Smart

(DarkangelUK) #201

Dude, that’s like one of your worst analogies yet.

(tokamak) #202

I think it exposes the flaw in your logic just fine. The stronger you are, the heavier the pieces you can lift and thus increasing your tactical options. The advantage goes to the players who can lift the heaviest pieces on the board, and if there’s a time constraint then the whole game certainly goes to the strongest player rather than the best strategist.

Bobby Fischer would get owned by Hulk Hogan because Bobby is barely able to move a peon forward while Hogan systematically wipes the board with his queen.

It would make for a great weightlifters match but if you then see the chess-moves back on paper it would be the stupidest game in history.

(DarkangelUK) #203

It exposes nothing, you’re throwing in a non-existent element into the subject to suit your own argument. At no point have I added anything beyond what already exists. Stick to the actual elements or stop debating, you’re just getting desperate now.

(tokamak) #204

There’s no real difference between the skill of lifting weights and the skill of executing complex moves other than that you personally value one over the other.

(DarkangelUK) #205

It’s the situation it’s added to, not the act itself. If you’re refusing to stick to the confines of the game and insist on adding elements to suit your argument then you’re on your own… i’ll take it as my point proven.

(INF3RN0) #206

The analogy is pretty awful tbh. This is a shooter with tactical elements. Not an rts with guns. The main skill cap should be shooting+movement, and the rest is just icing on the cake.

(tokamak) #207

It is within the context of a situation, that’s why more powerful pieces are heavier than the weaker ones. In what way isn’t that the same as bigger stravejumps being more difficult to execute than the smaller ones?

(DarkangelUK) #208

Dude, if you can’t debate with the facts at hand then you’re admitting your argument has no value. Stick to the subject and facts related to it or get out, if you can’t then you can’t… admit your stance holds no water and be a man instead of inventing fictional scenarios to help yourself. Be a man…

(tokamak) #209

You’re basically arguing against Bobby Fischer using a crane to easily move the pieces and thus giving him the same amount of tactical options Hulk Hogan has. Hogan doesn’t need a crane and now his strength advantage he worked so hard for is being taken out of the picture.

(DarkangelUK) #210

lol ok have it your way dude, I gave you the chance to redeem yourself and you never took it. I’m out.

(Crytiqal) #211

Ok, but W:ET and ETQW had both set of skills then

(Senethro) #212

Toka, you are being pretty intellectually dishonest here.

Anyway, the special move inputs are specifically balanced around the game’s movement system, an example being its impossible to hold back for 2 seconds while moving forwards. It goes the other way too, as players can read the opponents intentions through seeing what directions they’ve moved in the past half second, which leads to needing to disguise them with extra inputs that mask what they’re about to do.

The games are balanced around what is possible within the game logic, and also around what you believe your opponent is physically capable of. Can he do a 360 degree (1 rotation) motion during a light kick animation? Are you sure? He just did it. Will he be able to do it next time? Yes, apparently he can. Crap, here comes the light kick again… but no follow through. Did he screw up or is he just messing with you now that he knows you’re watching for it etc.

So a bit different from any chess gimmick you can invent using elements not remotely involved in chess design.

The way I see it is to ask what is more interesting: making a perfect decision in as much time as you want, or attempting to make a good enough decision in limited time accompanied by some expenditure of effort?

Its like the use of small amounts of randomness in many RPGs and TBS games to affect outcomes. You are forced to manage risk and to assign what you believe are sufficient resources to get the result you want. If the randomness is not there you end up with spreadsheeting where people calculate perfectly what will happen ahead of time and everythings boring. Variable outcomes are interesting to players as there is uncertainty and suspense. However, randomness is completely unacceptable in fighting games so variable outcomes have to depend on the player performing a task. If the player succeeds, he is rewarded. If he fails he is not. If both players fail at the same time then there is comedy, which is also a reward.

I’m heading towards game designer arguements here which I really shouldn’t because I am Not In The Business, but variable outcomes, fail states, some small effort investment accompanying each decision to perform a special move with immediate reward for success. These all look like things to cause players to place emotional weight on the outcomes of their decisions that might not be present if it were too easy. Being invested in their decisions keeps players playing.

Is anyone still reading? Time to bring it full circle. In slow movement FPS games with lots of recoil and spread, variable outcomes are provided by shooting not being consistent. In fact, this is necessary because at slow movement speeds it is too easy for one player with good aim to fight 1v3 with perfect headshotting. The randomness of shooting artificially keeps things more even as it forces players winning a fight to disengage to recover accuracy and during this period they are vulnerable. In fast FPS games variable outcomes are caused by the movement speed making shooting unreliable because few humans are capable of aiming that fast. Sometimes these games are so fast that having a head hitbox doesn’t even make sense, they only have bodyshots.

