waywo What Are You Working On?

[a Chunk 2,795]

We have no burdens apart from those we put on ourselves. 

 

Keeping everything the same and expecting a different result is illogical. 

If you have a person who enjoys twinkies and wants to lose weight, and they constantly have twinkies available to them, they’re not going to lose weight. 

 

You don’t need to use the method I offered above, but if you want your results to change, you need to change your environment, your process, or both.  Remove distractors and implement people or things that will hold you accountable to the result you want. 

[no god anywhere 735]

22 hours ago, Soldat Du Christ said:

"which contradicts your initial statement that rewards should be proportionate to the value they have in their system"

 

I said  "Reward skills proportionate to the amount of value it has(inherently) to offer to A system" 

 

the difference being, it seems like your suggesting skills should be rewarded proportionately to how relevant they are to the games theme or fundamental mechanic, which is not an objective way to go about assessing value. Where as i'm suggesting: of all the possible skills that can be exercised, they are not all equal in the value they inherently have to offer; no matter which game they are in

 

Then you gave some true examples of how decision making does play a role in halo and countertrike, which it does in some small way, and those examples express that well, but what i'm saying is that those skills are not as vital as they should be to an individuals success, when compared to other skills that are over rewarding. Ironically,  by increasing the skill ceiling in this ONE particular skill you lower the skill gap OVERALL.

 

The solution to this problem doesn't necessarily mean jacking up the aim assist if that's how you interpret my observation. I would start by making the projectiles hitbox not so thin as freaking grass so that they can't slip in between legs and arms, and scale up the visual projectile to match. Lower the aim assist so that you have more control over what you actually want to shoot, then get rid of all the nonsense bullet magnetism and hidden biases under the hood so that you have an overall more honest and balanced mechanic.

 

I'm not sure i can explain it much better than i already have, only in different ways, so I'm just going to leave it at that

I think youre caught up with wanting to assign extra value to a skillset not primarily encouraged in a system while simultaneously downplaying the actual worth it already holds. Where i think we should start is by defining value, the system where value can be assigned along with context that they would apply to.

Starting with context i can reasonably assume from previous discussion that were talking about gaming in general, genres of gaming where having a certain skill set would then be rewarded to whatever degree, and each game itself. Therefore i can reasonably assume that a system in this context would in most vague of terms be the fundamental gameplay elements of whichever genre, more precisely,  what each game on its own has to offer. (Since each games mechanics within a genre can still vary wildy) Lastly value(by definition) assigned would directly correlate with the defining characteristic, usefullness and relevance of a mechanic or gameplay concept within its system. (EG Shooting in a FPS or strategy in a TCG)

 

Thus, your your initial statement and what i said are literally the same thing. "Reward skills proportionate to the amount of value(relevance) it has to offer to a system(games theme or fundamental mechanics)."  Now considering people play a certain genre for its fundamental or encouraged mechanics/playstyle then that is precisely an objective way to assess the value that skillset holds within its system, otherwise people wouldnt play the game. The encouraged mechanic within a games system is typically the most effective.

"but what i'm saying is that those skills are not as vital as they should be to an individuals success, when compared to other skills that are over rewarding." 
Since your example was two shooters and conclusion was that shooting is over-rewarded compared to decision making then you have not defined an objective measure to conclude that decision making SHOULD hold more value in a system not necessarily meant to encourage it.  This is not without saying that just because a games fundamental mechanic is shooting that other skills like decision making hold less importance but just that shooting literally is the most valued skill and is being proportionately rewarded.

Now i would then elaborate on why decision making and other skills actually hold much more value/reward than you credit them for but it would potentially end up being a novel because wed have to start breaking down each game and its mechanics rather than resorting to vague concepts within them all(for a more precise and shared understanding between us). So yeah im not going there.

"by increasing the skill ceiling in this ONE particular skill you lower the skill gap OVERALL."

 

Dude no... what? Thats the opposite of what would make sense to me. Give me a direct example of where this statement applies because i cant even think of a scenario. Also getting rid of all the nonsense bullet magnetism and hidden biases would increase the skill cieling of ONE particular skill. So then by your logic, your solution would be to decrease the skill gap overall.

P.S. I really cant keep this discussion up much longer  although you said you'd like for it. I only have a couple hours each morning to reply to you and that time is supposed to be spent studying.

Edited October 23, 2019 by no god anywhere

[no god anywhere 735]

Also mind you i find it quite ironic that this is the discussion we are having after you defended modern warfares level design over the level design of a game like BO4 where decision making is much more highly rewarded. ?

[SaltyKoalaBear 1,813]

In order to uphold integrity and transparency in my next design and the skill sets most valuable for success within it, I will be releasing a "Warning Label" alongside the release of my map Day of Defeat.  

 

I suspect there are many in this community and the Halo community at large who will NOT enjoy their experience on the map. 

 

The map will NOT be for highly emotional players, or players that cannot handle extreme combat stress and fatigue. The map will NOT be for individuals who wish to ignore their teammates and be individually successful, your lifeline is your team mate, cling to them. 

 

This is not a fairy fantasy exprience where we all slap eachothers asses and laugh at how much fun we're having. This map will be Hell. It will be urban combat at it's grindiest. 

 

It will ONLY be for players who have mastered piloting  and navigating the MARK IV Gen2 MLJONR  powered body armor with extreme skill and percision in CQB secanarios  and who have a complete temporal grasp and mastery over the highly vloitale combat scenarios and geometry contained with in.

