaticism. One random internet kid states Dota2 requires more skill than Hots and you go on a crusade spanning endless days just to prove him wrong. A for effort. Because let's face it, this thread is nothing more than bashing on the lasthitting mechanic in Dota2/LoL. HotS is actually the SuperiorSuperiorMOBA, there already exists a SuperiorMOBA that takes out some of the anti-fun mechanics of InferiorMOBA
Plus they have SuperiorMoba approved meta to make it easier for people to figure out how to play the game. SuperiorSuperiorMOBA goes to the next level and builds the team for you by picking heroes based on their role to be on your team. It is the Blizzard enforced Meta.
|
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.
|
On August 18 2014 22:19 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +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 PAY to win more.
|
On August 18 2014 22:14 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 21:18 duckmaster wrote:On August 18 2014 20:45 paralleluniverse wrote: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 so basically you do agree that removing mechanics makes it so that the game rewards less skill? because after all, being humans, we constantly make mistakes in our play. If basketball was only about throwing penalty shots, then yes there would be someone that we could call the best in the world. He might be able to throw in 98,88% of the shots whereas the second best would score 98,86% of the time. And the 10000th best player would score 98% of the time. It's a game where no one would ever reach the skill ceiling i.e. 100% success. So what? There would be simply nothing impressive about the best player in the world, he's just another guy who can throw in about 98% of his shots. There would never be someone to look up to, there would never be a consistent champion, skill would not be rewarded. A guy that has only 96% success rate could easily beat the best player in the world if the best player failed even one throw. Say his concentration slips for a fraction of a second and he misses, and that's that, he just lost to some no name garbage player. A game as volatile as that is what I would call a low skill game, but obviously you argue it takes just as skill based as regular basketball. It's more or less about semantics, what do people actually mean when they say "high skill game". No. The opposite is true. You can remove all the mechanics in the world, but as long as the theoretical skill ceiling remains above what humans can achieve, the skill required hasn't changed, because there's more things humans can do, play better, get more skills, etc., to win more. In your basketball vs penalty shot example, as I explained in the OP, both games require the same amount of skill, if the theoretical skill ceiling is above what humans can achieve. The change in your example just shifts the skills required rather than the amount of skill required which is unchanged. Basketball requires skill in getting the ball into the hoop, penalty shot requires the skill of throwing the ball in the hoop and the skill of not failing. As I said "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."
you work for riot, don't you? no other company makes statements like this and believes they are true.
also how basketball (where penalty shooting is ONE of MANY skills to have) can have the same skill ceiling as penalty shooting (without the rest) is beyond my understanding.
|
On August 18 2014 22:10 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +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. yeah like his cs with aimbot example. same skill as without aimbot, for sure, rofl.
Yes, the same amount of skill as before. Acting incredulous is not an argument. It makes it easier for you to aim, but it also makes it easier for your opponent, so you're not going to win more. It shifts to skill from aiming to positioning. If it's so much easier why can't you always win?
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.
|
On August 18 2014 22:19 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Wait, I missed that. He said that playing a full game of basket ball has the same skill ceiling as making penalty shots? Are you kidding me? Lets take the most important skill involved, running all the time, vs standing and just leave it at that. One involves a team, the other does not. One involves an opposing team, the other does not. One of those is clearly harder than the other.
I love how his argument boils down to - if the playing field is equal, its equal, therefore all things are equal. If you take this argument to its conclusion, winning at rock paper scissors requires as much skill as winning at dota as winning at chess as winning at dating.
|
On August 18 2014 22:14 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 21:18 duckmaster wrote:On August 18 2014 20:45 paralleluniverse wrote: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 so basically you do agree that removing mechanics makes it so that the game rewards less skill? because after all, being humans, we constantly make mistakes in our play. If basketball was only about throwing penalty shots, then yes there would be someone that we could call the best in the world. He might be able to throw in 98,88% of the shots whereas the second best would score 98,86% of the time. And the 10000th best player would score 98% of the time. It's a game where no one would ever reach the skill ceiling i.e. 100% success. So what? There would be simply nothing impressive about the best player in the world, he's just another guy who can throw in about 98% of his shots. There would never be someone to look up to, there would never be a consistent champion, skill would not be rewarded. A guy that has only 96% success rate could easily beat the best player in the world if the best player failed even one throw. Say his concentration slips for a fraction of a second and he misses, and that's that, he just lost to some no name garbage player. A game as volatile as that is what I would call a low skill game, but obviously you argue it takes just as skill based as regular basketball. It's more or less about semantics, what do people actually mean when they say "high skill game". No. The opposite is true. You can remove all the mechanics in the world, but as long as the theoretical skill ceiling remains above what humans can achieve, the skill required hasn't changed, because there's more things humans can do, play better, get more skills, etc., to win more. In your basketball vs penalty shot example, as I explained in the OP, both games require the same amount of skill, if the theoretical skill ceiling is above what humans can achieve. The change in your example just shifts the skills required rather than the amount of skill required which is unchanged. Basketball requires skill in getting the ball into the hoop, penalty shot requires the skill of throwing the ball in the hoop and the skill of not failing. As I said "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."
