|
On August 18 2014 22:11 Spaylz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 21:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 21:00 Spaylz wrote:On August 18 2014 20:56 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 20:22 Spaylz wrote:
I don't see you addressing anything. I see you repeating the same stuff over and over while other people come up with many different answers to your, again, very biased views.
The only real point you've made is that the skill ceiling cannot be reached by any human, and that there is always room for improvement. That pretty much applies to everything, hence the constant, never-ending progress of the human race both in terms of technology and quality of life. But all games have the same skill? That is in no way true. Does that mean a CS:GO pro player should be able to go pro on SC2 as well? Does that mean Bobby Fischer would rock everyone in Dota 2, or to speak your language: in HotS?
Again, tic-tac-toe and checkers give both players access to the same possibilities, the same units, and so on. There are no differences in terms of options available, only decision-making matters. This does not, cannot, and will never apply to games like Dota 2 or HotS, because there are too many variables. Some heroes lose against others, and vice versa. And, again, even in those bad situation of a poor hero match-up, some people do manage to win. Because they are better. I don't know how many times I can repeat myself.
You're not proving anything. Everybody tells you so. Do you pay attention to what is happenig at all?
Lastly, you've stopped answering in the HotS thread, after the many posts addressing your... point of view. You haven't read the OP properly. If all games require the same amount of skill, it does not mean that SC2 players can go pro at SC2, because they require different skills, SC2 requires skills in macro, CS:GO requires skill in preisions. If changes were made to SC2 to that it becomes CS:GO or changes to remove multiple unit selection, then the skills required will shift, but all overall skill required will stay the same. This is stated in the OP: Humans can only do a finite number of things at one time. So, for example, removing pointless gimmicks and restrictions in MOBAs frees players to focus on other real skills, like strategizing around merc camps and map objectives, landing skillshots, and winning team fights. Therefore, instead of doing less and lowering the achievable skill ceiling, the achievable skill ceiling doesn't change, it's still bounded by the finite amount of things humans can do just as before, but it shifts where skill is needed.
[...]
Example 1: Adding auto-aim to CS:GO (removing complexity)
Aiming is a huge part of CS:GO, it's one of the most important skills in the game. Does adding auto-aim dumb down the game, reduce skill or kill depth? No. The game will still require just as much skill as it does now. Instead of being about aiming, auto-aim would shift the game to be about positioning, strategy, flashing and firing with maximum lethality (minimizing recoil). The team with more skill in avoiding situations where they will be killed by the opponent's auto-aim by being at the right place at the right time would win. The skill of correct positioning would be absolutely critical. So playing CS:GO with auto-aim would require the same amount of skill it requires now, it just emphasizes different types of skills, like positioning. You say there's too many variables in Dota 2 and HotS for there to be an optimal strategy. Then how can removing, for example, items from HotS reduce skill when there's still "too many variables" that people cannot master? It doesn't, and so you've debunked yourself. Also, picking the right heroes would be part of the optimal strategy, if there is one. You irritate me. When did I say removing mechanics lowered skill level? Seriously.. So you admit, as my argument in the OP shows, that removing mechanics like last hitting and items from MOBAs doesn't lower skill level? OK. I'm going to be very, very clear here to make sure you understand my opinion. First of all, I never said removing mechanics lowered the skill ceiling (note that I don't even think that's an actual thing, but whatever). You keep answering me, saying "so you admit I'm right, the skill isn't reduced?" when I never spoke of reducing skills. I spoke of complexity, strategy, and so on. Secondly, no, you haven't convinced me of anything. Basically, all you've said is that one can always improve themself, thus meaning the "skill ceiling" of any game is unreachable and that as long as there is room for improvement, then the point holds. This is stating the obvious, and I never disagreed with that. What I always argued against was your stupid, stupid vendetta against Dota 2, and your irrational praise of HotS. Please read this.Furthermore, I have not "debunked" myself one bit. I've been stating many different points, among them explaining how and why Dota 2 and HotS are different but not necessarily superior to one another. I have yet to go back on that, and nothing I said disproves it. Also, personal skill level does enter into play. You can add or remove as many mechanics as you like, people are going to approach and handle them differently, and some will be better than others. Such is life: someone will always be better than you, no matter what we speak of. We could be talking about cooking eggs for all I care, and someone, somewhere will be able to make tastier eggs than you.
Now, about your last post... 1. I said some games are decided by the drafting. It is possible to be outpicked in Dota 2, and frankly it happens quite often. How can there be any snowballing if your opponent's team is designed to counter yours? (Again, even with a setup that counters that of your opponent, it is possible to lose by being outplayed) I also said Dota 2 had flaws, and that the rare games that are decided 20 minutes in are part of that, but are nowhere near as frequent as you picture them to be. Just as I am sure that HotS has its own flaws, and that bad situations will also arise from them. Unless you believe HotS is flawless?2. That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you even reading yourself? He is the game director, and he is arguing for the game's design. Again, this is marketing, why on earth would he argue for the design of the other games? I mean, come on, you don't even address what I said here. You're just saying complete random sentences that don't answer what I said in the slightest. His point is that he saw Dota 2, saw its flaws and the unpleasant moments that arose from them, and aimed to create a game that solved that. In doing so, he simplified many aspects of the game, thus creating flaws which in the opinion of others might be a deal breaker. One of those flaws being: HotS will never achieve the level of strategy Dota 2 has in CM/CD modes, and that is completely fine. It is the other side of the coin that comes with simplifying aspects. It makes things simpler. Note that I said simpler, not easier, so don't go saying I'm arguing there is a skill reduction. Simple does not equal easy. There is no argument to be made about what game is the better one, it is all a matter of personal preference (yet another concept which seems to elude you). 3. I think you need to understand what "skill" means. At this point, I really feel like I'm debating the wind. That paragraph of yours basically says what I said: some people are better than others. By defaut, we humans have done nothing than to improve ourselves over the past couple of thousand years, and I'm sure it will keep going that way. What is the point of debating that? We might as well talk about the weather. It's not even a matter of "reaching the skill ceiling", it's just a matter of getting better. I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. I for one did not say less skill was required, I said the reasons for losing were different. Word for word. Really, you're beating a dead horse, seeing as I never said HotS required less skill than Dota 2. I simply said it focused on different aspects and offers a different experience. Anyway... To sum it up: debating whether or not there is a maximum skill which can be achieved is, ultimately, pointless. Even if there were, not everybody would be able to reach it, because everybody's talent is different. That is the essence of skill: someone will always be able to pull off moves that another one cannot. Sometimes, people are unable to improve. Sometimes, they cannot get better because they have reached their limits, and not some sort of ultimate theoretical limit every human being can reach. Your assumption is based on the fact that all men are equal. Well, they are not.