 

Ill also be releasing a list of GT's  of players that I recommend not play the map in an attempt to save them from the anguish and sorrow that awaits on the battlefield. 

 

This map will be beautiful, but for everyone, I can assure you it will not be for. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 23, 2019 by SaltyKoalaBear

[Soldat Du Christ 3,223]

20 hours ago, icyhotspartin said:

 

I definitely think you’re on to something here, but the wording is confusing.

 

To say that the people who are the best at aiming (muscle memory, as you put it) are disproportionately rewarded in certain gameplay systems is to toss the baby out with the bathwater; the main issue in any FPS games is aiming, but it is not a lone factor - positioning, weapon choice, that weapon’s effective zone, your positioning relative to the target with that weapon, your movement potential, your knowledge of the enemy’s strategy, and your skill with all of those individual elements, integrated in real time. And that’s to forget that muscle memory only has to do with the amount of input you give to the controller/mouse, and does not necessarily account for where you will be best served by aiming.  If the level is structured in such a way that there are only a couple places you can aim, and extremely limited movement space, then ok, muscle memory will play a larger role. But if your level - or game - allows players a larger degree of freedom of movement,  horizontally and vertically, you’ll have a much more challenging and satisfying game on your hands, because more decisions can be made and implemented.

 

(That’s not to say “more inputs = better”, just that “more input = better”)

 

You also forget to distinguish that  systems may have inherent flaws as the logical consequence of the parts used to build them, and which allow players  only one choice if they want to win with any consistency, rather than allowing and encouraging players to better their shooting and moving skills, which are at the core of the FPS experience.

 

Not every fight needs to be a CQC jump duel like in some past Halos, or a hitscan adrenaline rush like in CS, but you can design your map to encourage players to make particular choices as to which areas of a map they will frequent, how to think about a map, and what kind of strategies to implement. And all of those design decisions flow from knowledge of the sandbox.

 

Long story short, you give ‘muscle memory’ a bad rap, when it is a necessary and highly valuable arrow in the quiver of a skilled player who is able to think on their feet, regardless of the environment.

 

//

 

I tried posting this last night at 1am and it never went up, so @no god anywhere thanks for stealing most of my thunder ?

 

 

"To say that the people who are the best at aiming (muscle memory, as you put it) are disproportionately rewarded in certain gameplay systems is to toss the baby out with the bathwater; the main issue in any FPS games is aiming, but it is not a lone factor - positioning, weapon choice, that weapon’s effective zone, your positioning relative to the target with that weapon, your movement potential, your knowledge of the enemy’s strategy, and your skill with all of those individual elements, integrated in real time. And that’s to forget that muscle memory only has to do with the amount of input you give to the controller/mouse, and does not necessarily account for where you will be best served by aiming.  If the level is structured in such a way that there are only a couple places you can aim, and extremely limited movement space, then ok, muscle memory will play a larger role. But if your level - or game - allows players a larger degree of freedom of movement,  horizontally and vertically, you’ll have a much more challenging and satisfying game on your hands, because more decisions can be made and implemented." 

 

None of what you are saying here is new, this was all taken into consideration with my thesis. You can make aiming less of a problem by emphasizing and rewarding other skills more, but that only goes so far. Muscle memory is one of the least important sills one should be  rewarded for.  Specifically pertaining to FPS games, It's main purpose should be to enable player the ability to operate within a 3d space,  as simply a vessel.  The best games you will ever play in halo are the ones where both teams/ players are EQUALLY skilled in aim-ability, which leaves the intellectual meat of gameplay the only deciding factor in who wins the match. Reducing the skill gap on aim-ability, you are simply making that more often the case.

 

"Long story short, you give ‘muscle memory’ a bad rap, when it is a necessary and highly valuable arrow in the quiver of a skilled player who is able to think on their feet, regardless of the environment."

 

No i don't think players should be able to out gun there way out whatever bad positions they put themselves in, just because their thumbs are better, or they grind/ play more. It's painfully obvious to me that this is not where the value lies in any competitive scene. If you want to make anything other than an objective argument against my points, for example: the fact that gamers love this skill gap in fps games, or that it feels good to get sniper headshots consistently than i would agree with you. But objectively it should be the least important, least rewarded skill in any competitive game. 

[Soldat Du Christ 3,223]

1 hour ago, SaltyKoalaBear said:

In order to uphold integrity and transparency in my next design and the skill sets most valuable for success within it, I will be releasing a "Warning Label" alongside the release of my map Day of Defeat.  

 

I suspect there are many in this community and the Halo community at large who will NOT enjoy thier experience on the map. 

 

The map will NOT be for highly emotionally players, or players that cannot handle extreme combat stress and fatigue. The map will NOT be for individuals who wish to ignore thier teammates and be individually successful, your lifeline is your team mate, cling to them. 

 

This is not a fairy fantasy exprience where we all slap eachothers asses a and laugh at how much fun we're having. This map will be Hell. It will be urban combat at it's grindiest. 

 

It will ONLY be for players who have mastered piolting  and navigating the MARK IV Gen2 MLJONR  powered body armor with extreme skill and percsion in QCB secanarios  and who have a complete temporal grasp and mastery over the highly vloitale combat scenarios and geometry contained with in.