TLDR: Toka, I think you’re seriously underestimating the importance of a compelling basic gameplay loop when imagining your perfect realtime mind vs. mind videogame. The player needs to be involved and invested, and their own physical skill is a really easy way to do this.

(Aside: Oddly enough Capcom vs SNK 2 for gamecube did have the Easy Operation method where one of the outlying direction keys on the controller each instantly activated a special move. It hasn’t been seen again in any game in the past 9 years.)

(Commander_Keen) #213

(H0RSE) #214

[QUOTE=DarkangelUK;381481]So you’re against an advanced movement system now? Which one is it?? You said they should know all the possibilities, but with an advanced, emergent movement system, that’s impossible. SMART is not an an emergent system, you have SMART and nothing else… all innovation beyond is curbed. It’s the same with the unique ways of using the tools in ETQW, no one can know everything without experimenting, being told, or being shown… which I have always said. QuakeLive had basic strafing and RJ’ing tute, but that’s an introduction to about 1% of what’s possible. As far as I can tell, you want everyone to be aware of everything that’s possible and that’s just not going to happen.
[/QUOTE]What are you talking about, dude?! Why would I want players to know all the possibles and still propose leaving it up to the players to be creative and discover what can be done? Are you on drugs? Did you even read what I posted earlier:

I never said show players every single thing strafe jumping, bunny hopping, ramping, etc. can be used for. I simply let it be known that players can do these things. The rest is up to the player - That way it leaves innovation, skill and the sense of discovery in tact.

I’m simply saying let players be aware that they are available.

Introducing players to strafe-jumping, bunny hopping, etc. without showing them examples of how they can be used, kills 2 birds with 1 stone - It allows all players to be aware that these maneuvers exist while still leaving the sense of discover and how to best use them up to the player. It’s like if someone was told, “here’s a knife, some rope and a book of matches,” and then they were sent into the woods alone. They know what tools they have at their disposal, but it’s up to them to best use them.

(DarkangelUK) #215

Maybe I read into that wrong then, because that suggests that you believe movement shouldn’t require anything beyond simple thought according to you, so that suggests you don’t want an advanced movement system.

Again this sounds like you don’t care for nor want an advanced movement system.

I think this was the changing point here, but done so subtly that you never actually said “well yeah I would actually be for a more advanced movement system, as long as…”, so at this point I’m still thinking you’re against the idea.

Then you start going all back and forth about complaining that people aren’t aware what’s possible, let them know the basics, they should know what’s possible, let them innovate, make them aware.

Anyway I’m still clueless of your POV, as again your initial posts indicate you don’t want an advanced movement system and any change of opinion was never stated. So ok you’re fine with it now, let the player know the basics, hint at possibilities and send them on their way?

(Crytiqal) #216

Wouldn’t these possibilities be hinted by watching other people pulling those moves off? <_<

(H0RSE) #217

I’m saying movement within a game (where movement isn’t the focus of the game) shouldn’t require a multitude of button presses and muscle memory for a player to be considered “skilled,” not that I don’t support the system as a whole. Saying “movement shouldn’t require anything beyond simple thought ,” brings up an idea. If the technology was a available, using nothing more than thought would be a true exclamation of one’s skill - a player controlling the entire entire game with his mind, with no muscle memory or cognitive skills interfering - just the game and the players wits. As far as movement systems go, It would measure the skill the player has in using such a system, with absolutely no button presses required.

I was never against having an intuitive moment system in the game - we just differ on what degree of skill should be involved to use it and what should be deemed as skill when utilizing it.

(Humate) #218

Yes, however depending on what was done they might not be able to replicate it. >_>
And apparently not being able to copy someone, is a barrier to entry.

(tokamak) #219

That’s just an assertion. Just like saying that the analogy isn’t right is just an assertion.

The games are balanced around what is possible within the game logic, and also around what you believe your opponent is physically capable of. Can he do a 360 degree (1 rotation) motion during a light kick animation? Are you sure? He just did it. Will he be able to do it next time? Yes, apparently he can. Crap, here comes the light kick again… but no follow through. Did he screw up or is he just messing with you now that he knows you’re watching for it etc.

So a bit different from any chess gimmick you can invent using elements not remotely involved in chess design.

It’s not that hard actually. "Is Bobby not moving that rook because he can’t or because he’s messing with me? Crap he turned out to be able to move the rook after all. "

7The way I see it is to ask what is more interesting: making a perfect decision in as much time as you want, or attempting to make a good enough decision in limited time accompanied by some expenditure of effort?

I like that and I can go with that. If there’s one thing inconsistent about my thesis is that I don’t apply the same standards to aiming. Fast inaccurate shooting vs slow accurate shooting whichever fits the situation. I find it hard to formulate a justification for it. I think aiming and shooting is more closely connected to tactical decisions than movement is. Even jump-masters like DarkangelUK don’t do difficult tricks while they’re in the thick of a fight. All the difficult jumps are done to avoid confrontation or have a faster/better/safer route to new objectives. It’s a skillset that isn’t really tied to the combat in the same way that shooting is. Shooting IS combat.