Welcome to the real world.And for the record, I absolutely love HotS. I simply see no need to act like a fanatic over it, and proceed to turn myself into a self-proclaimed scholar looking to bring down the other games with made-up, pointless "laws".
Stop with the lie that you never said HotS requires less skill. You did. Here's proof:
You claim that I've ignored personal skill, but I have not ignored personal skill, because the very fact people can have different levels of personal skill at the game and that no one has hit the theoretical skill ceiling proves that removing mechanics does not reduce the skill required to play the game, as there is always more skillful things to do to improve your play in order to win more.
You write: "Also, personal skill level does enter into play. You can add or remove as many mechanics as you like, people are going to approach and handle them differently, and some will be better than others." But if removing mechanics, like HotS has, lowers the skill required to play the game, then this situation would not be possible, because that means some people cannot possibly do anything more to improve their play as they've found an optimal strategy to play the game, because as long as everyone can do something more to improve their play, to increase their wins, then the skill required to play the game hasn't been reduced since everyone can do more to play better. Therefore, the fact that you admit that this situation is possible, implies that skill has not been reduced.
I'm not "debating whether or not there is a maximum skill which can be achieved". I showed that as long as the theoretical skill cap is above what is achievable by humans, the skill required to play the game has not reduced, because there's more skill that people can learn in order to win more.
Again, you've got the causation of Browder's statement backwards. You say it's marketing. Well, why doesn't he make a game with denying and items and market that instead? He doesn't make such a game because he agrees with me and he agrees that you're wrong.
Your post is based off the lie that "I never said HotS required less skill than Dota 2". As I proved, you did. Stop lying.
|
On August 18 2014 22:44 Reaps wrote:
Forgive me as I haven't read all 8 pages, but how the hell does giving an fps like CS:GO autoaim not reduce skill??
???
Because if both sides have it, they you will be freed up to pay attention to other things, like positioning and cover…. Because you weren’t paying attention to those to begin with.
Or the alternative theory: pixy dust?
|
Northern Ireland22203 Posts
On August 18 2014 22:37 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 20:42 ahswtini 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. 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?
The first scenario makes the crucial assumption that each area gives you the same GP return for the SP invested. Not a fair assumption, all mechanics will rarely have the exact same game impact. Second scenario is solid - increasing micromanagement gives you diminishing returns. Let's say you don't need to last hit, so you focus more on positioning around objectives. You were already positioning around objectives to begin with, and if you're a pro, you should already have reached a high level of competency at positioning. So what extra proficiency can you actually get? Again, it's impossible to quantify this stuff, because there's no absolute way to measure skill. And in this same way, it's impossible to disprove OP's theory.
|
On August 17 2014 14:22 Kupon3ss wrote:![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Kupon3ss/lPCiFU5.png) Adding and removing meaningless gimmick paragraphs do not change the overall bullshit ceiling and this is consistent with the Law of Conciseness of Bullshit. Then why do you spend so many seemingly complex paragraphs trying to explain the complexity and nuances of your Bullshit when removing the paragraphs obviously wouldn't dumb it down at all.
lmao i love you
you put autoaim in csgo then dont call it cs go
hey why not also make it turn based?
And then why dont you add dice rolls?
would still be a great game with a high still ceiling
But then it would be a completely different game.
A pc has a mouse and a keyboard which makes it unusually adapted at the skill of precise and rapid aiming of a cursor. That is an immense skillcap ability that is a joy to watch.
You entire strawman of an argument creates strawmen as it goes, sure you may have a slight point, but then stating any tautological nonsense has a point it just has no application. Comparing 2 game with diffrent skills as if they are the same game is silly.
dota without lots of items isnt dota. csgo without aiming isnt csgo. rts games with no buildings are not rts game (or certainly not the base building genre that you started with - there are many non base building rts out there)
At the end of the say you are saying
a) humans have a skill cap
b) some games have a skillcap higher than what humans can attain
you are then suggesting that because fo this the games *should* ie moral imperative to be at this level
But who gives a shit about skillcap really?
When someone says you are ruining a game with a change that lowers the skillcap they are saying that skill is an integral part of the game, so you are comparing a completley different game to a game that was already perfectly fine. Thats why it is also strawman.
|
OK buddy, you need to stop taking drugs.
In that very quote, I said HotS removed certain aspects (like drafting, more complex strategy, etc.) to add other things. Meaning it removes the skill involved in those particular aspects, since the aspects themselves are gone. Or is that too complicated to grasp? Unless perhaps you think that if HotS removes drafting and picking, it somehow retains the same level of skill involved in those parts of Dota 2 or LoL?
Second, your "theoretical skill ceiling" doesn't exist. As someone else said, it's the same thing as arguing the existence of God, and nobody wants to debate faith. This is what we're dealing with.
Again, you're ignoring half of my argument. There is no such thing as a "skill ceiling", everyone has different capacities. There is no ultimate point that ALL human beings can reach. Give it a rest.
Lastly, I doubt Browder gives a flying fuck about your opinion. The world does not revolve around you, and no matter how much of a Blizzard fan you are, the company does not revolve around you either. Blizzard is doing their own take on the dota-like genre, and obviously, since there are so many clones about, they need to do something different to stick out and achieve successs. Because they're not dumbasses. The rest is simple marketing: he is promoting his product.
Stop being so dense.
|
On August 18 2014 22:24 hootsushi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 22:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 22:04 ahswtini wrote:
Removing one mechanic so you can do more of the other mechanics does not automatically maintain the same skill ceiling, which is the basis of your entire argument. No, my argument has nothing to do with if the theoretical skill ceiling is maintained. Removing a mechanic can reduce the skill ceiling a hundredfold, but the skill required to play the game will still be the same as long as the theoretical skill ceiling is above what humans can achieve. Because then there is no optimal strategy, and everyone can always improve their play and improve their skill. in order to win more. So in essence, Dota2 is the more skillful game. Just because no human is able to achieve that skill level doesn't change the fact it exists. That's literally what you are saying.