 

Ill also be releasing a list of GT's  of players that I recommend not play the map in an attempt to save them from the anguish and sorrow that awaits on the battlefield. 

 

This map will be beautiful, but for everyone, I can assure you it will not be for. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You like to design profound stories, rather than profound logical systems. That is your thing and you're really good at it. You interpret aiming  the various spartan abilities as a thematic  set of actions rather than cold hard mechanic with lots of implications. I'm able to see the brilliance in both and attempt to make them both come to life, where as you very clearly are biased to one side to a compromising degree. 

[SaltyKoalaBear 1,813]

9 minutes ago, Soldat Du Christ said:

You like to design profound stories, rather than profound logical systems. That is your thing and you're really good at it. You interpret aiming  the various spartan abilities as a thematic  set of actions rather than cold hard mechanic with lots of implications. I'm able to see the brilliance in both and attempt to make them both come to life, where as you very clearly are biased to one side to a compromising degree. 

I understand humility isn't your thing, as your very self confident, but have you considered the possibility that you simply lack the capability to understand and fully grasp my profound logical systems?

 

 Please go back into your "Halo" design box, I've already broken out and hid every lock. 

 

 

 

 

[Soldat Du Christ 3,223]

2 hours ago, no god anywhere said:

I think youre caught up with wanting to assign extra value to a skillset not primarily encouraged in a system while simultaneously downplaying the actual worth it already holds. Where i think we should start is by defining value, the system where value can be assigned along with context that they would apply to.

Starting with context i can reasonably assume from previous discussion that were talking about gaming in general, genres of gaming where having a certain skill set would then be rewarded to whatever degree, and each game itself. Therefore i can reasonably assume that a system in this context would in most vague of terms be the fundamental gameplay elements of whichever genre, more precisely,  what each game on its own has to offer. (Since each games mechanics within a genre can still vary wildy) Lastly value(by definition) assigned would directly correlate with the defining characteristic, usefullness and relevance of a mechanic or gameplay concept within its system. (EG Shooting in a FPS or strategy in a TCG)

 

Thus, your your initial statement and what i said are literally the same thing. "Reward skills proportionate to the amount of value(relevance) it has to offer to a system(games theme or fundamental mechanics)."  Now considering people play a certain genre for its fundamental or encouraged mechanics/playstyle then that is precisely an objective way to assess the value that skillset holds within its system, otherwise people wouldnt play the game. The encouraged mechanic within a games system is typically the most effective.

"but what i'm saying is that those skills are not as vital as they should be to an individuals success, when compared to other skills that are over rewarding." 
Since your example was two shooters and conclusion was that shooting is over-rewarded compared to decision making then you have not defined an objective measure to conclude that decision making SHOULD hold more value in a system not necessarily meant to encourage it.  This is not without saying that just because a games fundamental mechanic is shooting that other skills like decision making hold less importance but just that shooting literally is the most valued skill and is being proportionately rewarded.

Now i would then elaborate on why decision making and other skills actually hold much more value/reward than you credit them for but it would potentially end up being a novel because wed have to start breaking down each game and its mechanics rather than resorting to vague concepts within them all(for a more precise and shared understanding between us). So yeah im not going there.

"by increasing the skill ceiling in this ONE particular skill you lower the skill gap OVERALL."

 

Dude no... what? Thats the opposite of what would make sense to me. Give me a direct example of where this statement applies because i cant even think of a scenario. Also getting rid of all the nonsense bullet magnetism and hidden biases would increase the skill cieling of ONE particular skill. So then by your logic, your solution would be to decrease the skill gap overall.

P.S. I really cant keep this discussion up much longer  although you said you'd like for it. I only have a couple hours each morning to reply to you and that time is supposed to be spent studying.

You are confusing two very separate parts of a experience. I'm talking about the isolated logical system, while you are lumping in a games ehtos/ theme/ perceived identity into the mix,  which makes both your perspective and your argument foggy. If you aren't able or don't know how to separate the two than we will be at odds.

 

In an attempt to clear this up i'll start by pointing out we are not making the same claim here: 

"Reward skills proportionate to the amount of value(relevance) it has to offer to a system(games theme or fundamental mechanics)." 

 

You interpret what i said in such a way because you have not learned to separate the the objective and the subjective. I didn't really help the situation by not defining my side so i'll take some responsibility for that as well. By value, i'm talking about the 'volume of depth' a particular skill can add by being rewarded in a isolated logical system. And by "system' i'm not talking about theme at ALL... As i said, only the isolated logical system.

 

An example you asked for i had already given to icyhot:  "The best games you will ever play in halo are the ones where both teams/ players are EQUALLY skilled in aim-ability, which leaves the intellectual meat of gameplay the only deciding factor in who wins the match. Reducing the skill gap on aim-ability, you are simply making that more often the case."

 

It is counter intuitive, i understand your confusion. Ironically , by reducing the skill gap in one particular skill, you raise it overall.  Over-rewarding muscle memory actually oppresses the potential for intellectual skills to take place. Imaging a game of chess where  a new rule was thrown into the mix, players ware now required to move their pieces with a 10 foot wobbly antenna... It is true that it would take skill in order to move those pieces, whoever would be able to adapt to that new condition faster would make less mistakes, less likely to slide the piece in the wrong direction or completely knock it over losing them a piece. But by introducing this new requirement that is completely polarizing from the rest of the skill set, all of which being intellectual,  you leave open the possibility for the most intellectually  superior player to lose the match because of  being inferior in 1 particular and very insignificant  skill. 