I disagree
|
On August 18 2014 22:23 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 22:10 fleeze 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. yeah like his cs with aimbot example. same skill as without aimbot, for sure, rofl. Yes, the same amount of skill as before. Acting incredulous is not an argument. It makes it easier for you to aim, but it also makes it easier for your opponent, so you're not going to win more. It shifts to skill from aiming to positioning. If it's so much easier why can't you always win? Show nested quote +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.
positioning was there before, don't you think?
so if you remove a skill mechanic and add nothing what do you get? less required skill. it doesn't matter that you need to put more emphasize on an already existing mechanic.
you're logic just makes no fucking sense. same as your "winrate" argument that MAKES NO SENSE. every game you talk about has a matchmaking system that will take care of your "winrate".
edit: for this gem:
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.
the game is already about positioning, strategy, flashing and firing with maximum lethality (minimizing recoil), so WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT. btw, the game is about AIMING, too and if you remove it something is clearly MISIING.
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
On August 18 2014 22:19 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Well played, your agument is impossible to disprove. There is no way of quantifying this theoretical universal skill ceiling. You may as well be arguing about the existence of God. There is no magical ultimate umbrella skill ceiling that all of humanity share. Your theory is that everyone is capable of the same potential in every mechanic. Therefore removing all but one mechanic is fine, as long as that one mechanic has a skill ceiling higher than the humanity ultimate skill ceiling. That's flawed. People are different and their abilities are gated in different ways. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. By reducing the number of things players have to be competent at, you are closing the gap between the good and bad players.
|
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.
How to make a simple model of this type of game is difficult because "skill" is difficult (conceptually impossible? I'm not 100% sure) to measure. But we both did it, so let me roll with it  . Warning: grain of salt required before proceding:
+ Show Spoiler +Let's build a game in which the player is given "skill points" (SP) which he must distribute between game areas A, B, C and D. Each area gives him "game points" (GP) as a function of the number of SP invested in it, and the player with more GP at the end wins. Furthermore, there's area E of the game that gives random extra GP to each player. Let's assume that each game area function gives more GP the more SP is invested into it, so that A, B, C and D are all increasing in SP. Now, let's suppose two different scenarios: 1) Each game area function gives the same GP proportional to the number of SP invested into it and that, if GP is equal, players would rather spend their SP equally between game areas. 2) Each game area function has decreasing marginal returns, so each SP extra gives less GP than the previous one. Each player will naturally want to maximize his GP in order to win, so optimally in scenario 1 he will spend his SP equally between A, B, C and D and in scenario 2 he spend his points in a way that equals the marginal GPs of functions A, B, C and D. The player's probability to win depends on how big the random area E is in relation to A, B, C and D, so we can write it down as P(player 1 beats 2) = P(A1+B1+C1+D1+E1 > A2+B2+C2+D2+E2), A1 being how many GP player 1 gains from the SP he spent in A. If the game's "random" aspect is way bigger than the rest, it becomes P(E1>E2), a coin flip, and if the game's "random" aspect isn't there, then it becomes P(A1+B1+C1+D1 > A2+B2+C2+D2), which is not actually a probability, it's a certainty: the more skilled player always wins (ideal world). Now, the point of this thought exercise is to show that in scenario 1, if you remove D, neither player's "chance to win" changes, because he can redistribute his SP in a way that A1*+B1*+C1*=A1+B1+C1+D1 (A1* being how many GP player 1 gains from the SP he spent in A with D having been removed). In scenario 2, though, if you remove D, then A1*+B1*+C1*<A1+B1+C1+D1, because of decreasing marginal returns, which increases the relative importance of E, making it less likely the more skilled player will win. The question then becomes: which scenario applies better to the discussion at hand?
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
On August 18 2014 22:26 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 22:23 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 22:10 fleeze 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. yeah like his cs with aimbot example. same skill as without aimbot, for sure, rofl. Yes, the same amount of skill as before. Acting incredulous is not an argument. It makes it easier for you to aim, but it also makes it easier for your opponent, so you're not going to win more. It shifts to skill from aiming to positioning. If it's so much easier why can't you always win? 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. positioning was there before, don't you think? so if you remove a skill mechanic and add nothing what do you get? less required skill. it doesn't matter that you need to put more emphasize on an already existing mechanic.
Dude it means you can think about MORE positioning. Obviously players' abilities to position perfectly is being gated by the unnecessary mechanic of having to aim.
|
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??
???
|
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??
???
Don't even ask.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