What the theoretical skill ceiling is doesn't matter if no human can achieve it. So no, Dota 2 is not the more skillful game than HotS, because people can't win more in Dota 2 than in HotS, as in both games no human can reach the theoretical skill ceiling, meaning that everyone can always use more skill to win more.
|
Northern Ireland22203 Posts
Last hitting as a skill is pretty simple to get good at. Laning on the other hand, is not, because there are a lot of factors to play around. Last hitting exists to force you to lane, and therefore forces you to engage in a direct battle of skills with the enemy. Why not just have a load of teamfights if you want to test PvP skills? Because the mechanics of a laning fight are different to those of a teamfight.
|
On August 18 2014 22:53 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 22:24 hootsushi wrote:On August 18 2014 22:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 22:04 ahswtini wrote:
Removing one mechanic so you can do more of the other mechanics does not automatically maintain the same skill ceiling, which is the basis of your entire argument. No, my argument has nothing to do with if the theoretical skill ceiling is maintained. Removing a mechanic can reduce the skill ceiling a hundredfold, but the skill required to play the game will still be the same as long as the theoretical skill ceiling is above what humans can achieve. Because then there is no optimal strategy, and everyone can always improve their play and improve their skill. in order to win more. So in essence, Dota2 is the more skillful game. Just because no human is able to achieve that skill level doesn't change the fact it exists. That's literally what you are saying. What the theoretical skill ceiling is doesn't matter if no human can achieve it. So no, Dota 2 is not the more skillful game than HotS, because people can't win more in Dota 2 than in HotS, as in both games no human can reach the theoretical skill ceiling, meaning that everyone can always use more skill to win more.
You disproved your theory. Because both sides are played by humans and both are interacting with the game, winrates are meaning less when determining how hard the game is to play. You can't count winrates as evidence of anything in this argument.
|
On August 18 2014 22:46 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 22:11 Spaylz wrote:On August 18 2014 21:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 21:00 Spaylz wrote:On August 18 2014 20:56 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 20:22 Spaylz wrote:
I don't see you addressing anything. I see you repeating the same stuff over and over while other people come up with many different answers to your, again, very biased views.
The only real point you've made is that the skill ceiling cannot be reached by any human, and that there is always room for improvement. That pretty much applies to everything, hence the constant, never-ending progress of the human race both in terms of technology and quality of life. But all games have the same skill? That is in no way true. Does that mean a CS:GO pro player should be able to go pro on SC2 as well? Does that mean Bobby Fischer would rock everyone in Dota 2, or to speak your language: in HotS?
Again, tic-tac-toe and checkers give both players access to the same possibilities, the same units, and so on. There are no differences in terms of options available, only decision-making matters. This does not, cannot, and will never apply to games like Dota 2 or HotS, because there are too many variables. Some heroes lose against others, and vice versa. And, again, even in those bad situation of a poor hero match-up, some people do manage to win. Because they are better. I don't know how many times I can repeat myself.
You're not proving anything. Everybody tells you so. Do you pay attention to what is happenig at all?
Lastly, you've stopped answering in the HotS thread, after the many posts addressing your... point of view. You haven't read the OP properly. If all games require the same amount of skill, it does not mean that SC2 players can go pro at SC2, because they require different skills, SC2 requires skills in macro, CS:GO requires skill in preisions. If changes were made to SC2 to that it becomes CS:GO or changes to remove multiple unit selection, then the skills required will shift, but all overall skill required will stay the same. This is stated in the OP: Humans can only do a finite number of things at one time. So, for example, removing pointless gimmicks and restrictions in MOBAs frees players to focus on other real skills, like strategizing around merc camps and map objectives, landing skillshots, and winning team fights. Therefore, instead of doing less and lowering the achievable skill ceiling, the achievable skill ceiling doesn't change, it's still bounded by the finite amount of things humans can do just as before, but it shifts where skill is needed.
[...]
Example 1: Adding auto-aim to CS:GO (removing complexity)
Aiming is a huge part of CS:GO, it's one of the most important skills in the game. Does adding auto-aim dumb down the game, reduce skill or kill depth? No. The game will still require just as much skill as it does now. Instead of being about aiming, auto-aim would shift the game to be about positioning, strategy, flashing and firing with maximum lethality (minimizing recoil). The team with more skill in avoiding situations where they will be killed by the opponent's auto-aim by being at the right place at the right time would win. The skill of correct positioning would be absolutely critical. So playing CS:GO with auto-aim would require the same amount of skill it requires now, it just emphasizes different types of skills, like positioning. You say there's too many variables in Dota 2 and HotS for there to be an optimal strategy. Then how can removing, for example, items from HotS reduce skill when there's still "too many variables" that people cannot master? It doesn't, and so you've debunked yourself. Also, picking the right heroes would be part of the optimal strategy, if there is one. You irritate me. When did I say removing mechanics lowered skill level? Seriously.. So you admit, as my argument in the OP shows, that removing mechanics like last hitting and items from MOBAs doesn't lower skill level? OK. I'm going to be very, very clear here to make sure you understand my opinion. First of all, I never said removing mechanics lowered the skill ceiling (note that I don't even think that's an actual thing, but whatever). You keep answering me, saying "so you admit I'm right, the skill isn't reduced?" when I never spoke of reducing skills. I spoke of complexity, strategy, and so on. Secondly, no, you haven't convinced me of anything. Basically, all you've said is that one can always improve themself, thus meaning the "skill ceiling" of any game is unreachable and that as long as there is room for improvement, then the point holds. This is stating the obvious, and I never disagreed with that. What I always argued against was your stupid, stupid vendetta against Dota 2, and your irrational praise of HotS. Please read this.Furthermore, I have not "debunked" myself one bit. I've been stating many different points, among them explaining how and why Dota 2 and HotS are different but not necessarily superior to one another. I have yet to go back on that, and nothing I said disproves it. Also, personal skill level does enter into play. You can add or remove as many mechanics as you like, people are going to approach and handle them differently, and some will be better than others. Such is life: someone will always be better than you, no matter what we speak of. We could be talking about cooking eggs for all I care, and someone, somewhere will be able to make tastier eggs than you.