 

And i'm totally okay with not debating  design with you further because of how painful it is to sift through your very under developed  and confused understanding when it comes to these things, although it is good exercise for me in short bursts such as this

[Soldat Du Christ 3,223]

30 minutes ago, SaltyKoalaBear said:

I understand humility isn't your thing, as your very self confident, but have you considered the possibility that you simply lack the capability to understand and fully grasp my profound logical systems?

 

 Please go back into your "Halo" design box, I've already broken out and hid every lock. 

 

 

 

 

here you go with that whole halo thing again lol. Salty i can't help but like you even thought you are terrible, you should have taken what i said as a compliment and an opportunity. I'm equally confident as i am self deprecating, so it balances out, as long as what i'm saying is true

Edited October 23, 2019 by Soldat Du Christ

[S0UL FLAME 1,611]

5 hours ago, SaltyKoalaBear said:

This map will be beautiful, but for everyone, I can assure you it will not be for. 

Coulda had a bigger impact if you had spell checked

[SaltyKoalaBear 1,813]

18 minutes ago, S0UL FLAME said:

Coulda had a bigger impact if you had spell checked

Yes sir. I wrote it quickly with my cellphone so cut me some slack Mr.SoulFlame Sir 

[Westin 2,169]

Trying to allocate value to skills based on the contextual system is like trying to derive objective morality from a subjective mind. 

 

Many will say that the "point" of Destiny's crucible is to be full of unpredictable insanity, and that may be what was valued by Bungie when they designed the game, but that does not make their goal of an over-rewarding and bullshit-ridden experience valid. The validity of the skills you chase after and reward should be founded in objective principals, namely moral ones, and if we don't anchor ourselves in this way, you're not going to have a rebuttal when someone makes a broken map, and replies to your critiques with "WeLL ThAt's ThE PoiNt"

 

Now, that doesn't mean that all games are the same or even should be. However, to focus on mechanics within games like "shooting" and "map control" is one step removed from the doctrines we would be better off focusing on. "Shooting" can fall right under reactive mechanical skill, and "map control" can fall under proactive cerebral skill. While the former two labels make it sound like we're talking exclusively about shooters, the latter two labels, while essentially synonymous, helps us realize that we're not making a shooter, or an rpg, or even a card game. Instead, we're going after the same fundamental

skills with essentially the same values attached to them in our minds, just within different orientations and artistic packages.

 

That's why Salty tried to get on me in the past for "defending Halo as an ideology". He was wrong in assuming that I thought about halo in such a way, but he was right in his motivations. Halo isn't an ideology, or some sort of moral code to defend. It just happens to be one of the games that gets a lot right, and that's why I'm happy to take from it what it does well and throw the rest away in my own game. It's not that "Halo" is good, it's that God is good, and his principles are a constant. That's why I can play Gears, or Farcry, or MTG, or WoW, or Dark souls, and even Destiny and have fun. It's not that each are their own set of principles, but each, while none do it perfectly, contain small amounts of the constants I've hinted at. Integrity, the capacity for creative input, and systems that reward both cerebral and mechanical skills.

 

 

[S0UL FLAME 1,611]

21 minutes ago, SaltyKoalaBear said:

Yes sir. I wrote it quickly with my cellphone so cut me some slack Mr.SoulFlame Sir 

If you're gonna sell something, sell it right.

 

[purely fat 1,274]

Assumption junction what's your function. 

[icyhot 2,822]

7 hours ago, Soldat Du Christ said:

None of what you are saying here is new, this was all taken into consideration with my thesis. You can make aiming less of a problem by emphasizing and rewarding other skills more, but that only goes so far. Muscle memory is one of the least important sills one should be  rewarded for.  Specifically pertaining to FPS games, It's main purpose should be to enable player the ability to operate within a 3d space,  as simply a vessel.  The best games you will ever play in halo are the ones where both teams/ players are EQUALLY skilled in aim-ability, which leaves the intellectual meat of gameplay the only deciding factor in who wins the match. Reducing the skill gap on aim-ability, you are simply making that more often the case.

 

///

 

No i don't think players should be able to out gun there way out whatever bad positions they put themselves in, just because their thumbs are better, or they grind/ play more. It's painfully obvious to me that this is not where the value lies in any competitive scene. If you want to make anything other than an objective argument against my points, for example: the fact that gamers love this skill gap in fps games, or that it feels good to get sniper headshots consistently than i would agree with you. But objectively it should be the least important, least rewarded skill in any competitive game. 

 

To the first point, duh, obviously there will be other elements, other skills that are important, but when it comes down to it, the aim is the primary in any SHOOTER game. If you can't shoot - if you have no thumbs - then you aren't going to have much fun. But aiming alone isn't sufficient to win. All the other skills necessary to successfully play a SHOOTER game are related to movement, firing, positioning - piloting your avatar, basically - and the identification and taking of opportunities when they present themselves. This intermix of abilities is interesting and fun to master when they relate directly to how successful you can be with your aiming ability.

