EPTOn July 16 2010 00:21 AtomicTon wrote:
You have to realize just because some mechanics of the game might seem "easier" or "noob friendly"
This holds true for everyone playing. Everyone has the same commands to use, tricks to play, etc. The playing field is different, but level, you know?
Ok, so it's easier to play. Then it's easier to play for everyone. If anything, this means it's easier to get better and get to a plateau, where veryone else is, meaning extremely balanced games. Even if there is a cieling where the top players get to, but don't get better, as long as everyone is at the cieling, the game will still be ridiculously competitive! Know what I'm saying? Just because it's easier for "noobs" to jump in and play, top tier players will still ultimately be in the same tier, thus creating even, tense and skill intensive games. I feel like I can't explain myself well enough right now, but basically it boils down tothis: everyone that plays SC2, is playing SC2. The playing field is the same for everyone. It's NOT SC1, but we aren't PLAYING SC1. The competition will still be great, and intense, as everyone is playing with the same deck of cards, but have different hands, or maybe different playstyles and poker faces, know what I'm sayin?
You have to realize just because some mechanics of the game might seem "easier" or "noob friendly"
This holds true for everyone playing. Everyone has the same commands to use, tricks to play, etc. The playing field is different, but level, you know?
Ok, so it's easier to play. Then it's easier to play for everyone. If anything, this means it's easier to get better and get to a plateau, where veryone else is, meaning extremely balanced games. Even if there is a cieling where the top players get to, but don't get better, as long as everyone is at the cieling, the game will still be ridiculously competitive! Know what I'm saying? Just because it's easier for "noobs" to jump in and play, top tier players will still ultimately be in the same tier, thus creating even, tense and skill intensive games. I feel like I can't explain myself well enough right now, but basically it boils down tothis: everyone that plays SC2, is playing SC2. The playing field is the same for everyone. It's NOT SC1, but we aren't PLAYING SC1. The competition will still be great, and intense, as everyone is playing with the same deck of cards, but have different hands, or maybe different playstyles and poker faces, know what I'm sayin?
the problem when you lower the playing field, is that the players of lesser skill benefit, where as the players of good skill, do not.
+ Show Spoiler +
No, actually, that's not the case at all. When a game is made easier overall, players do not benefit equally. When a game is made easier overall, players at a lower skill level benefit much more from the change than players at a higher skill level.
Example:
If I were playing Kobe Bryant in horse, shooting jump shots, I would get absolutely destroyed. But let's say we played again, on a basketball hoop with the rim size doubled. Would I still lose? Probably. But I wouldn't lose by as much, because Kobe wouldn't really benefit from the larger rim size, since he could already hit his shots with the smaller rim size. I, on the other hand, would benefit greatly from the larger rim size, since I'm not as good at shooting baskets. So, would this change make shooting hoops easier for everyone? Yes, absolutely. That's not disputed. The relevant question is, who would benefit more from the change? Obviously, I (the lower skilled player) would benefit more, and the game would be much closer.
Example 2:
If I were playing DDR (random example, I know, but it's a sound analogy) on "expert" mode against someone who was really good, and who had already mastered all of the songs at that difficulty, I would get destroyed, because I haven't played that much DDR (although I do have some rhythm :p). But what would happen if we switched the difficulty level down to "medium"? Obviously, the competition would be much closer, even though it would be easier for everyone. This is because a player who's already mastered "expert" mode wouldn't really gain that much from moving down difficultly levels. I, on the other hand, who couldn't handle "expert" mode would benefit immensely from moving down to "medium". Again, I might not necessarily win, but it would be much closer.
These two examples deal with narrowing the skill gap in a given activity by making it easier for everyone. People bring this point up all the time: "Yeah, Source is easier, but it's easier for everyone, so it doesn't matter" - NO. Wrong.
The fact that when a game is easier, it's easier for everyone, is totally irrelevant in the Source/1.6 discourse. The relevant question is, "who benefits from Source being easier?" And obviously, just as a basketball player who couldn't hit as many shots with a smaller hoop would benefit more from a doubled rim diameter than Kobe Bryant would, and a DDR player who couldn't beat "expert" would benefit more from moving down to "medium" than a player would could already beat "expert" would, gamers who can't play at the top level in CS 1.6 benefit more from moving to Source (the easier game of the two; a game with bigger targets, easier guns, relatively slower movement, and stronger flashbangs) than the gamers who already could play at the highest level in 1.6 do.
This is why it's called "narrowing the skill gap", because all of a sudden, there is tight competition, where before, there was no tight competition. Everyone in Counter-Strike culture knows that Source players cannot transition to 1.6, while 1.6 players can transition to Source, and that if a team like Hyper were to play a team like coL in 1.6, it would be an absolute blowout. But in Source, since the skill gap has been narrowed, there's legitimate competition all of a sudden. The teams are at the same level. This is because, when a game is made easier, even though it's easier for everyone, the change serves to level the playing field, because players of a lower skill level benefit more from the change than players of a higher skill level.
Example:
If I were playing Kobe Bryant in horse, shooting jump shots, I would get absolutely destroyed. But let's say we played again, on a basketball hoop with the rim size doubled. Would I still lose? Probably. But I wouldn't lose by as much, because Kobe wouldn't really benefit from the larger rim size, since he could already hit his shots with the smaller rim size. I, on the other hand, would benefit greatly from the larger rim size, since I'm not as good at shooting baskets. So, would this change make shooting hoops easier for everyone? Yes, absolutely. That's not disputed. The relevant question is, who would benefit more from the change? Obviously, I (the lower skilled player) would benefit more, and the game would be much closer.
Example 2:
If I were playing DDR (random example, I know, but it's a sound analogy) on "expert" mode against someone who was really good, and who had already mastered all of the songs at that difficulty, I would get destroyed, because I haven't played that much DDR (although I do have some rhythm :p). But what would happen if we switched the difficulty level down to "medium"? Obviously, the competition would be much closer, even though it would be easier for everyone. This is because a player who's already mastered "expert" mode wouldn't really gain that much from moving down difficultly levels. I, on the other hand, who couldn't handle "expert" mode would benefit immensely from moving down to "medium". Again, I might not necessarily win, but it would be much closer.
These two examples deal with narrowing the skill gap in a given activity by making it easier for everyone. People bring this point up all the time: "Yeah, Source is easier, but it's easier for everyone, so it doesn't matter" - NO. Wrong.
The fact that when a game is easier, it's easier for everyone, is totally irrelevant in the Source/1.6 discourse. The relevant question is, "who benefits from Source being easier?" And obviously, just as a basketball player who couldn't hit as many shots with a smaller hoop would benefit more from a doubled rim diameter than Kobe Bryant would, and a DDR player who couldn't beat "expert" would benefit more from moving down to "medium" than a player would could already beat "expert" would, gamers who can't play at the top level in CS 1.6 benefit more from moving to Source (the easier game of the two; a game with bigger targets, easier guns, relatively slower movement, and stronger flashbangs) than the gamers who already could play at the highest level in 1.6 do.
This is why it's called "narrowing the skill gap", because all of a sudden, there is tight competition, where before, there was no tight competition. Everyone in Counter-Strike culture knows that Source players cannot transition to 1.6, while 1.6 players can transition to Source, and that if a team like Hyper were to play a team like coL in 1.6, it would be an absolute blowout. But in Source, since the skill gap has been narrowed, there's legitimate competition all of a sudden. The teams are at the same level. This is because, when a game is made easier, even though it's easier for everyone, the change serves to level the playing field, because players of a lower skill level benefit more from the change than players of a higher skill level.
there is a good post by Alex "chibsquad" Garfield from Team Evil Genius.