Now, about your last post... 1. I said some games are decided by the drafting. It is possible to be outpicked in Dota 2, and frankly it happens quite often. How can there be any snowballing if your opponent's team is designed to counter yours? (Again, even with a setup that counters that of your opponent, it is possible to lose by being outplayed) I also said Dota 2 had flaws, and that the rare games that are decided 20 minutes in are part of that, but are nowhere near as frequent as you picture them to be. Just as I am sure that HotS has its own flaws, and that bad situations will also arise from them. Unless you believe HotS is flawless?2. That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you even reading yourself? He is the game director, and he is arguing for the game's design. Again, this is marketing, why on earth would he argue for the design of the other games? I mean, come on, you don't even address what I said here. You're just saying complete random sentences that don't answer what I said in the slightest. His point is that he saw Dota 2, saw its flaws and the unpleasant moments that arose from them, and aimed to create a game that solved that. In doing so, he simplified many aspects of the game, thus creating flaws which in the opinion of others might be a deal breaker. One of those flaws being: HotS will never achieve the level of strategy Dota 2 has in CM/CD modes, and that is completely fine. It is the other side of the coin that comes with simplifying aspects. It makes things simpler. Note that I said simpler, not easier, so don't go saying I'm arguing there is a skill reduction. Simple does not equal easy. There is no argument to be made about what game is the better one, it is all a matter of personal preference (yet another concept which seems to elude you). 3. I think you need to understand what "skill" means. At this point, I really feel like I'm debating the wind. That paragraph of yours basically says what I said: some people are better than others. By defaut, we humans have done nothing than to improve ourselves over the past couple of thousand years, and I'm sure it will keep going that way. What is the point of debating that? We might as well talk about the weather. It's not even a matter of "reaching the skill ceiling", it's just a matter of getting better. I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. I for one did not say less skill was required, I said the reasons for losing were different. Word for word. Really, you're beating a dead horse, seeing as I never said HotS required less skill than Dota 2. I simply said it focused on different aspects and offers a different experience. Anyway... To sum it up: debating whether or not there is a maximum skill which can be achieved is, ultimately, pointless. Even if there were, not everybody would be able to reach it, because everybody's talent is different. That is the essence of skill: someone will always be able to pull off moves that another one cannot. Sometimes, people are unable to improve. Sometimes, they cannot get better because they have reached their limits, and not some sort of ultimate theoretical limit every human being can reach. Your assumption is based on the fact that all men are equal. Well, they are not.
Welcome to the real world.And for the record, I absolutely love HotS. I simply see no need to act like a fanatic over it, and proceed to turn myself into a self-proclaimed scholar looking to bring down the other games with made-up, pointless "laws". Stop with the lie that you never said HotS requires less skill. You did. Here's proof: You claim that I've ignored personal skill, but I have not ignored personal skill, because the very fact people can have different levels of personal skill at the game and that no one has hit the theoretical skill ceiling proves that removing mechanics does not reduce the skill required to play the game, as there is always more skillful things to do to improve your play in order to win more. You write: "Also, personal skill level does enter into play. You can add or remove as many mechanics as you like, people are going to approach and handle them differently, and some will be better than others." But if removing mechanics, like HotS has, lowers the skill required to play the game, then this situation would not be possible, because that means some people cannot possibly do anything more to improve their play as they've found an optimal strategy to play the game, because as long as everyone can do something more to improve their play, to increase their wins, then the skill required to play the game hasn't been reduced since everyone can do more to play better. Therefore, the fact that you admit that this situation is possible, implies that skill has not been reduced. I'm not "debating whether or not there is a maximum skill which can be achieved". I showed that as long as the theoretical skill cap is above what is achievable by humans, the skill required to play the game has not reduced, because there's more skill that people can learn in order to win more. Again, you've got the causation of Browder's statement backwards. You say it's marketing. Well, why doesn't he make a game with denying and items and market that instead? He doesn't make such a game because he agrees with me and he agrees that you're wrong. Your post is based off the lie that "I never said HotS required less skill than Dota 2". As I proved, you did. Stop lying.
Why doesn't Dustin Browder make a game which essentially copies Dota2/LoL? Are you really asking that question? Because they don't want to fucking compete with the already biggest games out there. Hots caters to a slightly different fanbase, which is more about fast paced gameplay, more about teamfight and coordination and less about mechanical skill.
"Well, if Half-Life 2 is the best game in the world, why doesn't everyone release his own Half-Life 2." You have no fucking clue.
Edit:
On August 18 2014 22:53 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 22:24 hootsushi wrote:On August 18 2014 22:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 22:04 ahswtini wrote:
Removing one mechanic so you can do more of the other mechanics does not automatically maintain the same skill ceiling, which is the basis of your entire argument. No, my argument has nothing to do with if the theoretical skill ceiling is maintained. Removing a mechanic can reduce the skill ceiling a hundredfold, but the skill required to play the game will still be the same as long as the theoretical skill ceiling is above what humans can achieve. Because then there is no optimal strategy, and everyone can always improve their play and improve their skill. in order to win more. So in essence, Dota2 is the more skillful game. Just because no human is able to achieve that skill level doesn't change the fact it exists. That's literally what you are saying. What the theoretical skill ceiling is doesn't matter if no human can achieve it. So no, Dota 2 is not the more skillful game than HotS, because people can't win more in Dota 2 than in HotS, as in both games no human can reach the theoretical skill ceiling, meaning that everyone can always use more skill to win more.
You only quantify skill by what is humanly possible. I quantify skill by what is possible. If a robot beats a human in chess, he is more skilled. If a panda has a higher winrate in Dota 2 than any human, he would be more skilled (according to your winrate theory).
The more mechanics you add the harder it becomes to master. That's just the way it works. It doesn't matter if anyone is ever able to master the game. In theory mastering five mechanics will always be harder than mastering only three. Therefor you'd be a more skilled player should you be able to master all five. You have to achknowledge that.
|
Yeah, I mean, right now it's more looking like you just created your own religion.