 

So, yes, in a match between two equally skilled opponents with respect to aim alone and without any other considerations - i.e. from a standstill - the match will absolutely come down to which player is better at placing themselves. But again, these games would be meaningless and joyless without the abilities that make aiming so important to begin with; there's no aiming necessary if the target doesn't move! And in the movement, there's a whole host of cool things you can do, once you learn how to use the abilities and develop the skills. Whether that is muscle memory related to how much aim assist is in the thumbsticks, or who much you need to flick your wrist to get that perfect 180 turn - or whether it's muscle memory related to which inputs and timing are necessary to successfully crouch-jump up a particular height - does not matter. What matters is that for all intents and purposes, the input device is akin to a musical  instrument, and the map is like a chord progression. It presents tension in certain areas, resolution in others, and you -the player - are tasked with playing a solo over that chord progression against  another  living  person  who is doing the same thing. And here's the cool thing about music - you don't have to play straight over the chords - you can use different techniques to your advantage, and allow you to easily play in seemingly disparate keys with the same mode or by using the same form. ALL of that comes down to muscle memory AND  theoretical understanding in service of improvisation.

 

Therefore, to your second point, I think that if a player is good enough with their thumbs, by all means, they should be able shoot their way out of a bad position. That doesn't make the bad position desirable or necessarily valuable - nor does it necessarily mean that a player of equal or greater skill (with their aim alone) would lose to the player of inferior skill in the bad position. Nor does it mean that they are literally frozen in place and can only aim, and not do anything else - in fact, that's where Halo excelled, by including a melee ability and a jump height that doubles as a close-quarters tool., so that players wouldn't actually ever be in a position where they literally could do nothing.

 

In saying this, I make no judgement of the actual game this is being done in, which should go without saying; if the game is badly designed, implemented, whatever, then that's not anything to do with one player being better at aiming than another, or whether or not positioning is important in an FPS. Like NoGod said, you have to define your terms before you can get any further into this territory. What is valuable in competitive FPS games, and to what end is it valuable? That allows you set up a hierarchy of values,  then fit them into the puzzle as you design, and as you approach a title critically.

 

This why I have issues with the new MW game and Gears 5 - either you move, or you shoot. There's hardly any combination of these skills that's possible, and it's all done for show, for artificial sweatiness. Salty's new map captures what MW'19 is going for far better than what Infinity Ward presented in the Beta, and that's likely how it's going to stay, because of the sandbox. HCS Halo 5 isn't supposed to play like Rainbow Six, but god damn if it doesn't pull off a good impression with the right setting and crowd. And as to Gears... I have another review in the pipes... but the long and short of it is that the CQC combat makes the game incredibly frustrating and inconsistent. 

 

6 hours ago, Soldat Du Christ said:

You are confusing two very separate parts of a experience. I'm talking about the isolated logical system, while you are lumping in a games ehtos/ theme/ perceived identity into the mix,  which makes both your perspective and your argument foggy. If you aren't able or don't know how to separate the two than we will be at odds.

 

In an attempt to clear this up i'll start by pointing out we are not making the same claim here: 

"Reward skills proportionate to the amount of value(relevance) it has to offer to a system(games theme or fundamental mechanics)." 

 

You interpret what i said in such a way because you have not learned to separate the the objective and the subjective. I didn't really help the situation by not defining my side so i'll take some responsibility for that as well. By value, i'm talking about the 'volume of depth' a particular skill can add by being rewarded in a isolated logical system. And by "system' i'm not talking about theme at ALL... As i said, only the isolated logical system.

 

An example you asked for i had already given to icyhot:  "The best games you will ever play in halo are the ones where both teams/ players are EQUALLY skilled in aim-ability, which leaves the intellectual meat of gameplay the only deciding factor in who wins the match. Reducing the skill gap on aim-ability, you are simply making that more often the case."

 

It is counter intuitive, i understand your confusion. Ironically , by reducing the skill gap in one particular skill, you raise it overall.  Over-rewarding muscle memory actually oppresses the potential for intellectual skills to take place. Imaging a game of chess where  a new rule was thrown into the mix, players ware now required to move their pieces with a 10 foot wobbly antenna... It is true that it would take skill in order to move those pieces, whoever would be able to adapt to that new condition faster would make less mistakes, less likely to slide the piece in the wrong direction or completely knock it over losing them a piece. But by introducing this new requirement that is completely polarizing from the rest of the skill set, all of which being intellectual,  you leave open the possibility for the most intellectually  superior player to lose the match because of  being inferior in 1 particular and very insignificant  skill. 

 

And i'm totally okay with not debating  design with you further because of how painful it is to sift through your very under developed  and confused understanding when it comes to these things, although it is good exercise for me in short bursts such as this

 

What are you talking about 'isolated systems' for?

 

Let's say that you lower the skill gap artificially with regards to aiming - all weapons are hitscan, aim assist is aggressive, and weapons also have magnetized bullets - would this work in any context other than an FPS designed around incredibly fast movement and massive distance between you ant the target? Say, a dogfighting simulator with lock-on missiles, flares, and air-show controls?

 

The answer is an emphatic, unequivocal, unrelenting, all-encompassing, big, fat, stinking, all-caps, NLD Orange, 20-size, bold, and italicized  NO!! 