Its like the use of small amounts of randomness in many RPGs and TBS games to affect outcomes. You are forced to manage risk and to assign what you believe are sufficient resources to get the result you want. If the randomness is not there you end up with spreadsheeting where people calculate perfectly what will happen ahead of time and everythings boring. Variable outcomes are interesting to players as there is uncertainty and suspense. However, randomness is completely unacceptable in fighting games so variable outcomes have to depend on the player performing a task. If the player succeeds, he is rewarded. If he fails he is not. If both players fail at the same time then there is comedy, which is also a reward.

Agreed, in most games the winner is the guy who makes the least mistakes. The randomness is there to shake up the players and game designers are careful to not let the randomness determine outcomes, except for Brink apparently.

Is anyone still reading? Time to bring it full circle. In slow movement FPS games with lots of recoil and spread, variable outcomes are provided by shooting not being consistent. In fact, this is necessary because at slow movement speeds it is too easy for one player with good aim to fight 1v3 with perfect headshotting. The randomness of shooting artificially keeps things more even as it forces players winning a fight to disengage to recover accuracy and during this period they are vulnerable. In fast FPS games variable outcomes are caused by the movement speed making shooting unreliable because few humans are capable of aiming that fast. Sometimes these games are so fast that having a head hitbox doesn’t even make sense, they only have bodyshots.

I’m totally with you here. I just don’t see how doing difficult climbs and jumps in shooters like W:ET and ETQW is the same thing. There’s no real time constraints on it, there’s no real interaction with hostiles. You either can or you can’t do it.

(tokamak) #220

That’s just an assertion. Just like saying that the analogy isn’t right is just an assertion.

The games are balanced around what is possible within the game logic, and also around what you believe your opponent is physically capable of. Can he do a 360 degree (1 rotation) motion during a light kick animation? Are you sure? He just did it. Will he be able to do it next time? Yes, apparently he can. Crap, here comes the light kick again… but no follow through. Did he screw up or is he just messing with you now that he knows you’re watching for it etc.

So a bit different from any chess gimmick you can invent using elements not remotely involved in chess design.

It’s not that hard actually. "Is Bobby not moving that rook because he can’t or because he’s messing with me? Crap he turned out to be able to move the rook after all. "

7The way I see it is to ask what is more interesting: making a perfect decision in as much time as you want, or attempting to make a good enough decision in limited time accompanied by some expenditure of effort?

I like that and I can go with that. If there’s one thing inconsistent about my thesis is that I don’t apply the same standards to aiming. Fast inaccurate shooting vs slow accurate shooting whichever fits the situation. I find it hard to formulate a justification for it. I think aiming and shooting is more closely connected to tactical decisions than movement is. Even jump-masters like DarkangelUK don’t do difficult tricks while they’re in the thick of a fight. All the difficult jumps are done to avoid confrontation or have a faster/better/safer route to new objectives. It’s a skillset that isn’t really tied to the combat in the same way that shooting is. Shooting IS combat.

Its like the use of small amounts of randomness in many RPGs and TBS games to affect outcomes. You are forced to manage risk and to assign what you believe are sufficient resources to get the result you want. If the randomness is not there you end up with spreadsheeting where people calculate perfectly what will happen ahead of time and everythings boring. Variable outcomes are interesting to players as there is uncertainty and suspense. However, randomness is completely unacceptable in fighting games so variable outcomes have to depend on the player performing a task. If the player succeeds, he is rewarded. If he fails he is not. If both players fail at the same time then there is comedy, which is also a reward.

Agreed, in most games the winner is the guy who makes the least mistakes. The randomness is there to shake up the players and game designers are careful to not let the randomness determine outcomes, except for Brink apparently.

Is anyone still reading? Time to bring it full circle. In slow movement FPS games with lots of recoil and spread, variable outcomes are provided by shooting not being consistent. In fact, this is necessary because at slow movement speeds it is too easy for one player with good aim to fight 1v3 with perfect headshotting. The randomness of shooting artificially keeps things more even as it forces players winning a fight to disengage to recover accuracy and during this period they are vulnerable. In fast FPS games variable outcomes are caused by the movement speed making shooting unreliable because few humans are capable of aiming that fast. Sometimes these games are so fast that having a head hitbox doesn’t even make sense, they only have bodyshots.

I’m totally with you here. I just don’t see how doing difficult climbs and jumps in shooters like W:ET and ETQW is the same thing. There’s no real time constraints on it, there’s no real interaction with hostiles. You either can or you can’t do it.

I was looking for a way to use that argument for some time now. Hand-eye coordination isn’t a feature, it’s a necessary evil right now. Once a superior alternative arises it becomes a trivial skillset, a useless gimmick to give gamers another hurdle to hide their true potential.