All hail the Great Skill Ceiling, He who shall never be reached.
All of your responses gravitate around that "skill ceiling", even though there is no way to prove or disprove it. It's a total fallacy, and it's not an argument. It's something you believe in.
Only one thing left to do man: build a temple.
|
also optimal strategy?
wtf is that?
you think you can solve games now do you?
7 roach rush hur hur
the whole design goal of these games is that there is no 1 optiomal strategy.
|
Northern Ireland22203 Posts
I think OP just got so traumatised by the overpowered ursa and riki that he made this theory as a coping mechanism to kid himself that Dota is badly designed and those extra traumatic things that he had to do in Dota were completely unnecessary and that he is still very skilled at mobas.
|
On August 18 2014 23:03 ahswtini wrote:
I think OP just got so traumatised by the overpowered ursa and riki that he made this theory as a coping mechanism to kid himself that Dota is badly designed and those extra traumatic things that he had to do in Dota were completely unnecessary and that he is still very skilled at mobas.
He works through the trauma by creating terrible graphs that hold no meaning and then showing them to people saying “Do you see!?!?!? DO YOU SEE!?!?!?!”
We will never understand his pain and suffering and can only hope to gleen a little meaning from the graphs without purpose. It’s a metaphor for life.
|
On August 18 2014 22:24 Plansix wrote:
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 22:20 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 22:14 paralleluniverse wrote: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.
Two wrong people that wouldn't be wrong if only they had read and understood the OP.
The penalty shot game here is taken to be a competitive game. I said "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." So this means that it would only apply IF that condition holds, e.g if the penalty shot game is to shoot penalty shots until someone has more successes and if humans can't always shoot it in 100% of the time (otherwise the Law of Dumbing Down Games says the skill has been reduced).
Suppose that condition holds (i.e. 100% success is not humanly possible). I didn't say that they have the same skill ceiling. As I've been saying for the last 10 pages, the SKILL CEILING DOESN'T MATTER AS LONG AS IT'S ABOVE WHAT A HUMAN CAN ACHIEVE. I said they both require the same amount of skill, but different types of skill.
If that holds, then the penalty shot game requires equal amount of skill, but different skill as basketball. But you ask how can that be if penalty shots is a subset of the skills is needed in basketball? I explained this 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.
The same way that adding auto-aim to CS:GO won't change the amount of skill it requires, but just shifts the skills required from aiming to positioning.
|
If the "skill ceiling" doesn't matter, then what is the point of discussing it?
|
Look, we understand your having a rough time and need to work through this. The “law of dumbing down games” is just a masked cry for help and I now see the true pain and suffering you are feeling.
So, if you can, just tell us….
Where did Riki and Usra touch you?
It's ok, take your time.
|
On August 18 2014 23:01 MrTortoise wrote:
also optimal strategy?
wtf is that?
you think you can solve games now do you?
7 roach rush hur hur
the whole design goal of these games is that there is no 1 optiomal strategy.
Here, an optimal strategy is a 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.
If there's no optimal strategy then how is it possible that the overall amount of skill required to play the game (not a particular skill like mechanical skill, but the overall amount of skill) has reduced?
It's not, because as long as everyone can do something more to improve their play, to increase their wins, then the skill required to play the game hasn't been reduced, 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.
There are optimal strategies for checkers and tic-tac-toe.
|
PAYMORE2WINMORE = MOAR SKILL
|
On August 18 2014 22:56 hootsushi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 22:46 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 22:11 Spaylz wrote:On August 18 2014 21:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 21:00 Spaylz wrote:On August 18 2014 20:56 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 20:22 Spaylz wrote:
I don't see you addressing anything. I see you repeating the same stuff over and over while other people come up with many different answers to your, again, very biased views.
The only real point you've made is that the skill ceiling cannot be reached by any human, and that there is always room for improvement. That pretty much applies to everything, hence the constant, never-ending progress of the human race both in terms of technology and quality of life. But all games have the same skill? That is in no way true. Does that mean a CS:GO pro player should be able to go pro on SC2 as well? Does that mean Bobby Fischer would rock everyone in Dota 2, or to speak your language: in HotS?
Again, tic-tac-toe and checkers give both players access to the same possibilities, the same units, and so on. There are no differences in terms of options available, only decision-making matters. This does not, cannot, and will never apply to games like Dota 2 or HotS, because there are too many variables. Some heroes lose against others, and vice versa. And, again, even in those bad situation of a poor hero match-up, some people do manage to win. Because they are better. I don't know how many times I can repeat myself.
You're not proving anything. Everybody tells you so. Do you pay attention to what is happenig at all?
Lastly, you've stopped answering in the HotS thread, after the many posts addressing your... point of view. You haven't read the OP properly. If all games require the same amount of skill, it does not mean that SC2 players can go pro at SC2, because they require different skills, SC2 requires skills in macro, CS:GO requires skill in preisions. If changes were made to SC2 to that it becomes CS:GO or changes to remove multiple unit selection, then the skills required will shift, but all overall skill required will stay the same. This is stated in the OP: Humans can only do a finite number of things at one time. So, for example, removing pointless gimmicks and restrictions in MOBAs frees players to focus on other real skills, like strategizing around merc camps and map objectives, landing skillshots, and winning team fights. Therefore, instead of doing less and lowering the achievable skill ceiling, the achievable skill ceiling doesn't change, it's still bounded by the finite amount of things humans can do just as before, but it shifts where skill is needed.
[...]