By artificially inflating the skill ceiling and pinning people in to atone for single errors the way you did in your chess example, you actually make playing chess less valuable in and of itself, because it would be impossible to ACTUALLY PLAY CHESS WITH A 10 FOOT POLE. It's absurd, and maybe disingenuous to compare this idiocy to the idea of making aiming a more important skill in a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER. The "skill" involved in moving pieces with such a pole is meaningless at best, and actually destructive at worst. The enjoyment you're supposed to get from winning a game would be totally overshadowed by the idiocy and unresponsiveness of using a selfie stick to move the pieces. Aiming is FUNDAMENTAL to a first person shooter - the only time hand-eye coordination comes into play with Chess is when a person has to pick up a piece. If a wheelchair-bound paraplegic wanted to compete in Chess at the highest level, he could, because all he'd have to do is call out his moves, and they would be recorded. Hell, you can play an entire game of Chess without a board, as I used to do with my father!

 

To drive this point home - if the ATP suddenly changed the rules of professional tennis, by requiring all players to use a cast-iron skillet as a racket, then sure, that would make the game harder to play, and make positioning and shot placement a hell of a lot more important overall - but why the hell would they do that?? It doesn't actually make for better play, it just makes people angry and tired, when the whole point of playing a game like Tennis at the professional level is to show off the game at it's best, played by its best, with the best tools, in the best conditions. Which is something that eSports organizers have only grasped in part, and which 343's Breakout designers only grasped a fraction of, but that's a side point.

 

In short: Artificially inflating or deflating the skill necessary to successfully score from inputs in a real-time competitive game, by making unimportant skills more important, or by making core, fundamental skills unecessary, but still included - with the intention of making a game's meta/intellectual side more important - is one of the most disgustingly stupid things anyone could ever do.  This is because the "isolated systems" in real-time multiplayer games are NOT ISOLATED, by their very nature of being in a consistent 'game universe' with persistent player presence, clearly defined player goals, and a consistent art style, all operating in real time, with a fixed perspective and input-output registration.  

 

@Westin, this isn't really the appropriate place to discuss matters of religion, but I'll piggyback off your comment - intelligent design means that nothing at its core is unintended, and all that blooms from it is perfectly graspable and attainable in the right hands ; those principles we derive from our experience of reality ought to be demonstrable, and context-dependent, or else they are bullshit.

 

As to what is objective with regards to level design, there's a level, theres the sandbox, there are the weapons, the colors, the controller, the TV or monitor, the console or computer, there's you (and all you entail, as a human being), there's the goal of the match, and there are your enemies. As to what's subjective, there's only your interpretation of these objects and their value to you, the SUBJECT. If the game you are playing was designed well, with rationality as it pertains to development of the gameplay, with integrity as it pertains to implementation of design according to those rational principles , and with the necessary honesty to realize when a mistake or oversight has been made in the development or implementation of those principles, then there should be no question as to the merits of the product, and the source of the pride in having created such a game.

 

There's your morality, now go and build with it.

Edited October 23, 2019 by icyhotspartin
minor formatting

[no god anywhere 735]

This is the most useless discussion I could have in my life and I'm also not interested if this is just some big brain measuring contest. I'll leave it to you higher beings.

 

Also Jesse you really need to check yourself because the attitude you seem to have fallen into in the last couple years cant be healthy for yourself or relationships with others moving forward. Not saying I'm offended but that you seem to be becoming too full of yourself.

[a Chunk 2,795]

44 minutes ago, no god anywhere said:

This is the most useless discussion I could have in my life and I'm also not interested if this is just some big brain measuring contest. I'll leave it to you higher beings.

 

Also Jesse you really need to check yourself because the attitude you seem to have fallen into in the last couple years cant be healthy for yourself or relationships with others moving forward. Not saying I'm offended but that you seem to be becoming too full of yourself.

 

Staff Member mode - ON 

I'm not really interested in engaging in any official moderation on these forums, but I would really strongly prefer that if anyone have something personal to say to another person, that it be done in private.  It's not what this forum is for.  And though I'm quoting a specific post, I'm addressing this comment toward anyone who's engaging in discussion here.

Staff Member mode - OFF 

[JeremDem 40]

Hello ! 

I made some floor plans for my Splinter Cell based level & a mission document ( it's a bit short).

Hope I will reach my goal : release my first serious Greybox map, I ame aiming for a small scale level with a simplobjective. All of this before October 31st .

Tomorrow I am going to draw a more detailed layout and make a rough blockout map.

 

PS : These are my mission flow and my simplified floor plans, see that the "Layout-02" in the level is under "Layout-01".

[Westin 2,169]

2 hours ago, no god anywhere said:

This is the most useless discussion I could have in my life and I'm also not interested if this is just some big brain measuring contest. I'll leave it to you higher beings.

 

Also Jesse you really need to check yourself because the attitude you seem to have fallen into in the last couple years cant be healthy for yourself or relationships with others moving forward. Not saying I'm offended but that you seem to be becoming too full of yourself.

As I remember, you conducted yourself with grace during the judging in the 1v1 competition. I don't know who or what hurt you, but since then, your posts both here and on Forgehub have been nothing less than mean-spirited and condescending. If you really think you're wasting your time with these conversations, then maybe stop posting.

[no god anywhere 735]

I want to quickly say that you guys simply read that with a tone unintended by myself.  It was with legitimate concern and would have been how I worded it through voice as well. I dont know what typical discussion is like here but considering it was quickly percieved as Ill-willed then I assume this is typically a hostile environment.

 

Otherwise I have more to say later but i dont have time now.

 

[Westin 2,169]

33 minutes ago, no god anywhere said:

I want to quickly say that you guys simply read that with a tone unintended by myself.  It was with legitimate concern and would have been how I worded it through voice as well. I dont know what typical discussion is like here but considering it was quickly percieved as Ill-willed then I assume this is typically a hostile environment.