Example 1: Adding auto-aim to CS:GO (removing complexity)
Aiming is a huge part of CS:GO, it's one of the most important skills in the game. Does adding auto-aim dumb down the game, reduce skill or kill depth? No. The game will still require just as much skill as it does now. Instead of being about aiming, auto-aim would shift the game to be about positioning, strategy, flashing and firing with maximum lethality (minimizing recoil). The team with more skill in avoiding situations where they will be killed by the opponent's auto-aim by being at the right place at the right time would win. The skill of correct positioning would be absolutely critical. So playing CS:GO with auto-aim would require the same amount of skill it requires now, it just emphasizes different types of skills, like positioning. You say there's too many variables in Dota 2 and HotS for there to be an optimal strategy. Then how can removing, for example, items from HotS reduce skill when there's still "too many variables" that people cannot master? It doesn't, and so you've debunked yourself. Also, picking the right heroes would be part of the optimal strategy, if there is one. You irritate me. When did I say removing mechanics lowered skill level? Seriously.. So you admit, as my argument in the OP shows, that removing mechanics like last hitting and items from MOBAs doesn't lower skill level? OK. I'm going to be very, very clear here to make sure you understand my opinion. First of all, I never said removing mechanics lowered the skill ceiling (note that I don't even think that's an actual thing, but whatever). You keep answering me, saying "so you admit I'm right, the skill isn't reduced?" when I never spoke of reducing skills. I spoke of complexity, strategy, and so on. Secondly, no, you haven't convinced me of anything. Basically, all you've said is that one can always improve themself, thus meaning the "skill ceiling" of any game is unreachable and that as long as there is room for improvement, then the point holds. This is stating the obvious, and I never disagreed with that. What I always argued against was your stupid, stupid vendetta against Dota 2, and your irrational praise of HotS. Please read this.Furthermore, I have not "debunked" myself one bit. I've been stating many different points, among them explaining how and why Dota 2 and HotS are different but not necessarily superior to one another. I have yet to go back on that, and nothing I said disproves it. Also, personal skill level does enter into play. You can add or remove as many mechanics as you like, people are going to approach and handle them differently, and some will be better than others. Such is life: someone will always be better than you, no matter what we speak of. We could be talking about cooking eggs for all I care, and someone, somewhere will be able to make tastier eggs than you.
Now, about your last post... 1. I said some games are decided by the drafting. It is possible to be outpicked in Dota 2, and frankly it happens quite often. How can there be any snowballing if your opponent's team is designed to counter yours? (Again, even with a setup that counters that of your opponent, it is possible to lose by being outplayed) I also said Dota 2 had flaws, and that the rare games that are decided 20 minutes in are part of that, but are nowhere near as frequent as you picture them to be. Just as I am sure that HotS has its own flaws, and that bad situations will also arise from them. Unless you believe HotS is flawless?2. That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you even reading yourself? He is the game director, and he is arguing for the game's design. Again, this is marketing, why on earth would he argue for the design of the other games? I mean, come on, you don't even address what I said here. You're just saying complete random sentences that don't answer what I said in the slightest. His point is that he saw Dota 2, saw its flaws and the unpleasant moments that arose from them, and aimed to create a game that solved that. In doing so, he simplified many aspects of the game, thus creating flaws which in the opinion of others might be a deal breaker. One of those flaws being: HotS will never achieve the level of strategy Dota 2 has in CM/CD modes, and that is completely fine. It is the other side of the coin that comes with simplifying aspects. It makes things simpler. Note that I said simpler, not easier, so don't go saying I'm arguing there is a skill reduction. Simple does not equal easy. There is no argument to be made about what game is the better one, it is all a matter of personal preference (yet another concept which seems to elude you). 3. I think you need to understand what "skill" means. At this point, I really feel like I'm debating the wind. That paragraph of yours basically says what I said: some people are better than others. By defaut, we humans have done nothing than to improve ourselves over the past couple of thousand years, and I'm sure it will keep going that way. What is the point of debating that? We might as well talk about the weather. It's not even a matter of "reaching the skill ceiling", it's just a matter of getting better. I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. I for one did not say less skill was required, I said the reasons for losing were different. Word for word. Really, you're beating a dead horse, seeing as I never said HotS required less skill than Dota 2. I simply said it focused on different aspects and offers a different experience. Anyway... To sum it up: debating whether or not there is a maximum skill which can be achieved is, ultimately, pointless. Even if there were, not everybody would be able to reach it, because everybody's talent is different. That is the essence of skill: someone will always be able to pull off moves that another one cannot. Sometimes, people are unable to improve. Sometimes, they cannot get better because they have reached their limits, and not some sort of ultimate theoretical limit every human being can reach. Your assumption is based on the fact that all men are equal. Well, they are not.
Welcome to the real world.And for the record, I absolutely love HotS. I simply see no need to act like a fanatic over it, and proceed to turn myself into a self-proclaimed scholar looking to bring down the other games with made-up, pointless "laws". Stop with the lie that you never said HotS requires less skill. You did. Here's proof: You claim that I've ignored personal skill, but I have not ignored personal skill, because the very fact people can have different levels of personal skill at the game and that no one has hit the theoretical skill ceiling proves that removing mechanics does not reduce the skill required to play the game, as there is always more skillful things to do to improve your play in order to win more. You write: "Also, personal skill level does enter into play. You can add or remove as many mechanics as you like, people are going to approach and handle them differently, and some will be better than others." But if removing mechanics, like HotS has, lowers the skill required to play the game, then this situation would not be possible, because that means some people cannot possibly do anything more to improve their play as they've found an optimal strategy to play the game, because as long as everyone can do something more to improve their play, to increase their wins, then the skill required to play the game hasn't been reduced since everyone can do more to play better. Therefore, the fact that you admit that this situation is possible, implies that skill has not been reduced. I'm not "debating whether or not there is a maximum skill which can be achieved". I showed that as long as the theoretical skill cap is above what is achievable by humans, the skill required to play the game has not reduced, because there's more skill that people can learn in order to win more. Again, you've got the causation of Browder's statement backwards. You say it's marketing. Well, why doesn't he make a game with denying and items and market that instead? He doesn't make such a game because he agrees with me and he agrees that you're wrong. Your post is based off the lie that "I never said HotS required less skill than Dota 2". As I proved, you did. Stop lying. Why doesn't Dustin Browder make a game which essentially copies Dota2/LoL? Are you really asking that question? Because they don't want to fucking compete with the already biggest games out there. Hots caters to a slightly different fanbase, which is more about fast paced gameplay, more about teamfight and coordination and less about mechanical skill. "Well, if Half-Life 2 is the best game in the world, why doesn't everyone release his own Half-Life 2." You have no fucking clue. Edit: Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 22:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 22:24 hootsushi wrote:On August 18 2014 22:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 22:04 ahswtini wrote:
Removing one mechanic so you can do more of the other mechanics does not automatically maintain the same skill ceiling, which is the basis of your entire argument. No, my argument has nothing to do with if the theoretical skill ceiling is maintained. Removing a mechanic can reduce the skill ceiling a hundredfold, but the skill required to play the game will still be the same as long as the theoretical skill ceiling is above what humans can achieve. Because then there is no optimal strategy, and everyone can always improve their play and improve their skill. in order to win more. So in essence, Dota2 is the more skillful game. Just because no human is able to achieve that skill level doesn't change the fact it exists. That's literally what you are saying. What the theoretical skill ceiling is doesn't matter if no human can achieve it. So no, Dota 2 is not the more skillful game than HotS, because people can't win more in Dota 2 than in HotS, as in both games no human can reach the theoretical skill ceiling, meaning that everyone can always use more skill to win more. You only quantify skill by what is humanly possible. I quantify skill by what is possible. If a robot beats a human in chess, he is more skilled. If a panda has a higher winrate in Dota 2 than any human, he would be more skilled (according to your winrate theory). The more mechanics you add the harder it becomes to master. That's just the way it works. It doesn't matter if anyone is ever able to master the game. In theory mastering five mechanics will always be harder than mastering only three. Therefor you'd be a more skilled player should you be able to master all five. You have to achknowledge that.
That hasn't stopped the hundreds of other MOBAs from copying the same mechanics. So, no, Browder could have copied those mechanics that's in every other MOBA and still have uniqueness in other ways.
No, skill is not about mastering mechanics: it's about winning. If a complex mechanic is removed and you win less, you haven't become more skillful, you've become worse because you've failed to adapt to the shift in the types of skills required now. That's why the amount of skill required to play the game doesn't change regardless of what mechanics is added or removed as long as people can't reach the theoretical skill ceiling.
|
On August 18 2014 23:18 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 22:56 hootsushi wrote:On August 18 2014 22:46 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 22:11 Spaylz wrote:On August 18 2014 21:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 21:00 Spaylz wrote:On August 18 2014 20:56 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 20:22 Spaylz wrote:
I don't see you addressing anything. I see you repeating the same stuff over and over while other people come up with many different answers to your, again, very biased views.
The only real point you've made is that the skill ceiling cannot be reached by any human, and that there is always room for improvement. That pretty much applies to everything, hence the constant, never-ending progress of the human race both in terms of technology and quality of life. But all games have the same skill? That is in no way true. Does that mean a CS:GO pro player should be able to go pro on SC2 as well? Does that mean Bobby Fischer would rock everyone in Dota 2, or to speak your language: in HotS?
Again, tic-tac-toe and checkers give both players access to the same possibilities, the same units, and so on. There are no differences in terms of options available, only decision-making matters. This does not, cannot, and will never apply to games like Dota 2 or HotS, because there are too many variables. Some heroes lose against others, and vice versa. And, again, even in those bad situation of a poor hero match-up, some people do manage to win. Because they are better. I don't know how many times I can repeat myself.
You're not proving anything. Everybody tells you so. Do you pay attention to what is happenig at all?
Lastly, you've stopped answering in the HotS thread, after the many posts addressing your... point of view. You haven't read the OP properly. If all games require the same amount of skill, it does not mean that SC2 players can go pro at SC2, because they require different skills, SC2 requires skills in macro, CS:GO requires skill in preisions. If changes were made to SC2 to that it becomes CS:GO or changes to remove multiple unit selection, then the skills required will shift, but all overall skill required will stay the same. This is stated in the OP: Humans can only do a finite number of things at one time. So, for example, removing pointless gimmicks and restrictions in MOBAs frees players to focus on other real skills, like strategizing around merc camps and map objectives, landing skillshots, and winning team fights. Therefore, instead of doing less and lowering the achievable skill ceiling, the achievable skill ceiling doesn't change, it's still bounded by the finite amount of things humans can do just as before, but it shifts where skill is needed.
[...]
Example 1: Adding auto-aim to CS:GO (removing complexity)
Aiming is a huge part of CS:GO, it's one of the most important skills in the game. Does adding auto-aim dumb down the game, reduce skill or kill depth? No. The game will still require just as much skill as it does now. Instead of being about aiming, auto-aim would shift the game to be about positioning, strategy, flashing and firing with maximum lethality (minimizing recoil). The team with more skill in avoiding situations where they will be killed by the opponent's auto-aim by being at the right place at the right time would win. The skill of correct positioning would be absolutely critical. So playing CS:GO with auto-aim would require the same amount of skill it requires now, it just emphasizes different types of skills, like positioning. You say there's too many variables in Dota 2 and HotS for there to be an optimal strategy. Then how can removing, for example, items from HotS reduce skill when there's still "too many variables" that people cannot master? It doesn't, and so you've debunked yourself. Also, picking the right heroes would be part of the optimal strategy, if there is one. You irritate me. When did I say removing mechanics lowered skill level? Seriously.. So you admit, as my argument in the OP shows, that removing mechanics like last hitting and items from MOBAs doesn't lower skill level? OK. I'm going to be very, very clear here to make sure you understand my opinion. First of all, I never said removing mechanics lowered the skill ceiling (note that I don't even think that's an actual thing, but whatever). You keep answering me, saying "so you admit I'm right, the skill isn't reduced?" when I never spoke of reducing skills. I spoke of complexity, strategy, and so on. Secondly, no, you haven't convinced me of anything. Basically, all you've said is that one can always improve themself, thus meaning the "skill ceiling" of any game is unreachable and that as long as there is room for improvement, then the point holds. This is stating the obvious, and I never disagreed with that. What I always argued against was your stupid, stupid vendetta against Dota 2, and your irrational praise of HotS. Please read this.Furthermore, I have not "debunked" myself one bit. I've been stating many different points, among them explaining how and why Dota 2 and HotS are different but not necessarily superior to one another. I have yet to go back on that, and nothing I said disproves it. Also, personal skill level does enter into play. You can add or remove as many mechanics as you like, people are going to approach and handle them differently, and some will be better than others. Such is life: someone will always be better than you, no matter what we speak of. We could be talking about cooking eggs for all I care, and someone, somewhere will be able to make tastier eggs than you.