 

Otherwise I have more to say later but i dont have time now.

 

... oh man

 

You sarcastically referred to us as 'big brain higher beings." That's a yikes from me dawg. And, just so you know, there hasn't been one single hostile exchange on this website (that I know of)

 

 

[a Chunk 2,795]

2 hours ago, no god anywhere said:

I want to quickly say that you guys simply read that with a tone unintended by myself.  It was with legitimate concern and would have been how I worded it through voice as well. I dont know what typical discussion is like here but considering it was quickly percieved as Ill-willed then I assume this is typically a hostile environment.

 

Otherwise I have more to say later but i dont have time now.

 

 

It's very, very far from a hostile environment, and will stay that way.  I spoke up not because I assumed there was ill will, OR that anyone here can't handle bluntness.  I spoke up simply because discussion of such a personal nature isn't appropriate on this forum.  Critiquing a persons argument/belief/point of view is okay.  In fact, I enjoy that type of interaction as long as it remains constructive (which I fully realize is something that's subject to interpretation).  Making a comment about how you imagine a persons attitude may impact their personal life is out of bounds here though.  This is literally the first time I've felt that something even close to breaking our Site Guidelines has been posted (and I'm referring to more than just your post that I quoted).  I simply want to make it as clear as possible that this is not okay right from the very beginning.

 

So I'll say this again to everyone, commentary about another members intelligence, race, religious beliefs, hair length, personal relationships, fart smell, or anything else that could possibly be interpreted as defamatory, are not okay.  We're all mostly grown up, and I'm sure we can all handle ourselves if addressed in such a manner, but that's completely beside the point.  Comments of this nature add nothing of value to the site, and have the potential to be harmful to it, and therefore they are not and never will be okay here.  If anyone feels that is unclear or unfair, feel free to PM me here or on Discord and I'll gladly discuss it further.

[a Chunk 2,795]

1 hour ago, JeremDem said:

Hello ! 

I made some floor plans for my Splinter Cell based level & a mission document ( it's a bit short).

Hope I will reach my goal : release my first serious Greybox map, I am aiming for a small scale level with a simple objective. All of this before October 31st .

 

Nice!  Sounds like you're going to have a busy week.  ?

[Soldat Du Christ 3,223]

6 hours ago, icyhotspartin said:

 

To the first point, duh, obviously there will be other elements, other skills that are important, but when it comes down to it, the aim is the primary in any SHOOTER game. If you can't shoot - if you have no thumbs - then you aren't going to have much fun. But aiming alone isn't sufficient to win. All the other skills necessary to successfully play a SHOOTER game are related to movement, firing, positioning - piloting your avatar, basically - and the identification and taking of opportunities when they present themselves. This intermix of abilities is interesting and fun to master when they relate directly to how successful you can be with your aiming ability.

 

So, yes, in a match between two equally skilled opponents with respect to aim alone and without any other considerations - i.e. from a standstill - the match will absolutely come down to which player is better at placing themselves. But again, these games would be meaningless and joyless without the abilities that make aiming so important to begin with; there's no aiming necessary if the target doesn't move! And in the movement, there's a whole host of cool things you can do, once you learn how to use the abilities and develop the skills. Whether that is muscle memory related to how much aim assist is in the thumbsticks, or who much you need to flick your wrist to get that perfect 180 turn - or whether it's muscle memory related to which inputs and timing are necessary to successfully crouch-jump up a particular height - does not matter. What matters is that for all intents and purposes, the input device is akin to a musical  instrument, and the map is like a chord progression. It presents tension in certain areas, resolution in others, and you -the player - are tasked with playing a solo over that chord progression against  another  living  person  who is doing the same thing. And here's the cool thing about music - you don't have to play straight over the chords - you can use different techniques to your advantage, and allow you to easily play in seemingly disparate keys with the same mode or by using the same form. ALL of that comes down to muscle memory AND  theoretical understanding in service of improvisation.

 

Therefore, to your second point, I think that if a player is good enough with their thumbs, by all means, they should be able shoot their way out of a bad position. That doesn't make the bad position desirable or necessarily valuable - nor does it necessarily mean that a player of equal or greater skill (with their aim alone) would lose to the player of inferior skill in the bad position. Nor does it mean that they are literally frozen in place and can only aim, and not do anything else - in fact, that's where Halo excelled, by including a melee ability and a jump height that doubles as a close-quarters tool., so that players wouldn't actually ever be in a position where they literally could do nothing.

 

In saying this, I make no judgement of the actual game this is being done in, which should go without saying; if the game is badly designed, implemented, whatever, then that's not anything to do with one player being better at aiming than another, or whether or not positioning is important in an FPS. Like NoGod said, you have to define your terms before you can get any further into this territory. What is valuable in competitive FPS games, and to what end is it valuable? That allows you set up a hierarchy of values,  then fit them into the puzzle as you design, and as you approach a title critically.

 

This why I have issues with the new MW game and Gears 5 - either you move, or you shoot. There's hardly any combination of these skills that's possible, and it's all done for show, for artificial sweatiness. Salty's new map captures what MW'19 is going for far better than what Infinity Ward presented in the Beta, and that's likely how it's going to stay, because of the sandbox. HCS Halo 5 isn't supposed to play like Rainbow Six, but god damn if it doesn't pull off a good impression with the right setting and crowd. And as to Gears... I have another review in the pipes... but the long and short of it is that the CQC combat makes the game incredibly frustrating and inconsistent. 

 

 

What are you talking about 'isolated systems' for?

 

Let's say that you lower the skill gap artificially with regards to aiming - all weapons are hitscan, aim assist is aggressive, and weapons also have magnetized bullets - would this work in any context other than an FPS designed around incredibly fast movement and massive distance between you ant the target? Say, a dogfighting simulator with lock-on missiles, flares, and air-show controls?

 

The answer is an emphatic, unequivocal, unrelenting, all-encompassing, big, fat, stinking, all-caps, NLD Orange, 20-size, bold, and italicized  NO!! 

By artificially inflating the skill ceiling and pinning people in to atone for single errors the way you did in your chess example, you actually make playing chess less valuable in and of itself, because it would be impossible to ACTUALLY PLAY CHESS WITH A 10 FOOT POLE. It's absurd, and maybe disingenuous to compare this idiocy to the idea of making aiming a more important skill in a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER. The "skill" involved in moving pieces with such a pole is meaningless at best, and actually destructive at worst. The enjoyment you're supposed to get from winning a game would be totally overshadowed by the idiocy and unresponsiveness of using a selfie stick to move the pieces. Aiming is FUNDAMENTAL to a first person shooter - the only time hand-eye coordination comes into play with Chess is when a person has to pick up a piece. If a wheelchair-bound paraplegic wanted to compete in Chess at the highest level, he could, because all he'd have to do is call out his moves, and they would be recorded. Hell, you can play an entire game of Chess without a board, as I used to do with my father!

 

To drive this point home - if the ATP suddenly changed the rules of professional tennis, by requiring all players to use a cast-iron skillet as a racket, then sure, that would make the game harder to play, and make positioning and shot placement a hell of a lot more important overall - but why the hell would they do that?? It doesn't actually make for better play, it just makes people angry and tired, when the whole point of playing a game like Tennis at the professional level is to show off the game at it's best, played by its best, with the best tools, in the best conditions. Which is something that eSports organizers have only grasped in part, and which 343's Breakout designers only grasped a fraction of, but that's a side point.

 

In short: Artificially inflating or deflating the skill necessary to successfully score from inputs in a real-time competitive game, by making unimportant skills more important, or by making core, fundamental skills unecessary, but still included - with the intention of making a game's meta/intellectual side more important - is one of the most disgustingly stupid things anyone could ever do.  This is because the "isolated systems" in real-time multiplayer games are NOT ISOLATED, by their very nature of being in a consistent 'game universe' with persistent player presence, clearly defined player goals, and a consistent art style, all operating in real time, with a fixed perspective and input-output registration.  

 

@Westin, this isn't really the appropriate place to discuss matters of religion, but I'll piggyback off your comment - intelligent design means that nothing at its core is unintended, and all that blooms from it is perfectly graspable and attainable in the right hands ; those principles we derive from our experience of reality ought to be demonstrable, and context-dependent, or else they are bullshit.

 

As to what is objective with regards to level design, there's a level, theres the sandbox, there are the weapons, the colors, the controller, the TV or monitor, the console or computer, there's you (and all you entail, as a human being), there's the goal of the match, and there are your enemies. As to what's subjective, there's only your interpretation of these objects and their value to you, the SUBJECT. If the game you are playing was designed well, with rationality as it pertains to development of the gameplay, with integrity as it pertains to implementation of design according to those rational principles , and with the necessary honesty to realize when a mistake or oversight has been made in the development or implementation of those principles, then there should be no question as to the merits of the product, and the source of the pride in having created such a game.

 

There's your morality, now go and build with it.

I know for a fact that your responses don't requaire that many lines of text to get your point cross, ill get back to you on this later but please work on consolodating your points better, this is insane dude

[icyhot 2,822]

12 hours ago, Soldat Du Christ said:

I know for a fact that your responses don't requaire that many lines of text to get your point cross, ill get back to you on this later but please work on consolodating your points better, this is insane dude

 

Alright, here's the short version:

 

I don't think we disagree in principle, that an additional skill arbitrarily inserted into a system of related skills, in order to artificially increase the amount of 'reward' a player feels for completing a goal. What I gather from your posts on this topic is that you don't find the muscular input involved in aiming to be worthy of excessive reward, or unjust reward. Again, I agree in principle, but must clarify: aiming, and related muscle memory / hand-eye coordination, does not need to be the focus of such an inquiry - unless the system built around aiming already disvalues it to the point of irrelevance, or vice versa.

 

In cases with aggressive aim assist and bullet magnetism, or cases where the input sensitivity and aim acceleration is set thru the roof, I can understand aiming the discussion at... well, aiming. But you took this a step further, and implied that, because 'the best' Halo matches are fought on the positioning plane between teams of equal weapon handling skill, aiming really ought to be discouraged by design in order to make that mental aspect shine even brighter. 

 

This misses the whole point of a shooter, which is to reward the act of landing a shot successfully by using your thumbs to aim. If you take aiming out, yeah sure, positioning is cool, but there's not much competitive enjoyment or reward in a game that plays itself. Without the satisfaction and pride derived from the direct input at the core of an FPS, there's no point.

 

You would sacrifice the arm to inflate the mind, and that's what I take issue with. You need both, in games, in life.