Now, about your last post... 1. I said some games are decided by the drafting. It is possible to be outpicked in Dota 2, and frankly it happens quite often. How can there be any snowballing if your opponent's team is designed to counter yours? (Again, even with a setup that counters that of your opponent, it is possible to lose by being outplayed) I also said Dota 2 had flaws, and that the rare games that are decided 20 minutes in are part of that, but are nowhere near as frequent as you picture them to be. Just as I am sure that HotS has its own flaws, and that bad situations will also arise from them. Unless you believe HotS is flawless?2. That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you even reading yourself? He is the game director, and he is arguing for the game's design. Again, this is marketing, why on earth would he argue for the design of the other games? I mean, come on, you don't even address what I said here. You're just saying complete random sentences that don't answer what I said in the slightest. His point is that he saw Dota 2, saw its flaws and the unpleasant moments that arose from them, and aimed to create a game that solved that. In doing so, he simplified many aspects of the game, thus creating flaws which in the opinion of others might be a deal breaker. One of those flaws being: HotS will never achieve the level of strategy Dota 2 has in CM/CD modes, and that is completely fine. It is the other side of the coin that comes with simplifying aspects. It makes things simpler. Note that I said simpler, not easier, so don't go saying I'm arguing there is a skill reduction. Simple does not equal easy. There is no argument to be made about what game is the better one, it is all a matter of personal preference (yet another concept which seems to elude you). 3. I think you need to understand what "skill" means. At this point, I really feel like I'm debating the wind. That paragraph of yours basically says what I said: some people are better than others. By defaut, we humans have done nothing than to improve ourselves over the past couple of thousand years, and I'm sure it will keep going that way. What is the point of debating that? We might as well talk about the weather. It's not even a matter of "reaching the skill ceiling", it's just a matter of getting better. I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. I for one did not say less skill was required, I said the reasons for losing were different. Word for word. Really, you're beating a dead horse, seeing as I never said HotS required less skill than Dota 2. I simply said it focused on different aspects and offers a different experience. Anyway... To sum it up: debating whether or not there is a maximum skill which can be achieved is, ultimately, pointless. Even if there were, not everybody would be able to reach it, because everybody's talent is different. That is the essence of skill: someone will always be able to pull off moves that another one cannot. Sometimes, people are unable to improve. Sometimes, they cannot get better because they have reached their limits, and not some sort of ultimate theoretical limit every human being can reach. Your assumption is based on the fact that all men are equal. Well, they are not.
Welcome to the real world.And for the record, I absolutely love HotS. I simply see no need to act like a fanatic over it, and proceed to turn myself into a self-proclaimed scholar looking to bring down the other games with made-up, pointless "laws". Stop with the lie that you never said HotS requires less skill. You did. Here's proof: You claim that I've ignored personal skill, but I have not ignored personal skill, because the very fact people can have different levels of personal skill at the game and that no one has hit the theoretical skill ceiling proves that removing mechanics does not reduce the skill required to play the game, as there is always more skillful things to do to improve your play in order to win more. You write: "Also, personal skill level does enter into play. You can add or remove as many mechanics as you like, people are going to approach and handle them differently, and some will be better than others." But if removing mechanics, like HotS has, lowers the skill required to play the game, then this situation would not be possible, because that means some people cannot possibly do anything more to improve their play as they've found an optimal strategy to play the game, because as long as everyone can do something more to improve their play, to increase their wins, then the skill required to play the game hasn't been reduced since everyone can do more to play better. Therefore, the fact that you admit that this situation is possible, implies that skill has not been reduced. I'm not "debating whether or not there is a maximum skill which can be achieved". I showed that as long as the theoretical skill cap is above what is achievable by humans, the skill required to play the game has not reduced, because there's more skill that people can learn in order to win more. Again, you've got the causation of Browder's statement backwards. You say it's marketing. Well, why doesn't he make a game with denying and items and market that instead? He doesn't make such a game because he agrees with me and he agrees that you're wrong. Your post is based off the lie that "I never said HotS required less skill than Dota 2". As I proved, you did. Stop lying. Why doesn't Dustin Browder make a game which essentially copies Dota2/LoL? Are you really asking that question? Because they don't want to fucking compete with the already biggest games out there. Hots caters to a slightly different fanbase, which is more about fast paced gameplay, more about teamfight and coordination and less about mechanical skill. "Well, if Half-Life 2 is the best game in the world, why doesn't everyone release his own Half-Life 2." You have no fucking clue. Edit: On August 18 2014 22:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 22:24 hootsushi wrote:On August 18 2014 22:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 22:04 ahswtini wrote:
Removing one mechanic so you can do more of the other mechanics does not automatically maintain the same skill ceiling, which is the basis of your entire argument. No, my argument has nothing to do with if the theoretical skill ceiling is maintained. Removing a mechanic can reduce the skill ceiling a hundredfold, but the skill required to play the game will still be the same as long as the theoretical skill ceiling is above what humans can achieve. Because then there is no optimal strategy, and everyone can always improve their play and improve their skill. in order to win more. So in essence, Dota2 is the more skillful game. Just because no human is able to achieve that skill level doesn't change the fact it exists. That's literally what you are saying. What the theoretical skill ceiling is doesn't matter if no human can achieve it. So no, Dota 2 is not the more skillful game than HotS, because people can't win more in Dota 2 than in HotS, as in both games no human can reach the theoretical skill ceiling, meaning that everyone can always use more skill to win more. You only quantify skill by what is humanly possible. I quantify skill by what is possible. If a robot beats a human in chess, he is more skilled. If a panda has a higher winrate in Dota 2 than any human, he would be more skilled (according to your winrate theory). The more mechanics you add the harder it becomes to master. That's just the way it works. It doesn't matter if anyone is ever able to master the game. In theory mastering five mechanics will always be harder than mastering only three. Therefor you'd be a more skilled player should you be able to master all five. You have to achknowledge that. That hasn't stopped the hundreds of other MOBAs from copying the same mechanics. So, no, Browder could have copied those mechanics that's in every other MOBA and still have uniqueness in other ways. No, skill is not about mastering mechanics: it's about winning. If a complex mechanic is removed and you win less, you've haven't become more skillful, you've become worse because you've failed to adapt to the shift in the types of skills required now.
And how do you win if you can't use the mechanics? You can come up with the best strategy in the world, if you can't execute it then it's no good.
Your logic really is flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
